ואם לאו אני מתיר את בשרכם’ – פירושו של הרב מרדכי עטייה זצ”ל’

הרב מרדכי עטייה היה אחד מרבותיהם של הרב שריה דבליצקי זצ”ל ויבל”ח הרב יעקב משה הלל שליט”א.

כך מסופר בויקיפדיה:

הוא הטיף לעליה לארץ ישראל וטען כי אין להשתמט מחובה זו בתואנה של שלוש השבועות. בספרו “סוד השבועה” הביא את דברי חז”ל: “אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם הקב”ה לישראל אם אתם מקיימין את השבועה מוטב ואם לאו אני מתיר את בשרכם כצבאות וכאילות השדה” (כתובות קי”א, א). לדבריו, דווקא הישארותם של היהודים בגולה גרמה לכך שתתקיים אזהרתו של ר’ אלעזר.

כדי להבין כיצד ביטולן של שלושת השבועות בעת חפץ נהפכו לרועץ, ראה במאמרו של הרב גולדמינץ כאן.

The American CIA Didn’t Even NEED to Hire Over 1600 Nazis to Become Pure Evil…

Abolish Terrorist Agencies

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, July 28, 2019

Every government on earth, beginning with the United States, should shut down and be done with secret agencies, spy agencies, agencies used for murder, torture, bribery, election-manipulation, and coups.

While these agencies prevent the public from knowing what is being done in its name, they do not acquire any knowledge that benefits the public and that couldn’t have been acquired openly, lawfully, through simple research, diplomacy, and law-enforcement actions that respect human rights.

While these agencies occasionally succeed in their criminal enterprises on their own terms, those successes always create blowback that does far more damage than the good — if any — accomplished.

The CIA and all of its relatives in the U.S. government and around the world have normalized lying, spying, murdering, torturing, government secrecy, government lawlessness, distrust of foreign governments, distrust of one’s own government, distrust of one’s own qualifications to participate in self-government, and acceptance of perma-war.

Labeling terrorism “counter-terrorism” doesn’t make it something other than terrorism and doesn’t change the fact that it increases rather than decreases terrorism by others.

We should do something that Woodrow Wilson never did, and take seriously the first of his 14 points: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” This is as critical a democratic reform as public financing of elections or public counting of paper ballots.

Annie Jacobsen’s latest book is called Surprise, Kill, Vanish: The Secret History of CIA Paramilitary Armies, Operators, and Assassins. It’s based on interviews with former top members of the CIA who simply adore the CIA. The book simply adores the CIA. Yet it remains a chronicle of endless disastrous failure after failure after failure. This is a collection of pro-CIA voices leaking super-top-extra-special-secret information, much of it over 50 years old. And yet there’s not a speck of justification for the CIA’s existence to be found.

Jacobsen’s book on Operation Paperclip, which I reviewed here, told the story of how the U.S. military and CIA hired large numbers of former Nazis. The scandal that one is supposed to see in that story is, apparently, that people had been Nazis, not that they had participated in horrific atrocities, because participating in horrific atrocities is depicted as a courageous and noble service in Jacobsen’s newer book.

There is, of course, a case to be made for the existence of Nazi influence on post-WWII U.S. atrocities. As I wrote at the link above,

“The U.S. military shifted in numerous ways when former Nazis were put into prominent positions. It was Nazi rocket scientists who proposed placing nuclear bombs on rockets and began developing the intercontinental ballistic missile.  It was Nazi engineers who had designed Hitler’s bunker beneath Berlin, who now designed underground fortresses for the U.S. government in the Catoctin and Blue Ridge Mountains.  Known Nazi liars were employed by the U.S. military to draft classified intelligence briefs falsely hyping the Soviet menace. Nazi scientists developed U.S. chemical and biological weapons programs, bringing over their knowledge of tabun and sarin, not to mention thalidomide — and their eagerness for human experimentation, which the U.S. military and the newly created CIA readily engaged in on a major scale.  Every bizarre and gruesome notion of how a person might be assassinated or an army immobilized was of interest to their research. New weapons were developed, including VX and Agent Orange.  A new drive to visit and weaponize outerspace was created, and former Nazis were put in charge of a new agency called NASA.

“Permanent war thinking, limitless war thinking, and creative war thinking in which science and technology overshadowed death and suffering, all went mainstream.  When a former Nazi spoke to a women’s luncheon at the Rochester Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1953, the event’s headline was ‘Buzz Bomb Mastermind to Address Jaycees Today.’ That doesn’t sound terribly odd to us, but might have shocked anyone living in the United States anytime prior to World War II. Watch this Walt Disney television program featuring a former Nazi who worked slaves to death in a cave building rockets.  Before long, President Dwight Eisenhower would be lamenting that ‘the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.’ Eisenhower was not referring to Nazism but to the power of the military-industrial complex.  Yet, when asked whom he had in mind in remarking in the same speech that ‘public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,’ Eisenhower named two scientists, one of them the former Nazi in the Disney video linked above.”

It may be worth noting that all five Democratic members of Congress who just voted for continuing the gravest human disaster currently underway, the war on Yemen, are former members of the CIA and/or military. Total influence means the end of awareness of the influence. While Jacobsen’s book doesn’t document any successes, it exhibits a certain kind of success through the familiar propaganda subtly built into it.

“Every operation reported in this book, however shocking, was legal,” Jacobsen claims, despite acknowledging some 450 pages later the existence of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and despite noting the existence of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, and despite no doubt being aware that the nations within which the CIA commits many of its crimes have laws forbidding them. Those nations don’t count. They’re made up of nothing but “indigs,” the term used throughout the book for mere indigenous people. On page 164 Jacobsen writes: “The reason for SOG’s [Studies and Observation Group] highly classified nature was that it violated the Geneva Agreement of 1962, the declaration on the neutrality of Laos, which forbade U.S. forces from operating inside the country.” But don’t be shocked or you’ll forget that everything the United States (not just Richard Nixon) does is, by definition, legal.

Jacobsen opens and closes the book by claiming that the purpose of all the horrors recounted has always been to avoid WWIII, but never does she provide the slightest documentation or evidence or logic for that claim. She also claims that smaller-scale murders and sabotage are justified as a “third option” because sometimes war is a bad idea (when isn’t it a bad idea? she never says) and sometimes diplomacy is “inadequate” or has “failed” (when? how? she never says). Wars go on failing on their own terms for decades but we’re never told to resort to diplomacy. What counts as diplomacy failing and justifying a resort to war? The answer is not very little. The answer is: less than nothing.

Of course, Jacobsen also builds her case on the false and unargued claim that Pearl Harbor was a “surprise attack.” In the same paragraph she suggests that Hitler invented the very idea of all-out war without proper rules and decency. She states in one sentence that Reinhard Heydrich was a main architect of the Final Solution, and in the next that he was at the top of a British kill list, as if to imply some connection between the two facts, playing into the propaganda that the allies fought the war to prevent murder. (She pulls the same trick with the nuclear bombings of Japan and the ending of the war, implying a causal connection to any indoctrinated reader.) Of course when the British killed Heydrich, the Nazis killed 4,000 people as revenge, and halted no other activities. Hurray!

From the beginning of the book to the end, the central character, Billy Waugh, is depicted as acting out a childish childhood fantasy about engaging in beneficial and dangerous violence. This is repeated so often that it’s normalized. We’re not supposed to despair that people acting out childish fantasies have been given the power to murder and wreak havoc. We’re supposed to celebrate his good fortune in being able to act out his boyhood dream.

Two weeks after the killing of Heydrich, the U.S. government created the OSS and hauled the residents of what is now Prince William Forest Park outside of Washington, D.C., away from their homes and their land, kicking and screaming, in order to fence off an area in which to practice spying and murdering. What fun! (The area had contained a somewhat hopeful, somewhat integrated community that had prospered during reconstruction and suggested a better path forward, rather than something to brush aside so that grown men could make a game of murder.)

In Jacobsen’s world, the Soviets started the Cold War when Stalin simply inexplicably ceased behaving as a friend. The Russians lost 20 million lives in WWII, by her count, rather than the 27 million more commonly reported (and the Vietnamese later lost 0.5 million rather than the 3.8 million a Harvard/University of Washington study found). But none of those lives had any impact on Soviet policy, in Jacobsen’s telling, which was pure irrational aggression. So, in response to the commies, the CIA was created “to protect U.S. national security interests around the world” — all of which acts of protection somehow failed to make it into Jacobsen’s book.

And then “the unthinkable happened,” as North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea was ruled by a U.S.-educated puppet who was actively provoking North Korea with his own invasions, but “unthinkable” here doesn’t mean the people involved couldn’t think it; it means that we must not think they thought it. A mentally ill Frank Wisner led CIA efforts in Korea to get thousands of people killed killing thousands of other people to no other effect, before killing himself. Jacobsen believes this left “a black mark” on the agency. Yet, even as white-supremacist an outfit as the CIA, cannot really make a discernable black mark on an edifice of infinite black marks. Jacobsen’s book rolls on through black mark after black mark, unrelenting, yet somehow unaware that there isn’t something there other than the black marks.

Jacobsen promotes as plausible the CIA-idea that Kim Il Sung was an imposter and a soviet puppet as controlled by Stalin in this story as Trump is by Putin in the fantasies of Russiagate. During the war against North Korea, everything that could be imagined done wrong was. Double agents were widely employed and informed. Fighters were trained and parachuted pointlessly into enemy territory by the thousands. No information of benefit to any human population was gathered. The CIA found its own conduct “morally reprehensible” but kept such reports secret for decades in order to do more of the same in other parts of the world. Meanwhile the military thought it could do a better job and created its own criminal groups of special forces and green berets.

“What choice was there?” Jacobsen asks, typically, of the CIA decision to develop guerilla warfare corps. This is in the context of the Cold War paranoia that held that every liberation struggle around the world was a Soviet plot to take over the United States. What choice was there? Would dropping the paranoia have been out of line? In January 1952 the CIA began keeping lists of people to murder around the world. “Murder is not morally justifiable,” the CIA’s own instruction manual admitted. But the point was that “Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it,” not that it shouldn’t be done or that moral persons shouldn’t go along with it from their comfortable desks.

When the CIA overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1954 on behalf of exploitative corporations, and not in defense against any threat to the United States, it lied that only 1 fighter, rather than 48, had been killed. This somehow made it a success rather than a failure, and thus a basis for more such crimes. But the blowback, as with the earlier coup in Iran, and the one before that in Syria which Jacobsen doesn’t mention, was extensive. Turning Che Guevara into a revolutionary was the least of it. The coup turned the United States into an enemy of the people of Latin America, whom it fought on behalf of dictatorships for decades to come, generating great suffering, resentment, crime, and refugee crises. After the CIA later murdered Guevara and cut of his hands and mailed them to Fidel Castro, they were brought out to inspire anti-U.S. fighters.

Jacobsen’s telling of the 1953 coup in Iran seeks to justify it in the context of scary Islamic terrorism. She claims “Diplomacy wasn’t working, and military intervention was unwise.” Therefore, thou shalt “legally” overthrow the government. But what did “working” mean? Iran was not bothering the United States in any way. Iran was resisting exploitation by oil corporations. Diplomacy is said to not be “working” not because there isn’t peace, but because some horrible agenda is not being accomplished. Out of this coup came horrendous suffering, militarization, Middle-Eastern hatred of the United States, the Iranian revolution, and the CIA’s lovely (and oh-so-successful) strategy of encouraging religious fanatics as an alternative to atheist commies.

It’s always a struggle to decide whether to interpret world affairs as evil or incompetent. “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it,” is a quote incompetently attributed to Mark Twain. Jacobsen recounts training exercises in which U.S. government employees acting in our name have parachuted with nuclear bombs strapped to them in pieces, landed, assembled, and pretended to set off or actually set off the nuclear bombs — something they seriously contemplated doing as part of the war on Vietnam and who knows where else. They also advertised such plans in the North of Vietnam as a way of supposedly motivating people to move south and befriend the monsters who were about to nuke the North.

Even when they were not to actually set off the nukes, they practiced using real nukes. Once they accidentally dropped one of these nukes into the sea on the coast of Okinawa. “These kinds of mishaps are always resolved,” says Billy Waugh meaninglessly and falsely — as we know even from those that have not been hidden from us because they’ve happened in the United States. But not to worry, as Jacobsen refers to something comfortingly called a “precision nuclear strike.”

Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t meet with Ho Chi Minh publicly or privately, as the man wasn’t even white. But the OSS trained Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, who fought the U.S. with weapons the U.S. had left behind in Korea, after Eisenhower was compelled, in Jacobsen’s telling, to stir up violence in Indochina because “diplomacy was out of the question.”

Surprise, Kill, Vanish contains lengthy discussions of crimes committed by Russia and Cuba, presumably meant to somehow excuse crimes committed by the United States. Yet nowhere is there any discussion of turning in the other direction and supporting the rule of law. There are also lengthy discussions of the Secret Service protecting U.S. presidents, presumably meant to make us imagine that there is something defensive about the CIA. And there are very lengthy sections recounting various military actions in detail, apparently intended to make us appreciate bravery even when put to evil ends. Yet, for every Bay of Pigs disaster recounted, there are a dozen more similar disasters.

And each disaster meant well. “Kennedy lost the battle for a democratic Cuba,” Jacobsen tells us, without citing any plan by Kennedy to support democracy in Cuba. Then she quotes Richard Helms suggesting that one or more foreign governments killed Kennedy. No evidence required.

Jacobsen recounts the U.S. murder of one of the many double-agents that U.S. fighters were using against themselves in Vietnam, and spends a great deal of time trying to justify it. Basically, insane ideas like making the guy a trustworthy triple-agent didn’t pass the laugh test, and nothing else could be imagined. Even the existence of prisons had escaped their brains. The U.S. government was even going to prosecute this murder as murder until it understood that in the course of the prosecution it would be forced to reveal much larger crimes. So it dropped the case. But everything was “legal”!

Then, “[t]he cold-blooded, in-plain-sight assassinations of American diplomats inside another sovereign nation’s embassy in Khartoum demanded a formidable response. Except most Americans had zero appetite for getting involved in terrorist disputes overseas.” Those stupid “most Americans.” Didn’t they know that an event could anthropomorphize under the pen of a propagandist and make demands of human beings? What were they thinking? Jacobsen comes back many times to the suggestion that September 11th happened because of U.S. failure to act, rather than because of U.S. complicity in crimes against Palestinians, U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and the region, U.S. bombings in Iraq, etc.

More so, Jacobsen is intent on making the ridiculous case that the CIA’s many crimes and scandals are not the fault of the CIA because they are the fault of presidents whose orders the CIA was following. “CIA officers simply carry out the wishes of the American presidents they serve.” Well that’s generally true, and they are generally evil and criminal wishes. Blame, I hate to keep breaking it to U.S. culture, is not limited. There’s plenty for the CIA *and* the presidents.

Jacobsen deems William Casey “prescient” for predicting international terrorism in 1981. I think a better word is “prescriptive.” Decades of engaging in and provoking terrorism has results. It doesn’t moronically excuse terrorism. Try to remember that blame is not limited. But it does predictably generate it.

Jacobsen claims that Ronald Reagan’s thugs legalized assassination by renaming it “preemptive neutralization,” thereby placing it under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But can you legalize taking the place and the office of your elected misrepresentative, and sending him or her on a publicly-funded 10-year world cruise, by using the same phrase? Of course not, because you are only you, and because only murder can be “legalized” through nonsense phrases.

But isn’t murder a lesser evil? Jacobsen quotes a CIA employee: “Why is an expensive military raid with heavy collateral damage to our allies and to innocent children okay — more morally acceptable than a bullet to the head?” None of this evil is OK, and which bit is less evil is not a simple question that can be divorced from the full results including the normalization of practices that will be widely imitated.

The closest thing to a beneficial result in the whole book is probably the CIA-facilitated arrest by the French of terrorist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez. But that arrest could be imagined without the use of a lawless agency, whereas the crimes that provoked the terrorism could not — except perhaps by Jacobsen who seems to believe that the Palestinians started each cycle of hostility.

As if the CIA’s pre-2001 record were not catastrophic and reprehensible, there is also what followed. An agency that had no clue about the attacks of September 11th until moments after they happened, when it knew for certain who was behind them, was chosen to lead the way on the wars to come. The CIA gave itself, with a rubber stamp from Bush and Congress, the right to commit any crime. “There was no way to foresee where this would all go,” claims John Rizzo, the lawyer who wrote that the CIA could use “lethal direct action” and could “capture, detain, interrogate.” Rizzo had noooooooooooooo idea that this would mean that anybody would get killed or harmed, any more than Joe Biden had any reason to imagine that telling Bush he could start infinite wars would result in any wars.

The CIA has now led 18 years of catastrophe, including leading the creation of drone wars, fully normalizing small-scale murder. Jacobsen expends many words on the super high qualifications of the extra-elite experts who began the war on Afghanistan. The fact that their disaster has gotten worse for 18 predictable years seems not to make all their titles and qualifications as laughable to some people as they are to me. Many more words explain what a s—hole Afghanistan was, as if an invasion and occupation might have somehow gone well in a nicer place.

People who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion may have failed too, but when they show up in later wars they are “freedom fighters.” The Iraqis they are attacking are anything but “freedom fighters” of course. And the propaganda used to launch the war on Iraq is merely “the dark side of covert action” — the light side of which we have yet to discover.

In fact “the paradigm was the same” for plans for war on Afghanistan — the same as had been used to great failure in Vietnam. Afghanistan was now invaded by what Jacobsen bizarrely calls “American-led invaders, but invaders nonetheless.” The implication seems to be that Americans cannot actually be invaders, even though they’re — you know — invading, or at least not in a legal sense, because invasions are crimes and the United States doesn’t commit crimes.

At the end of her book, Jacobsen visits Vietnam and walks through a garden where “General Giap and his commanders sat long ago plotting the demise of the United States,” which they most certainly did not. This absurd claim immediately precedes a discussion of U.S. plans to nuke Vietnam. The CIA was advised against parachuting nukes into Vietnam and using them as part of the war by a group of scientists who warned that doing so would result in numerous groups of terrorists around the world seeking to acquire nukes and do the same. This recognition of the power of copy-catism in international criminal affairs is odd here, because it doesn’t show up in all the discussions of the CIA’s development of drone murders or death squads or coups. Why is it only certain crimes the imitation of which should bother us? Clearly it is because other crimes have already been so widely imitated and normalized that they are not questionable anymore, not even crimes anymore.

Here are some lists of CIA accomplishments.

Here is a petition to abolish the CIA.

From Washington’s Blog, here.

איך נתלה במאכולת במה שיודעים בודאי שאינו אלא מגופה?! – הגר”ש קלוגר

הרב שלמה קלוגר זצ”ל בדין כתם כגריס:

הנה על דבר שאלתו בנדון שיעור הכתמים בזה לא אכניס ראשי כי אני תמה למה אינו רואה לקנות ספרי מי נדה או שירי טהרה ויראה שם דעתי דאני מחמיר בזה לפי מה דאנו רואים דאין בזמנינו מאכולת שיהיה בידם שיעור כגריס איך נתלה במאכולת במה שאנחנו יודעים דבודאי אינו ממאכולת רק מגופה … וזה ברור ואמת ואף שהמחברים לא הרגישו בזה כבר אמרו חז”ל פרק קמא דחולין אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערן וכו’ אלא מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בזה וקבל האמת ממי שאמרו כקטן כגדול תשמעון …

מקור: קנאת סופרים, השמטות לשירי טהרה סימן ק”צ סימן מ”ז, ועיין שם בהשמטות למי נדה סימן ק”צ תשובה ל”ב.

דיון נוסף ניתן לראות כאן.

את דברי מורנו הרב ברנד שליט”א בנושא כתם כגריס בזה”ז, עיין כאן.

 

Is ‘Salt’ Masculine or Feminine?

Effete Salt

Note: This is not about how much salt you like…

I was recently asked to explain the feminine tense in the Talmudic phrase “Melach Sedomis” (Sodomite salt).

The Hebrew word for salt, “Melach” (or the Aramaic “Milcha”) is usually found in the male tense, whether in the Mishnah (Tevul Yom Chapter One, for instance) or Gemara. Should it not have said, “Melach Sedomi” instead?

Sometimes, ‘to ask the question is to answer it’, and this is just one of those times. Obviously, our sages use the word as both Zachar and Nekeiva (male and female). As the Gemara puts its own response to similar problems, “Ika hachi ve’ika hachi”.

There’s a great Hebrew website on Daf Yomi here. In one forum thread, I found a discussion on this very point.

Nor is ‘Melach sedomis’ the only effete (womanlike) salt around. Tosefta Korbanos 10:2 –

ומלח קודמת לעצים

One more example of the female tense in Gemara, Berachos 34a –

תנו רבנן העובר לפני התיבה צריך לסרב ואם אינו מסרב דומה לתבשיל שאין בו מלח ואם מסרב יותר מדאי דומה לתבשיל שהקדיחתו מלח כיצד הוא עושה פעם ראשונה יסרב שניה מהבהב שלישית פושט את רגליו ויורד.

Translation: DafNotes:

The Gemora cites a braisa: If one is asked to lead the congregation (in the prayer service), he ought to refuse (as if to say that he is unworthy of the honor), and if he does not refuse, he resembles a cooked food without salt; but if he persists too much in refusing, he resembles a cooked food which is over-salted. What should he do? The first time (he is asked), he should refuse; the second time, he should bestir himself (preparing himself to rise); the third time, he should stretch out his legs and go down. The Gemora cites a braisa: There are three things of which too much of them are bad, while a little of them is good; namely, yeast, salt, and refusal.

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com

Why Did Hebrew ‘Religious’ Media Slander Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak – DECADES Before His Political Run?

Rav Amnon Yitzhak

Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak, a controversial “baal teshuvah rabbi” whose lively appearances pack stadiums in Israel, is coming to New York for an evening of Torah on June 25 at the Master Theater on Brighton Beach Avenue. The Jewish Press spoke to him in advance of his visit.

The Jewish Press: I’m sure many of our readers would like to know why you dress the way you do.

Rabbi Yitzhak: Two reasons: 1) to follow the laws of modesty according to the custom of my Yemenite ancestors; 2) to protest the crime the secular Zionists committed in the early years of the state of Israel when they stripped Yemenite immigrants of their traditional garb and cut off their peyot.

You did not grow up observant. What sparked your path of teshuvah?

One day when I was 24 years old, I visited my parents in their home in Tel Aviv. As I gazed at their bookcase, an unexpected memory popped into my head. I remembered that at my bar mitzvah, someone gave me a book instead of a check. And sure enough, on the shelf was the gift, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – a book I had never opened before.

On the very first page it is written: “‘I have set the L-rd always before me’ – this is a cardinal principle of the Torah and a fundamental rule among the righteous who walk before the L-rd… as it is said: ‘Can a man hide himself in secret places that I cannot see him?’”

Immediately, a spirit of teshuvah filled my being with the recognition that Hashem views all of our deeds. From that moment on, I studied all the books on Judaism I could find. For several years, when I wasn’t sleeping or catching a quick bite to eat, I would learn with a never-ending enthusiasm.

How did you go from learning to teaching?

The learning never stops. In fact, teaching is the best way to learn. One day, a neighbor asked me a question about Judaism, and he enjoyed my answer so much that he invited me to meet with some people from the neighborhood to answer their questions as well.

That’s how it all started – from one chug bayit to the next, one synagogue shiur after the other, one packed hall after the next, until I became known as the “baal teshuvah rabbi.” I discovered that there were myriads of people who needed to activate their spiritual batteries. After attending a single lecture, literally thousands were inspired to start their own journeys of return.

How did you keep your own batteries charged?

After years of my teshuvah and kiruv work, I took a break to concentrate on my own learning. I sat in the Chazon Ish Kollel in Bnei Brak and studied diligently for several years under the tutelage of HaRav HaGaon Yehuda Shapira, of blessed memory, meriting to be his disciple and aide for 26 years.

He was a special tzaddik, a master of Jewish law, with a keen understanding of the world. The Steipler conferred with him on certain halachic questions, and Rav Shach would ask his advice on certain matters as well.

When I founded the Shofar Organization, Rav Shapira agreed to act as president. When I started making public appearances again, small auditoriums couldn’t hold the crowds. So we began to rent large auditoriums – and then soccer and basketball stadiums – in city after city throughout the country.

We were on the road for three decades. We distributed massive amounts of my audio cassettes and 22 million CDs for free. With our videos on YouTube and our programs on Shofar TV, we touched the lives of millions of Jews.

Why do you think your lectures have been so successful? What about your message do you think grabs people?

Its clarity and sharpness, without unnecessary embellishment, spiced with humor and a willingness to call a spade a spade. The public was attracted by truths it hadn’t heard before, told in a straightforward style, heart to heart, and backed by intellectual argument and sound reason.

In almost all of your appearances, you invite men up to the stage to put on a kippah, and weeping women eagerly volunteer to wear a head covering for the first time. It seems too perfect to be true.

Most of the time, these people have listened to my tapes and watched our videos before coming to a lecture. Their hearts have already been awakened by Torah. When they see me live at a lecture with 10,000 other people like them, the group energy is the jolt of electricity they need to light up their darkness and spark a new beginning.

You have often spoken about the dangers of television and the Internet. Yet, you yourself use media to bring people closer to the Torah.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. After our appearances continued to fill auditoriums and stadiums in city after city, the secular media initiated a smear campaign against me. They feared our success in returning thousands to Judaism would alter the demographics in the country and threaten the rule of the secular elite. Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shabak, stated: “Rav Amnon Yitzhak represents a greater threat to Medinat Yisrael than the terror waged against us.”

So, following the advice of HaRav HaGaon Yehuda Shapira, zt”l, we used their own weapons against them, as it says: “And he snatched the spear from the hand of the Egyptian, and he killed him with his own spear” (II Samuel 23:21). Through the Internet and TV, we succeeded in entering every home in Israel, turning teshuvah into a nationwide trend.

Not everyone in Israel has started to grow long peyos, though.

Not everyone, not yet. Nevertheless, with all of the secular Zionists’ opposition to the teshuvah movement, it has flowered in every corner.

A few years ago, you formed a political party but didn’t win enough votes to enter the Knesset.

As is widely known, I don’t vote in Israel’s elections, neither Knesset nor municipal council elections, and I don’t encourage others to vote either. However, HaRav Sheinman, of blessed memory, told me, “If a person has the power, it is a mitzvah to rescue others.”

So after we saw that voter surveys predicted we would receive eight or nine seats in the Knesset, we formed a party and started to campaign.

Why don’t you vote?

When I started appearing before the public, I asked the gaon, HaRav Shmuel Wosner, of blessed memory, what to answer people who ask me whom to vote for. He told me it was best not to take a stand. His counsel has guided me until today.

Additionally, political candidates don’t act according to their promises. Instead, they make compromises to preserve their seats in the Knesset – even if it means betraying the people who voted for them.

What were you hoping to achieve in the Knesset?

To help guide government policy from the inside by using our Knesset representation to influence decision-makers and by having information from inside sources close to me – things the general public don’t know. That way, I could analyze issues in a truthful manner without the political considerations, compromises, and deals that characterize politics.

Unfortunately, instead of fighting Yair Lapid, the Shas Party put all of its efforts into besmirching me out of fear that it would lose its monopoly over the Sefardi community. It did everything it could to sabotage our campaign, conveniently forgetting that I had aided its success in a substantial manner by influencing tens of thousands of Sefardi voters to return to Torah observance, with the help of Heaven.

The story is widely known and recorded in documentary films. Even after the elections, its incitement against me continued in a poisonous campaign of hatred and slander until HaRav HaGaon Yaacov Yosef, the son of HaRav Ovadia, of blessed memories, told them that they were “spilling blood in a witch hunt of slander without trial, and trampling on many prohibitions of the Torah.”

All because of jealously?

It begins with the fire of jealousy, and then the lust for power and honor and the obsession to control the monies that government coalition members have access to becomes all-consuming. We became anathema to the existing religious establishment when it saw that the public – including tens of thousands of Sefardi Jews – were attracted to my brand of Avodat Hashem in a way that hadn’t occurred before in Israel, surpassing all other efforts combined and sparking an unparalleled wave of teshuvah without any political connections or funding or connection to any charedi community.

If you look through the newspapers of the charedi and daticommunities for a span of several decades, you won’t find a favorable article on our success in any one of them even though we filled stadiums time and again with people hungry for a more inspiring understanding of Torah than they had encountered before. Secular newspaper chronicled the phenomena at length, but to the Torah monopoly in Israel, Amnon Yitzhak didn’t exist.

To my great chagrin, many young people in the charedi world have stumbled away from the path of Torah, and there is no one in the community who knows how to stand in the breach and prevent them from falling. These unfortunate souls don’t have a spiritual figure who can give them the advice they need, yet across the street we are lighting up the lives of people who are as distant from Torah as you can get, literally changing their lives in an evening – something you can witness at every lecture.

What do you think is causing the ever-increasing assimilation and alienation from Judaism throughout the world?

The biggest factor is the mega-expansion of the media – computers, Internet, smartphones, and the like – which are available to everyone, and the sudden exposure to all the impure cultures and temptations in the world along with spurious philosophies of life, which seduce people with their glib, intellectual, and seemingly rational façade.

All of this frightening bilbul (confusion) is only a click away. A person no longer has to disguise himself and sneak off to another city to satisfy his passions. Things that were considered forbidden in the past are accepted as the norm today.

Even if there are rabbis in the charedi world who possess the skills to save people from this tidal wave of pollution, they choose to keep themselves cloistered, for understandable reasons, in their sheltered ghettos, leaving the nation’s sheep to wander without a shepherd who knows how to relate to them in the proper manner to bring them back to the fold.

The Chatam Sofer explains in the introduction to his Responsa on Yoreh De’ah that Avraham Avinu was unique in that, with miserut nefesh and lack of concern for his own spiritual standing, he went out to the world, day and night, to save mankind from the falsehood of idolatry – a model of the Torah educator so lacking today.

What does it profit the world if a rabbi works on himself in the confines of his home until he becomes a great tzaddik and turns into an angel while the rest of mankind turns into beasts? Hashem has enough angels in his celestial abode.

Noach also was an outstanding servant of Hashem, but he was a private tzaddik. The flood was threatening his wayward generation, but he lacked the right style and language to relate to them. In the end, he could only save himself and his family.

Avraham is Avraham because he didn’t think of himself. He was driven to enhance the glory of G-d in the world and to make known His Kingship over all of the earth, even if it meant closing the Gemara to bring the distant closer to the word of Holy One Blessed Be He. The greatness of Avraham derives from his readiness to place the needs of the klal over his personal righteousness. Since we’re Avraham’s offspring, that’s the path that should guide us all.

Reprinted from The Jewish Press.

Tzvi Fishman is a recipient of the Israel Ministry of Education Award for Creativity and Jewish Culture. His many novels and books on a variety of Jewish themes are available at Amazon Books, including four commentaries on the teachings of Rabbi Kook. Recently, he has published “Arise and Shine!” and “The Lion’s Roar” – 2 sequels to his popular novel, “Tevye in the Promised Land.” In Israel, the Tevye trilogy is distributed by Sifriyat Bet-El Publishing. He is also the director and producer of the feature film, “Stories of Rebbe Nachman,” starring Israel’s popular actor, Yehuda Barkan. He can be contacted via his website: www.tzvifishmanbooks.com