ללא מחבר No Author

Milchemes Reshus, Milchemes Mitzva, and War of VENGEANCE

Matot: The War Against Midyan: Classic War Of Vengeance

We find in Parshat Mattot, that when Pinchas and the Israeli army return from battling Midyan (after the Midyanite women caused Israel to sin), Moshe angrily questions Pinchas: “Have you saved all the women alive?!” Concerning this, the Ramban quotes the “Sifri”: “Pinchas answered Moshe: As you commanded us, so we did!”

The Ramban then asks the following: Nowhere in the Torah do we find that Moshe commands whom to kill and whom to leave alive. If so, what did Pinchas mean, “as you commanded us, so we did”? If Pinchas was given explicit instructions by Moshe whom to kill, surely he would have carried out the orders. What then happened here? That is, what is Moshe’s complaint, and what is Pinchas’s response?

Ramban’s answer to this question is that a misunderstanding occurred. Pinchas assumed that this war was the same as any other obligatory war (“Milchemet Mitzvah”) or permissible war (“Milchemet Rishut”), whose laws are outlined in Deuteronomy 20:10. In most of these wars, only males are to be killed (with the exception of obligatory wars against Amalek or against the nations who dwelled in the land previously, where all are to be killed including women and children). We can now understand what Pinchas meant when he said, “as you commanded, so we did.” He meant, as you commanded us in the Torah.

Circumstances Determine the Reaction

And so when Moshe saw that Israel left the females alive, he explains, “Behold, these (specifically the females) caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Bilaam, to revolt against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.” Moshe is teaching us a vital lesson here: There is another category of war – a war of vengeance. As opposed to the regular wars (both permissible and obligatory), where the laws are pre-set regarding who is to killed or spared (see Rambam, Laws of Kings, Chapter 6), the wars of vengeance are a direct response to what was done to Israel. It takes into consideration specific actions of the enemy in the past. Therefore, the way in which the enemy is treated varies from one war to another, depending on the specific circumstances. In the case of the war against Midyan, which was fought to avenge what the women of Midyan did, it would have been proper for the Jewish army to make the women of Midyan the very first victims. And so, we have learned a principle regarding a “war of vengeance” – that the type of vengeance which is exacted depends on what or who is being avenged.

“As They Did to Me, So I Do to Them”

This same concept appears in the form of Shimshon HaGibor (the mighty Samson) who avenged the honor of Israel. In the book of Judges, we learn that when the men of Judah come to arrest Shimshon and hand him over to the Philistines, they inquired to know why he terrorizes the Philistines so. Shimshon answered: As they did to me, so I do to them. (Judges 15:11) In other words: Measure for measure. This is similar to what the prophet Shmuel says to Agag, the Amalekian King, as he takes him out to be executed: “Just as your sword made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women”. (Shmuel 1, 15:33) It is incumbent upon the haters of Israel to know: Punishment will be exacted from them precisely according to the measure they oppress Israel!!

Such is the case with King David, warrior and conqueror. Our sages tell us that David’s war against the nation of Moav was retribution for the killing of David’s parents and brothers by the King of Moav after David had sent his family there when he fled Saul. His subsequent treatment of the Moavites was quite unconventional: “David measured his captives with a rope, laying them down on the ground and measuring two rope lengths to be put to death, and one rope length to be kept alive…” The commentator Radak explains: “It was an act of revenge and humiliation.” Once again, we see that treatment of the enemy during a war is tailored according to the circumstances at hand.

Israel’s Revenge = G-d’s Revenge

It is imperative to understand the concept of revenge in depth, especially in this generation when alien westernized culture has seeped into the yeshiva halls, turning the awesome concept of revenge into a dirty word. As opposed to personal revenge between one Jew against another, which is wrong and falls under the heading, “thou shall not take revenge”, here we are dealing with revenge by Israel against her enemies. This is not a personal matter! It is a matter of sanctifying G-d’s Name! You may ask: What does vengeance have to do with sanctifying G-d’s Name? This is what our sages ask, too. We find in our parsha, that when G-d appears to Moshe, He tells him, “take vengeance for the children of Israel against Midyan.” However, when Moshe relays the orders to Israel, he says, “arm men to inflict G-d’svengeance against Midyan.” Nu, so which is it? G-d’s revenge, or Israel’srevenge? Rashi answers the riddle: “Those who fight against Israel, it is as if they fight against G-d Himself.” It’s that simple. Since the nation of Israel is G-d’s Chosen Nation and His representative in the world, when someone hurts or degrades them, the name of G-d is desecrated. Revenge is not a primitive or Fascist matter, it is a lofty matter of Kiddush Hashem!

Moshe’s Craving…

Now we can understand why Moshe was so furious when the Midyanite women were kept alive. When the desecration of G-d’s Holy Name is at stake, there is no time to waste! Our sages teach: “Moshe craved to see vengeance taken against Midyan before his death.” When he saw that the vengeance he craved was not completed, he became furious. The sages continue: “If Moshe wanted to live a few more years, the power was in his hands. G-d had said to him, take vengeance, and then you will gathered amongst your people. The Torah stipulates Moshe’s death on his taking revenge against Midyan. This is to teach you Moshe’s greatness. He said, so that I shall live shall I delay the vengeance of Israel?!” (BaMidbar Raba 22:2)

From Kahane Resources, here.

Judaism: Fighting TODAY’S War

Responding To The Times

By Rabbi Yaacov Haber

There was once a Chasidic Rebbe known as the ‘Rebbe Ha’Katan’. He was six years old when he inherited the mantle of the rebbe. Because of his age, he was assigned an uncle, a great person in his own right, to guide and teach him until he was ready to take over the full mantle of leadership.

His uncle once found him packing a suitcase on a Friday morning and asked the young Rebbe where he was going. The young Rebbe explained that he had just received an urgent message from a poor farmer in an isolated area. The message said that his only cow, the only means of the family’s sustenance, was due to give birth that Shabbos. He therefore requested that the Rebbe come to spend Shabbos to pray for the well-being of the cow.

The astonished uncle explained that the custom of the great Chasidic Rebbes was never to travel anywhere on Erev Shabbos. “In any case,” asked the uncle, “why can’t you just daven for the cow from here!?”

The young Rebbe responded: “I understood from the message I received that the cow was not the real issue. The family is isolated, poor and needed the inspiration of a shabbos in the presence of a Rebbe. He wants his children to know the Rebbe and make Kiddush together. I feel that this is the real issue and that is why I am traveling on Erev Shabbos.”

“If you can read that telegram and understand what it is REALLY asking you are a real Rebbe! You no longer need a mentor!”

Leadership is the ability to see the need of the moment. to see beneath the surface and read between the lines. To depart, if need be, from the ancient custom and respond to the need of the moment.

Pinchas is mentioned in our parsha as the grandson of Aharon. He could be presumed to have a similar approach to the world. Yet, his act of zealotry is the polar opposite of what we know of the peace-loving Aharon, who gently draws people to the Torah.

Not only that, but even in a comparable situation, their responses are worlds apart. When Aharon encounters the mass idolatry of the Golden Calf his response was calm. He didn’t rail and rage or charge with a spear. He took no action to stop the Golden Calf in its tracks. He gently and subtly tried to cause a delay, in order to give time for Moshe to return. Why didn’t he act like Pinchus?

Pinchas, in contrast, when faced with mass, public transgression, takes definitive, aggressive action which halts the problem immediately risking his own life.  The Zohar comments that Pinchas was the tikkun for Aharon.

I would suggest that each response was entirely correct, each for its own generation. The generation who made the Golden Calf had just left Egypt a few weeks earlier; they were spiritually immature. The Jewish people which Pinchas encountered, had been eating from Hashem’s hand for forty years and were ready to enter Eretz Yisrael. They warranted a different type of response.

The Talmud explains, that ‘Yiftach in his generation was as great as the Prophet Shmuel was for his generation’. The point is not to reminisce about the greatness of previous generations since the leadership G-d sends is generation-specific. The question of whether previous leaders were of greater stature is meaningless. The appropriate leadership for a generation is that which fully understands the context and needs of the people, and therefore how to respond.

From Torah Lab, here.

Ron Paul Schools American Conservatives

Conservatives Against Liberty

By 

Ron Paul Institute

July 16, 2019

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market.

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism.

Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

LESHEM: When Is Mashiach Coming?

Leshem on the time of Moshiach

This piece of Leshem is found in the Hakdamos v’she’arim on page 86B, paragraph beginning v’hinei. It gives a deeper understanding of the concept of b’itah achishena.

…This [that was previously spoken of] is the secret of the days of Moshiach at the end of the sixth millennium, which is the time of the ruling of the crown [of yesod, corresponding to Moshiach ben Yosef], which in our context became a king unto himself. Similarly, he will will shine and rule until the times of Moshiach [ben Dovid] because he is a separate king at his root, and the yesod was split into two parts, therefore the sixth millennium, which corresponds to yesod, will also split into two parts. The time that corresponds to the yesod itself will be characterized by continuing exile and destruction, but the time that corresponds to the crown [of yesod] will then see the advent of Moshiach. The measure of the crown in proportion to the yesod is known to all who taste the taste of the Eitz Chaim [which is one third], for the crown is the covenant with Israel that was given to Avraham Avinu…

…For the crown (עטרה) is the crown (כתר) of kingship (מלכות), [meaning that the last third of the sixth millenium is the cross-over time into the seventh millenium,] and therefore the revelation of His kingship will begin then, but the actual dominion of Kingship itself will not be revealed until the seventh millenium, the seventh day, the day that is all Shabbos. In all of the six days it says “it was evening and it was morning,” whereas, on the seventh day it does not. This hints to that which it says about the seventh millennium in Zechariah 14, “And one day will come, known to Hashem, neither day nor night.” This is when Kingship itself will reign, which is after the days of Moshiach, in the seventh millennium, about which our sages spoke when they said there will be one millennium of desolation. This is when all will be rectified in preparation for the life of the world to come, which is after the seventh millennium and onwards…

In the back of the book, the Leshem adds the following note:

The length of the crown of yesod [that is, the last third of the sixth millennium] is known to all who have tasted the taste of the Eitz Chaim, and is also a lengthy amount of time. That whole period of time [from 5666/1906 until 6000/2240] is included in the the end-time of בעתה, ‘in its time.’ This is the simple understanding of the verse (Yeshaya 60:22) “אני ה’ בעתה אחישנה” – “I am Hashem, in its time I will hasten it.” This means that the verse promises that Moshiach will not wait the entire length of ‘in its time’ in order to come, rather it will be hastened within this time period. Nevertheless, the ‘hastening’ will only be within this time period of ‘in its time.’ In this way, both ‘in its time’ and ‘hastening’ will be fulfilled at once. This is also the understanding of the verse (Chavakuk 2:3), “If he will tarry, wait for him, for he will surely come without delay.” This means that he will not wait until the end of the period of ‘in its time’ heaven forbid, but rather, he will hasten to come, as well, as we explained. This, however, is only when the crown reaches its lowest point, as I wrote in chapter 42. This is what it means in the verse when it says (Zecharia 14:7), “And it will be at the time of evening [or sunset – לעת ערב], there will be light.”

The bottom line here is that “In its time” refers to a period of time from 1906 until 2240. Within this time, Hashem promises He will hasten Moshiach’s arrival, and we need not worry that it will come at the end of this period, but rather, closer to the beginning of this period. 1906 was the beginning of the fifth hour, within which we saw the two World Wars which culminated in the sixth hour, which began in 1948, with the establishment of the state of Israel. Let us pray for the speedy revelation of Moshiach ben Yosef, who will infuse this country and this forlorn people with a new spirit and sense of purpose, בב”א.

Living Under the Zionists Is ‘Galus’, While New Jersey Is Like Eretz Yisrael?!

IS THIS REALLY GALUS?

By Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger | JULY 10, 2019

If we don’t mourn the destruction, are we truly in galus?

You know how you occasionally hear or read something and wonder, “Wow, that’s so obvious. How did I miss it?”

I just had one of those moments, and I am asking myself that very question: How did I miss it?

Chareidi media has been all over the new law affecting the real estate market. It is presented as a chareidi news story since, as the headlines declare and the articles explain, many frum people are in the real estate sector, and these laws regulating rental properties stand to impact the frum community on many fronts. I read the articles and the readers’ reactions — some say it’s good for the Jews, most insist it’s bad for the Jews — and shrugged my shoulders and moved on to the next article.

But then a rosh yeshivah called me to point out something that should have been obvious, but I had missed.

“What do you think a non-Jew would think,” he asked me, “if he read these articles?”

He noted, correctly, that the articles seem to convey that these laws are somehow against the Jews. In fact, some writers went as far as to claim that there were anti-Semitic overtones in these laws.

But think of it this way, this rosh yeshivah asserted: If a village comprised of Jews and non-Jews was wiped out by a tornado, and the chareidi press would mention only that the tornado killed Jews, would that not be insensitive?

A tornado is not a Jewish catastrophe; it is a general catastrophe.

Yet the chareidi reporting surrounding the new real estate guidelines is in a sense even more callous. On the face of it, this law was motivated by very human concerns regarding the skyrocketing costs of rents in the city. Why would we Jews protest a law presumably motivated by a creed of caring for the underprivileged? A non-Jewish reader will undoubtedly conclude that we only care because we are no longer able to raise rents, and are looking out only for our self-interests.

Does this not reinforce the worse caricatures of money-grubbing Jews? Whom are we pitying? Shylock?

The rosh yeshivah clarified that he obviously does not mean to condemn real estate owners, the overwhelming majority of whom are running perfectly legitimate businesses and providing work for so many employees, many of whom are our fellow Yidden. Furthermore, their largesse has been propping our mosdos for decades, and they have rightfully earned our full admiration.

Rather, he is condemning the chareidi press for publicizing this and painting it as a “Jewish” story.

And I, in turn, am condemning myself. How did I miss this?

I once read a fascinating study about social awareness, in which social scientists sought to determine which measurable factors — i.e. age, income, gender, race, etc. — impacted one’s awareness of his surroundings.

Those conducting the study had people walk down a random city street and then asked them what they had noticed. The findings were somewhat predictable, with one significant surprise. A fairly predictable result, for instance, was that people tended to notice others who were like themselves — young girls noticed other young girls, teenagers noticed other teenagers, women noticed other women.

But they were surprised to discover that one group scored much lower than the others in social awareness. The mega-wealthy, as a group, were particularly poor in noticing what others were doing. Why? The scientists theorized that because these people are self-sufficient and are wealthy enough to believe that their independence is permanent, they forfeit the instinct to bond with other people. Unless they make a concerted effort to care, their economic status fosters a feeling of being different, and isolates them from the world, causing them to live in a social bubble.

Are we, the Jews of chutz l’Aretz, suffering from a similar condition? Does our reporting of the real estate guidelines not demonstrate that we are living in a bubble? Has our justified concern for self-preservation and insularity from a culture so foreign to ours resulted in our becoming oblivious to our environment and how we may be perceived by others?

At the same time, has our collective economic comfort, coupled with our acceptance into society, caused us to forget that we are in galus, so that we don’t care how we are viewed? Do we realize that we are guests in a host country? There was a time when people would never wear a tallis on the street. Are we so comfortable, so “in your face,” that we can confuse Jersey for Bnei Brak?

But sadly, this does seems to be true. We don’t really see ourselves as being in galus. A case in point. I have been told that a large poster appeared in a local shul announcing the formation of a new neighborhood. It presents a panoramic view of the site, with the following words emblazoned on it: “Sa na einecha ure’eh… ki es kol ha’aretz asher atah ro’eh, lecha etnenah ul’zaracha.” This verse obviously refers only to Eretz Yisrael, not New York or New Jersey. Yet it was coopted for selling homes in the Tristate area.

How sad.

Bear in mind Kli Yakar’s exhortation on the verse, “Penu lachem tzafonah” (Devarim 2:3).

Chazal expound: “If Eisav’s time has arrived, conceal yourself — hatzpinu es’chem” (Devarim Rabbah 19). It seems that this concealment refers to a Jew who has found, even in this galus, a small measure of success. Let him hide it and conceal it before Eisav — for no nation is as jealous of the Jewish nation as Eisav, who feel that they were robbed of Yaakov’s blessing…. Yaakov similarly chastised his children, “Lamah tisra’u — why are making you making yourselves so visible?”

This is the polar opposite of how Jews act nowadays, in the lands of their foes. For if someone has 100 rubles, he dresses in finery and lives in a home as if he has thousands, and in doing so, he incites the non-Jews against him. It is this custom that is at the heart of all our troubles.

As we head toward the Three Weeks, when we are meant to mourn the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, I ask rhetorically: Can galus can be mechaper (atone) if we don’t relate to it as a punishment altogether? Because if we do not mourn the destruction, are we truly in galus?

Kol hamisabel al Yerushalayim zocheh v’ro’eh b’vinyanah. Let us be zocheh in the coming period to be misabeil, and thereby to bring the Geulah bimeheirah.

Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 768. Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger is the rav of Congregation Shaarei Tefillah of New Hempstead and the author of Positive Vision, a Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation project (ArtScroll\Mesorah)  

From Mishpacha, here.