ללא מחבר No Author

Surrender of the Temple Mount Incites War

Israel’s Beating Heart

January 26, 2017 | Moshe Feiglin, Chairman of Zehut

The Temple Mount is the most holy place on earth. It is the place chosen by the

G-d of Israel from which to rest His Divine Presence throughout the world. This is the place that connects the physical with the metaphysical; the place where Adam was created and Isaac was bound. It is the place where life and the Nation of Israel were fashioned, the place where our First and Second Temples stood. Just as most of the prophecies about the Return to Zion have already miraculously been fulfilled, so the rest of them will be realized. When the time comes, our Third Temple will dwell on the Temple Mount for eternity.

The Temple Mount is the beating heart of the Land of Israel. Famous Israeli poet Uri Tzvi Greenberg accurately described the Temple Mount as the yardstick of Israeli sovereignty in the entire Land. When we lose our hold on the Mount, the heart becomes ill; circulation weakens and the organs suffer. When Israel transfers control of the Mount to the Jordanian wakf, Jerusalem becomes divided once again and Israel’s cities become the target of missiles – a scenario that nobody would have imagined just a few years ago. There is a direct connection between the abandonment of the Temple Mount and the deterioration of the legitimacy for the very existence of a Jewish State anywhere in the Land of Israel. This approach has reared its head in the most respected and enlightened states

When with our actions we declare that we have no connection to the Temple Mount, the world says the same at UNESCO. And when the world says it, the legitimacy of our hold on the Land is lost. When we lose the legitimacy of our hold on the Land, it becomes legitimate to attack us and illegitimate for Israel to defend herself. Surrender of the Temple Mount does not prevent war; it incites it.

The “strategy” of Israeli administrations since the Six Day War has been to evade the actualization of Israeli sovereignty on the Mount and to pass on the “problem” to future generations. This “strategy” has brought about a continued depreciation in Jerusalem’s status, to its essential re-division and to the transfer of most of the sovereignty at the heart Israel’s capital – on the Temple Mount – to the Jordanian wakf. Today, places in East Jerusalem where Jewish children used to play safely are now void of Jews; it is impossible to build a home in Jerusalem without the personal authorization of the Prime Minister and UNESCO is turning Israel’s practical policy into a principled international decision, determining that there is no connection between Israel and the Temple Mount.

The decision to give the keys to the Mount to the Moslems immediately upon its liberation was cited as diplomatic insight and the “realpolitik” acumen of Six Day War Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. But the truth is that Dayan’s actions were not born of necessity; it was his strategy. Prior to that, in the War of Independence, a planned strategy brought about the fall of the Jewish Quarter and the loss of an opportunity to liberate the Temple Mount and Judea and Samaria. Before the Six Day War, Dayan (and the minsters of the National Religious Party) were against liberating the Old City. Even Paratrooper Division Commander Mota Gur, who conquered the Temple Mount, was sure that it would shortly return to Jordan.

Israeli-ness did not want the “whole Vatican” – in the words of Moshe Dayan. Religious-ness also didn’t want the Mount, which returns the Torah from the personal-religion dimension of the Exile to the national-culture dimension. This is the deep reason for today’s ultra-Orthodox opposition to the return of Jews to the Temple Mount. There is nothing more anti-“religious” and anti-exile than the Temple and the Temple Mount.

Jerusalem is a reflection of the identity conflict raging within Israeli society. It is the conflict between Israeli identity and Jewish identity. The Mount was abandoned by Israel and Jerusalem is being divided because the Israeli/Religious identity is fleeing the return to the Jewish/cultural identities. The return to the Mount is the connection between those cultures.

The Arabs are not the reason; they are simply the means in this internal conflict. Jerusalem does not appear even once in the Koran. When the Moslems are on the Mount, they bow southward to Mecca and turn their backsides to the Dome of the Rock and the site of the Holy of Holies.

Israel sanctifies the Mount to the Moslems so that it can run away from itself. The result is the loss of the bedrock foundation for the justification of our existence in the entire Land of Israel – and the turning of humanity against us. By sanctifying the Mount for the Moslems, Israel brings war upon itself.

From Zehut International, here.

Non-Jewish Music? No Such Thing!

Secular Music

When asked to support their position, opponents of secular music invariably cite the Sha’ar Hatziyun, who writes as follows:

כבר הזהיר השל”ה ושארי ספרי מוסר שלא לזמר שירי עגבים לתינוק שזה מוליד לו טבע רע. ובלא”ה נמי איכא איסורא בשירי עגבים ודברי נבלות דקא מגרי יצה”ר בנפשיה ושׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְחַק מזה ויזהיר לבני ביתו על זה [מאמר מרדכי].

The Shlah and other mussar books have already warned not to sing songs of passion to a child for this develops a bad nature within him. And without this there is also a prohibition with songs of passion and foul language for they cultivate the evil inclination in one’s soul, and he who guards his soul will distance himself from this and warn the members of his household about it (Ma’amar Mordechai).[1]

Let’s analyze this. The key term here is שירי עגבים, which I have translated “songs of passion.” In truth I think this is too ambiguous. From the juxtaposition of these שירי עגבים to דברי נבלות, foul language, it seems clear that these songs he is referring to are unequivocally “songs of lust.” What is certain though, is that he isn’t saying anything against secular music per se, but against שירי עגבים.

Often, these opponents come at it from a different angle. Music is a reflection of a person’s soul, they say, and music that comes from the soul of someone who is not an observant Jew is not kosher, just as food cooked in a non-kosher pot becomes loses its kosher status. These people generally have an aversion to any and all “non-Jewish music.” If we look through the early traditional halachic literature however, as far as I know we find no mention of such a concept. On the contrary, the Mishna Berura – the author of that same Sha’ar Hatziyun these people like to cite – indicates that there is no such issue. In discussing who is eligible to lead services for the congregation, Rema writes as follows:

וש”צ המנבל פיו או שמנגן בשירי הנכרים ממחין בידו שלא לעשות כן, ואם אינו שומע מעבירין אותו.

A leader of the congregation who fouls his mouth or who sings songs of the gentiles; we protest in order that he discontinue doing so, and if he does not listen we remove him from his post.[2]

The Mishna Berura qualifies:

ר”ל בניגון שמנגנים בו הנכרים לעבודת גילולים שלהם. וב”ח בתשובה סי’ קכ”ז כתב דוקא בניגון שמיוחד לזה.

He means the songs which the gentiles sing to their idols. And Bach[3] writes that this is only with a song that is specifically designated for this.[4]

Similarly, the Chida writes:

בספר מעשה רקח פ”ח מהל’ תפילה נשאל על המשוררים קדיש או קדושה לחן שירי נכרים והאריך לאסור, ובכלל הביא דברי מהרם די לונזאנו בס’ שתי ידות דף ק’ שכתב בשם ס’ חסידים, ויזהר מי שקולו נעים שלא יזמר ניגונים ניגונים נכרים, ודקדק שלא כתב שירים נכרים דזה פשיטא דאסור אלא ניגונים נכרים כלומר אף דהשיר הוא קדוש הניגון נכרי יפסידהו וכו’ ע”ש. ונעלם ממנו דברי מהר”ם די לונזאנו עצמו שם בספר שתי ידות דף קמ”ב שכתב וז”ל וזאת היתה לי סיבה גורמת לחבר רוב שירי על ניגוני הישמעאלים וכו’, וראיתי קצת חכמים כמתאוננים רע על המחברים שירות ותשבחות לשי”ת על ניגונים אשר לא מבני ישראל המה ואין הדין עמהם כי אין בכך כלום עכ”ל. וע”ש מ”ש הרב מהר”ם ד”ל בענין זה ומה שהשיב על מהר”י נאגרה בשירותיו.

In the book Ma’aseh Rokeach he is asked regarding those who sing Kaddish or Kedusha to tunes of the gentiles, and he goes at length to forbid it. He included the words of the Maharam de Lonzano in the book Shetei Yados on page 100 who writes in the name of the Sefer Chasidim “and one whose voice is pleasant should be careful not to sing tunes of the gentiles.” He notes that the Sefer Chasidim did not write “songs of the gentiles” because that is obviously forbidden; he rather wrote “tunes of the gentiles” – meaning that even though the song (i.e. the lyrical content) is holy, the tune which is from the gentiles ruins it. But he missed the words of the Maharam de Lonzano himself there on page 152 where he writes in these words; “…and this was the motivation that caused me to write most of my songs to tunes of the Ishmaelites… and I saw some wise ones seemingly complaining badly about writers of songs and praises to God to tunes of those who are not of the Children of Israel, but the law is not with them, for there is nothing to this.”[5]

It seems quite clear that there is nothing inherently unkosher about tunes composed by non-Jews, inasmuch as there is nothing inherently unkosher about a kosher piece of meat that was grilled by a non-Jew (bishul akum notwithstanding).

Continue reading…

From The Beis Medrash Blog, here.

משיח הוא רק השלב השישי בגאולה

תפילת הרמב”ם בבית הגדול והקדוש, ודברי המנחת יצחק

מכתב הרמב”ם על תפילה בהר הבית ● הר הבית נקרא גם בית המקדש ● דעת המנחת יצחק ● חשש מים חלוקים או עכורים ● חשש טבול יום ● חשש זבים ● חשש מצורע ● גבולות העזרה ● ראיה מן הגאונים ● שורש דברי המנחת יצחק ● משיח הוא תקופה מאוחרת בתהליכי הגאולה ● העיוות שנעשה בנושא אמונת המשיח ● רדיפות נגד הרוצים לקיים את התורה ● ארץ ישראל ● תכלת ● הר הבית ● חששות לא נכונים ● דברים גדולים נעשים ע”י אנשים קטנים ● מכתב הנצי”ב

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר בריתי יצחק – הרב ברנד, כאן.

Government Educational Funding Is a Bribe in Capital Law

Shas Gonna Shas

Statements from various rabbis about the complicity of Haredi parties in the dangerous policies of left-wing governments in Israel.
Published: January 7th, 2013

“Haters gonna hate,” the saying goes. Ditto for political parties.

On January 3, Ynet reported about a Shas event held in the Arab Galilee village of Abu Sanan. Aryeh Deri mentioned feeling at home and told his audience, “You will have someone to turn to and our respect.” Eli Yishai likewise stated, “Inshallah, God willing, we will have our victory party right here.”

This should be as surprising as reading that Meretz members advocate public transportation on Shabbat. Does Shas greasing the rails for Oslo I by abstention ring a bell? How about the coalition Shas formed with Meretz and Labor in 1992 to enable Rabin’s government?

It wasn’t out of the blue that Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff said in 2010, “Any commitment of Shas to Torat HaShem Temima is purely coincidental at best… A vote for Shas is a vote to give back the Kotel” (See 28:45 here.)

Rabbi David Bar-Hayim has commented on Shas and Oslo I: “They allowed it to take place because they did nothing…They did nothing because they were paid off. This is a clear-cut, simple, straightforward case of shochad…” (See 1:19:50 here.)

But the problem isn’t just Shas. Before the establishment of this party, the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l likewise stated regarding the Camp David Accords:

What’s most distressing is that the voices that should have been raised in opposition have been   silenced by bribes. Those who have accepted the bribes may protest the money has gone to Yeshivos, etc. However, no money that is stained with Jewish blood can help in the education of a Jewish child.

These words remain all too timely, as do those of Rabbi Meir Kahane hy”d in 1981:

Years of a National Religious Party holding the balance of power in the government and doing    nothing as it supped happily at the tables of money and power. Almost four years of an Agudat Yisrael party, which is quite happy to support Begin in return for money for its institutions and yeshivot.

Specific to Rabbi Kahane’s points, Rabbi Rakeffets remarked on various occasions from 2005 and 2012 about the destruction of Gush Katif, the empowerment of Hamas, and the complicity of Agudat Yisrael:

* “You open up The Jewish Press, Menachem Porush is crying and yelling and shouting…against the disengagement. You phony. You falsifier. You liar. Your own party is sitting in the government and giving them a majority and enabling them to do what they want, and you’re crying in The Jewish Press. And people are so stupid. They read it and follow it and think Torah Mi Sinai. (See 28:55 here.)

* “Every rocket falling in on Israel today—Agudat Yisrael, the Gerrer Rebbe, has a share in it.” (See 8:50 here.)

* “…a Moetzet Gedolei HaTorah that enabled the Israeli government to give back Gush Katif and bring endless tragedy upon the Jewish People…Agudat Yisrael made it possible. I lived it. I saw it. It was tangible. Everyone knows about it…The price we are paying, the price we have paid, and the price we will yet pay for the stupidity of Agudat Yisrael that enabled the Israeli government to go along with Sharon and Olmert. It’s overwhelming.” (See 1:05:35 here.)

Menachem Ben-MordechaiAbout the Author: Menachem Ben-Mordechai has written for numerous publications on subjects ranging from Israel and Latin America to the sport of powerlifting and life insurance. He has also coached elite powerlifters as well as beginners. Menachem’s other writing can be found under the name Myles Kantor.

The author’s opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Jewish Press.

Secessionary Slavery Abolitionists

Union and Bondage

04/12/2001 Myles Kantor

A review of A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War (Roman and Littlefield, 2000, 750 pp.)

At a recent appearance before the Heritage Foundation to discuss A New Birth of Freedom, James Bovard asked author Harry Jaffa how Abraham Lincoln’s suppression of Southern secession reflected on his commitment to consensual government.  Jaffa responded by citing the supremacy of a presidential election and the anarchic ramifications of political withdrawal.

Secession is by and large equated with a supposedly racist insurrection—the Confederacy—so Jaffa’s assertions seem unobjectionable juxtaposed with this demonized polity.  If we juxtapose them with another set of circumstances, however, they betray abhorrent entailments.

On December 20, 1860, a Massachusetts convention passed the following ordinance:

Whereas, Abraham Lincoln has been elected President of the United States, and

Whereas, President-elect Lincoln has affirmed support of the Fugitive Slave Act, and

Whereas, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all non-slaveholding states shall be bound to aid in the rendition of fugitive slaves under this administration, and

Whereas, Such complicity with the iniquitous institution of slavery is repugnant to the consciences of this commonwealth’s citizens, and

Whereas, Seeking to throw off this wretched yoke and be a beacon of freedom for the enchained masses of this country,

Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hereby dissolves its political bands with the United States of America and shall hereafter exist as a free and independent state.

While this resolution is counterfactual, it has been imagined from a genuine context.  During the antebellum period, especially after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, many abolitionists perceived the Union as an albatross that enmeshed their states in the enslavement they loathed.  Supreme Court decisions such as Ableman v. Booth (upholding the Fugitive Slave Act) amplified their antipathy to the constitutional order.

William Lloyd Garrison was the Northern disunionist par excellence.  The editor of The Liberator placed “No Union with Slaveholders!” on the publication’s masthead since he considered Northern withdrawal not only permissive but imperative.  “Give us Disunion and liberty and a good conscience, rather than Union with slavery and moral degradation,” he wrote in the wake of the Dred Scott decision.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.