Hyehudi.org

Liberation Theology

BY AVI SHAFRAN · APRIL 22, 2016

Hashem Hu Malkeinu ה’ הוא מלכנו

Hashem Hu Malkeinu, v’Lo anu avadim

HaTorah HaKedoshah Hi Chukoseinu, u’bah anu ma’aminim

Hashem Hu Malkeinu, v’Lo anu avadim

HaTorah HaKedoshah Hi Chayeinu, v’lah anu meshubadim

B’Shilton HaKofrim ain anu ma’aminim, ain anu ma’aminim

U’b’chukoseihem ain anu mischashvim, ain anu mischashvim

B’Derech HaTorah Neileich, b’aish u’b’mayim

B’Derech HaTorah Neileich, L’Kadesh Sheim Shamayim – oy – L’Kadesh Sheim Shamayim!
ה’ הוא מלכנו ולו אנו עבדים
התורה היא חוקותינו ובה אנו מאמינים

ה’ הוא מלכנו ולו אנו עבדים
התורה הקדושה היא חיינו ולה אנו משועבדים .

בשלטון הכופרים אין אנו מאמינים – אין אנו מאמינים

ובחוקותיהם אין אנו מתחשבים – אין אנו מתחשבים

בדרך התורה נלך באש ובמים
בדרך התורה נלך לקדש שם שמים –
אוי – לקדש שם שמים!

Translation:
Hashem is our King and to him we are servants,
The Torah is our law and unto it we are believers

Hashem is our King and to him we are servants,
The Holy Torah is our life and unto it we serve

To the Rule of the heretics we are not believers,
We are not believers!

And their laws we do not honor,
we do not honor!

In the way of the Torah we walk,
through fire and water.
In the way of the Torah we walk, to sanctify the Holy Name.
Oy! To sanctify the Holy Name!

Information:
Translation from Wikipedia; available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Song written by Rav Amram Blau; words are on Wikipedia and presumed to be in the public domain.

Load recordings (there is 1 recording)

From Zemirot Database, here.

The First Stirrings of Capitalism¹

And Adah bore Yaval. He was the first of those who dwell in tents and raise cattle. The name of his brother was Yuval. He was the first of all who handle the harp and flute. And Tzilah, too, bore Tuval-Kayin, who sharpened all cutting implements of copper and iron.

To any but the most casual student of Chumash, the question “What’s in a name?” borders on silliness. Names throughout Tanach are saturated with meaning. We have only to look at the names – and the reasons for their selection – that the first humans gave their sons to learn that names speak volumes about the mindset of parents, and the times in which they lived. The progressive change in mood in the names that Leah assigned to her sons adds powerfully to our sense that names are important[2]. We cannot help but note that with the birth of each son, Leah sees herself growing in her importance to her husband, and capturing more of the love she thought had been reserved for Rachel alone. With each birth, her attitude shifts from the desperation of affliction to proudly becoming the undisputed mother of the lion’s share of the projected twelve shevatim.

Some names are more subtle. We would miss their significance if we didn’t notice the words appear in slightly altered form elsewhere. In the march of the generations from Kayin, we find it easy to tune out, and treat the psukim as many variations on the theme of Ploni begat Almoni. Occasionally, we take note as one of them jogs our memory, and we realize that we have seen that word before someplace else. If we bothered to compare the names with those on the list of progeny of Shais, we might be shocked to see the enormous overlap in names – almost as if the Torah were describing an almost inexorable pattern of cultural and spiritual development[3], with each name indicating an important cultural change from the generation that preceded it.

In one set of psukim in our parshah, three generations all take essentially the same name, changing only grammatical construction. Three generations all take names based on the root Y-B-L. Thus we have Yaval, who fathers Yuval, and is followed by Tuval-Kayin. The root essentially means to bring, or bring in. Applied to a mostly agrarian society in the early days of mankind, Y-B-L can be assumed to have something to do with the produce that is brought in from the field to be used by people.

The appearance of three forms of the same name in succession is surely important. Significant as well is the fact that all three are credited with being originators of a new idea or practice, contributors of a new wrinkle in the growing cloth of human civilization.

It starts with Yaval, who becomes the “father of those who dwell in tents and breed cattle.” We wonder what it was that he fathered! What was his innovation? Shepherds had been around since the time of Hevel. We can find a clue in the attitude that the Egyptians had to shepherds. On the one hand they utterly despised them; on the other, Pharoh found putting Yosef’s brothers in charge of the royal flocks an honorable position.

It is quite likely that the Egyptians did not find sheep abhorrent, nor those who tended to them. Rather, they looked down upon nomads – those people who possessed no land and no roots – the Roma of the ancient world – and therefore had to shepherd their sheep wherever they could find food for their animals. Yosef therefore introduced his brothers to Pharoh as “roeh tzon,” who had previously been “anshei mikneh.[4]” We can take this to mean that they appear at the moment, having just left their homeland, as common shepherds. Yosef excuses and justifies this impression. They may look like landless, nomadic shepherds, but they in fact are anshei mikneh – landed gentry, members of the group founded in our parshah by Yaval.

Yaval was not a shepherd. He managed a mikneh empire, while reclining in the shade and comfort of a tent. He was a sheep entrepreneur, reaping – bringing in- the profit from the raising of sheep without having to tend to them himself. In a sense, he industrialized the sheep business, expanding upon it, systematizing it enough that he could realize great profit by focusing on the commercial end of it, rather than fraternizing with the animals. This was indeed an innovation, and a trend in society that would in time apply to all other jobs and vocations. The successful capitalist would reap large profits, leaving the laborious work to others.

The next generation did not have to produce. It was heir to wealth, and had the luxury of not having to produce. In the case of Yaval, this did not mean a next generation of lazy souls involved in dissolute behavior. The consequence of an abundance of discretionary capital, as we call it today, is a generation that can look beyond simply providing the means for survival. With more time available for non-essentials, the generation after Yaval turned to music. Yuval became the father of those who would play harp and flute. He could only arise in a generation that had the means to support him.

In the days between Adam and Noach, with G-d consciousness waning, turning to culture was an important step for mankind. The line of Kayin, estranged from G-d, needed desperately to restore the inner equilibrium and harmony that comes from a person’s relationship with HKBH. Nothing can begin to replace that relationship, but on a societal level, turning to culture is an important first step on the road back. Minimally, music and art suggest to Man that he is not the be-all and end-all of existence. There are concepts and ideas that Man – even Man estranged from G-d – can recognize as more important than his own being. Music and art appeal to Man’s emotions without much effort; in time, he can learn of the more ethereal realm of the Idea, of truth and intellectual contemplation, and learn to appreciate these as well.

Tuval appears in the following generation. The word means “bringing,” not in the active sense, but as an abstraction. It is not about producing, but production itself. By fashioning the first cutting implements, Tuval enables production on a qualitatively and quantitively different plane. Tuval introduces what, in time, would be called the “means of production.” Implements would become machinery would become large factories. Those who owned them would reap much benefit from the labor of many.

Ironically, with the emergence of this generation, Kayin seems to have defeated his curse of forever roaming in constant exile. Owning land has now become much less important. Tuval’s full name is Tuval-Kayin. Through Tuval, Kayin has regained all the land he lost, without owning an inch of it. By producing the tools that all others use to gather their produce, Tuval gains a share in everybody’s production.

Kayin was once able to survey the world in front of him, and imagine himself possessor of much of it. He forfeited all of it when he murdered his brother. Generations later, his ingenuity and ambition have morphed into a Tuval-Kayin, needed no expanse of land to find security and wealth. His creative mind was a fertile enough field in which to nurture abundant produce. Kayin could have triumphed, were it not for the fact that a society in which G-d is moved to the periphery will have no permanence. The next generation after Tuval-Kayin is that of Lemech. He looks at the changes through the generation, as well as his own family, and is left with thoughts of foreboding and guilt.

After him will come the Flood.

1. Based on the Hirsch Chumash, Bereishis 4:20-23

2. See the Hirsch Chumash, Bereishis 29:32-35

3. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, of course, uncovers precisely such patterns in his treatment of the two lines.

4. Bereishis 46:32

From Torah.org, here.

What Zionism SHOULD be.

Did Ben Gurion want a Jewish state?

Amnon Lord in a recent column claims the answer is NO. In a wide-ranging discussion of the recent “revelations” that Teddy Kollek served as a British “informer” prior to 1948, Lord comes to the conclusion that what drove the Mapai during the 1940’s was enabling absolute political hegemony over the “Yishuv” and in order to do that they cooperated with the British in 2 crucial areas: 1) keeping the local Jewish population quiet insofar as to what was happening to Jews in Europe. and 2) cooperating in uprooting the Jewish underground groups such as the Irgun and the Lehi.

According to Lord, the Mapai’s purpose in all of this was to maintain political control – not necessarily to advance the cause of an independent Jewish state. For that matter he claims that Mapai was perfectly happy remaining in political control as a British vassal – as long as they had political control.

ב-1945, נוכח המאבק המתפתח בין בריטניה לבין המעצמות העולות – ברית המועצות וארצות הברית – על ארץ ישראל והמזרח התיכון, היה האינסטינקט הפחדני של הנהגת הסוכנות, קרי בן-גוריון ושרת, לקבל חסות ופרוטקשן מהשלטון הבריטי הקיים. מפא”י בכלל לא חתרה להקמת מדינה יהודית, אלא עודדה את הבריטים להישאר; המדינה היהודית הוקמה כמדינת אין-ברירה כאשר היה ברור שהבריטים זונחים את בן-גוריון וחבריו ומפקירים אותם לגורלם, אולי בציפייה שאלה יזעיקו אותם חזרה כדי להינצל משחיטה.

In 1945, in light of the conflict which was forming between Britain and the rising superpowers, the USSR and the USA, it was the cowardly instinct of the Agency leadership, that is Ben Gurion and Sharet, to receive protection from the British regime. Mapai made no efforts to establish a Jewish state, rather it encouraged the British to stay; the Jewish state was created as a “no-other-choice” state when it became clear that the British are abandoning Ben-Gurion and his friends and are leaving them to their own fate, perhaps with the hopes that this group [Ben Gurion] will call [the British] back in order to same themselves from [Arab] slaughter.

מבחינה מדינית, התנהגות כמו ההלשנה של טדי קולק יכולה לקבל צידוק רק אם האוריינטציה החד-צדדית לכיוון בריטניה מוכיחה את עצמה. אלא שהנהגת היישוב לא קיבלה שום דבר בתמורה לשיתוף הפעולה שלה במשך שנות המלחמה. עד 1942 ניתן היה להעלות ארצה אלפי יהודים כדי להצילם מידי הגרמנים, אך הבריטים לא אפשרו זאת, והנהגת הישוב המפא”יניקית לא לחצה עליהם ואפילו סייעה לעצור ספינות עולים. אותה אוריינטציה בריטית לא הניבה שום פרי גם אחרי המלחמה, באותה תקופה גורלית שבין מלחמת העולם למלחמת העצמאות. בניגוד למיתוס האקדמי התעמולתי הנפוץ היום, כאילו “העולם” שהרגיש אשם בגלל השואה הקים את המדינה היהודית, הבריטים, שהיו חלק קובע ב”עולם” הזה, בלמו עלייה לארץ והתנגדו נחרצות להקמת המדינה. הם גם עודדו את הערבים לתקוף את מדינת ישראל לאחר הכרזת העצמאות. לא ברור אם כך איזו תועלת לאומית ומדינית יכלה לצמוח ממדיניות הסזון. נראה שבאותה תקופה פוסט-מלחמתית שיתוף הפעולה של תחילת שנות ה-40 כבר הפך לעסק מושחת, לסימביוזה שארוחה אנינה של צדפות, רוסט-ביף ויין טוב, כפי שמופיע בדיווח על הפגישות בין קולק למפעיליו, מסמלת את מהותה.

From a political perspective, behavior such as the informing on Jews by Teddy Kollek can only receive legitimacy if the one-sided orientation towards Britain proves itself. Unfortunately, the leadership of the settlement receive nothing in return for their cooperation during the years of the war. Until 1942 it was possible to bring to Eretz Yisrael thousands of Jews in order to save them from the Germans, but the British did not allow this, and the Mapai leadership of the settlement did not pressure them and even aided them in capturing [illegal] immigrant ships. The same pro-British orientation did not give any fruit even after the war – during that fateful period between the world war and the war of independence. in contrast to the propagandistic academic mythology which is so popular today, as if the “world” which felt guilty because of the Holocaust established the Jewish state, the British, who were key players in this “world” obstructed immigration of Jews and firmly opposed a Jewish state. They also encouraged the Arabs to attack the state of Israel after the declaration of independence. It is thus unclear what kind of political or national benefit could have arisen out of the policy of informing on Jews [the “season”]. It seems that in that same post-war period, the cooperation of the early 40s had been transformed into a corrupt enterprise. [It transformed] into a symbiosis whose essence is captured by refined clam dinners, roast beef and good wine (as meetings between Kolek and his operators are described).

It is worth noting that not only was Kollek involved in informing on underground fighters, but he was also the one, as Lord points out, who handed over Joel Brand to the British – thus preventing his attempt at rescuing Hungarian Jewry.

באוטוביוגרפיה של שמואל תמיר, שיצאה שנים לאחר מותו, יש תיאור מפורט של “קליטתו” של יואל ברנד בקושטא על ידי אהוד אבריאל וטדי קולק. מי שקורא את הקטעים האלה לא יכול שלא להגיע למסקנה שמעצרו של ברנד על ידי הבריטים באחת מתחנות הרכבת בוצע בעזרתם הפעילה של קולק ואבריאל, כלומר שהם תפקדו כסוכנים בריטים. הסגרתו של יואל ברנד, שבא להציע לבריטים את העסקה של אייכמן להצלת יהודי הונגריה, נועדה קודם כל למנוע ממנו לקומם את דעת הקהל בארץ ובעולם היהודי. אפשר להתווכח אם היו סיכויים כלשהם לביצוע עסקת ה”משאיות תמורת דם”; אבל ודאי שניתן היה, בעזרת יואל ברנד, לבצע הרעשת עולמות על טבח יהודי הונגריה. זה בדיוק מה שהנהגת היישוב פחדה ממנו לאורך כל תקופת השואה, שמא דעת הקהל היהודית בארץ תצא משליטה.

In Shmuel Tamir’s autobiography, which was published years after his death, there is a detailed description of Joel Brand’s “absorption” in Istanbul by Ehud Avriel and Teddy Kolek. Whoever reads these sections can not help but arrive at the conclusion that Brand’s arrest by the British in one of the train stations was achieved through the active aide of Kolek and Avriel, that is, that they acted as British agents. The handing over of Joel Brand, who came to offer the British Eichman’s deal for the rescue of Hungarian Jewry, was intended primarily to keep him from stirring public opinion in Eretz Yisrael and in the Jewish world. One can argue whether there was any chance of success for the “trucks for blood” deal; But it is certain that it was possible, with the help of Joel Brand, to create a world-wide shakeup regarding the slaughter of Hungarian Jewry. This is precisely what the leadership of the Yeshuv feared throughout the entire Holocaust, lest the Jewish public opinion in Eretz Yisrael will move beyond its control.