Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson & C.S. Lewis (Lehavdil) Against Joining Conspiracies

Here’s Lewis (a very successful man by worldly measures) in a speech given to young men in the era finishing university was to begin “adult” life:

And the prophecy I make is this. To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still–just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naif or a prig – the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which “we” – and at the word “we” you try not to blush for mere pleasure – something “we always do.”

And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face – that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face – turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

Note: The above is true for many types of people, but for regular readers of text-intensive websites, especially, there is the old lure of knowledge. Knowledge is hardly concentrated in books. On the one hand, you may wish to expose the truth and its enemies, but how can you uncover that truth without getting to know the men who can tell you about it?

My main purpose in this address is simply to convince you that this desire is one of the great permanent mainsprings of human action. It is one of the factors which go to make up the world as we know it – this whole pell-mell of struggle, competition, confusion, graft, disappointment and advertisement, and if it is one of the permanent mainsprings then you may be quite sure of this. Unless you take measures to prevent it, this desire is going to be one of the chief motives of your life, from the first day on which you enter your profession until the day when you are too old to care. That will be the natural thing – the life that will come to you of its own accord. Any other kind of life, if you lead it, will be the result of conscious and continuous effort. If you do nothing about it, if you drift with the stream, you will in fact be an “inner ringer.” I don’t say you’ll be a successful one; that’s as may be. But whether by pining and moping outside Rings that you can never enter, or by passing triumphantly further and further in–one way or the other you will be that kind of man.

I have already made it fairly clear that I think it better for you not to be that kind of man.

It’s about the secrecy itself:

The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow.

If in your working hours you make the work your end, you will presently find yourself all unawares inside the only circle in your profession that really matters. You will be one of the sound craftsmen, and other sound craftsmen will know it. This group of craftsmen will by no means coincide with the Inner Ring or the Important People or the People in the Know. It will not shape that professional policy or work up that professional influence which fights for the profession as a whole against the public: nor will it lead to those periodic scandals and crises which the Inner Ring produces. But it will do those things which that profession exists to do and will in the long run be responsible for all the respect which that profession in fact enjoys and which the speeches and advertisements cannot maintain.

And if in your spare time you consort simply with the people you like, you will again find that you have come unawares to a real inside: that you are indeed snug and safe at the centre of something which, seen from without, would look exactly like an Inner Ring. But the difference is that the secrecy is accidental, and its exclusiveness a by-product, and no one was led thither by the lure of the esoteric: for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship. Aristotle placed it among the virtues. It causes perhaps half of all the happiness in the world, and no Inner Ring can ever have it.

Now, here is Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul on Re’eh:

בספרי בסתר לאמר. מלמד שאין אומרים דבריהם אלא בסתר וכן הוא אומר בנשף בערב יום אבל דברי תורה אין נאמרים אלא בפרהסיא וכן הוא אומר חכמות בחוץ תרונה. הכוונה לפענ”ד ע”פ מה שאמרתי בילדותי ממש הא דאמר שלמה המלך ע”ה בני אם יפתוך חטאים אל תאבה אם יאמרו לכה אתנו נארבה לדם נצפנה לנקי חנם לא תלך אתם וגו’ חכמות בחוץ תרונה ומה ענינו זה לזה. ואמרתי דהנה כלם האריכו דמה עצה נתן החכם שלמה ע”ה הא בלי ספק המפתים לא יגידו כי הוא רע החלטי רק שבלי ספק למראית עינים יכחישוהו בפיך הטוב והיפה וא”כ איך ידע לבלי יתפתה לבו להם והעקידה האריך הרבה בזה ואמרתי בזה דשלמה ע”ה נתן מופת חותך דהנה הכלל בזה דדבר חכמה ומע”ט א”צ שיהיה בסתר של עולם ואין האדם מתיירא ע”פ רוב אבל כשהאדם אומר לחבירו לכה ונצא השדה ואגיד לך דבר טוב בסוד אז תדע כי שקר דיבר כי הוא לרע מתכוין כי למה מעלים דבר טוב וז”ש אם יאמרו לכה אתנו ונארבה לדם נצפנה לנקי חנם בזה בעצמו תדע כי תמנע רגליך מנתיבתם כי רגליהם לרע ירוצו וז”ש כי חכמות בחוץ תרונה וא”צ הצנע וסתר. וזהו שאמר בספרי בסתר וכן הוא אומר בנשף בערב יום והיינו כמ”ש ועין נואף שמרה נשף כי המחשך מעשהו אבל ד”ת אין נאמרים אלא בפרהסיא וכן הוא אומר חכמות בחוץ תרונה ות”ל כי כוונתי מעצמי לדברי הספרי הנ”ל.

He doesn’t make it clear where the Sifrei ends, and starts borrowing from various Midrashim, so here is the original language (ראה פיסקא לה):

בסתר לאמר. מלמד שאין אומרים דבריהם אלא בסתר. וכן הוא אומר (משלי ז’) בנשף בערב יום באישון לילה ואפילה. אבל דברי תורה אין נאמרים אלא בפרהסיא וכן הוא אומר (שם א’) חכמות בחוץ תרונה וגו’.

Aim for Torah In English, NOT ‘Yeshivish’!

Politics and the Yeshivish Language

By Cole S. Arenson

March 05, 2021

The summer after our junior year at our pluralistic Jewish high school near Washington, D.C., my stepbrother and I spent two weeks at Yale with 35 or so modern Orthodox peers. The program we attended taught the works of C.S. Lewis and Joseph Soloveitchik, and I was eager, for the first time in my life, to meet serious Orthodox people my age. Which I did. But we had a language problem.

These kids from Teaneck, Long Island, and Boston, learned in subjects Jewish and general, spoke (a mild form of) what sociolinguists call Yeshivish, an Aramaic/Yiddish/Hebrew-infused dialect of English used by many Orthodox Americans. When speaking with me, my new friends were OK—but not great—at using only standard English. And to their credit, they graciously answered questions like, “Dovid, what does al achas kama v’kama mean?” or “What is the Triangle K, and why wouldn’t someone—what’d that guy say—hold by it?” or “Can just anyone bavorn?” But all the same, my decade of Hebrew study, my lifelong attendance at an old-school Conservative synagogue, and my charitable disposition toward Orthodoxy couldn’t thwart the belief that my peers’ very vibrant religion was also downright bizarre. It was a religion I got only in translation.

I was the lonely man of faithlessness, frustrated by an in-speak that kept me out, even though nobody was actually trying to keep me out. After one alienating day I demanded an explanation from one of the program’s faculty, Meir Soloveichik, the noted Orthodox rabbi who leads Congregation Shearith Israel in Manhattan. “Why would you go in for this religion?” I asked. He replied: “Because it’s true.”

Because it’s true. This was something novel, and for somebody not yet Orthodox, something of a problem. The content and form of Soloveichik’s statement—he and the other faculty always spoke to me in 18-karat English—denied that Judaism was esoteric or secret, and that denial invited me to join him and my peers in the community of faith. Performed by my peers, Orthodoxy was very cool but very much not mine— offered in my mother tongue, as Soloveichik did then and after, I could now understand it, and so had to reject or to accept it.

I ended up accepting, but the linguistic stumbling block I had to overcome stops many people from having the choice. Soloveichik is one of the few Orthodox personages nowadays whose speeches and essays about Judaism can be understood by anyone with a good command of standard English. Jonathan Sacks was of course the master in this respect, and he enlightened millions of Jews, and tens of millions of gentiles, about the claims of Judaism. Norman Lamm. Erica Brown, too. The list is short. I haven’t heard more than a dozen sermons in Orthodox synagogues that would qualify (Soloveichik’s aside). Peruse Yeshiva University’s audio archive, and try to find a lecture that a secular Jew with a university but no Jewish education could follow. Orthodox Judaism—which I believe in, practice, and love, and which I think every Jew has an obligation to believe in, practice, and lovehas cordoned itself off from 5 million American Jews. And the most potent instrument of this auto-segregation is Yeshivish, the language in which so much Orthodox life is conducted.

Yeshivish is, simply put, “one more of the language varieties Jews have created based on the language of their nation in residence,” writes John McWhorter, the Columbia linguist. Yiddish grew from a Jewish German, Ladino from a Jewish Spanish; Bukharan Jews speak a kind of Jewish Persian. “Languages coming together is a default,” McWhorter writes. Four melded to make Yeshivish: English provides the grammar and much of the vocabulary. Yiddish, the vernacular of most Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, is the largest non-English source of words. Next is Hebrew, the language of sacred Jewish texts, excepting the Talmud, which was composed in Aramaic—the fourth influence—and which is studied by the most conspicuous group of Yeshivish speakers: Yeshiva students (bochrim) and their teachers (rebbeim).

Like Hebrew for Israeli Jews, Yeshivish is both a sacred and a secular language, and its content varies by group and by context. Hasidic enclaves use more Yiddish in their Yeshivish. As a friend of mine points out to me, men as a rule speak with more Aramaic than women, because in many communities women don’t study Talmud. The Teaneck, New Jersey, variant is tamer—more comprehensible to most Americans—than that of Kew Gardens Hills, Queens, which is again milder than what’s spoken in Lakewood, New Jersey. Sometimes the foreignness of Yeshivish manifests in isolated nouns and adjectives: “Sheyfele, behave yourselves, or Tati will give you a patsh,” a mother might admonish her children in a park. Then there’s the ubiquitous “by,” an import from Yiddish (and before that, German) that replaces numerous prepositions in standard English, as in: “I heard by the shmorg that the kallah got her sheitl by Shevy’s. Shpitz!”—or, as we might say, “I heard over hors d’oeuvres that the bride bought her wig at Eliza’s. Very ritzy!” Sometimes the non-English element is thicker. Here is a defense of Donald Trump’s sanity: “M’heicha teisi are you noyteh to say that Trump has a dibbuk? He’s a groyse friend of Klal Yisroel, and his machatunim are frum!” (“Why are you inclined to say that Trump is a lunatic? He’s a great friend of the Jews and his in-laws are observant.”)

And in religious contexts, prepositions and articles and suffixes are often the only signs the speaker knows English. “L’maskanah Raboysai, the Mishneh Torah is takeh mechaleik between stam eidus mukcheshes, which is mevatel the cheftzah shel eidus, and eidim zoymemin, who are tokeif the gavra eidim, mamash the kat!” Roughly speaking, that means, “Gentlemen, in conclusion: Maimonides’ Code distinguishes between conflicting testimonies, which simply cancel each other out, and witnesses who accuse other witnesses of conspiratorial perjury, thus attacking their very credibility as people.”

This is all very interesting for the lexicographically or linguistically minded, and I can recommend to you Chaim Weiser’s Frumspeak, the first dictionary of Yeshivish, and Sarah Bunin Benor’s Becoming Frum, on Orthodox life and language. But what I want to ask now is whether this is the way things ought to be. Judaism, the religion itself, is a severe dogma and way of life. Its liturgy and texts are in Hebrew, which I myself knew well enough when I became Orthodox but which is foreign to most American Jews. To add on top of this a hybridized communal dialect—well, let me put it this way: If you were trying to make Orthodox Judaism inaccessible, what would you do differently?

Yeshivish doesn’t trouble me for ideological reasons. I don’t have some stodgy, Ivy League devotion to “pure” English, because there is no such thing. Nor do I think Orthodox Jews should be like other Americans—Jewish difference is Jewish strength. And it’s not that I don’t love Hebrew, Aramaic, and Yiddish—I know the first, I read the second, and as for the third, well, I hope she’ll teach me, whoever she is.

No, I’m against Yeshivish because it hinders an urgent task of Orthodox Jews in this country: restoring to the Lord’s covenant our rapidly assimilating brethren. The math is just brutal. According to projections by Edieal Pinker of the Yale School of Management, the Reform and Conservative movements will shrink by a million members over the next 40 years. Those who remain will mostly be older; the younger will be very likely to intermarry. Perhaps the terror of anonymity or perhaps a Jewish catastrophe will awaken millions of Jews who, however they identify, right now simply do not act as though Jewish continuity outranks their pursuit of American happiness. Perhaps. But there is a third option: the largest recruitment effort in Jewish history, commanded and staffed from Orthodox enclaves.

Orthodox Jews have the material resources, the institutional know-how, and above all the love of God and of Torah needed for such a mission. But if we want to reverse American Jewry’s self-mortification, Orthodox Jews will need to scotch their smug pity for liberal Jews—Orthodox folks, please do not pretend not to know what I’m talking about—in favor of evangelical zeal and religious fluency in English, the only language common to American Jews.

Most Americans Jews don’t know a chumra from a kula. HaKadosh Baruch Hu and the Ribbono Shel Olam are as alien to them as sushi was to the shtetl. Avraham Avinu, Sarah Imeinu, Dovid Ha’Melech, Esther HaMalka, the Gra, the Grach, the Rov, the Rav, the Rebbe—these are the heroes of Jewish history, but naming them as I’ve done (rather than as “Abraham,” “Sarah,” etc.) puts that history on a shelf marked “not for you.” Anywhere a non-Orthodox Jew might be listening in—an office, a college dining hall, and many more synagogues than you’d think—is a place where a small change in language can invite someone toward Judaism instead of repelling her from it.

“But you sound so goyish!” a very scholarly friend of mine said to me about an article I’d just written. He did not mean to censure; even though he agreed with my article, its diction was foreign to the Yiddishkeit—the sacred Jewish canopy—in which his parents raised him and in which he raises his own children. I sympathize with this knee-jerk linguistic tribalism—sort of. Militating against it is the chance to save someone’s Jewish identity by just getting over your squeamishness about sounding like a gentile. Such squeamishness should be heeded when it protects a thing of value, ignored when it attacks a thing of value.

But perhaps talking like this (to adapt a phrase of McWhorter’s) is a thing of serious value indeed? As two other friends, one ultra-Orthodox, the other traditional and egalitarian, conveyed to me: “Ima and Abba taught me Torah in these words and not in other words. I pray to Hashem, not to the Almighty—and by the way I don’t pray, I daven. I don’t know from Moses—at my Pesach Seder, we hear about Moshe Rabbeinu. Bubby and Zayde spoke Yiddish and now in America we speak this. Moreover: Yeshivish inoculates Orthodox Jews against assimilation—whenever they open their mouths, they’re reminded they’re different. The very public complaints of refugees from the right wing of Orthodoxy about poor English education? That’s the price of religious life in a country looking to love Jews to demographic death.”

Cultural in-speak does have its functions. And it’s not just cultures—families, friends, and married couples often can’t be fully understood by outsiders. And that’s a good thing. Semiprivate languages express the special regard we have for certain people, the gratitude for our common form of life. The richest goods—marriage, parenthood, friendship, country—cannot exist unless some people are in and others are out. The relationship between man and God is the most particular of all: God is jealous, demanding total fealty from creatures on each of whom He has stamped an unreproducible image of Himself. We do not talk to or about God as we talk about others. To do otherwise is idolatrous. In a similar vein: To sacrifice a Jewish way of talking for a gentile one—we wouldn’t know ourselves.

But let me ask something. Who’s we? I think the proper referent of we is all the Jews. We’re a family. Christians are content to live each among his own countrymen, united by a creed professed in hundreds of local vernaculars. Jews are bound to each other by blood and by faith, each Jew the guarantor of every other. I once asked a Chabad rabbi how the Lubavitcher Rebbe got thousands of couples to go all over the world. This rabbi told me he once heard the Rebbe speaking to a group of these couples about to get on a plane: See that man in the suit with the briefcase and no yarmulke? the Rebbe said. That’s your brother. The woman who doesn’t know her grandmother spoke a gorgeous Yiddish? That’s your sister. Many of our brothers and sisters do not know our words. Most of them will not learn ours unless we first learn theirs. Not to do so, not to speak Jewishly in English, is malign neglect.

But is speaking standard English self-sabotage? If Jewish children talk like gentiles they’ll become more like gentiles, won’t they? Here’s my proposal: communal bilingualism. Not in Yeshivish and in English, but in English and in Hebrew. To our shame do so many Orthodox Jews speak bad Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of Jewish texts and the language of Israel, the world’s largest Jewish community. If American Orthodox Jews want to be Jewish in a Jewish language, Hebrew is it, as a matter of religious obligation and national solidarity. But for those of us who remain in America, we have duties to Jews who, through no fault of their own, were raised far from faith. Besides, as a matter of professional necessity, most Orthodox Jews need to know English anyhow. I’m proposing an expanded vocabulary for the sake of a good, I might say holy, cause.

For unsung exemplars in Yeshivish World, look to those who do professional kiruv—internal Jewish recruitment, from the Hebrew word for “closeness.” Those working for AISH, Chabad, Meor and the like have to be Jewishly fluent in English or they can’t do their jobs. But their jobs are our jobs, too: ensuring all Jews see themselves and act as part of our covenantal destiny.

I know what it’s like to trade old thoughts, clothes, friends, ways, and words for new ones. It’s like jogging on a winter day: The only way to warm up is to go fast, but go too fast and you’ll pass out. It’s an astonishing thing that God asked of Abraham—leave the place of your birth for the land that I will show you. Nowadays, so far as we know, God doesn’t issue many personalized invitations; He’s left that task to human beings. Invitations should be tailored to invitees, especially when the adventure itself is so strange and strict. I believe with all my heart that this adventure, the Jewish covenant with God, is true and redemptive, the source of meaning and love in an otherwise cold cosmos. If you agree with me, do everything in your power to share it with others—in words that might be new to you, but which those listening to you will understand, and so cannot possibly ignore.

From Tablet, here.

Remaining in Galus for the Money? What if You LOSE the Money?

The Galus Money Trap

One of the most common reasons/excuses Jews choose to remain in galus is monetary considerations. Many are unwilling to compromise on the material standard of living they have become accustomed to. They obsessively compare Israel to galus in every materialistic sense, inevitably find it inferior in some area, and triumphantly declare that Israel isn’t for them. It is a sad commentary on the spiritual assimilation of many Orthodox Jews

Others believe that living in Israel all but assures financial ruin. They know someone who made aliya, couldn’t make a living, and was forced to return to galus. Surely if they made the same reckless move, they would join the millions of destitute Jews in Israel who are starving in the streets. They just can’t make it in Israel, and there’s no point in trying. Echoing the spies who had this notion long before them, “It is a land that consumes its inhabitants.”

As Chazal teach us, a falsehood that persists must have an element of truth to it, and this is no exception. Unless someone has a rare level of faith and commitment, it would be irresponsible to make aliya without exploring parnassa opportunities in advance. Our idealistic actions must be properly grounded in reality.

The problem is when “pragmatism” becomes such a dominant force that idealism is rendered hypothetical.

Torah-observant Jews must confront the following questions:

1) What is the monetary value of finally leaving galus and returning to our homeland? What price should we be willing to pay, if the privilege of fulfilling this dream was a commodity we needed to purchase?

2) What amount of material upgrade is worth leaving Eretz Yisrael to dwell in a foreign land? We are not talking about the extreme case of someone who literally cannot survive in Israel, but those who can live more comfortably outside the land. How much money should be enough to justifiably entice a Jew to leave Israel?

3) In theory, if every Jew could live much more comfortably in galus, or received an overwhelming offer to leave the land, could we allow our collective stake in Eretz Yisrael to essentially be bought out? If not, why not? If there is a critical mass that must refuse such a financial enticement, how many people is that, and how are we to decide who must remain as a token Jewish presence?

4) Shouldn’t the many impoverished Jews in galus – including those with expensive lifestyles who still cannot make ends meet – make aliya? Shouldn’t the many Jews who use monetary considerations as a reason/excuse to remain in galus commit to aliya if they were offered a lucrative job in Israel? At what point can we fairly say there isn’t anything to lose by trying, or that the risk is minimal enough that idealism should push the needle?

5) How do Torah-observant Jews reconcile their “pragmatism” with the fundamental principle that parnassa comes from Hashem? On what basis do they believe that their ability to earn a living – and, by direct extension, God’s ability to provide the parnassa He has decreed for them – depends entirely on their remaining in galus indefinitely?

6) Is it not conceivable that the material comforts of galus are a test, even a lure of the yetzer hara to deter Jews from returning home? How can it be that many Jews consider the miraculous return of millions of Jews to Israel in two generations as “the work of Satan”, yet consider the Holocaust the plan of Hashem, and the material comforts of galus as a gift from heaven? Is this not a mental illness?

Orthodox Jews in galus know the Torah perspective to these questions, but they bury it under a grave of rationalizations and deflections. Here it is:

The monetary value of leaving galus is inestimable. No amount of material upgrade is worth remaining in galus, nor leaving Eretz Yisrael for a more comfortable life. Those who are literally forced out of the land by truly extenuating circumstances should leave with the greatest of anguish and the intense desire to return at the earliest opportunity. This is our law and our tradition.

The notion of allowing ourselves to be bought out of our land for any price is anathema. Throughout history we have bought out interlopers who occupied our land (out of necessity, for lack of ability or courage to expel them). The idea of letting foreigners bribe us to willingly abandon our land is incompatible with Judaism. Every individual Jew who allows material enticements – not absolute necessities – to keep him in exile has sold part of his soul and weakened the entire nation. For what? A bigger home? A fancier car? Cheaper groceries? The Jews in the desert remembered the fish and vegetables they enjoyed as slaves in Egypt, and wished to return. Do we shake our heads at their pettiness, then close the Chumash and emulate it?

As long as a Jew can so much as get by in Israel, he should be unwilling to stay in galus for any price. And getting by doesn’t mean living a life of excess in the most expensive parts of the country. It means settling the land and finding a way to make it work.

Amazingly enough, and contrary to the common jokes and snide remarks, moving to Israel may even be the best way of preserving one’s wealth.

Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal makes an astounding observation in Eim Habanim Semeicha Chapter 3, Section 48. He discusses the Midrashic teaching that Yaacov made himself “like a bridge” to transfer his possessions across the river to save them from falling into the hands of Eisav. Rav Teichtal derives that it is precisely because Yaacov was like a bridge – with only one foot in galus and one foot firmly rooted in Israel – that he merited to save his money. All the years that Yaacov was compelled to dwell in galus, he had one foot out the door. If not for this – if Yaacov had two feet firmly planted in galus – his money would have fallen to Eisav.

Rav Teichtal explains that this is a lesson for the descendants of Yaacov up to our times. Those who turn their thoughts and their hearts away from Israel ultimately lose their money to the goyim. Instead of using this money to redeem the land and rebuild it, it goes to Eisav. However, those who have one foot out the door, eager to leave galus, have the merit of Eretz Yisrael over their possessions as if they were already there. It is the best financial decision they could ever make!

Remaining in galus does not protect a Jew’s wealth – it is a primary reason for him to lose it!

Rav Teichtal sums it up with the following stinging comment from the sefer Pardes Yosef: “As long as a Jew does not return to his land, and does not sit under his vine and fig tree, his wealth and his business are utterly worthless.”

I would add the following teaching from Sanhedrin 112A. The Gemara is discussing an ir hanidachas, a city in which the majority of the residents were lured to avoda zara. The entire city must be burned to the ground, including the property and possessions of any righteous people who lived in the city.

Rabbi Shimon asks why the Torah said the property of the tzaddikim should be destroyed. After all, they did not participate in the avoda zara. For all we know, they might have even protested it!

Rabbi Shimon answers as follows: “What caused them to live in the midst of the city? Their money. Therefore, their money is lost.”

This is a stinging message not just for those who choose to live in a “sin city” for monetary reasons, but for those who choose to remain in galus for monetary reasons. Jews who live where they do not belong for the sake of money, at the expense of their spiritual wellbeing and purpose as Jews, acquire a “reverse segula” to lose the money anyway.

I am not a prophet, and I cannot guarantee that everyone who moves to Israel will prosper in the immediate future. That is not the way of the world. Nor do I recommend for people to move without making reasonable plans and preparations (though, the way things are going in much of the world, that might soon be advisable). However, the Torah perspective on the money trap of galus is clear.

Every Jew in galus should have one foot out the door, and strive to lift the other.

____________

Rabbi Chananya Weissman’s sefer Go Up Like a Wall is available for free at https://chananyaweissman.com/book.php?id=8.  Hard copies are available on Amazon for the minimum price they allowed, and also available in Israel at no cost.