It seems as if much of the Israeli Government is not familiar with the Torah.
Surprised? Well, neither am I. But I heard a dvar torah with a great message today, one, I think, that anyone who cares about the future of the Jewish people should hear (or in this case, read). Admittedly, however, I'm unsure as to how all the pieces fit together (see end).
Mentioned in today’s Parsha, Va’eira, are the various stages of redemption that God promised to Moshe regarding the Jewish people:
6. Therefore, say to the Children of Israel: ‘I am Hashem, and I shall take you out from under the burdens of Egypt; and I shall rescue you from their service; and I shall redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7. And I shall take you to Me for a people and I shall be a God to you; and you shall know that I am Hashem your God, Who takes you out from under the burdens of Egypt. And I shall bring you to the land about which I have raised My hand to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I shall give it to you as a heritage – I am Hashem.’
We all know that on Passover we drink four cups of wine (or for some, grape juice) in commemoration of the first four stages. Why only four? One would think that five cups would be used – after all, five stages were mentioned. Why was the fifth cup omitted? (And don’t say it’s because the sages didn’t want us drunk…)
Rabbi Hershel Reichman, one of YU’s Roshei Yeshiva posed this question today after davening. He felt that the answer lay in the Jews’ voting in favor of the spies’ proposal (in parshat Sh’lach) to stay in the desert a bit longer until they, the Jewish people, were strong enough to fight the Seven Nations of Israel, opting to not trust in God who assured the Jews of their safety and right to the land. This refusal of And I shall bring you to the land, Rabbi Reichman said, is the reason why we don’t have a fifth cup. After all – we voted against completely trusting in God!!!
And to think that there are Jews who are still willing to give away any part of Israel for “peace.” Obviously we need to put in the effort of maintaining the land and borders. But, where’s the faith in God? Why not pray and have faith in God that we will ultimately have peace and that giving land away is not the way to go? It's been proven to not work! (Even the people who hold that on a theoretical level land should be traded for peace must admit that on a practical level it doesn't work.) Do these people not realize that this lack of faith is the very reason, according to many people, that the Jews have been exiled these many long years? The Chinese have been living in china for 4,000 years – why couldn’t it have been the same for the Jews? The answer, according to Rabbi Reichman, is that it could have been the same. If the Jews had had complete faith in God, they would have entered Israel immediately and we would have been spared much pain and anguish over the past 2,000 years.
And for those who believe that giving away land results in peace – wake up! It doesn’t work! The past fifteen years have proved that. Even Agudas Yisroel–who used to maintain that if giving up land would truly result in peace then halakhicly we not only could give away land, but should–recently officially changed their opinion that under no circumstances should we give away any part of Israel!
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that we, in fact, do have a fifth cup on Passover: the cup of Eliyahu HaNavi. And indeed, one of its functions is to remind ourselves of how we erred. However, it also is meant to remind us that one day, through atonement and proper faith in God, we will be able to drink that fifth cup.
I’m not sure about anyone else, but I sure want that fifth cup…
(So, I admit that although I agree strongly that land should be not be "traded" away, I'm not exactly positive as to how exactly "trading" away land = lack of faith in God. It seems to me that it's much more rooted in how we understand the mitzva of yishuv ha'aretz, the commandment to settle the land of Israel. For those who understand it as a Biblical commandment that applies for all time and requires (under certain circumstances) that people be willing to give up their lives for its sake, trading away land is obviously out of the question. For those who say that land can be traded away, yishuv ha'aretz is understood as a voluntary mitzvah (either a Biblical or Rabbinic one - unclear), one which certainly doesn’t call for us to make the ultimate sacrifice. This opinion also holds that if lives could be saved by trading away some of Israel, then we absolutely should, for saving lives is more important than anything (with three exceptions)! Of course, as written above, this latter opinion, on a practical level, doesn't work.
So, if anyone has any suggestions as to how "trading" away land = lack of faith in God please let me know. Thanks.)
16 comments:
What does Rav Aharon Lichtenstein say about land for peace? And btw, don't be a fundamentalist with a black and white conception of the issue: "there is LAND on the one hand and PEACE on the other." That's silly. Not all land is the same, and not all peace is the same. I agree that we shouldn't blindly give back land, but how on earth can you say that under no circumstances would you trade land for peace? That's insane.
I strongly agree with your premise that land should never be traded under the guise of "peace." Such exchanges, as you so eloquently surmised, are nothing more than de-facto manifestations of surrender, and worse, precursors for political disaster.
In response to "gushnick" above: with all due respect, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein is a rabbi, not a politician; what is being discussed here is the political dimension of this issue, not the Halachic dimension. In effect, this would render Rav Lichtenstein's opinion on this matter (albeit an interesting and perhaps enlightening topic) utterly irrelevant.
Whence shall the wicked learn?
Umm . . . you're wrong.
"And to think that there are Jews who are still willing to give away any part of Israel for “peace.” Obviously we need to put in the effort of maintaining the land and borders. But, where’s the faith in God? Why not pray and have faith in God that we will ultimately have peace and that giving land away is not the way to go?"
I sure as hell hope that this is not a political argument, cuz then it sucks. But then again, as a religious argument it sucks.
Wow, nicely said, Gustavis!
p.s. I don't get your point about Agudah. They make the theoretical argument that if you could get peace for land, you should do it. Then they change . . . because they see land for peace doesn't work?! Why would that change the theoretical halachic argument? That's stupid.
feifel, are you commenting on your own blog as if you're someone else to defend your own positions?
I see this blog has devolved into a beacon for dissent, rather than a lighthouse of harmony. Let us unite in peace and melody once again, and move forward, together, into the light.
"What does Rav Aharon Lichtenstein say about land for peace? And btw, don't be a fundamentalist with a black and white conception of the issue...Not all land is the same, and not all peace is the same. I agree that we shouldn't blindly give back land, but how on earth can you say that under no circumstances would you trade land for peace? That's insane."
gushnick January 6, 2008 8:15 PM
I don't know what RAL holds. But I do know that the Rav, when he was alive, held like the Aguda, that if we knew that trading away land would actually result in peace, we would be HALAKHICLY REQUIRED to trade away land. Rabbi Reichman told me he's 100% sure that if the Rav was alive today he would hold we can never trade land, as ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL IT DOESN'T WORK - PEACE WILL NEVER BE A RESULT AND WE ONLY MAKE THEM STRONGER AND US WEAKER. The years have proven that.
What do you propose, I wonder? Which land should be traded away? What about Jerusalem, as Olmert is planning? (And be aware that Jerusalem isn’t being “divided.” We will no longer have access to the old city – the real Jerusalem.) We traded away Gaza, whose halakhic status isn’t quite clear, and look what happened! Has there been peace? NO! And now the government is considering giving away half of the land! So which land do you propose we give away? Either way, our enemies will be stronger over us and we will have less land. And are you actually naïve enough to think that the Arabs will stop once they get specific land? THEY WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL THEY HAVE ALL OF ISRAEL and they certainly won’t stop once they realize that we’re willing to trade land. And you say that not all peace is the same. What do you mean by this? Only 15 rockets falling a day instead of 20?
Yes, I would say that under no circumstances would I trade land for peace, especially taking into account the results of previous deals. It’s not insane – it’s realistic.
"p.s. I don't get your point about Agudah. They make the theoretical argument that if you could get peace for land, you should do it. Then they change . . . because they see land for peace doesn't work?! Why would that change the theoretical halachic argument? That's stupid."
gushnic January 6, 2008 8:55 PM
Let me clarify. The Agudah understood yishiv ha'aretz according to the second position, that it's a voluntary mitzvah. Therefore, if we knew that peace would result from such a trade, then we would be HALAKHICLY REQUIRED to trade away land.
However, time has proven that on a practical level trading away land doesn't work, regardless of the theoretical understanding of yishuv ha'aretz. Thus, the Agudah changed their official position to not trade land.
So, they're not necessarily changing their theoretical understanding of the mitzvah. They're just saying that practially it doesn't work and more harm than good will come from such transactions.
"feifel, are you commenting on your own blog as if you're someone else to defend your own positions?"
Anonymous January 6, 2008 8:56 PM
Yes, but not as if I'm someone else. If I have an opinion then I must be prepared to defend and back it up. If I'm unable to, then it's quite possible that my opinions might change. After all, that's one of the reasons why I like people to comment - so I can learn different points of view.
----
I see this blog has devolved into a beacon for dissent, rather than a lighthouse of harmony. Let us unite in peace and melody once again, and move forward, together, into the light.
Anonymous January 6, 2008 8:57 PM
Hmm...I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that we're meant to agree on everything. In fact, I'm quite sure that I disagree strongly. But I guess, then, that such a stance only adds to the problem :) Cute analogy, though.
(Oh, and btw, it's not possible to unite in melody.)
contradiction:
1) The Rav held that if peace could be gotten for land it would be obligatory to trade.
2) The Rav would say today that you can NEVER trade land for peace.
Unless he changed the theoretical position expressed in 1, then 2 is false. Of course I understand that 2 is speaking in the practical plane.
contradiction:
Anonymous January 7, 2008 12:49 PM
There's no contradiction.
The Rav, during his lifetime, held like the second understanding of yishuv ha'aretz and therefore he felt that yes, if peace could be gotten for land it would be obligatory to trade.
Rabbi Reichman, however, told me that today the Rav would say that we cannot trade land, regardless of the theoretical understanding of the mitzvah, beacuse on a practical level it doesn't work.
The Rav, during his life said the following . . .
The Rav, during his death said differently.
Nothing better than meaningless speculation and name-dropping to liven up a denomination.
"Nothing better than meaningless speculation..."
critic January 7, 2008 8:36 PM
Why do you feel that it's meaningless?
Tzvi, lovely blog. But I dont think you understand what Rav Reichman was saying about the Rav or you havent explained it clearly.
The Rav hasnt changed his opinion now that he is dead, Rav Reichman clearly presumes that in todays political climate he doesnt feel that the Rav would be willing to give away land, as it wouldnt achieve peace. However if at some point in the future the political climate changed then according to the logic of the Rav we would be obligated to give away land.
Another point, your example of Gaza is not a definitive proof that land exchange can never work, for a start it was unilateral - wasnt done in return for peace. Secondly we found that back in the 80s land exchange with Egypt was relatively successful in creating peace.
if ur pray to hahsem, hahsem will listen if u give up and ask a q like if jewish lifes are in danger
no they are only in danger b/c of the jewish peoples sins
u have 2 options start a kiruv school righ by the border dispute and bring jews back or........pray to hashem, if u dont beleive hahsem will answer ur prayers go up to a tzaddik and ask him to pray
b/c as they say "when a tzaddik asks, hashem answers!"!!!!!!
tzvi u agree
facebook me
btw where r u these days
Post a Comment