THE SECOND COMMANDMENT: “Thou shalt not displace”

לא יהיה לך

The second commandment contains four precepts. 1. The prohibition of believing in any god or entity, mythological or natural, which has an autonomous intelligence or divine power. 2. The prohibition of making idols. 3. The prohibition of prostrating to idols. 4. The prohibition of worshiping idols or false gods.

The first of these four precepts, in Hebrew לא יהיה לך, is defined by the Rambam (Mishne Tora 1: 6) as the prohibition to “conceive” that there are other divine powers, independent of HaShem.

To be clear, this precept or Mitsva is not about believing or not believing in God or worshipping other gods or idols (that will come in the next three precepts of this commandment). This Mitsva, like the first commandment, is limited to the universe of ideas and beliefs. In this case, accepting, conceiving , declaring that there is another god or other powers independent of HaShem.

In the historical context of the Tora, the pagan peoples of antiquity accepted and declared the existence of multiple “divine” powers, endowed with intelligence and autonomy. For example, in the pagan world, astrologers claimed that the planets exert an influence on the events of human life. The Greeks and Romans represented anthropomorphic gods who supposedly ruled the sea, the land, fertility, etc.

One might think that today, modern man has reached a very advanced knowledge, enabling us to understand reality without medieval prejudices. Although, that does not mean that humanity has fully overcome the temptation to replace God. That temptation, as we tried to explain yesterday, is not due to a desire to not “believing” in God. The biggest challenge of a liberal person is to accept what the first commandment declares: the “authority” of God. In ancient times, as in the famous case of King Nimrod, accepting the authority of God implied a significant limitation to the power of the king. There was a keen interest to displace God and replace Him with the leadership of the monarch of the day. But this displacement is not a phenomenon that occurred only in the past. Individuals who have a problem with the concept of God as the supreme authority will make every effort to keep “displacing HaShem” and replacing Him with other “gods” who demand nothing of our behavior.

I was watching a fantastic documentary by PBS’s “Nature”, Natural Born Hustlers, episode 1, presenting the amazing tricks that certain animals develop to deceive their predators and staying alive. I think it’s worth seeing because it strengthens our Emunah in the infinite wisdom of God, who allows each species to develop a different strategy changing their colors, disguising their scent, or faking their own death (see here the trailer).

A PBS production, loyal to its liberal philosophy, will not be saying what King David said in Tehillim when he spoke of nature, ” מה רבו מעשיך ה “,” How great are Your works, HaShem! “. PBS is careful to clarify when presenting any of these amazing tricks (some of which PBS ironically calls “miracle”) that these incredible skills are the result of “millions of years of evolution.” As if evolution were an intelligent, self-sufficient entity, independent of God, “guided” by random mechanisms to handle all the ecological systems of our planet.

I think the attribution of this Wisdom and Intelligence to nature is a modern example of the displacement of God and His replacement by a supposed superpower that is not called “God” or “Creator”  but is treated as such.

 



THE FIRST COMMANDMENT and the Golden Calf

אנכי ה’ אלקיך

When the people of Israel thought that Moses was not returning from Mount Sinai, they made an idol, a golden calf. At the official opening of the new “religion”, which was similar to the religion of the Egyptians who worshiped animals, the people said: “Ele ELOQEJA Israel,” “This is your God, Israel.”

It is interesting to note that, consciously or unconsciously, the mob used the same expression that HaShem used in the First Commandment when He said “Anokhi HaShem, ELOQEJA” I am HaShem, your God. ”

Obviously, their intention was NOT to replace HaShem by a golden calf. The Jewish people still believed in God. But not everyone was satisfied with the fact that HaShem was also “ELOQEJA”. A God that one must “serve” behaving with integrity and with a blameless moral conduct …

The Golden Calf was an entirely different type of “ELOQEJA”. To “serve” the calf the people got drunk and indulged in lust and promiscuity. That was the way pagan idols were worshiped.

This detail is revealing and very relevant to understanding the nature of our Emuna or Jewish faith. Beyond the obvious, the main difference between serving HaShem and serving the calf is that the golden calf does not speak, it demands nothing, and it does not get involved in what I do or do not do. While HaShem requires that we practice qedusha, obeying His commandment controlling our impulses, the golden calf is worshiped by obeying one’s own basic instincts. The Golden Calf did not meddle in people’s private life. It had no ethical or spiritual demands. Like the Greek or Roman gods, the calf only asked that occasionally its worshippers would offer it some sacrifice to satisfy its own appetites.

I read a little bit about the life of Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of last century. I was always interested in understanding the religious philosophy of this great man. What I learned is that Einstein believed in God, but in his own way. He did not believe in the God of Abraham Itshaq and Yaaqob, a “personal” God, i.e., a God that tells us what we should do with our lives. The God of Einstein, and of many progressive or liberal individuals, might be the wise Creator of the world, but he would not get into what I do or do not do. Like the god of Aristotle, who created the world and then abandoned it to its fate. Or the passive God of Spinoza, who is everything (= nothing) , but does not have a specific will, or if he has, he did not reveal it to humankind. Millions of people might believe in God, but they relate to Him ח”ו as if He was a golden calf: an entity which we do not need to obey, or listen to.
The first commandment, on the other hand, makes it clear that HaShem is not only the Creator of the world. He defines what is right and what is wrong. The Jewish way of relating to God passes first through the obedience of His commandments. Observing the code of conduct that He has established. Our relationship with HaShem, as the relationship between spouses or between parents and children, is a series of rights andobligations.

Following the First Commandment, we, the people of Israel demonstrate our belief and love for God by obeying His will.


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS: What is the First Commandment really saying?

אנכי ה ‘אלקיך

Yesterday, we explained that the opening statement of the Ten Commandments “I am HaShem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage” (Ex. 20: 2) can be seen as an introduction to the 10 Commandments, or as an independent precept, a Mitsva. Following this second opinion, the Rambam’s, we must ask, what exactly is the particular obligation that this commandment is indicating us to do or to believe?

Traditionally, it is understood that this commandment expresses our duty to believe in the “existence” of God. Which, as we saw, was questioned by some rabbis who felt that our belief in God should not be the subject of a biblical “ordinance.”

 

There may be, however, a slightly deeper way of understanding this commandment which I believe will help us to understand it better, and it would make easier for us to harmonize between the two conflicting opinions.

To begin with, we must read carefully the brief but very precise words of the Rambam in Sefer HaMitsvot and in MT, Yesode HaTora 1: 5-6, which shows that Maimonides refers to the belief in God’s existence as an ‘iqar, a principle of our faith, rather than as an “order” to fulfill. We, the Jewish people have acquired the knowledge of the existence of God, first, by our ancestors, who were eyewitnesses to the revelation of God at Mount Sinai. We “inherited” their experience, and we became “witnesses” of His existence. Based on this experience that we inherited, we also develop our own intellectual perception and our personal experience of God’s existence.
If so, if this command does not express the order to believe in the “existence” of God, what is this commanding ordering us?

We should examine in depth two words. The first, is the verb “to be” in the present tense (I am) and the second, is the Hebrew word ELOQEJA (conventionally translated as “your God”).

I AM
Let us read again the first three words of the First Commandment: “אנכי ה אלקיך”. Traditionally they are translated as “I am HaShem ELOQEJA (= your God)”. But here we can identify an ambiguity. In Hebrew, the verb “to be” in the present tense is never written. The word “am” (=I am) in Hebrew, does not exist, it is rather implicit in the sentence. This, therefore, gives us some room to try a different translation, without straying at all from the literal meaning of this verse. Instead of “I am HaShem ELOQEJA” we could translate it as “I, HaShem, I am ELOQEJA”.
What is the difference?

When understood as a commandment, “I am HaShem ELOQEJA” would seemingly indicate the obligation to believe in the existence of God. While “I, HaShem, am ELOQEJA” would be saying that HaShem, Whom we already know and believe in Him, He is our ELOQEJA. In this second reading, God’s existence is a given, a known fact. And the obligation that follows here is to affirm and behave knowing that HaShem is our ELOQEJA.

ELOQEJA
Now, the million dollar question is what does “ELOQEJA” mean? The name Eloqim, usually translated as “God”, actually means “Supreme and Sovereign Judge,” in other words: the Highest Authority. Thus, this commandment would NOT be indicating our obligation to believe in the “existence” of God but to accept Him as the supreme authority which governs our lives; our Sovereign.

The difference between these two readings of the First Commandment may seem insignificant. But think about this: many people with liberal values might believe in the existence of a Creator, but might still be unwilling to accept Him as Someone they must obey. Saying that HaShem is our ELOQIM, is asserting that He has the authority to establish what is right and what is wrong.
To conclude, we could rephrase the first Commandment as follows: “You must know that I, HaShem, I am your ELOQEJA, your Sovereign. I freed you from slavery in Egypt, and now you are no longer under the authority of Pharaoh. Now you are exclusively under MY jurisdiction.”

 



THE FIRST COMMANDMENT: A Mitsva or a preamble?

Today we begin to analyze the first of the Ten Commandments. As we shall see, understanding what this commandment is saying is not easy. Why? Mainly because the First Commandment is not formulated in the imperative mode. Thus the Tora says: “I am HaShem your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves.” Here, seemingly, there is NO specific order as in the case for example of “You Shall Not Kill”. The First Commandment does not tell us that we have to do something or avoid doing anything …
Therefore, the first question we need to address: is this Commandment a Biblical precept, an order we must follow, or is it just a preamble to the other commandments, that is: the way the Creator presents Himself to the people of Israel before pronouncing His commandments.
Through history, rabbis debated at length about the nature of the First Commandment. For Maimonides, for example, despite not being formulated in the imperative mode, the First Commandment expresses a command to follow; roughly: to “believe in God.”
For other rabbis, such as Nahmanides or Rabbi Hasdai Crescas, the First Commandment does not express a specific order to follow. Rabbi Crescas writes in his book “Or HaShem” that there cannot be a commandment that requires us to believe in the existence of God. Recognizing God’s existence cannot be a “law” but a “philosophical” prerequisite for all other commandments. Therefore, he explains, the First Commandment, which emphasizes the existence of God, is just as a preamble to all other commandments which are presented below, is not a commandment itself. It is similar to “We the People…” in the American constitution.
Now we will try to understand HaRambam, Maimonides’ opinion on this subject. As a rule, Maimonides would not move an iota from what the Gemara says. And the Gemara in Masekhet Makot explains that of the 613 precepts of the Tora, 611 were given through Moshe Rabbenu, and the remaining two were transmitted “directly” by HaShem. And those two precepts transmitted by HaShem are the First and the Second Commandment (אנכי ולא יהיה לך)! This is also evident from the fact that only the first two Commandments were expressed in the first person singular ( “I amHaShem your God” … “You shall have no other gods before Me“) while from the Third Commandment, Moshe addresses the people of Israel, and refers to HaShem in the third person (the biblical text says, “You shall not take the name of God in vain” and it does not say “You shall not take My name in vain”). According to this Talmudic text, the first commandment is indeed a Mitsva, a Biblical precept, not a preamble. And so, in his famous book Sefer haMitsvot, a book that presents the 613 precepts of the Tora, Maimonides mentions the First Commandment as the Number One Mitsva of the Tora.
Following this view, our next question is: What is specifically the order, the precept, that we are commanded to follow and fulfill in this commandment that says: “I am HaShem your God”?
We will examine this point BH tomorrow.


10 COMMANDMENTS: How come we don’t know them better?

In the coming days, we will examine BH the Ten Commandments or עשרת הדברות.

Question: Why the 10 Commandments, despite their notoriety, are not so known and studied? Should not the 10 Commandments be the first text that students study (and memorize !) in every Jewish school?

I think we need a little history to understand what happened …

On the one hand, the recitation of the 10 Commandments is recorded in the Mishna (Tamid 5: 1) as part of the daily liturgy of the Bet haMiqdash (destroyed in the year 68 of the Common Era). Why then we do not recite every day the 10 Commandments anymore?
The first hint is found in the Gemara Berachot 12b where we find several rabbis in the 3rd and 4th-century c.e. trying to re-establish the recitation of the 10 Commandments in Babylonia, but the rabbinical courts did not allow it. Why? The cryptic Hebrew words used by the Gemara are “מפני תרעומת המינים”, which means more or less “because of the scandalous [ideas and practices] of the heretics”. But what is the Gemara referring to with these words?

In the New Testament, composed around the time of the Gemara, the 10 Commandments are viewed as “the only commandments revealed directly by God”. Therefore they are “the only commandments that are mandatory for Church followers”, implying that all other commandments have not a “direct” divine origin, and therefore are not mandatory. This marginalization of the other 603 commandments served the strategy of the ancient Church, which pursued the formulation of a “reformed Judaism”, a new religion devoid of almost all ritual obligations. To better understand this fascinating subject, I would refer the reader to Paul Johnson’s book, “History of Christianity.” In the first pages of this superb book, Johnson explains that the apostles debated as to what parts of Jewish law should remain compulsory in the “new religion.” Johnson tells us that Romans felt very attracted to Jewish monotheism and ethics, but they were not willing to be circumcised, to stop working on Shabbat, or limiting themselves to the Kashrut dietary laws, etc. and therefore very few Roman converted to Judaism. The apostles saw a great opportunity: the potential conversion of thousands of Romans to their new religion. And to make things more accessible to prospective converts, which the Church desperately needed, the apostles formulated a “light” version of Judaism (later called Christianity). In this new Judaism, circumcision for example was replaced by baptism; the prohibition of working on the Sabbath day was reinterpreted, and virtually all ritual laws were virtually repealed, except for the 10 Commandments …

The “heretics” mentioned by the Talmud is an unambiguous reference to the first Christian ideologists (the Talmud, especially in later editions, could not be more explicit, because a direct reference to Christianity could easily trigger persecution and killing of Jews, and justify the burning of the Jewish “demonic” books).
In any case, this debate about the 10 Commandments also generated a very famous question: Should we stand up when we hear the public reading of the 10 Commandments in Parashat Yitro and Va’ethanan?

Maimonides said NO. He explained that while the Ten Commandments are viewed for other religions as superior to the other commandments of the Hebrew Bible, to the Jewish tradition, the Ten Commandments are obviously an essential part of the Tora, but they are NOT more important than every other Biblical precept. To emphasize this fundamental concept and to express the Jewish belief in the uniformity of all the mitzvot of the Tora and their Divine origin, Maimonides forbade to stand when the Ten Commandments are read in the synagogue. Standing for the Ten Commandments would constitute a statement that these commandments are superior to the other 603 commandments, as the Church asserts.

In practical terms, Rabbi Obadia Yosef z “l writes that in order not to contradict Maimonides, when the 10 Commandments are read in public, we should invite up to the Tora an erudite or elderly person and stand from the beginning of the Aliya in honor of that person, not as a statement on the “superiority” of the 10 Commandments.
Returning to our original question, why the 10 Commandments are not better known and studied? It is quite possible that this long debate about the supreme importance other religions give to the 10 Commandments has unfortunately collaborated to our rather superficial knowledge of them.
BH in the coming days will try to remedy this a little bit analyzing the 10 Commandments as a whole, and exploring every commandment in particular.
To find all the Hebrew texts mentioned in this article, and many more references on this fascinating topic, click here

 



PIRQE ABOT 3:1: The sleeping rider syndrome

 

דע מאין באת ….

 

Where do you come from? Where are you going to?  WHO are you going to be facing when you report what you have done with your life?

 

In this Mishna, ‘Aqabiya ben Mahalalel reminds us of the exciting topic of the interaction between body and soul. He says that the best way to avoid committing a transgression is to remember that my body comes from something that is materially insignificant ( “a fetid drop …”), and it also goes to nowhere ( “…food for worms”). In contrast, my soul has a nature that is not material. It is not made of atoms, molecules or cells. It will not die or disappear. It will survive  the death of my body. My soul, in other words, is “I, less my body.” After life, my soul has absolute awareness of its identity (it knows that it’s “I”) , preserves my memory (knows the things I did with my life) and my conscience (feels righteous, if I led a righteous life). And, therefore, my soul can and should be held accountable by the Supreme Judge for whatever I may have accomplished during my earthly existence, when my soul, in other words “I”, was integrated with my body.

 

I recognize that it is very difficult to speak or describe the soul, because as we said, it is not an organ of the body or a physical part of the brain. I have always tried to find a metaphor which could help visualize better what the soul is, in itself and in relation to the body.

 

For a long time I thought that body and soul could be compared to a car and its driver. The car is the body and the soul the driver conducting the body. Then it occurred to me that it would be more accurate to speak of a taxi (or an Uber.). The car is our body, the driver is our brain and the passenger is ME, I, my soul. The driver knows how to drive the car, and how to bring the passenger by the best possible way, etc. but the driver cannotdecide for himself where to go… It is the passenger who needs to make that decision and determine the final destination!

 

I think that, although slightly better than the first, the metaphor of the taxi is far from “perfect”. What I think is better to illustrate the nature of the soul and its interaction with the body is the motif of the horse and the rider. The rider, obviously, is the soul. And the horse is the body. The rider needs the horse to reach his goal and reach the final destination. A conscientious rider knows the horse has material needs and he makes sure not to neglect them. The rider feeds the horse, gives it to drink, allows it to rest, takes it often to the vet, and sometimes spoils it. He does everything possible to satisfy his horse’s needs and to keep it as strong and healthy as possible. This is the ideal scenario in which rider and horse are interdependent, cooperate with each other, synergizing.
But there are less ideal scenarios. For example: What if the rider does not know where to go, or if he feels that there is no goal to reach, and therefore the rider just has to “kill time”, find something for the horse to do and just the allows the horse to wander aimlessly? What happens when the rider cannot control his horse, gives up and ends up loosening the horse’s reins? Probably the worst case scenario, and perhaps the most common one, is when the rider never gets that he is a rider, an independent entity separate from his horse. In other words, what if the rider never realizes and is lost or confused about his identity and feels more like a centaur (those half-men, half-horse of Greek mythology) than like a rider on horseback?

 

In all these cases, unlike the case of the taxi driver who will not move from his place until the passenger tells him where to go, the horse, having a life of its own, would live the life of a horse. Its existential concern will be to find the best-quality grass and accumulate as much as possible of it. The horse will rest whenever it feels like it, and will run through the meadows without any specific goal, chasing female horses or anything else that appeals to it. The horse will not stay idle, waiting for orders from a sleeping rider…

 

The Tora teaches us that we are riders,  and as such we must be constantly aware that there is a NON-MATERIAL goal to achieve. It also teaches us, through a lot of Mitsvot, how to feed our horse, how to avoid whatever is damaging for it, when let our horse rest, and how to tame and control it.  How to keep our horse healthy and strong, so it is able to take us to our destination. And knowing that someday we will go down from our horse, bid a grateful farewell and continue our way, from the point that, with the horse’s help, we were able to achieve.


PIRQE ABOT 3:1: Integrity, without exceptions

In the third chapter of Pirqe Abot we find Aqabiya ben Mahalalel, a prominent rabbi of the time of the Mishna, who lived during the first half of the first century of the Common Era. Before examining what he has said, let’s see something about the unique personality of Aqabiya ben Mahalalel.
Aqabiya was famous for his extreme loyalty to his teachers and his solid moral integrity, which was tested on more than one occasion. What most marked the life of Aqabiya was that he maintained his view on four rabbinic subjects (טומאת שער הפקודה, דם ירוק and other themes that we will not describe because they are very technical issues) against the view of his colleagues. We know that, on the one hand, we must be faithful to the traditions we have received from our elders, and that loyalty to the received tradition is absolutely critical in the teacher-student relationship. Teachers are confident that their students will follow their steps, and disciples considered a matter of honor to convey the tradition received from their teachers. On the other hand, as we know, many times different opinions arise among the rabbis–similar to the differences between judges or legislators of any country–and when those differences are not resolved within the framework of the rabbinical debate , the matter is submitted to vote and the court would respect and adopt the majority’s opinion. In the case of Aqabiya ben Mahalalel, these two principles, loyalty to one’s teachers and following the opinion of the majority of Rabbis, collided,  came into conflict: on one hand, his teachers taught him to follow opinion A, while most rabbis of his generation held view B.  Aqabiya’s colleagues urged him to reconsider and change his mind, but he refused. Then the rabbis made him an irresistible offer: knowing that Aqabiya had sufficient knowledge, good name and merits for the job, they offered him that, would he change his mind, he would be assigned as the Chairman of the Highest Rabbinical of Israel! To everyone’s surprise, Aqabiya rejected the offer. He said, “I’d rather be taken for a fool for the rest of my days (for not accepting that deal) than leading anyone to ever believe that I’m a corrupt person (for accepting that “sweet” deal)” …מוטב לי ליקרות שוטה כל ימי.
Interestingly, before Aqabiya died he told his son that he should follow the opinion of the majority of the rabbis, and not his father’s opinion. His son asked, “But father, all your life you kept your opinion, and you are asking me now to follow the opposite view.” To which Aqabiya replied: “I received the tradition of my teachers, who in those days were the majority. And my colleagues followed the opinion of their teachers …But you my dear son, you just received the tradition from me, an individual. My colleagues are now the majority, and you must respect the new leaders and adopt their opinion … “
The Gemara also tells an episode, very relevant for today, which demonstrates the limitless integrity of this illustrious Hakham. At the end of the days of Aqabiya, his son asked him a very “common” favor. He said something like this: “Dear father, you are very well respected, loved and admired among the Hakhamim. Your colleagues would do anything for you. I ask you please to recommend me, and talk about me to any of your friends, so I can have an easier access to a position of prominence.”  Then, Aqabiya ben Mahalalel formulated one of the most famous Rabbinic statements of all times, four Hebrew words that became the highest standard of moral integrity and the rejection of nepotism, traffic of influence and other similar forms of corruption. His words were, verbatim, מעשיך יקרבוך ומעשיך ירחיקוך, which means: “Your own actions will bring you closer (to the position you aspire) or will you drive away (from that position).” In other words: I’ll not recommend you to my colleagues. What really matters is your merits, not your family connections. Your merits will bring you to the position you so long. Your actions are your best recommendation. It is about your deeds, not my influence.

 



The Marseille Synagogue that is becoming a Mosque

 אִם-יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ, בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם מִשָּׁם, יְקַבֶּצְךָ ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמִשָּׁם, יִקָּחֶךָ. וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-יָרְשׁוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ; וְהֵיטִבְךָ וְהִרְבְּךָ, מֵאֲבֹתֶיךָ
  4 ‘דברים ל
Today we celebrate with great joy and gratitude to HaShem the 68th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel. In the opinion of many rabbis, to which I adhere, the establishment  of Medinat Israel it is part of the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy, that in our days is materializing.
In chapter 30 of the book of Debarim (Deut.), the Tora says that the Jewish people will be exiled and persecuted, if it does not fulfill its part of the covenant with HaShem. Then the Tora describes a process of reconciliation between God and His people, which culminates with the return of the chosen people to the land of Israel. This process is incredibly compatible with what we are seeing and living in the present day.
Let’s see:
3500 years ago the Tora anticipated that we will be exiled from our land, but unlike all other peoples in the history of mankind who went into exile, the Tora assured us that will not disappear, we will remain “the people of Israel” in exile. We will live as “aliens and foreigners among other peoples,” and we will pay a price for not assimilating: not be welcomed by our hosts. This universal antipathy, in turn, will protect us from any sort of temptation to assimilate…
The Tora also anticipated that, unlike other exiled peoples, who usually relocated in one place, like the ancient Phoenicians who concentrated on Carthage, the Jewish people will be scattered by all the ends of the earth …
Then comes the prophecy of reconciliation:
The Jewish people will awake from their lethargy and apathy:
Chapter 30: 1 And when all these [bad] things will happen (= exile, persecution, suffering) … you will reflect on your heart … 30: 2 and you will return to HaShem your God and obey His voice. .. you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul. “
HaShem, then, will bring us back home …
30: 3 “And HaShem your God will bring you back from captivity (= exile), and have compassion on you, and gather you from all the peoples where HaShem your God has scattered you..” 30: 4 “and although your exiles are beyond the horizon, from there HaShem your God will gather you and from there He will take you.. .” 30: 5 “And HaShem your God will bring you into the land of your fathers, for you to take possession of it, and He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors..”
The process of returning to the land of Israel from all corners of the planet (from Russia to South Africa, from North America to South America, from Sweden to Australia …) is happening today. The land is already there, transformed into a country that awaits us with open arms. More and more Jews are returning to the land that HaShem granted our parents. Israel is a prosperous and modern country, and the number of Yehudim who live there has never been higher. No doubt, much remains to be done to improving our personal and collective reconciliation with HaShem. But this process of Teshuba, coming back to God and to His land, has begun , and is becoming more and more solid.
I want to end with a recent news report that, I think, is an unmistakable symbol of this prophecy, and it possibly marks a trend of positive unimaginable results for the years to come…
One of the biggest challenges for the realization of this prophecy is the difficulty that emigrating to Israel represents for many Jews. Ironically, the more prosperous and advanced is the country where a Jew lives (think of the United States, England or rance) the harder it is for a Jew to make the decision to emigrate.
In this context, let’s look at what happened in France last week. This is the news as reported by the BBC: “The Marseille synagogue that is becoming a mosque”. 6 May 2016, “For the first time, a synagogue in Marseille is in the process of being sold to a Muslim organization, which has plans to turn it into a mosque…”
This event seems to be part of the inevitable trend and the inexorable fate that Europe has chosen for its own future. But still, closing of a synagogue, seemingly, is a big tragedy …
I believe, however, that we should read these “sad” news from a different angle. Namely, this synagogue is not closing because Jews are abandoning Judaism, is closing because Jews are abandoning France!  In recent years the emigration of French Jews to Israel has grown exponentially. In the 90’s very few Jews emigrated to Israel from France.  In 2014, however, more than 7,000 French Jews settled in Israel. In 2015, more than 8,000. And another 12,000 are expected to arrive this year. French Jews, Baruch HaShem, are “invading” Israel . I saw them in Netanya, Ashdod,  Bet-Shemesh, Yerushalayim. French Jews are, for the most part, very traditionalist. And I can assure the reader thatfor every synagogue that closes in France,  at least 50 new synagogues are opening in Israel for French Jews!
This modern miracle is possible and feasible only because HaShem gave us the merit of having our own Jewish State, Medinat Israel.
We are probably the most privileged generation in the entire history of the Jewish people. I think, that rather than witnesses, we are the protagonists of this prophecy.
“WE” are this prophecy.
MUST WATCH 
Hertzel Bitton, an Israeli bus driver who prevented a terrorist attack last year, said these beautiful and profound words last night in Jerusalem, when lighting one of the torches at the official celebration of Yom haAtsmaut

 



Yom Hazikaron: 23,447 z”l

We commemorate today Yom Hazikaron (“The Day of Remembrance” or “Memorial day”)  honoring the memory of the soldiers of the Israeli army who sacrificed their lives for the establishment of the State of Israel and its continued existence.
The young soldiers who gave their lives in the wars of Israel are the greatest heroes of Israel. “The silver platter” on which the State of Israel was delivered to us. As Rabbi Eliezer Melamed says, “these soldiers, most of them very young, sacrificed everything, so that we can have our land, where we can fulfill our greatest dream, all AM ISRAEL returning to their homeland to serve HaShem … .we should be inspired by their sacrifice and devotion to sanctify the name of God (leqaddesh shem shamayim). “
Today, in Israel, tens of thousands of people attend local cemeteries to mourn for their children, grandchildren, parents, siblings, grandparents, and friends. In the morning, at 11.00 am, a siren sounds throughout the country. Everything and everyone stops for two minutes: people, cars, businesses, public transportation, etc. to honor the memory of the fallen heroes and victims of terror.
This year we honor the memory of 23,447 soldiers and victims of terrorism who fell in Israel’s wars or terrorist attacks since the War of Independence in 1948 to the present day. Sixty eight new victims were added since last year’s Yom haZikaron. In addition, fifty-nine disabled veterans who served in the Israeli army, mostly young, died as a result of their condition.
Today, there are 9,442 parents who have lost children, 4,917 widows and 1,948 orphans, according to interior ministry of Israel.
May HaShem treasure the souls of the heroes of Israel in Gan Eden.
May He bless their families and grant them strength to bear the pain of the loss of their loved ones.
 
May HaShem bless the soldiers of Israel and protect them from our enemies.
May HaShem give us strength and victory, and bless Israel with peace. AMEN
The story of Roi Klein, z “l, the Israeliarmy sergeant who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his soldiers
The story of Miryam Peretz, and her two sons z “l

 



PIRQE ABOT 1:1: On Justice and Education

הוו מתונים בדין והעמידו תלמידים הרבה ועשו סייג לתורה
The first Mishna of Pirque Abot brings us back to the time of Anshe Keneset Hagedola, the Great Assembly, which was formed when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem around the 5th century before the common era.
With this Mishnah, the Great Assembly seems to have had three strategic goals.  We will explain two of them:
First, issuing a wake-up call to the Jewish judges.  The legal stature of a country, and the level of justice in any society, is measured by the moral level of its judges.  If judges in a society are bribable, corrupt, or even negligent, that society will not succeed.  In this regard, Anshe Keneset Hagedola did not need to mention the honesty expected from Jewish judges, a trait that had always been a given with the judges of ‘Am Israel.  Rather, their focus was on the level of care and diligence judges should have when issuing a verdict.  They advised the judges to be measured in justice (הוו מתונים בדין), which means that they should not rush, should examine all the evidence and testimony carefully and only then arrive at their final conclusion.
Rabbi Duran adds something very interesting in his commentary: the fact that we should not rush to a verdict does not mean that justice should be delayed unnecessarily.  For example, if all the evidence is clear, decisive and evident, there is no need for undue delay.  In fact, if a judge delays a verdict when the evidence is absolutely clear, it would be a corruption of justice.  Deliberately slow justice is corrupt justice.
Second, the men of the Great Assembly discussed the issue of education.  Rabbi Duran explains that this has always been debated among Jewish sages.  A segment of Rabbis opined that only certain qualified persons should be accepted as students.  For example, some centuries later, the great sage Shammai (50 BCE – 30 CE) said he would only accept an intelligent, humble student, from a good family and in good financial situation (this last requirement was meant to ensure the student would not leave his studies prematurely needing to seek sustenance). Later on, Rabban Gamliel also argued for accepting as students only those persons who are honest and have integrity (תוכו כברו), because a dishonest person could use his knowledge of Torah to deceive people, which would be deemed a desecration of God’s name. On the other hand, Hillel and, a little later, Ribbi El’azar ben ‘Azariah, thought that Torah should be taught also to persons with imperfect past or those who did not have outstanding character traits, because what tends to happen is that the studying of Tora transforms the student for the better.
In brief, Jewish sages seem to always have had this debate between those who thought that the Tora (and the knowledge and prestige that come to those who study it) might be misused by students who lack the necessary moral prerequisites, while others believed that the possibility of abuse is remote given that the Tora is not informational but rather educational, it is knowledge that transforms us into better human beings.  One could say that, eventually, the latter group won the day.  As the Mishna says “…and raise numerous students…”
Rabbi Duran concludes from this Mishna an idea that reminds me of the concept of natural selection.  Rabbi Duran said that an institution should generally accept 100 average students if it wants to produce 10 outstanding students.  And from these 10 outstanding students, it should expect that only one or two will be truly prodigious, the rabbinic leaders of each generation. And, therefore, in order to produce the one or two leaders that each generation needs, it is necessary to not restrict too much the admission of students to rabbinical academies..