The ‘Land For Peace’ Ruling = Insanity

“Land for Peace” < Life

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

A guest post by Lurker:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
— Albert Einstein

A few days ago, DovBear presented an argument that since the mitzva of living in the Land of Israel is not categorized as yahareg v’al y’avor (a mitzva for which one is required to sacrifice one’s life), it would therefore be appropriate to surrender land to the Palestinians, rather than endanger lives.

He also noted that this is not simply his own personal view, but rather, the view of a number of halakhic authorities. And in fact, he is quite correct about this: R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that due to the halakhic imperative of pikuah nefesh (preservation of life), it is permissible to cede parts of Eretz Yisrael in order to save lives. The late R. Eliezer Schach also issued a similar ruling.*

DovBear is also correct that anyone who would accuse him of being a “heretic” for embracing this particular legitimate opinion, is simply a fool.

Where DovBear is wrong is in his belief that lives can, in fact, be saved by giving land to the Palestinians. This assumption has been tried, and has failed completely, multiple times over the past fifteen years. The idea has been done to death, quite literally: The plain, harsh reality is the exact oppositeGiving land to the Palestinians endangers the lives of Jews, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of them.

It is for this reason that R. Ovadiah — who still stands by his halakhic ruling in principle — has stopped supporting the surrender of land to the Palestinians in practice.

Here is a question to which not many people know the answer: How many suicide bomb attacks there were before the Rabin government signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO?

Answer: ZERO (0). Yes, really. Suicide bombings first began only following the signing of Oslo.

In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres (now President) inaugurated a complete reversal of prior Israeli policy: They decided to negotiate with terrorists, and to arm them with land, money, and weapons. Plenty of Israelis were aghast, and wondered how this could possibly lead to anything other than disaster. Unfortunately, their fears were borne out in spades: The September 1993 Oslo Accords sparked a massive wave of terrorist attacks in Israel, of unprecedented proportions: Immediately following the signing, terrorism skyrocketed to levels that had been previously unknown. Regardless of this, the Rabin government was undeterred: Ignoring the mounting carnage, they negotiated and then signed the Oslo II agreement in 1995 — in spite of the constant suicide bombings, which had become a matter of routine by then. And not surprisngly, the rate of terror death climbed even higher with Oslo II.

In the 30 months beginning with the Oslo signing, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (213) than in the entire preceding decade (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). You can find graphs illustrating this phenomenon here[Note: These graphs cover the relatively “quiet” period prior to the much bloodier “Second Intifada” period, which began in October 2000.]

This massive explosion of terror attacks continued until Binyamin Netanyahu came to power in 1996. Netanyahu had campaigned on a platform that precluded any further territorial concessions as long as the terror onslaught continued. And interestingly, as soon as he assumed office, the terror attacks dropped dramatically, for the very first time since the Oslo Accords had been signed. Netanyahu’s term in office marked the first time that the level of terror attacks dropped back down to pre-Oslo levels. (You can see this visually, along with the figures, on the graphs cited above.)

This respite didn’t last very long, unfortunately. In 1999, Netanyahu was succeeded by Ehud Barak (now Defense Minister), who declared his intention to continue the policies of Rabin and Peres. True to his word, at Camp David, he offered Arafat a final-status deal that included the entire Gaza Strip, 97% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Arafat’s response was to angrily reject the offer, and to launch a new terror war (the infamous “Second Intifada”) that dwarfed even the monstrous levels of bloodshed that had hit Israel during the Rabin and Peres governments.

More Israeli civilians — men, women, and children — were slaughtered in the years since Oslo than in all the years since the founding of the state in 1948 up until the accords were signed in 1993. The numbers speak for themselves.

From DovBear, here.

Against the Chassidic Perversion of Kedushas Habris (Ugh, My Own Filter Will Block Me From the Site for a Day!)

Rav Shlomo Wolbe: Importance of sexual satisfaction – and not just focusing on doing a mitzva

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

update: added the Steipler 

Whatever is done has to be with mutual consent – Nedarim 20b, Shulchan Aruch 240:3, 

Rambam (Hilchos De’os 5:4): …Neither of them should be drunk or uninterested or depressed nor should either of them be sleeping. The man should not force the woman against her wishes but whatever is done should be with mutual desire and with joy. …

Steipler (Igros Kodesh #2):  […] The details of sexual intercourse of the mitzva of conjugal obligations are explained in the Siddur of Rav Yaakov Emden in the section of the laws of Shabbos night. It should be studied carefully because these are actual halachic obligations. Because according to the Torah it is prohibited to have intercourse in circumstances where the woman is not interested and therefore it is necessary to get her interested with intimate activities such as hugging and kissing until she is sexually aroused and desires intercourse. Because if this is not done first – it is like placing her before a lion who mauls and eats as is explained in Pesachim (49). [It is a terrible sin to deprive her of her sexual rights even if he is doing it for the sake of piety and asceticism. Taking what belongs to his wife can not be the basis of piety by theft and treating her as a slave]. Furthermore to have sexual intercourse against her will results in having children who are sinners and rejecters of Torah – they are call bnei anusa (children of rape).

A husband who grabs and has intercourse immediately without preliminary intimacy and then separates immediate after ejaculation and leaves her, might think that he is acting like a highly spiritual angel. But in actual truth he has not lowered his lust at all even though he definitely has placated his desires for the time being since he has in fact obtained full pleasure from this intercourse. In contrast his wife felt no pleasures at all from this abrupt sexual act.

In fact she has been hurt and shamed and the tears she sheds in private will not go unanswered. That is because our Sages (Bava Metzia)  tell us that the Gate of Tears has not been closed. They say that a man should be very careful with his wife’s honor because she readily cries. There is no question that such a brutal act arouses Divine judgment against him.

Furthermore he does not merit to have Divine help either in spiritual or material issues. And this that he mistakenly thinks he becomes a highly spiritual person by trying to be insensitive to his wife in sexual matters – this is a worthless fantasy and a lie. That is because from sins and transgression one becomes blemished and spiritually impure – not elevated.

[…]

Igros Kodesh (#4):  Question: How to avoid emission of sperm while asleep at night when his wife is a nida and also during the time when she is permitted to him? Answer: I am forced to answer even though it is very difficult to clarify the matter in a written reply. From his letter I got the impression that he needs guidance in the broader topic of what is the nature of married life. Marital relations need to be such that he is sexually satisfied even during the time when he needs to separate from his wife because of nida. Thus we are not talking about the number of times of intercourse but rather the quality of the sexual relationship.

Young men, especially those who are serious about spiritual development, think that sanctifying oneself during sexual intercourse can only mean that one needs to minimize lust and sexual feelings as much as possible. But this is a complete mistake as can be seen from the enlightening comments of Rashi (Nida 17a). Also please look at the Rokeach (Jerusalem edition page 27a) who cites Nedarim (20b) that everything that a man wants to do with his wife he can do in order that he won’t have any interest in other women.

We see clearly that sexual relations need to be so satisfying until all other women are in his eyes as hens and he has absolutely no desire to even look at them. This is also implied by the statement of Chazal concerning the reward for those husbands who prolong physical contact with their wives after intercourse is finished. Thus we see the need for intercourse to be intense and satisfying – and not done merely to fulfill one’s obligation and similar extrinsic matters. And therefore if a person is concerned for the quality of intercourse itself, I am sure that he will be so satiated and satisfied that lust will not be a problem even during the period of nida.

Aside from this, he needs to strengthen his Torah study. That means not merely study with a book but to train his thoughts to be involved with thoughts of Torah study. For example before he leaves his house or yeshiva to organize Torah issues to think about until he reaches his destination and that he shouldn’t be empty of Torah even when he is walking in the street.

And regarding not looking at women – there is the advice of the Gra that one should pray before leaving to go into the street – that G-d should guard him from all aspects of sin including sinful thoughts until he reaches his destination (See Orchos Chaim #135 at the end of the Gra’s Siddur).

Furthermore he should learn with joy and not worry or fear at all. That is because worry and fear just arouse the mind and nocturnal emissions –G-d forbid. And with G-d’s help if he conducts himself as I have described, he will see success.

From Daas Torahhere.

‘Zion’ Or ‘Jerusalem’?

Twin Cities of Zion

Perhaps many of us have never stopped to think about the names Zion and Jerusalem. We may have always assumed that the two terms are synonymous, and even interchangeable. However, if one closely examines the Scriptures and other traditional works, one will realize that Zion and Jerusalem do not necessarily refer to the exact same place. In fact, the customary formula recited in consoling mourners already implies such: “May the Omnipresent console you amongst the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” Zion and Jerusalem — two different places.

When inaugurating the newly-built Holy Temple, the Bible states, “King Solomon gathered the Elders of the Jewish People and leaders of the tribes in Jerusalem in order to bring up the Ark from the City of David — which is Zion” (I Kings 8:1, II Chron. 5:2). The wording of this passage clearly demonstrates that Jerusalem and Zion are indeed two different places. This proof-text is adduced by Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi (1280-1366), Rabbi David Ibn Zimra (1479-1589), and Rabbi Elazar Azkiri (1533-1600). Indeed, Rashi (to Sotah 5a and Yoma 77b) writes quite emphatically that Zion is outside of Jerusalem.

Zion is sometimes known in the Bible as the “City of David” (Ir David) or “Fortress of David” (Metzudat David). That city had its own wall (see Rashi to II Sam. 8:7). However, later on, the outer walls of Jerusalem were expanded to include Zion as well. This may have happened in the late First Temple period, or in the beginning of the Second Temple period. Because Zion was added to the Holy City only later, it may not have had the same halachic status as the rest of Jerusalem regarding permission to eat certain sacrifices and tithes. For this reason, the inner walls known as chomat beit pagi separated Jerusalem proper from Zion, even in the late Second Temple period by which time the two cities had already merged. That wall served to demarcate the area inside greater Jerusalem within which one may or may not eat from the ritual sacrifices.

Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer of Vilna (1720-1797), also known as the Vilna Gaon, writes (in his commentary to Isa. 1:9) that the population demographics of Zion differed from that of Jerusalem: the noblemen lived in Zion, while ordinary people lived in Jerusalem.

We all know where Jerusalem is on a map, but where is Zion?

Psalms 48 speaks about the City of Our G-d in the most superlative terms. In that context, the Psalmist mentions that Mount Zion is the most beautiful of all places, is the happiest place on Earth, and is tucked away in the north (Ps. 48:3). Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that this means that Mount Zion is in the northern part of Jerusalem. Rashi, on the other hand, cites Dunash ibn Labrat (925-990) as explaining that Mount Zion is another name for Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim).

However, none of these sources are in consonance with the location of what we call nowadays “Mount Zion”, which is southwest of the Old City. This point is actually made by the Sages, as Midrash Socher Tov asks: “Is Mount Zion really in the north of Jerusalem? Is it not actually in the south of Jerusalem?” Rather, explains the Midrash, “north” in this context does not refer to the physical direction were Mount Zion stood vis-à-vis Jerusalem. Rather, it refers to the intense elation one can experience at Zion/Jerusalem when one slaughters a sin-offering north of the altar (as required by Lev. 1:11). For this reason, Mount Zion is described as being in the north.

The thirteenth century exegete Rabbi Yosef Tuv-Elem (Bonfils), in his super-commentary Tzafnat Paneach (to Lev. 1:11), also discusses this. He cites Ibn Ezra’s assertion concerning the location of Mount Zion and disagrees with it. Instead, he asserts that Mount Zion is not north of Jerusalem, but south of Jerusalem. To this effect he cites the abovementioned Midrash Socher Tov, which clearly positions Mount Zion to be to the south of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem writes that this Midrashic source is more believable than Ibn Ezra’s assertion because its author, Rabbi Yochanan, actually lived in the Holy Land. Although he admits that Ibn Ezra also visited Jerusalem, he assumes that Ibn Ezra did so only after he already mistakenly wrote that Mount Zion is north of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem further notes that he personally lived in Jerusalem, and saw that Mount Zion is south of Old Jerusalem.

Some sources suggest that Tziyon is sometimes used as a synonym for Jerusalem (see Jer. 31:5 and Ps. 132:14). Actually, a more accurate term might be synecdoche — which is when a literary device, whereby a term that really refers to part of something, is used to refer to the entire thing. Indeed, in our daily prayers we beseech G-d that He restore the Holy Temple by saying, “May our eyes see Your return to Zion with mercy”. In this case we refer to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by mentioning Zion instead of Jerusalem. Similarly, in the Mussaf prayer on Rosh Chodesh we request of G-d: “You shall prepare a new altar in Zion”, again referring to the site of the Temple as Zion, instead of Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, the Zohar (Idra Zuta, 296b) states that Zion and Jerusalem are two spiritual levels, as one refers to the aspect of mercy and the other to the aspect of justice. This suggests that both terms refer to the same physical location.

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (1871-1955) too disagrees with some of what we have written. He understands that Zion in the Bible does not always refer to a separate city adjoining Jerusalem, but rather refers to a neighborhood within Jerusalem itself.

Rabbi Tukachinsky further notes that sometimes the word tziyon appears in the Bible as a synonym for the Holy Temple (e.g., Joel 4:18 and Ps. 2:6) or, as a general term for the Jewish People (such as Isa. 51:3). In those cases, the word tzion is not a proper name for a Jerusalemite neighborhood, but is a common noun which means “outstanding” (derived from the word tziyun). In this vein, Rabbi Tukachinsky explains that sometimes Mount Zion actually refers to Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood.

Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi — a prominent rabbinic topographer — actually concedes this point by admitting that sometimes the phrase “mountains of Zion” or “mountain of Zion” does not refer to Mount Zion, per se, but to the mountains in that general vicinity, which includes Mount Zion, Mount Moriah and the Mount of Olives. Accordingly, Rabbi HaParchi maintains that when Zion appears in conjunction with the Temple, it refers to the general area of Mount Zion, which can also include the Temple Mount.

Somebody once asked the anti-Zionist rabbinic figure, Rabbi Yosef Rozin (1858-1936), better known as the Rogatchover Gaon, for his opinion about Zionism. Instead of directly answering the question, Rabbi Rozin playfully replied by explaining that Zion is an area outside of Jerusalem proper where gentile heretics historically gathered. The Mishnah (Shekalim 8:1) rules that spittle found in the Upper Marketplace of Jerusalem should be assumed to originate from a non-Jew, and the Rogatchover Gaon explains that this refers to the area known as Zion. By highlighting the historical fact that Zion in Mishnaic times was essentially a slum, the Rogatchover Gaon registered his disapproval with secular Zionists, whom he deemed akin to said historical heretics.

“A Song of Ascent for David: How good and how pleasant it is, the dwelling of brothers together” (Ps. 133:1). The Targum explains that this refers specifically to the unity between the twin cities of Zion and Jerusalem. In fact, the spelling of Jerusalem in the Bible, and the Aramaic name of the Holy City, Yerushalem/Yerushaleim are written in the singular form, as though the city is made up of one singular component (the English name Jerusalem is derived from this form of the name). However, the way we traditionally pronounce the city’s name in Hebrew — Yerushalayim — is in the double form, as if to allude to the fact that Jerusalem is actually made up of two cities joined together. Just as the Hungarian cities Buda and Pest united to become one city — Budapest — so do Zion and Jerusalem unite to become one Unified Jerusalem.

Much of the information for this article was culled from Har HaKodesh by the late Rabbi Moshe Nachum Shapiro, and Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky.

From What’s in a Word, here.