שיעור בנושא גבולות ארץ ישראל – פלוס מפה

מהם גבולות ארץ ישראל מהתורה? – הרב שמואל אריאל

Published on Oct 21, 2014

הרב שמואל אריאל, עתניאל

תקציר:

“בשיעור זה עוסק הרב שמואל אריאל, ר”מ בישיבת עתניאל, בבירור גבולות ארץ ישראל המופיעים בתורה, ובעיקר ביחס שבין גבולות מסעי לבין פרשיות אחרות בהן מופיעים גבולות רחבים יותר. כמו כן, נעסוק בקצרה בגבולות עולי מצרים ועולי בבל, ובמעמדו של עבר הירדן.”

צפייה בשיעורים נוספים מבית המדרש של ישיבת עתניאל ניתן לבקר באתר ישיבת עתניאל: http://www.otniel.org

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

Temple Institute Statement of Principles

The Temple Institute is dedicated to all aspects of the Divine commandment for Israel to build a house for G-d’s presence, the Holy Temple, on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. The range of the Institute’s involvement with this concept includes education, research, activism, and actual preparation. Our goal is firstly, to restore Temple consciousness and reactivate these “forgotten” commandments. We hope that by doing our part, we can participate in the process that will lead to the Holy Temple becoming a reality once more.

Why build the Temple?

Why this fuss over an ancient, seemingly outdated concept? What relationship does the Holy Temple have to our world today? The people of Israel have lived without a Temple for nearly 2,000 years, and seem to be doing fine without one. We don’t seem to need it, and G-d certainly doesn’t, so why think about rebuilding?

202 Biblical Commandments

The Jewish people accepted the “Yoke of Heaven,” the structure of their relationship with the Creator and their spiritual responsibility, at the Mount Sinai revelation. This relationship is based on Israel’s acceptance and fulfillment of the Torah’s 613 Divine commandments. But in fact, fully one third – 202 of these commandments – are totally dependent on the existence of the Holy Temple for their fulfillment. But what is our attitude regarding these commandments? Do we think of them as inactive, dormant, dead? Do we believe that they are no longer applicable? Do we perhaps relegate them to that nebulous time of messianic redemption; that they will only be activated in the future with the coming of the messiah?

The Torah’s commandments are eternal, for now and forever

Nothing can be further from the truth. Maimonides teaches (Sefer Igeret Ha’Shmad) that the performance of all the commandments is not dependent on the coming of the messiah. They are to be fulfilled at all times. G-d does not change His mind or nullify any of the commandments included in the Torah, which were given once, for all time. In lieu of Temple service, we may observe various “remembrances” of these commandments, but that is all they are – merely gestures of nostalgia.

Fish out of water

But we fool ourselves if we think that the state of Judaism today, without the Temple, is normal. On the contrary, we are like fish out of water. If 1/3 of all the Torah’s commandments center on the Temple, it would seem that Biblical observance in the Temple’s absence is but a skeleton of what G-d had intended it to be.

Our spiritual alienation

Sadly, much of our contemporary attitudes regarding the Holy Temple are a reflection of our own spiritual bankruptcy and alienation from the spiritual underpinnings of true Torah knowledge and faith. The Holy Temple was not some magnificent building. It was the direct arena for our direct relationship with G-d; the unfolding saga of man’s greatest spiritual longing. It was a place where heaven and earth met; a meeting place for man and G-d.

Our relationship with G-d

At this one place on earth, unlike any other, the one place that the Creator Himself chose to rest His presence, the rectification of man’s connection with G-d takes place. All people were able to come to the Temple to partake in this direct and fulfilling bond; to recharge their spiritual batteries and come away with a renewed sense of purpose and being.

A new era of universal harmony

Every prophet of Israel, without exception, prophesied that the Temple would be rebuilt, ushering in a new era of universal harmony and peace unparalleled in the history of man. Thus, the “movement” to rebuild the Holy Temple is not new. It was born almost 2,000 years ago, at the moment of the Second Temple’s destruction. For when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, it was the soul of Jewish people… and the entire world… as we believe it will be once again.

The rebuilding of the Holy Temple: In our time?

The reality of the Jewish experience means that the Temple will be rebuilt. Many people who visit the Temple Institute are incredulous and cannot help but exclaim: “Do you really think that you will live to see the Holy Temple rebuilt?” The answer to that question is of little importance. Let us rather recall that Jewish history has a trajectory, which began when the patriarch Abraham smashed his father’s idols. That trajectory has spanned the millennia, and it is obvious that we are rapidly approaching climactic times, in which the Holy Temple will once again become the focal point for mankind’s spiritual focus. Whether this transpires in our generation or not, we can still choose to be active participants, and not simply spectators, in G-d’s bold plan for the Redemption of Israel and all humanity.

From The Temple Institute, here.

חסרון הבקיאות והבנת המורכבות בפסק הלכה בתעניות: התוצאות

ציטוט מתוך “תעניות” – מאמר שני בסדרת מדור ‘ורפא ירפא’ שע”י ד”ר מיכאל פקטורוביץ, “במה – מגזין תוכן לבית היהודי, גליון #52 מיום כ”א תמוז תשע”ט עמ’ 11:

דוגמא נוספת של חולה שמקבל באופן קבוע טיפול בשל חרדה ודיכאון במינונים משתנים, ועל אף שבתקופה שקדמה לתענית – במקרה זה מדובר בתשעה באב, היה יחסית יציב, אך עדיין היה בתקופת ההסתגלות למינון חדש.

בפנייתו לרב הפוסק ציין שהוא נוטל טיפול נפשי במשך שנים רבות ומרגיש טוב. הרב, עקב חוסר מודעות למורכבות הפסיקה בנושאים הללו, לא בירר האם חלו שינויים במינונים של התרופות ומה היה מצבו מספר שבועות לפני כן, שמתוך כך היה מבין שלא הייתה כאן יציבות אמיתית.

בסופו של דבר החולה הזה הידרדר בצורה משמעותית ביותר, ותקופה מעל שנתיים מיותר לומר שלא צם כל התעניות כולל יום כיפור.

מקרה נוסף של בחור בן ארבע עשרה שלמעשה גופו מכל הבחינות היה מתאים לגיל אחת עשרה, שלא סבל לכאורה משום מחלה, אך המציאות ההלכתית שלו הייתה כמי שאסור לו לצום.

אביו שאל את הפוסק לפי בקשת אימו של הבחור, ונוסח השאלה היה: יש לנו בחור בן ארבע עשרה שהוא נמוך וקטן ואשתי שואלת האם עליו לצום.

הרב הפעם כן שאל איך מרגיש הילד באופן כללי והאם הוא בריא, והתשובה הייתה שהוא בריא, כאשר בעצם הבחור לוקה באיחור בכל ההתפתחות הגופנית כשהמצב גובל בחולי והמציאות שבעצם איננו בר חיוב לצום!

הבחור התעלף בזמן התפילה, לא יכול היה ללמוד, במשך שבועיים כמעט לא יצא מהבית (א”ה, נ”ל שכך צריך לפסק). בהמשך סבל מחולשה ממושכת שפגעה בתפקודו ברמה מערכתית למשך מספר שנים וכמובן שלא יכול היה לצום ביום כיפור עד שגופו הגיע בפועל לגיל מעל שלוש עשרה, שהוא היה כבר בן כמעט שש עשרה שנים.

מדוע הסתובב אליהו הנביא בבית השונמית בתחיית בנה – וכי את כל השאר אנו *כּן* מבינים?!

האם מותר לברך בהליכה?

ט’ אלול התשע”ז | 31.08.17 00:00

שאלה

שלום כבוד הרב, האם מותר לברך (ברכה ראשונה על האוכל, ברכת אשר יצר) תוך כדי הליכה? תודה מראש

תשובה

שלום רב,

מותר לברך ברכה ראשונה על האוכל וכן ברכת אשר יצר תוך כדי הליכה. ודוקא כשאינו הולך ומעיין אחת הנה ואחת הנה כי זה כבר בגדר מלאכה שאסורה בשעת הברכה.

מקורות: הנה כבר נפסק בשלחן ערוך אורח חיים (סימן קפג סעיף יב, וסימן קצא סעיף ג) שאסור לעשות מלאכה בעודו מברך. ואף על  פי ששם מדובר על ברכת המזון, מכל מקום כבר כתב המשנה ברורה (שם ס”ק לז, ושם סק”ה) שהוא הדין לכל שאר הברכות, ע”ש.

אולם לכאורה הליכה תוך כדי הברכה אינה בגדר מלאכה, ואדרבה לפעמים זה מסייע לכוונה, וכמו שכתב הרד”ק בספר מלכים ב’ (פרק ד’ פסוק לה) על הפסוק “וישב וילך בבית אחת הנה ואחת הנה”, וזה לשונו: ומה שהלך אחת הנה ואחת הנה לכוין לבו יותר, ע”ש. וכן פסק בשו”ת עולת יצחק חלק ב’ (סימן רסט) שמותר לברך ברכות כמו אשר יצר תוך כדי הליכה, ודוקא כשאינו הולך ומעיין אחת הנה ואחת הנה שזה הוי כעוסק במלאכה, ע”ש. וכ”כ בשו”ת אבני ישפה חלק ח’ (סימן ס ענף ג) שמותר לברך אשר יצר תוך כדי הליכה בעלמא היות ואינה דורשת תשומת לב, ע”ש. וע”ע בהליכות שלמה חלק א’ (פרק כב’ סעיף ה) שכתב, שאין איסור להתהלך בשעת ברכה, אולם לכתחלה אין ראוי לעשות כן, ע”ש.

בברכה,

הלל מאירס

מאתר הידברות, כאן.

 

The Media Are STILL Lying to You About Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima!

How FDR Forced Japan to Attack Pearl Harbor While Lying About Trying to Avoid War

Robert B. Stinnett,  (New York, Free Press, 2000)

A Second World War Navy radioman turned journalist, Robert Stinnett was in the National Archives in Belmont, California, researching a campaign-year picture book on George Bush’s South Pacific wartime navy career in aerial reconnaissance — George Bush: His World War II Years (Washington, D.C., Brassey’s, 1992) — and encountered unindexed duplicate copies of Pearl Harbor radio intercept records of Japanese Navy code transmissions — documentary evidence of what actually happened at Pearl Harbor and how it came about.

After eight years of further research and a prolonged case at law under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain partial release of these materials, Stinnett published Day of Deceit (2000). A Japanese translation appeared within a year, understandably.

Stinnett demonstrates, on the basis of extensive incontrovertible factual evidence and self-evidently accurate analysis that President Roosevelt oversaw the contrivance and deployment of a closely-guarded secret plan to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and monitor them while they did it. Stinnett hypothesizes that Roosevelt did this in order to precipitate an unwilling American public into supporting intervention in the Second World War, but whatever the motives or purposes, the facts are now abundantly clear. Stinnett establishes and proves his case with voluminous documentary evidence, including forty-seven pages of Appendices [p. 261-308] presenting photographic reproductions of key official records, as well as numerous others reproduced in the body of the text, and 65 pages [309-374] of closely detailed reference notes.

This evidence proves Stinnett’s factual assertions, arguments and conclusions. His research files and notes are deposited at the Hoover Institute library at Stanford. Day of Deceit is exemplary documentary historiography. It presents the material testimony on which its analysis and conclusions are based. Its validity will be clear to any fair-minded reader. Stinnett’s book settles and resolves rational, candid, honest, fact-based discussion and debate about the background of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

As Stinnett shows, the plan that eventuated in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was set in motion in early October 1940 based on an “eight-action memo, dated October 7, 1940 … by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Navy Intelligence.” Of course, it is unlikely that McCollum drafted it on his own initiative, but this is where Stinnett’s paper trail starts. “Its eight actions call for virtually inciting a Japanese attack on American ground, air, and naval forces in Hawaii, as well as on British and Dutch colonial outposts in the Pacific region….” [p. 6-8; the memorandum is reproduced on 261-267]:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia].
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Complete embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

As the plan unfolded its development was closely monitored through decoded intercepts of Japanese diplomatic and naval radio communications. “McCollum oversaw the routing of communications intelligence to FDR from early 1940 to December 7, 1941 and provided the President with intelligence reports on Japanese military and diplomatic strategy. Every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House went through the Far East Asia section of ONI, which he oversaw.

The section served as a clearinghouse for all categories of intelligence reports…. Each report prepared by McCollum for the President was based on radio intercepts gathered and decoded by a worldwide network of American military cryptographers and radio intercept operators…. Few people in America’s government or military knew as much about Japan’s activities and intentions as McCollum.”[8] Knowledge of the plan was closely held, limited to 13 Roosevelt administration members and chief military officers and 21 members of Naval Intelligence and related operations [listed in Appendix E 307-308]. Item C was already US policy when McCollum wrote his memo. Item F was set in motion on October 8, Items A, B and G on October 16, 1940, Item D and E by November 12, 1940. [Chap. 1 n. 8 p. 311-312; 120 ff. etc.].

Meanwhile, also in the fall of 1940, campaigning for a third term in Boston on October 30, President Roosevelt said: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” On November 1 in Brooklyn he said “I am fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting.” At Rochester on the 2nd he said “Your national government … is equally a government of peace — a government that intends to retain peace for the American people.”

The same day in Buffalo he asserted “Your President says this country is not going to war,” and in Cleveland on the next he declared “The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war.” [William Henry Chamberlin, “How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War,” in Harry Elmer Barnes, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho, Caxton, 1953), Chapter Eight, p. 485-491].

Admiral Richardson, commander of the Pacific Fleet, opposed Roosevelt’s orders [Item F] to station the fleet at Pearl Harbor as putting the fleet at risk, so he was replaced with Admiral Kimmel, with Admiral Anderson of ONI as Kimmel’s third in command at Pearl Harbor, to supervise the radio intercept operation there, unbeknownst to Kimmel. [10-14; 33-34] “Anderson was sent to Hawaii as an intelligence gatekeeper”[36]. When he arrived he established his personal housing well away from Pearl Harbor, out of range of the coming attack.

Though he was commander of the seven battleships which bore the brunt of the attack with the loss of over two thousand lives, Admiral Anderson was safe at home on the other side of the mountain when the attack came. [36-37; 244, 247] Meanwhile, the commanders in Hawaii, “Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, were deprived of intelligence that might have made them more alert to the risks entailed in Roosevelt’s policy, but they obeyed his direct order of November 27 and 28, 1941: ‘The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.’” [6-8] Afterward, they were scape-goated.

In early January 1941 the Japanese decided that in the event of hostilities with the US they would commence with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. American intelligence learned of this plan on January 27 [30-32]. On July 21, 1941 Lieutenant Commander McCollum’s Item H lit the fuse. Up through late November the White House continued to block concerted attempts by Japanese diplomats to discuss an accommodation. [On this diplomatic history see Charles Beard , American Foreign Policy in the Making (1946) and President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (1948); Frederic Rockwell Sanborn, Design For War (1951)and Charles Tansill, Back Door To War (1952).]

Beginning November 16, 1941, radio intercepts revealed the formation of the Japanese fleet near the Kurile Islands north of Japan and from November 26 through the first week of December tracked it across the Pacific to Hawaii [41-59 etc.]. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Stark (one of the 34 informed participants) ordered Kimmel to dispatch his aircraft carriers with a large escort fleet to deliver planes to Wake and Midway Islands. “On orders from Washington, Kimmel left his oldest vessels inside Pearl Harbor and sent twenty-one modern warships, including his two aircraft carriers, west toward Wake and Midway… With their departure the warships remaining in Pearl Harbor were mostly 27-year-old relics of World War I.”

That is, the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor with their crews were employed as decoys [152-154]. On 22 November 1941, a week after the Japanese fleet began to assemble and four days before it sailed for Oahu, Admiral Ingersoll issued a “Vacant Sea” order that cleared its path of all shipping and on 25 November he ordered Kimmel to withdraw his ships patrolling the area from which the aerial attack would be staged [144-145]. FDR kept close tabs on the plot’s final unfolding while radio intercepts continued to track its voyage toward Hawaii [161-176].

Stinnett comments: “Pearl Harbor’s Battleship Row and its old dilapidated warships presented a mouth-watering target. But it was a major strategic mistake for the Empire. Japan’s 360 warplanes should have concentrated on Pearl Harbor’s massive oil stores … and destroyed the industrial capacity of the Navy’s dry docks, machine shops, and repair facilities”[249]. Six months later, at the battles of Coral Sea (May 4-8, 1942) and Midway (June 4-7), the warships of the Pacific Fleet which were at sea when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred permanently destroyed the offensive capacity of the Japanese Navy to operate in the eastern Pacific and permanently crippled its defensive capacity in the western Pacific. Thereafter, as informed observers understood, a Japanese attack or invasion of the West Coast of America was a total logistical impossibility. Nevertheless, two months later, the internment of West Coast Japanese American citizens began in August 1942.

The Pearl Harbor coverup began immediately afterward with the court marshals of Admiral Kimmel and General Short, continued through eight Congressional investigations during and after the war, with the purging and withholding of documents and false testimony by participants and others [253-260 & passim; 309-310] and persisted through the Congressional hearings chaired by Strom Thurmond in 1995 [257-258].

At the date of publication (2000) numerous documents were still withheld from Stinnett or released in extensively censored form. But his case is conclusively proven on the basis of the evidence he presents, as any fair-minded reader can see. The only way to refute or debunk it would be to establish that his documentary evidence is forged, and prove it. In face of the character of this evidence, the idea is nonsensical.

A key break for Stinnett’s research was his discovery of duplicate copies of reports of Japanese naval code transmissions from the Pearl Harbor radio-intercept station routed after the war to the Belmont (California) National Archives, and still there long after the copies in the Washington, D.C. archive files had been disappeared.

Recent writers pretending to debunk Stinnett’s evidence have resurrected claims that the Japanese naval codes had not been deciphered and that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence — claims that have been refuted repeatedly for decades. Famously, the radio operator of the American liner Mariposa intercepted repeated signals from the Japanese fleet steaming toward Hawaii and relayed its progressive bearings to the Navy. This was well-known during the war to American seamen of the Pacific merchant marine and is mentioned in published accounts.

The pretense that the Japanese naval and diplomatic codes had not been deciphered was first refuted in a federal court in Chicago in 1943. As her biographer Ralph G. Martin recounts, Cissy Patterson, managing editor of the Washington Times-Herald on December 7, 1941 (and for decades before and after) was opposed to American intervention in another world war — like over 80% of her fellow Americans, including her brother Joe Patterson, publisher of the New York News, and her cousin Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune. Serving in France as a battlefield officer, Robert was wounded, twice gassed, and decorated for valor. His Chicago Tribune, like his cousins’ newspapers and numerous others, especially off the east coast, was vocally anti-interventionist — until Pearl Harbor.

In Cissy (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1979) Martin writes: “As the news of the disaster [at Pearl Harbor] kept coming in [to the Times-Herald’s newsroom], Cissy bitterly asked [her Sunday Editor] Roberts about Roosevelt, ‘Do you suppose hearranged this?’ Later when she learned that American cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor, she was convinced that Roosevelt had known in advance that the Japanese intended to attack”[418]. “The Chicago Tribune, the Times-Herald, and two dozen other papers later printed an article by a Tribune war correspondent which indicated that the United States had prevailed [at Midway] because the Japanese codes had been broken…. The Department of Justice decided to file charges that the Tribune and the Times-Herald had betrayed U.S. military secrets…. Attorney General Francis Biddle felt the disclosure of this breakthrough had been tantamount to treason because it gave the Japanese the chance to change their codes. Waldrop [Times-Herald editor] was called to Chicago to testify before a grand jury… In the middle of the testimony, the Navy disclosed that a Navy censor had passed the Tribune article. Forced to drop the case, Biddle said he ‘felt like a fool.’” [431-432] He wasn’t the only one.

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.