Derech Emunah – The First Official Chareidi Outpost

So, What’s this Outpost Thing?

Yoel Berman

Driving with some friends in the Binyamin region of Eretz Yisrael just north of Yerushalayim, just a few short minutes past the northern Yerushalayim neighborhood of Neve Yaakov, we pass by the hilltop outpost of Giv’at Asaf. It consists of several houses built using light construction materials. These structures made of panels of insulated sheet-metal are commonly known in Israel as ‘caravanim’. Though you probably won’t find this definition in an English dictionary, an English speaker in Israel who uses the word ‘caravan’ is more likely to be referring to one of these than to a mobile home.

The government policy of not creating any new settlements on this side of the Green Line means it is impossible to get this land zoned for residential housing, and therefore any construction here would be illegal. Does that mean that Jewish construction doesn’t happen? Well, that’s a different story…

Continuing with the Mitzvah

Eli of the Nachala movement fills us in with some background. “The expulsion from Gush Katif caused a crisis in the settlement movement. There were many who thought it was maybe time to move on and invest in other undertakings, such as going back to live in the cities and do kiruv outreach, and neglect this mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael. The Nachala movement was then initiated by Moshe Levinger z”l, to continue with the settlement enterprise.”

The objective of Nachala is to arouse the Jewish people to settle the Land of Israel. From a Torah point-of-view, there are two parts to the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael; one part is not to leave the Land in the hands of other nations, and the other part is not to leave the land desolate, but to actively settle it. While the first part may possibly be fulfilled with Jewish military control, Nachala wants to see a continuation of the second part, too.

Over time, and as a result of government policies due to American pressure not allowing new construction, there came to be a perception even among the people living in the settlements, that whatever is outside the surrounding fence is not ours, and does not legitimately and unquestionably belong to the Jewish people to settle there as we wish. It may be that the sense of less security outside the fence contributed to this feeling. This is something that Nachala is working to change.

Establishing a Presence

Nachala started with building small outposts outside existing settlements, such as Ma’oz Esther, Shevut Ami, and Ramat Migron. They suffered (and continue to suffer) many demolitions and evacuations by the army, the State and the Civil Administration, but perseverance is the name of the game.

With time and experience, and advice from professionals – legal, political, construction – they learn what works and what doesn’t. The legal status of the land they want to build on, the distance from an existing settlement, and other factors such as the army’s interest in a Jewish presence for security purposes, can determine what level of risk there is that the government will demolish or evacuate. The higher the risk, the less is invested in more permanent construction and infrastructure. First tents are put up, and people come in shifts. Once an outpost becomes more established, more is invested and people build more permanent housing, like the caravans we first saw in Giv’at Asaf, or even cement homes. There is no guarantee for permanence though; there can always be personnel changes in Civil Administration or the like that can bring a change of attitude towards an outpost. In some cases, the outposts may eventually be retroactively authorized and legalized.

A caravan home can cost anywhere between 30,000 shekels for a really basic structure, and up to 100,000 shekels for something considerably more advanced. Many times after a demolition, a fundraising campaign is undertaken to rebuild what had been destroyed.

There are outposts that after many years are still subject to periodical demolitions, and there are those that are largely left intact. Though they are both illegal, Ma’oz Esther belongs to the former group and Havot Gil’ad belongs to the latter. The difference is in the factors previously mentioned.

One of the strategies used by Nachala is to continuously create a new frontier. Building new outposts causes the existing ones to be considered more established, and lowers their risk of demolition.

Life on the Outpost

The perseverance required means that only idealists take up the challenge. Once they are in, though, they stay for quality of life too. The lack of materialism, the connection to nature, the serenity, and the breathtaking views are hard to find elsewhere. Some idealism must stay because there always is a risk of the hardships of demolition and evacuation. Eli himself has moved from one outpost which suffered repeated demolitions, to another which is considered more established. It had gotten to a point where it was too much for his family to bear.

Traditionally, it has mostly been people from the Dati-Leumi (National Religious) sector that have been involved in this enterprise, though there is some interest from others as well, including recently from some Chareidim. Generally, the initial group forming an outpost is created by friends and acquaintances, or by people who were living in the nearby settlement, so these outposts are usually homogenous. There is generally an absorption committee made up of some residents, to make sure the people who want to join are normal and compatible with the outpost environment. An outpost typically consists of anywhere between one to fifty families.

I was surprised when Eli told me that most people living in outposts do not hold guns. I thought that this would be a requirement which would preclude most Chareidim from joining this enterprise, but apparently it isn’t. Each outpost does have someone constantly on guard though. Additionally, although the outposts are officially illegal, the army does generally provide security for Jews in these areas.

Almost everyone living on an outpost does have a car, though. Even if there is public transportation to the area, it is usually to an established legitimate settlement, and access from there to the outpost is only by private car. This may be an obstacle for many Chareidim, where car ownership is not very common due to heavy reliance on public transportation. Eli tells me that there are some outpost dwellers, like some young couples just starting out in life, who do not own cars, but they usually try to save up so that within a year or two they can afford one. This may not be so difficult because they are usually not paying rent. Meanwhile, they manage by getting rides from others.

The outposts rely a lot on the infrastructure of the nearby settlements. New outposts generally start with a water tank, but eventually, connection to water and electricity is usually willingly provided by the nearby settlement, facilitated by a good working connection between the local authorities and the management of the outposts. Some settlements even go out of their way to help the nearby outposts as much as possible. Shopping, education, and other services are usually available in the nearby settlement.

The people living in outposts are involved in all trades and practices, though there may be a bigger percentage involved in agriculture and construction. There are also mothers raising large families with children of all ages.

On Behalf of Klal Yisrael

Being that these outposts are considered illegal by the Israeli government (just for the record, by international law Modi’in Illit and Beitar Illit are also considered illegal), I was wondering if outpost residents are generally anti-establishment fringe elements of society, or if this illegal residency may otherwise cause people to be less law-abiding.

Eli explains, “The vast majority of people know to differentiate between the laws. They understand that what we are doing is with the backing of the Jewish nation, and that these are just political laws stemming from pressure coming from the gentiles. Of course, there are always some youth that think they can do whatever they want, but they eventually come to realize that normative rules and laws must be kept.”

There is a limit to the enforcement of laws which are not backed by the public. Eli relates that he has been taken in for interrogation about his illegal settlement activity, and they have all the information about him if they wanted to press charges, but they cannot do so from a public perspective. He says that is part of Nachala’s strategy – to ensure there is wide public backing for what they are doing. He says the greater the public backing –  even if just from the settlement population – the more difficult it is for the authorities to demolish and evict.

He notes that even the mainstream Leftists do not look at the settlers as lawless thugs just for the act of settling. They always try to find other things with which to portray settlers in a bad light.

Not minimizing their contribution to the effort to retain land in Jewish hands, Eli notes that the hilltop youth, who usually act alone and with less public backing, are sometimes apprehended and harassed by the authorities, He says that aside from minimizing risk, acting with public backing means the activities are done more authentically in the name and on behalf of the Jewish nation.

What Is It All About?

Up until about 20 years ago, the State of Israel still allowed Jews to establish hilltop communities all over Yehuda, Shomron, and Gaza, which was usually done with caravans. It was done by unwritten agreement as something in the national interest. Then the Americans started heavily pressuring the Israeli government to stop allowing this, and this caused a change in Israeli policy.

If they could have their way, the Arabs would have long ago taken over large swaths of land. In general, nobody is stopping them from building and expanding to their hearts’ content. It was recently discovered that the Arabs, with the generous help of the European Union, have devised a plan to inhabit all areas of Yehuda and Shomron currently unpopulated by Jews, by the year 2030. Unfortunately, the facts on the ground show that they are progressing as planned. If action is not taken now, it will chalilah be too late.

It is Nachala’s hope that the public action, awareness and backing will create enough political pressure on the government to change its policies and legally allow Jewish settlement.

What now?

With the technical guidance of Nachala, and the rabbinical guidance of Rav Refoel Kook shlita (son of Rav Simcha zt”l of Rechovot), the first Chareidi outpost – Derech Emunah – is being established, in a strategic area about 2 kilometers from the Chareidi yishuv of Meitzad.

Derech Emunah.jpeg

We are doing the hishtadlus that we can, and for this we need as much public backing as we can get. That – is up to you!

With HaShem’s help, we will publicize periodical updates as this historic project unfolds.


Enjoyed the article? Want to be an active part of this?
Here’s the Avira D’Eretz Yisroel link to the campaign for Derech Emunah.
(The campaign is a joint campaign for all the ma’achazim being established by Nachala.
All funds from the campaign through this link go towards the Derech Emunah project.)

ההיסטוריה האמתית של הסינון

בעולם החרדי יש כמה הנחות יסוד בסיסיות:

1. גדולי ישראל מורי דרכנו.

2. העסקנים לא שולטים אלא נשלטים ולא מעוררים בעצמם, רק נקראים ע”י הגדולים כדי לסייע ולפעול במה שכבר הוחלט.

3. כמובן, הגדולים לא טועים ח”ו, לא במציאות ולא בהלכה ולא בהנהגה.

4. עיני העדה רואים היטב למרחוק את הנולד, וכפי כל דברי חז”ל שנאמרו על הזקנים בסנהדרין וכנסת ישראל.

5. הגדולים מקבלים את האמת ממי שאמרה.

6. ד”א, עדיף ללכת בעצמו לאן שצריך ולחכות בתור, ולא להזדקק ח”ו לאינטרנט הארור, אפי’ עם הסינון הכי טוב בעולם, ופשיטא.

אבל כל זה גוזמא.

הרב אפרים שבדרון, מנהל סינון “אתרוג” מספר את תחילת מעשהו בתחום הזה כאן (מתחיל בדקה 8:10).

בדקה 10:13 הרב מספר שבא לעורר על הצורך בסינון האינטרנט, ו”עד היום יש לי את הסימנים מהמכות כשזרקו אותי מהמדרגות”.

הרבנים “סתמו את האזנים” כלשונו. הם אמרו, “כמו שהצלחנו להוציא את הטלוויזיה מהציבור החרדי אנחנו לא נתחבר לאינטרנט.”

ואילו הוא ראה שנדרש פתרון כולל כשהיה עדיין מהירות גלישה 28K.

בדקה 14:50 עד 15:10 הרב שבדרון מעיר בשם איזה רב שעדיף להכנס לאתר האינטרנט של ביטוח לאומי עם סינון מתאים מאשר להכנס בגפו למשרדים עצמם עם המסכים הגדולים והחיות המסתובבות שם, וה”ה לכל משרד ממשלתי.

וק”ל.

(הוקלד מקופיא; מומלץ לשמוע במקור.)

A Fetus Is a Chatzi Nefesh

The Torah on Unborn Children – Part 2

Part one is available at chananyaweissman.com/article.php?id=455.

Tehillim 19:10 reads as follows: “ יראת ה‘ טהורה עומדת לעד משפטי ה‘ אמת צדקו יחדו”.

Fear of Hashem is pure. It stands forever. The laws of Hashem are true, righteous together.

The Malbim contrasts Hashem’s laws with those of Man, the majority of whom are spiritually impure, and make laws on that basis. Whereas Hashem’s laws stand forever, Man’s laws are short-lived and constantly changing, for they tend to be based on nonsense. Furthermore, Man’s laws are irrational and unjust, even incompatible with one another. The punishments for lawbreakers are so poorly weighed and measured to fit the crime as to be essentially arbitrary.

Wherever you are reading this, you live under a jungle of laws and regulations that make no sense, that ordinary citizens cannot possibly keep track of, that do not fit together with any harmony or consistency, and the definitions of which change to suit those in power. The government can make a criminal out of anyone at any time and throw the book at him – and they do just that when it suits them. Every man is equal under the law, except for everyman.

Hashem’s laws, on the other hand, are divine and objectively just. This is why they stand the test of time like no other.

I heard Rabbi Moshe Tendler, of blessed memory, explain “righteous together” as follows. An individual Torah law by itself might not seem rational or fair. They are righteous when studied and observed together, as a complete package, creating a divine balance for Man in this world.

Consequently, those who pick and choose which parts of the Torah suit them, or who otherwise believe they can improve on the original, are doomed to fail. Not only are they doomed to fail, they are doomed to become that which they hate and fear: hypocritical and unjust.

With this in mind, let us examine the supposed Torah support for enemies of unborn children. Their arguments are based almost invariably on a handful of disparate comments cherry-picked from the vast expanse of the Talmud, with no context provided, in the style of missionaries and snakes.

*

Source #1: Until forty days, the fetus is merely water (Yevamos 69B). The baby-killers triumphantly claim that this reflects the actual legal status of unborn children in the early days of gestation. It’s like bathwater. Spill it out.

This is quite easy to refute. First of all, the Torah explicitly states that Hashem killed Ehr and Onan for destroying their seed during marital relations (Bereishis 38). If an actual fetus is nothing but water, then destroying seed is less than even that. Since when is pouring out water punishable by death, even at the hands of heaven?

The Gemara in Nidda 31A makes it abundantly clear that we are talking about far more than mere water. Chazal teach, based on Bilam’s prophecy in Bamidbar 23:10, that Hashem is present when a Jewish husband and wife are together, and He eagerly anticipates the seed from which a righteous child will be born.

So what about the Gemara in Yevamos? Once again, the missionaries conveniently ignore the context. Chazal are discussing the case of the daughter of a Kohen who married an Israelite. Since the wife is assimilated into the tribe of the husband (no apologies to feminists) she is no longer allowed to eat terumah. If she has children with her husband, she remains ineligible to eat terumah even after his death. If she was pregnant at the time of her husband’s death, the child in her womb counts the same as a child that was already born.

If the husband died within forty days of the last time they lived together, she is allowed to eat terumah immediately. If it turns out that she is not pregnant, all well and good. Even if she is pregnant, for the first forty days the fetus is like water – not that one can intentionally eliminate it, but that it doesn’t yet have the technical legal status of a fully formed child, which keeps her a member of her deceased husband’s tribe.

The fetus being like water until forty days is nothing more than a figure of speech, and it was always understood as such until heretics and ignoramuses came along and made a religion out of it.

Their distortion of this Gemara is further vasectomized by the Noda B’Yehuda in responsa 309, cited by the Pischei Teshuva on Even HaEzer 156:4. The Torah states that a woman becomes a yevama if her husband didn’t have a child at the time of his death. What if a woman lived with her husband, he died later that day, and she later gave birth to a living child that was actually conceived after her husband’s death? Would this child release her from being a yevama? Or do we say that at the time of her husband’s death he did not technically have a son?

The Noda B’Yehuda leaves the question unresolved. However, he strongly considers the possibility that a seed inside the mother’s womb that is destined to be born already has the legal status of the father’s child, which has life-altering implications for the widow. This pours water on the claim that the Torah considers a fetus to be mere water. Nonsense.

*

Having demonstrated that even a seed in the mother’s womb is extremely important, possibly even having the legal status of a child for certain purposes, it is superfluous to refute claims that a fetus at later dates isn’t a living person with legal status. But for purposes of educating the masses and eviscerating the distorters of our divine Torah, we will examine their other favorite sources.

Source #2: Rashi in his commentary to Sanhedrin 72B states that until a child is born, it is not a nefesh. They interpret this to mean that the child does not yet have a soul, and consequently it does not count. Essentially, it’s just a bunch of cells.

The case in question is a mother who is having a difficult childbirth and her life is directly endangered by the child. The law is that if the child’s head has exited, we are not allowed to harm it to save the mother, for we do not push aside one nefesh to save another. (This has broad implications, and pretty much puts the eugenicists and “ethicists” out of business, please God.) If not, we are allowed to kill the child if necessary to save the mother’s life.

The baby-killers distort this source beyond all recognition. First they surgically extract nine words from Rashi’s commentary – that the unborn child is not a nefesh. They conveniently ignore the fact that this source applies strictly to an extremely rare circumstance, and permits the killing of the child in that case only because the mother is about to die before our eyes. Then they pretend that this is the Torah’s definition of all unborn children, all the time. Since the child is a lifeless, soulless entity, we may eliminate it without the slightest pang of guilt.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. No student of Torah will claim that Chazal or Rashi would argue that killing unborn children is some innate right, if not a virtue. The death of an unborn child – especially at the hands of man – is a horrific tragedy that is permitted in the same way that we are permitted to kill a would-be murderer if there is no other way to stop him. That is precisely the comparison the Gemara makes.

But they don’t tell you that.

Furthermore, they misconstrue the word nefesh. When Rashi states that the child is not a nefesh until he is born, he does not mean that the child is just a clump of cells with the mere potential to become something more. Rather, until he is born he does not have the same technical legal status as the mother, to the extent that we intervene if the child is directly endangering the mother’s life. This is clearly illustrated by the Gemara in Sanhedrin 57B, which explicitly refers to a fetus in the mother’s womb as adam, a human being (based on Bereishis 9:6). According to Noahide law, abortion is a capital crime. In reference to this law, the Rambam states as follows (Melachim U’Milchamos 9:4): “A Noahide who kills a nefesh, even a fetus in the mother’s womb, is executed for it.”

The baby-killers and their apologists seem to have missed this Rambam, which explicitly refers to an unborn child as a nefesh. Have we suddenly discovered a previously unknown dispute between Rashi and the Rambam? Of course not. The Torah’s consistent position is that a fetus is alive and precious.

The laws of Hashem are true, righteous together.

*

Source #3: “Ubar yerech imo”, a fetus is an appendage of the mother (as opposed to a separate entity). If the fetus is simply a part of the mother’s body, say the missionaries, then the mother should have the right to remove it. Why should hacking a fetus to pieces be any different than getting a manicure or a haircut?

Ah, but we are reasonable people. Eliminating a fetus should at least be considered a form of elective surgery, and elective surgery should only be performed if there is a serious need. What constitutes a serious need? What doesn’t? Hack away.

As usual, the distorters of Torah neglect to provide any context for the three words that suit their agenda. This concept appears in the Talmud in a wide variety of cases, yet, tellingly, eliminating a fetus is not among them. Not even close. What the distorters take as the most natural and obvious application of this concept is not entertained anywhere by Chazal.

They also fail to mention that the very concept of ubar yerech imo is a matter of dispute throughout the Talmud. One opinion is that the fetus is considered part of the mother’s body for certain legalistic purposes, as we will see, while the other side considers the fetus a separate entity because it is destined to separate from the mother. While we ultimately rule according to the former, the fact that this concept is a matter of dispute is very significant. No student of the Torah would argue that Chazal were disputing whether a fetus is just another body part, which can be lopped off if needed.

Here are several examples that illustrate this.

Yevamos 78A: Someone designates a pregnant animal for a sin-offering, and the mother subsequently gives birth. Do we say ubar yerech imo, in which case he can fulfill his vow by sacrificing either the mother or the child, or do we not say ubar yerech imo, in which case the child of a sin-offering cannot be brought?

Chullin 58A: A similar question is raised regarding the child of an animal that is treif (has a grave injury, and is therefore unfit). Is the child unfit as well, or is it treated as a separate entity?

Temura 30B: Someone committed bestiality with a pregnant animal, which disqualifies the animal from being brought as a sacrifice. The mother subsequently gives birth. Do we say ubar yerech imo, in which case the child is also disqualified, or is the fetus treated as a separate entity, and permitted?

Rambam Hilchos Shechita 12:10, based on Chullin 75B: If one slaughters a pregnant animal and the child comes out alive, does the child need to be slaughtered as well, or was it already made “kosher” by the slaughtering of the mother?

These are just several examples of ubar yerech imo being debated and applied in Jewish law. The questions revolve around changes in legal status to the mother, and whether this change in status is transferred to the child inside her. It has nothing to do with the fetus being considered just another clump of the mother’s cells that has no independent meaning or rights.

*

Source #4: If two men are fighting, and one of them accidentally strikes a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, he is responsible only to pay monetary damages (Shemos 21:22). The child-killers claim based on this that it is not a child they are killing, otherwise the Torah would treat the perpetrator as a murderer.

Of course, they ignore the fact that the very verse they are citing refers to the unborn children as children. Not a limb, not a piece of property, but children. It is true that the penalty for killing this child is less severe than the penalty for killing a child that has already been born, but it is a child nonetheless. Furthermore, nowhere does the Torah indicate that one may willfully perform this horrific act.

The one time the Torah mentions a miscarriage being induced, it is a crime. There are technical legal reasons why the criminal is not treated like a murderer, but one cannot argue that abortion is no worse than stepping on someone’s flowers.

According to the Torah, unborn children are precious human beings, albeit with a legal status that varies from case to case. In the case of a mother’s life being endangered by the pregnancy, the child’s life may tragically be cut short. This is the exception that proves the rule, and should not be used to push the envelope.

Contrary to what the screaming people want you to believe, this case is also extremely rare. The Magen Avraham on Orach Chaim 330 wrote that not even one out of a thousand women die during childbirth. He lived in the 1600s.

But it is clear that the minority of abnormal cases is not the issue under discussion. The Amalekites and Erev Rav are like mosquitoes, probing for any opening from which they can draw blood. They are not interested in protecting mothers, or children, or society, or the human race. They are certainly not interested in following the Torah and serving God. They are evil. They seek to erode people’s sensitivities, corrupt their minds, and destroy their souls.

Those who distort the Torah to arrive at conclusions that are against the halacha lose their share in the world to come (Avos 3:11). Those who study Torah for the purpose of being contrarian and creating strife are better off not being born (Brachos 17A, Tosafos). The cherry-pickers with an odious agenda are exactly who Chazal were talking about.

There is a war for civilization, within and without Jewish society, and it must be fought. But let one thing be crystal clear: the Torah is squarely on our side. We have allowed the Erev Rav and Amalek to claim otherwise, to our shame and detriment. It is high time we put them in their place.

[Note: For even more on the subject, listen to my recent seminars on The Jewish View on Unborn ChildrenIyov on Life Before Birth, and Roe vs. Wade and the Jewish Perspective.]

__________________________

chananyaweissman.com/

rumble.com/c/c-782463

Download Tovim Ha-Shenayim as a PDF for free!

הערה בענין סדרת ‘האוצר היומי’ לסיום כל התורה בשבע שנים

מהו “האוצר היומי“?

האוצר היומי הוא סדר לימוד יומי משבעה עשר חלקי התורה לסיום כל התורה בשבע שנים. אלפי הלומדים מתרגשים, גדולי ישראל מהללים, כל התורה כולה! זה כבר לא חלום….. כמה דקות ביום עם האוצר היומי, שבע שנים, כל התורה כולה! הסט כולל 84 כרכים (כרך אחד לחודש).

חלקי התורה שכלולים בתוך הסט: תנ”ך עם רש”י, משנה עם פירוש ברטנורא, תוספתא, ש”ס בבלי עם פירוש חברותא צורת הדף, ירושלמי עם פירוש ידיד נפש ברוב הסט, רמב”ם, טור, שולחן ערוך מחבר רמ”א, מדרש רבא, מדרש תנחומא, זוהר, תיקוני זוהר, ליקוטי מוהר”ן, ליקוטי תפילות, ליקוטי הלכות (כל הלימודים עד כאן מחולקים ל- 7 שנים).

ספרי מוסר וחסידות המתחלפים כל שנה: שנה 1 – נפש החיים, שנה 2 – מסילת ישרים, שנה 3 – אורחות צדיקים, שנה 4 – נועם אלימלך, שנה 5 – מאור עיניים מטשנרנוביל, שנה 6 – קדושת לוי, שנה 7 – תניא.

הסבר וראיון באתר הידברות כאן.

יש סרטון הסברה כאן. אפשר לראות דוגמה מתוך העמוד הראשון כאן.

קודם כל ומעל הכל, אני בעד הרעיון כמובן.

אבל חשוב לי להעיר שאין זה כל התורה. חשוב יותר מספרי מוסר וכדומה זה דברי חז”ל. היכן ילקוט שמעוני, מדרש הגדול, ברייתות ללא מסכתא, וכולי?

מקוה שיקומו מתחרים עם סדר שונה.