The Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (Living in Israel) and the 3 Oaths by Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

okay uh good morning everybody hope hope you're all well uh first uh we want to announce as always uh this share for the entire year is sponsored by rever fo and Sharon Alman in memory of their parents Edith and Riner Alman and their son har Alman and uh we're very very appreciative of theak Torah may it be an uh for their parents and for their for their son uh we are in the middle of uh uh discussion about the Mitzvah Isel uh what we had done uh for two weeks uh was going over the ramban's opinion in which there is a Mitzvah called yes is and you will recall that there are four components to that Mitzvah number one the establishment of Jewish sovereignty which is very interesting number two not leave the land desolate but to channel it into productive uses number three is the psychological imperative of not regarding any other place in the world as the Jewish homeland no matter where you live and number four is the one that most people know as the Mitzvah and that's to actually live here right so that's really number four to make your residence in erish Israel uh once again there are going to be shilas what what is erish Israel remember ER Israel and state of Israel are not exactly the same because there are areas of the state of Israel that are not within the biblical boundaries of arish Israel a lot might be might be an example of that uh Gaza by the way is not Gaza is actually clearly within the boundaries of AR Israel but but at least a lot might not be and number two the other way around there are quite a large a large amount of territory that is outside of the boundaries of the state of Israel that actually has theot of a AR Israel so it's interesting that ER Israel and M Isel are overlapping areas but each one has something that's outside of the of the other one and the like now today I want to start looking at the Rams myman opinion because that's the other half of the of the puzzle here so in my man there's a number of things that are going to make it difficult to put your finger on it because number one he never makes a statement there is no Mitzvah to live in aell it's not the way it's presented rather it's simply by way of omission remember how the ramban got on to this the rambam my manad wrote sa mitzvos and he listed the different mitzvos and at the end of the sa mitzvos ran notes mitzvos that he felt ran omitted and he notes in his list of omissions so the only thing you can say about the rambam is he doesn't count it in his list of the 6113 mitzvot but what lesson do you infer from an Omission moreover it's important to note that the gor at the end of Kos has many many many m K about the spiritual importance of living in the land of Israel even statements like he who lives in ER Israel has a God and He Who lives outside of er Israel it is do it is comparable to one who does not have a god Etc we we'll we'll go over what that might mean and uh even a statement it is better to live in AR Israel even in a city that is a majority of AAR worship rather than to live in in a city that's a majority of righteous Jews although I doubt that you know if somebody were to ask a rabbi you know uh should I live in Lakewood a ramala you know I'm pretty sure what the would be but nevertheless if you read the literally this is what it says so the interesting thing is the rambam brings all of those statements so to say that the rambam disparaged the importance of living inel is clearly not true because all of those M are brought down in the Mish Torah and in fact even the that if either spouse wants to live in erel which everyone wants to live in ER Isel has a veto power so to speak over the other the rambam brings that so on one hand all of the stuff that indicates that this is a Mitzvah the r does bring but the one thing he doesn't do is he doesn't count it as a Mitzvah in other words in the list of the 6113 there is no Mitzvah of yes is so the question is why not why does the rambam not count it so I'm going to first give you the two basic approaches and then I'll flesh them out but I'm going to just first give them in like bullet form approach number one which is indeed the approach of most commentators most commentators is that the ramban maintains that although it's a wonderful wonderful thing a good thing a great thing it is not a commandment in other words quite literally the rambam does not consider this to be a mandatory Commandments and even though the Torah says right the ran in you shall inherit the land and you should inhabit it uh that is called a commandment only for yosua B nun and the new generation it is not a this is now I'll explain why that would be so in a few minutes but this is the mainstream interpretation of the rambam's opinion that even though it's a wonderful thing yesel is not a mandatory commandment uh and therefore it is not counted in the 6113 because the p in Paras M Mas is it is for that generation it is not now that is the mainstream interpretation and uh the source of that mainstream interpretation is uh a commentary on the sa mitv which a very unusual name it's called migas Esther actually that's not an unusual name per se but as applied to SW it's an unusual name uh migas eser uh is not referring to the Book of Esther but the person wrote a commentary on sa Mitzvah any sa you'll find it and he wrote it in memory of his mother who was Esther so he called it millat Esther and it's considered to be like almost the Rashi on the sa mitzvot is kind of the primary commentary on the sa mitzvot and this is his position it is not a Mitzvah now there is however an alternative position that actually says that it's a super Mitzvah and let me explain this I had mentioned the other week that in the sa mitzvot there are three parts to the sa mitzvot part two is a listing of and a brief explanation of the 248 positive Commandments part three is an explanation of the 365 negative Commandments part two part three part one which is totally original and unique is a listing and an explanation of 14 criteria that the rambam used in defining what is a Mitzvah and what is not a Mitzvah these are called the shim these are called The Roots and this is was an absolutely an original work because all the earlier compendia of Mitzvah like raon and the like they gave no criter they just listed things and the problem is of course that if you look at every imperative sentence in the Torah every time God said to do something you'll get a lot more than 613 you'll get 5,000 and the like so how do you classify so the rambam tried to give us what you might call scientific principles of classification when do you for example count steps in a process as one mitzvah for example bringing a sin offering the Torah says he shall he shall sprinkle the blood so we don't count that as separate Mitzvah there's a Mitzvah called bringing a sin offering that gives you one Shabbat has 39 malas you're not allowed to do we don't count it as Thou shalt not cook Thou shalt not carry there's one Mitzvah do not do M Shabbat that has 39 Parts you see how the Ramba manages to kind of reduce the number so in the fourth shes the ramb I'm sorry maybe it's the fif the fifth shes the rambam lays down a certain rule about mitv we don't count as a Mitzvah General Commandments to keep the whole Torah now God says many times throughout the keep my Commandments follow my laws behold I have given you the path of life and the path of death you shall choose the path of life so let me ask you do they count as the 613 mitzvot is there a Mitzvah called keep the Torah is there a Mitzvah that's called choose life the rambam's argument is although these are obviously God's words to us Hashem is speaking but they technically do not enter the list of the 613 because they're not telling you to do any anything more than you already have to do in other words if God says keep a b c d right A to Z and then says everything I said is binding on you my Moni's argues we do not count the everything is binding on you as a separate autonomous Mitzvah because it is not adding anything to the duties that you already have this is a clown in the rambam that we don't count in the Min of 613 es Taha Commandments that include the whole Torah and the logic of that would be because they're not adding anything to what you already have to do God already told me a b c d z so so a general exhortation keep everything is not an additional mitzvah right this is the rambam's idea now let me give you an example of where sometimes there's a m if something is an exhortation or a separate Mitzvah uh few weeks ago we read Paras kadim so the Torah says hasem speaks to B is and says you shall be holy kados Anem for I God holy does that count as a Mitzvah what what is the Mitzvah to be holy be holy so there's actually a mlus Rashi and ramban what kosim to you means according to Rashi it's actually a fairly limited commandment it says be careful and conscientious in your observance of the sexual restrictions of gilot because if you are LAX in gilot you will not be a holy person that's rashi's interpretation so according to Rashi kosim is not adding anything over and above the prohibitions of arot so you would not count it as a separate mitz you essentially God is simply saying be careful in the laws of arot that I gave you the ramban however it's a very famous ramban Al Torah says kosim is actually adding an extra Mitzvah and here the ramban enters into a very classic discussion of a category called Naval Bor a naval Bor means a very disgusting person who is acting within the letter of the Torah meaning he keeps every but his midot are not good uh he abuses people in ways in which he might technically not be transgressing lashara Etc and the ramban says it is possible that a person lives in literal compliance with the Mitzvah but is overall a disgusting person right so kosim says be holy mean over and above the mitzvot that I gave you be a decent person be a moral person be a Godly person so the concept of going beyond the letter of the law becomes part of the law that's interesting according to ramban to go beyond minimal hak requirements becomes a h requirement by virtue of kadim so according to ramban we certainly would count kosim to you as a Mitzvah because it is adding something over and Beyond the other 612 mitzvot okay so this is rambam's view that ramban also agrees with that we don't count General exhortations to keep the Torah that's clear so here is what some want to say about I had mentioned a statement from the gar k he who lives in is like someone that has a God and he who lives in there is a is a m that says that God says to us be sure to keep the MIT even in the go so you will remember how to do them when you come back to ER Israel now this is actually an amazing statement do I have to keep Shabbat in I certainly do do I have to put on in if I'm a man I certainly do do I have to read shma I certainly do no no question about that but the safre is saying the intrinsic spiritual power of mitv is only in the land of Israel and Hashem commanded us to keep it outside just so we won't forget what to do which means the real spiritual power of a Mitzvah is only here now that is not talking about MIT like because that you don't keep in that's talking about FMA so here's the argument the reason why the rambam does not count living in ER Isel as a Mitzvah is not because it's not a Mitzvah but because it is essentially a commandment to keep the Torah since if you're not living in ER Israel you're not keeping the Torah understand this another the same way that a statement Thou shalt keep the Torah is not counted as a separate Mitzvah because it is simply affirming your obligation to keep the Torah and that the ram says explicitly that is in the theim so some commentaries want to say that the RAM does not count as a discreet Mitzvah because that is the only way you will be keeping the Torah since any Torah outside of Israel is only in the within the category ofun meaning reminders to know what to do which means the point I'm making is there are two polar extremities how to understand the rambam's opinion extremity number one is exemplified by the millat Ester and most of the commentaries that the rambam simply says there is no Mitzvah there is no Mitzvah it's a great thing it's a good thing it is not an obligation that is migil ester's interpretation that is followed by most however there is an opposite interpretation that is 180 degrees the other direction that says it is a Mitzvah but it is a Mitzvah to keep the Torah because your mitv aren't really that valuable if done in the Mitzvah of living in the land of Israel is a super Mitzvah keep the Torah and based on the rambam's CLA such a Mitzvah which is a Mitzvah but it's not counted in the 613 so according to that opinion the rambam considers it to be such an important Mitzvah that it's not just a mitzvah it defines your whole Jewish life in terms of all of the Mitzvah that you do now that's a scary thought that is a scary thought because if it would be a Mitzvah so somebody lives in so it's a Mitzvah they're not doing okay so I'm not doing any Mitzvah I'm doing everything else according to this interpretation you're not doing everything else meaning you're not really wearing trilling you're not really wearing SES uh perhaps you're not even really keeping shabas even though you you're me you have to do it now this is scary this puts Isel in a totally different framework that it's not simply a Mitzvah it actually redefines the whole Torah so the point I want to make though again here I'm not here to be an advocate I mean by and large I'm preaching to the choir for the most part so I don't need to convince anybody of of alah and uh whenever I try even in a moderate way I get surprisingly uh sometimes vicious responses it's quite amazing there is kind of a a new anti- Zionism among even the modern Orthodox again I'm a little I was a little shocked but uh but that's what I'm what I'm hearing now uh but it be it as it may I'm not here to again I am really here just to analyze positions I'm literally not here to be an advocate of anything but I just want you to know that in the rambam there are two major interpretive viewpoints one is not a mitzvah the other is it is such a important Mitzvah that it doesn't enter the list of the 613 because it's a commandment to keep the Torah and you're not really keeping the Torah until you're in erit erel right so two different interpretations now there was one of the great rabbis U 300 years ago 250 years ago was rakov laber you may not have heard the name but if you want to Yesa he was the author of and one of the great great great great uh commentators and the T and the and uh in fact an interesting story he was a contemporary of rebbi Aker was also the greatest of the great and they were very very good friends uh and there are a whole bunch of stories how whenever they would come to a town and the town would want to honor them both of them were very humble people who were very uncomfortable with honor so uh the old men in Europe used to be that if people came on a HSE drawn carriage uh great rabbis so they would unhitch the horses and people would pull the wagon into town way of showing so The Story Goes that rakov Lam and reager were coming to aasa together they were in the same wagon and when they unhitched the horses and people drag dragged the wagon uh of yakob lam assum they were doing it for theas so he went out for rcky veger he went out assumed it was fur than is he went out so the wagon was empty the two rabbis were dragging the wagon along with uh with everybody so they were very very great but the nus writes in a letter and some people say it's a forgery so you never know these things that the heter of people to remain in is that they are following the sh of the rambam that there's no Mitzvah now this is a letter that is purportedly in the name of the nios so we see from that letter we see from that letter that the nios understood the ramam in accordance with the migas eser but as I say there actually is some controversy if that is a genuine letter or a forgery uh but the letter that we have is that Al the r there would be no mitvah once again as I told you this would depend on the two interpretations the nas must have been following that inter iritation um by the way just again appro of nothing at all since I mentioned one story about Theus and reer I want to mention another story about re vager having nothing to do with the topic forgive me but it it's such a cute story that I want to share it with you umer was once again traveling somewhere and it was a r very very rainy night and The Coachman was soaked and reer is under you know under a canopy or inside a carriage so he says to the says listen you know I'm in a dry place so why don't we exchange clothing I'll give you my dry clothes so at least you'll be dry for a while and I can wear your wet clothes and I'm Under the Canopy so Rika was wearing the clothes of the driver so when they get to an inn and they get to a stop so everybody assumes that the driver is is the rabbi because he's dressed like the rabbi and reeger is dressed like the coach driver so all of the ranim surround the coach driver and they start asking him all sorts of difficult caues on gamorra so the coach driver doesn't know what to do but finally he says you know your questions are so simple that my driver can answer it you know don't don't bother me so you see that the coach driver was a pretty smart uh guy to come up with that uh with that particular answer okay aopo of nothing okay now let's now so now that we have at least the two basic we have ramban rambam and two interpretations of rambam let's focus on a very very important controversial historically significant gamor at the end of mos page 111 this is the famous gamar about the three Oaths the shal Shu uh because this is actually a major point of how to interpret the rambam it comes in a lot the Migel aester invokes this there is in the safer shirim right shirim even though it is written as a romance it is a metaphor for the great love that Hashem has for the Jewish people and the great love that the Jewish people have for Hashem so when there's a discussion of the shepherd and the woman it's really God and the Jewish people and you have to go through shiram that way now this was a little bit of controversy shiram According to some opinions was not considered a holy book it was considered to be risque it was considered to be sexual there were rabbis who wanted to exclude it from tanak but the great savior of shirim was RAB AKA who taught if all of the songs are holy is KES Kim and to this day it's considered to be a very very holy and profound book because all of the passion in the book is describing the Jewish people and now in there is a refrain that appears three times where the woman which is personified as the Jewish people says she turns to an enigmatic group called Beno jeram who who is she talking to that's also a big question I impose an oath on you but J Daughters of Jerusalem and what is the oath I impose is to stir up toaru is to awaken do not stir up do not awaken the love until it is desirous of it it own accord to come so look just looking at the PK very simple let's forget about commentary here if I look at this PK as a woman a woman who is looking for her lover and she's telling her friends that would be the simple meaning that don't try to stir up the love until he wants so again the simple meaning would be that she's actually telling your friends I'm pining for my lover but I want him to want me I don't want you to go to him and say oh your girlfriend you know uh you know really misses you other words again I'm going without actually actually this is a whole other point I actually think it's very important to learn Shir shiram literally first before you do the allegory because you don't really understand I mean the tendency of most commentaries and seminaries and bakov and everything else is to skip the literal meaning of the verses and go straight to the midrashim but the truth is you're missing quite a lot actually because the midashim come out of a an appreciation of the literal meaning of the verses and that's true for medis generally so the simple meaning is she's telling her friends I really miss him but don't tell him meaning I want him to come because he cares about me not because you went to him and said you know uh that I want him to come okay but given the fact that shiram has this double meaning it's man woman but it's hasem in is kazal offer a very very intriguing interpretation of these three Oaths it's repeated three times I impose an oath on you Daughters of Jerusalem do not stir up or awaken God's love God's love until it's ready need to come so the gorra says at the time of thean of the bikash god imposed three Oaths on the Jewish people they swore to Hashem three things so according to this are the Jewish people and the is God is imposing an oath on the Jewish people do not stir up God's love precipitously so here are the three Oaths oath number one B do not climb up the wall now that's not a self-defining expression but the way Rashi explains it is do not try to conquer the land of Israel by force Force of Arms I'm just quoting now do not try to conquer ER Israel by Force of Arms y wait until God redeems you shua number two do not rebel against your host countries be a loyal and obedient citizen of the governments under which you're living do not be a revolutionary number three do not try to push the coming of mashiach before it's time now it's not clear what that means at all because obviously we pray for mashia but apparently cabalistic mystically there were reasons to bring Mas an ability to bring mashia early and if you ring mashiach early that could sometimes be catastrophic because we're not ready for it yet so essentially what is the gamar doing with this the gorah is taking this The Identical formula do not stir up God's love before it's ready to refer to three interrelated phenomena Lo do not try to to conquer ER Israel by Force of Arms number two do not wage war do not rebel against your host countries number three do not try to bring mashiah early before the Jewish people are ready for it although we don't really know what that would mean this is called the shal shos this is a su the shal shos this by the way is the ideological Foundation or the textual Foundation of Nur Carta right n carta's belief that it is forbidden forbidden for the Jewish people to establish a state until the coming of mashia the primary text in rinic literature that supports that is the the iser of yalu that do not try to conquer ER Isel and take it away from the umot until the mashia Comes This is the Nur car now again let me make make it very very clear Nur car's opposition to the state of Israel has nothing to do with the fact that the leaders are not religious or or whatever it is uh the would be that even if the would be prime minister and the great is sadik which sit in the knesset although in a way I'm a little scared of how they would run the government but but okay but whatever it would be again the issue of you know non-religious or anti-religious is one one one issue that's a separate issue but that has nothing to do with n car disposition per se although they obviously they use it as additional fuel in their fire but it's simply that we're not allowed to have a Medina this is again I'll give you other interpretations again I'm here just to expose you to the sources until the coming of GA right so even if it's the most religious Medina in the world it would be user to have essentially what the gamar is expressing is a certain philosophy of quiessence or paity if you look at the underlying philosophy and that is hey God put us into Exile because of our sins we have no right to end that Exile until God ends it we'll call that quiessence passivity now one little point to think well not little point one point to think about right away is does this not contradict the overall philosophy of in life I mean for example Hashem is the source of your parasa of course without Hashem I'm not going to earn a scent or a sheo but does that mean I don't have to to work of course I have to work or or something you have some arrangement Hashem is the one that gives me Health but does that mean I don't go to a doctor of course I go to a doctor if I have to so with that idea if the Jewish people are in galut even though you know God engineered the galut is there some intrinsic prohibition to try to make things better I mean listen if God doesn't want us to be successful then we won't successful but we're allowed to try other words all I'm saying is that the interpretation of the shal as a philosophical matter seems to be inconsistent with the notion ofl that permeates much of Judaism nevertheless and I'll give you other interpretations for in a moment the shal seems to preclude the establishment of a Medina until the coming of mashia now the comment migil who you'll recall is the one that learns that the Ramba maintains there is no Mitzvah actually says that the rambam source is the gar about shal that since the shal seems to negate then that would mean there's no mitz of now if you're going to ask me oh wait a second this is apples and oranges I mean even aarta is not against settling in Isel so just because you're negating a med what does that what does that have to do with living there but the answer is it's a package deal you see from the ramban that yesel includes both Jewish sovereignty and living so says the Mader if the gamar tells us that we're prohibit it from Medina then it can't be that there's a Mitzvah if there would be a Mitzvah how could the prophets prohibit something that's a Mitzvah that's the mot ester's understanding and obviously he's following his reading of the ram that there's no Mitzvah now I want to point out that although today much of nurri Carta is kind of a lunatic fringe meeting with uh Iran and even engaging in some type of Holocaust denial which is like absolutely you know I mean their own their own grandparents you know died in the Holocaust I mean what is going on there uh but the truth of the matter is as a theological position and I hope you won't hate me with this because again I'm just trying to report if you look at prior to 1948 you look at different testimony of rabbis in front of the United Nations or not and they know the different commissions the appeal commission and the like under the British mandate you will actually see that this was a position that was maintained by a number of rabbis that they felt it is not proper for the Jewish people to establish an autonomous uh State and in fact going back to the 19th century this was none other than the position of raim H who uh took the position that uh Jewish statehood was not on the agenda for the Jewish people until mashiach so what became a minority position after 1948 was in fact not as crazy as people sometimes make it out make it out to be uh but obviously many many rabbis then and now endorsed Med Isel they considered it to be a blessing from Hashem uh even the brisar and I I can't reconcile this totally because the brisar was unquestionably an anti-zionist and yet and yet I have another quote that he said I can't I literally cannot reconcile this that when the state was established he said this was Hashem giving us a smile after the Holocaust that after the devastation of the Holocaust God wanted to give the Jewish people kind of a hug a comfort how you reconcile that with the brisar an I honestly don't know but he did say it and uh many others of course considered the med in a very positive way so let's ask a very simple question what do they do what do they do with the gar if we have the three Oaths doesn't that kind of say can't do it right in other words why isn't matur character correct in their position so there are two basic answers that we would give on our side of things answer number one is that the prohibition is not against per se the prohibition is against gaining AR Israel by Force of Arms the state of Israel was actually not created by War the state of Israel was created by International consensus the British Mand mandate agreed to give up its mandatory Authority and the state of Israel was recognized by the United Nations uh if we had to fight the war of independence that was a defensive war that after the state was established we were subject to attack we did not conquer the land unlike for example maybe the American Revolution where a war was fought to overthrow the government of the 13 colonies The War of Independence was not a war to overthrow government the British mandate had already terminated so in that sense although we did fight to establish a Medina this was not an aggressive War to overthrow a government this was done beem this was done with the agreement of the International Community again every once in a while they throw us a bone of sympathy uh which you know clearly then turns in the other direction just like October 7 right uh the world loved us for around uh a week or so maybe 24 hours I would say maybe a week after that you know we become uh I tell you I mean Hamas is just U it's public relations is absolutely brilliant it's just unbelievable that they are the victims and they are the ones that the world regards you know as so good B in that yeah okay that's that's another question but once again it's quite amazing how a narrative can totally shift but again after the Holocaust there was also a brief window of raim for is so in fact this goes back to the bord Declaration it is said that what was it 1918 was it what was it or 17 I always forget um when when uh the the British government issued a proclamation that her his Majesty's government views the establishment of a Jewish homeland as something desirable it is said that the was at the balford Declaration and the language that he used was the oath has now been an olded because the oath prohibits a war of aggression to conquer arage Israel and overthrow the government it does not prohibit the establishment of a state based on the consent of the governing authorities and therefore the K saw the ballord Declaration as a step of course he died in 1933 but as a step that could legitimate a Jewish sovereignty in erit Israel right so that's answer number one now I want to point out you know the sair rebi who of course was the spiritual head of the Carta as well asbi uh s rebbi was not ignorant of these arguments uh he he made the argument that even though it's true that uh there was UN resolution but that came after a lot of pre-statehood quazi military action like blowing up the King David Hotel so so he considered that to already kind of be Wars of aggression so there are going to be issues how you define that but there's answer number two that's given and this is in a letter by another very great Rabbi R Sim H ofin another Co was a was a wrote a book on the r that's called right is named after mayor Sim who had no no surviving children unfortunately his only daughter died in his lifetime only child died in his lifetime and R Sim wrote wrote a letter saying the following he says you know if you go V if you go further in the gamorra after it enumerates the three Oaths it mentions a fourth oath God imposed three Oaths on the Jewish people and God imposed a fourth oath on the umot and that is do not enslave or persecute the Jewish people too much soim says this is like a package deal we promise to be loyal citizens we promise not to try to conquer ER Israel we promise not to push a Messianic agenda you meaning the umot promise not to oppress us too much too much a little bit not too much now we know when two people have contract with each other one person breaches the contract right like like rent right if your landlord uh doesn't give you heat or doesn't give you water you know you don't have to pay rent he's not keeping up his commitment you don't keep up yours so the so the writes we are not bound by any type of oath because the UMO have not lived up to their commitment whether it was The Crusades the Inquisition uh of course this was preh Holocaust but we can just add then you have the Holocaust then you have everything else certainly the umot have not honored their promise that would relieve us so in other words bit the religious community who look at the Medina in a positive way have two ways of dealing with the shal shot uh one is that Med Isel was not established by an act of war the war was defending the Medina the med now was established by International consensus and the voluntary termination of the British mandate and answer number two is our sh is tal on the living up to their shua and since they did not live up to their shua therefore that releases us once again the you know addresses these issues so there are going to be you know different ways of interpreting it uh there's actually other views as well and they say refers only to not building the Temple me meaning they have a whole different interpretation it is not referring to not establishing a state it means not building the Bas of mikdash until mhia comes and if that's the case although there are some people who want to do that too but if that's the case that has nothing to do with is that simply says the mikdash we have to wait until until Masia comes and that's a totally separate issue so the Lo is very definitely a gor that you need to be aware aware of because as I say it is the primary text ofart and thei wrote a whole book a whole saer based on the shol shos and why Zionism was so destructive and again this is independent of the secular irreligious anti-religious whatever you want to say uh this is even if it would have been a totally religious Medina of course notbe had much to say about the irreligious nature of the r that's a separate discussion but those are two separate discussions that have to be kept in Mind by the way again uh one should know that although we we kind sometimes looking at jar as a bunch of crazies and indeed the way they're demonstrating with the enemies of Israel is certainly crazy but the actual textual arguments written by people like who was a big big are surprisingly compelling I have heard from uh you know dii academics who are you know iodite and and very very committed to Zionism that uh when they read the satar Reb's writings uh they're a bit shaken he says you know it's not so easily dismissed as people think uh there's a tremendous amount of force in some of the arguments and you got to figure out how to deal with them they're not just the rantings of crazy of crazy people yeah do they say that does he say that they have to stand with our enemies no no no that that's what I'm saying other words uh we have to disassociate uh the behavior of narta with the ideological foundations the ideological foundations have a certain legitimacy in the Torah discussions of the world but I can tell you I am absolutely clear that the SAR rebbi if I can use the Expression would roll over in his grave to have anyone that considers himself a follower associate with the enemies of Israel and here I'm going to tell you a story I hope uh no sers are listening because whenever I I tell this story a lot and they always tell me it's not true so maybe it's not true but in my heart of hearts I want to believe it's true so maybe it's wrong with me so I'm going to tell the story that many people say is false but maybe it's a mush for something um The Story Goes that in 1968 when Nixon was running against Humphrey so Humphrey who of course lost he was Johnson Lyndon Johnson's vice president uh was trying to appeal to the Jewish vote and Humphrey had been Humphrey was a liberal Senator he had been a Zionist before 1948 he had been in the Senate like forever Etc so he was told that there's a part of Brooklyn that is a lot ofic Jews and uh he wants to get the Jewish vote so he goes of course it's Williamsburg he goes and he's speaking to 10,000 s and um some of them don't know English so he had an interpreter a Yiddish interpreter we said in Yiddish so he's add and the SB was there s Reby was there at Humphrey's campaign stop and Humphrey goes on for 45 minutes and he discusses his long-standing commitment to Zionism he said there is no better friend of the state of Israel than I I have been a friend since before 1948 uh and therefore you know that if you want a supporter of this med Israel the state of Israel I'm your guy and he's not getting a reaction like people are not applauding and and the like they didn't beat him up but but at least they know they didn't they you know so his Aid finally figures out what's going on he had the Jewish Aid I ge he figured out s yeah I remember I sbbi so afterwards he goes to the SAT rebbi the E speaks in yish and he he he asks forgiveness he you know they say Goa cup you know Humphrey didn't Humphrey didn't know the nuances within the Jewish Community Zionism anti-zionism he thought that all Jews were great great supporters of of Israel and therefore please please forgive him he has a good heart and he cares about the Jewish people and you know whatever he made a mistake so the s r smiling and sby says I was not upset at all he says I have a fight with the state of is is I have a fight with zist but this is a fight within the family they are my brothers they are my sisters I would prefer a peaceful end this is what he said of the Medina but he said I don't want any of my family to be hurt and if right now if right now they're in a state of war and if six the aftermath of the sixth day war and if right now Jewish lives are in danger I am in favor of military assistance to the IDF in order to protect Jewish lives and after peace is established then we'll talk about uh dismantling the state but for me to support any type of enmity against my people and my family I would never do that at all so he said if Humphrey is talking about military aid to the state of Israel he says I am in favor of it until we have peace now compare that as it were to you know n character meeting withas right to totally you see the difference right right there now again some of my S friends tell me not true so I I I can't say I know for sure this is Ms but it is a beautiful story and uh you know maybe it's true uh it exemplifies the attitude that ideological conflict even very strong ideological conflict should not negate aat Isel caring about Jews not doing anything that would endanger the Jewish people I'm sorry yeah speaking about s yeah I spend I work iner yeah and the therapist for young children preschoolers and I realized that M many of my colleagues are very upset by the C that they called the Mish do the crazy things they do number one number two I have three grandchildren who are in the army they were in they were out one just got married this week and I showed a few of the teachers a picture of my grandson in his army uniform I received utmost respect and admiration and one of the teachers every day he asked me how are your grandchildren doing that's has a lot of bad publicity y but you've got to know as you say the rest of the story well I I really I really appreciate you bringing that out because it's a beautiful thing you know Satur in the New York area has a wonderful B for all the hospitals and uh people talk about that I saw I saw an article about a non-religious Jud that says why I love sair because he was in the hospital and they came every single day with meals and visiting so you know stereotypes you know we have stereotypes of all sorts of people and the stereotypes are just not accurate not accurate as it were and that's why I think the story you know what they say the story may or may not be factually true but I think emotionally and spiritually it's true a story can be true even if it's not true in the sense that it brings out a a point that we need to keep in mind that's a beautiful thank you so I'm glad you augmented my story with a true fact do that for the second yeah yeah so a few things first of all uh once again they don't necessarily say you're not allowed to return they say you're not allowed to wage war so they're not prohibiting alah per se that would be one answer but the other answer would be that that was still the age of Prophecy and therefore as a result even though it was not but it was so when you return Al you you don't have that problem so these are two different approaches number one there was no aggression there was no military force involved and number two it was ali uh of course one could ask a simple question on the shal let's consider the bar Revolt that that's an interesting question uh the bar Revolt erel was was under Roman domination they had destroyed the B mikdash now that's around the year 70 let's say around 605 years later we have this great Revolt of Bara Shimon Ben Kiva who is called baroka the son of a star and we know that the spiritual guide or mentor of that war was none other than the greatest of the rabbis rabi Akiva uh and he support bar he believed bar was mashia uh well once again how do you understand that that was a rebellion against the government that had been occupying ER Isel and yet we don't find I mean l was catastrophic now some actually want to say that the formulation of the shal Shu was a Rabin teaching in response to the bar de meaning after seeing how utterly catastrophic that was uh it was decided to interpret the texts in such a way that we would be passive and we would not engage in that type of military activity meaning until the barok Revolt maybe such a teaching didn't even exist you'd have to go back and date when certain Rabin teachings became dominant so know it's an interesting issue of of history in which after the mea we read back into shiram certain interpretations that perhaps were not even accepted prior to that particular point the truth is the Bara Revolt had uh much greater repercussions than even thean mikdash you know all of the stories in the gamar about Roman persecution and RAB AKA being tortured for teaching Torah all of that is after Barba meaning to say after theban uh I mean obviously losing the B MDES was awful but the Romans did allow to practice religion we were allowed to teach Torah meaning all of the anti-religious laws that kazal talk about is hadrien in the aftermath of baru because this was the second Revolt in just uh a little more than a half century and therefore the Romans were kind of tired of these Jewish people always uh uh rebelling and therefore they crushed in a brutal way it was much more brutal than even the numbers I mean the numbers seem to be exaggerations because they run in tens of millions but the numbers of the casualties after betar which was The Last Stand of Barba were much much much greater than the numbers that were reported for thean mikdash and itself was turned into a a Roman idolatrous town Alia capitolina that was after B Jews were not allowed to be in Jam for 200 years almost 200 years uh they were allowed on the nth of a to walk around the city on the outside or walk on top of the wall and that that was it so it it it's not illogical if you're inclined to look at historical development that the shal shot may have been a formulated response to the bar Revol rather than something that predated the bar Revol okay but anyway this is a text that you do need to be aware of it is really a fundamental debate about how Med both by those who are against it who were against it and those who are for it they're debating over this particular text okay you all have a good weekend take care