Results of recent Egyptian elections have, unfortunately, failed to disappoint us. The fact that an alliance of ultraconservative Islamist have won 25 percent of seats, is a determining factor for what will most likely be a turn for the worse in Islam, if that only is possible.
Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to godfather Barack Hussein Obama, is being launched into eternal notoriety as we see a definite factor in this turn for the worse in this fight of civilizations and battle of the minds.
_________________________
CAIRO — Egyptian authorities confirmed Saturday that a political coalition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the 84-year-old group that virtually invented political Islam, had won about 47 percent of the seats in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. An alliance of ultraconservative Islamists won the next largest share of seats, about 25 percent.
The military council leading Egypt since Mr. Mubarak lost power last February has said it will keep Parliament in a subordinate role with little real power until the ratification of a constitution and the election of a president, both scheduled for completion by the end of June.
But the council has assigned Parliament the authority to choose the 100 members of a constitutional assembly, so it may shape Egypt for decades to come, although the military council has sometimes tried to influence that process.
The election results were expected because of preliminary tallies after each of the three phases of the vote, but the confirmation comes in time for the seating of Parliament on Monday.
The tally, with the two groups of Islamists together winning about 70 percent of the seats, indicates the deep cultural conservatism of the Egyptian public, which is expressing its will through free and fair elections for the first time in more than six decades.
But the two groups have described very different visions and appear to be rivals rather than collaborators. The Brotherhood has said it intends to respect personal liberties and will focus on economic and social issues, gradually nudging the culture toward its conservative values. By contrast, the ultraconservatives, known as Salafis, put a higher priority on legislation on Islamic moral issues, like the consumption of alcohol, women’s dress and the contents of popular culture.
Among the remaining roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats, the next largest share was won by the Wafd Party, a liberal party recognized under Mr. Mubarak and with roots dating to Egypt’s colonial period.
It was trailed by a coalition known as the Egyptian Bloc. It included the Free Egyptians, a business-friendly liberal party founded by a Coptic Christian businessman, Naguib Sawiris, and favored by many members of the country’s Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of the public. The Egyptian Bloc also included the liberal Social Democratic Party, which leans further to the left on economic issues.
A coalition of parties founded by the young leaders of the revolt that unseated Mr. Mubarak won only a few percent of the seats, as did a handful of offshoots of the former governing party.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Parashat Va'eira – Does Redemption have to be violent? - Rav Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane
But I shall harden Pharaoh's heart and I shall multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. Pharaoh will not heed you and I shall put My hand upon Egypt; and I shall take out My legions - My people, the Children of Israel - from the land of Egypt with great judgments. And Egypt shall know that I am Hashem when I stretch out My hand over Egypt; (Ex. 7:3-5)
Throughout the episode of the Plagues and the Exodus, the concept of yad chazakah (“mighty hand”) recurs consistently. The explanation is that without proof of G-d's power, there is no way in which the Gentiles will understand the reality of His existence in the world. Nowhere in all the prophetic writings does G-d ever suggest that He will prove His existence to the nations in any way other than through His and His nation's strength. And since the purpose of the Exodus was that “Egypt shall know that I am Hashem”, He had to demonstrate His power.
[However], if the purpose of the plagues was to force Pharaoh, and Egypt, to know Hashem, then why did G-d “harden Pharaoh's heart”? Had He not done so, then perhaps Pharaoh would already have freed the Israelites after the Plague of blood. Certainly, after the Plague of hail when he already confessed, “Hashem is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones” (Exodus 9:27), Pharaoh would have released the Israelites, had G-d not hardened (i.e. strengthened) his heart – as the Torah testifies. The Sforno (on Exodus 7:3) provides a clear answer to this. He explains that Pharaoh probably would have released the Israelites far sooner – but this would have been done out of fear of the Plagues, rather than unconditional acceptance of G-d and His might. That is to say, he would have attributed the Plagues to Moses' unique witchcraft, or a thousand and one other factors – and would have released the Israelites purely in order to spare himself the terror of these dreaded Plagues. Had this happened, the entire purpose of the Plagues would have been lost. G-d therefore strengthened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not release the Israelites merely out of fear of the Plagues. The Plagues' progression forced Pharaoh into ever-deepening realization that there could be no cause for these Plagues other than Hashem, the G-d of Israel – as Moses had said right from the start.
Rav Binyamin Ze'ev's father, Rabbi Meir Kahane, writes similarly on this in “The Jewish Idea”: Likewise, regarding the hail, it says (Ex. 9:14) “This time I am prepared to send all My plagues against your very heart. They will strike your officials and your people, so that you will know that there is none like Me in all the world.” [...] That is, they were to bring their livestock inside because of the hail. Indeed, “those of Pharaoh's subjects who feared G-d's word made their slaves and livestock flee indoors”(Ex.9:20) This was the first time G-d gave the Egyptians the chance to save themselves from a Plague. Why did He do so? Were they to heed G-d, it would constitute acknowledgment that indeed the L-rd is G-d and that He, alone, controls the laws of nature. This, in turn, would be the beginning of the collapse of his nation's abominable idolatry. The purpose of the plagues in Egypt was to sanctify G-d's name and to prove to the world that indeed Hashem is G-d, Omnipotent Creator of all. Pharaoh had shown G-d contempt by saying (Ex. 5:12), “Who is Hashem that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not Hashem.” Through the degradation and punishment of the idolatry of Egypt, Pharaoh was humiliated. Therefore, G-d warned the Egyptians that He was bringing the hail and that the princes and deities of Egypt would be unable to prevent it. The Egyptians would be saved only if they abandoned their faith in their abominations and subjected themselves to G-d through belief in Him, expressed by making their servants and flocks flee into the houses. Through this, their faith in idolatry would be destroyed and G-d's name sanctified, the whole purpose of the Plagues.
“With a mighty hand”. G-d had to direct His strength against the Jews, too in order to bring them out, for they did not want to leave. As Chazal[our sages of blessed memory] say, four-fifths of the Israelites died in the Plague of darkness. But even those who did eventually leave, did so unwillingly: G-d said, “For with a mighty hand shall he [Pharaoh] send them away, and with a mighty hand shall he expel them from his land.” Chazal's commentary on the verse, “They did not listen to Moses, due to anguish of spirit and hard labor” (Ex. 6:9), is truly astounding: Is there any man who receives good tidings and does not rejoice?...But they found it hard to abandon idol worship. (Mechilta, Pis'cha 5, end of first paragraph) That is, they were willing to remain in the dungeon of slavery and oppression, in order not to accept upon themselves the yoke of Heaven – that yoke which liberates man from the shackles of animalism, freeing him from bondage to those passions that dominate him. And when the children of Israel complained in the wilderness: ”We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free” (Num. 11:5), Rashi says there: “Free from the commandments”. The truth is that the Jews were never ready to leave exile of their own free will, and when they were able to assimilate, they did. But all these attempts were to no avail. On the contrary – precisely when the Jews tried to be accepted by Gentile society by blurring their unique, separate identity, the hatred towards them only increased. Such was the case in Egypt, as the Psalmist said: ”He turned their [the Egyptians'] hearts to hate His people, to conspire against His servants. (Psalms 105:25). So too has it been throughout the generations. And even those who do eventually leave, do so only out of necessity. Slavery, pogroms and holocausts force some of them to realize, albeit grudgingly, that there is nothing for them there – and then they ascend to the Land of Israel, as witnessed in our generation. Chazal identified this mind-set in the following words: “Among the nations you will not know peace and you will not find rest for your feet” (Deut. 28:65) – had Israel found peace, they would not have returned. (Genesis Rabbah 33:6) That is to say, if the Jews will not return to the Land of Israel willingly, then G-d will inflict such troubles on them, that they will be forced to return. And in our days, in spite of all that has happened, most Jews have not learned the lesson.
“And Hashem our G-d brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand” (Deut 6:21). Since G-d secretly weeps over the lost pride of Israel, He therefore yearns to redeem them both from the actual place, as well as from the mentality of exile. Had Pharaoh given them better economic conditions, eased their enslavement slightly, flashed an occasional smile at them or the merest nod of encouragement – then they would have felt a debt of gratitude to him. Out of respect for him, they would willfully have submitted themselves to slavery, and all future generations would have effaced themselves at the mere mention of Pharaoh's name. The physical and spiritual enslavement would have been worse – our forefathers would never had left the exile of their own free will, and the exile mentality would never have left them.” (Mishna Yeshara of Rav Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane's grandfather, Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Kahane).
Israel's redemption is not merely the story of one more people's national liberation. Israel's Exodus from Egypt ushered in a new era – a divine nation was established, as well as a purpose for the world. The mission of this liberated nation is Kiddush Hashem, and the erasing of the heresy of chillul Hashem, of [Pharaoh's words] I do not know Hashem. Therefore, had Hashem Himself not brought our forefathers out of Egypt with this intention, then even had a good king freed them, it would have been meaningless, because it would not have led to the establishment of that divine nation, and the fulfillment of its glorious destiny.
The Exodus had to be implemented, directly and unequivocally, by G-d and not through any agent, because the battle here is a paradigm of all subsequent history, the basis for Israel's faith throughout their generations – the knowledge of Hashem, versus “I do not know Hashem”. It is concerning this struggle that G-d promises, “I will execute judgement against all the gods of Egypt.”
This is a religious war: the G-d of Israel versus the gods of the nations [and, one has to add, against Israel's trust in the nations!] Just as Israel was redeemed from Egypt without having to turn to any outside party or human ally (which was precisely what the Egyptians originally feared : “If war breaks out, they will join our enemies, fight against us, and leave the country”[Ex. 1:10]), so must we understand that in our generation, too, G-d is Israel's sole Redeemer – not Lord Arthur Balfour, not the United Nations, not the U.S.A.
Compiled by Tzipora Liron-Pinner from "The Haggadah of the Jewish Idea" and "The writings of Rav Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane; HY"D " and from "The Jewish Idea" of Rav Meir Kahane.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
BENADOR: Israel's Judeans and Samarians speak up
It was long overdue that finally Judeans and Samarians would begin to rally in Jerusalem and let their voices be heard loud and clear.
However, because of the actual situation on the ground, which is far from favorable to our friends who have chosen to live in the earth of the Land G-d gave to our people, Israel, it is our opinion, that only organizing a massive march to the Knesset will give a clear message to the leftist, liberal Israeli Government, to Obama and to the whole world, that the roughly 300,000 Jews residing in Judea and Samaria are there for good, by the Will of G-d.
___________________________
Nationalists Demonstrate in Jerusalem: Settlers Are Not Enemies
Dozens of nationalists demonstrated outside police headquarters in Jerusalem against the treatment of Judea and Samaria's residents.
By Elad Benari
As hundreds of hareidi-religious Jews were demonstrating in Jerusalem Saturday night against what they said was the unfair treatment of them in the media over the past several weeks, dozens of nationalists demonstrated in front of the Russian Compound in the city, where police headquarters are located, under the title: “The settlers are not enemies.”
The demonstrators protested against what they described as the police's “witch hunt” against nationalists. They carried signs which said that the settlers are not enemies and that supporters of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are not spies.
The protest came following recent allegations against nationalists, according to which a group of young people sent messages to residents of communities warning them against an impending demolition of their homes.
In at least one such case, video footage showed that police officers were harassing a nationalist inside his own home after he was arrested on suspicion of leaking military information to other residents in Judea and Samaria.
“The main message is that the finger that arrested the activists and is accusing them of spying is not only directed towards those young people but at all of us,” Binyamin Gal, one of the organizers of the protest, told Arutz Sheva. “All the residents of Judea and Samaria are being accused of espionage and we must understand that those who ignore the arrests of these young people will at one point find themselves being accused of those same crimes.”
Among the participants in the process were members of the legal aid group Honenu, which provides free legal counsel to those Israeli citizens and soldiers who, despite claiming that they acted in self-defense against Arab attackers, find themselves accused of illegal acts by Israel’s law enforcement authorities.
The Honenu members told Arutz Sheva that they have noticed a rise in the serious violations by police of the basic rights of youth who are arrested. They added that there has been a significant rise in the number of detainees from Judea and Samaria in recent weeks. One such incident involved the arrests last month of seven girls, six of them minors, over events which occurred two months earlier.
Source
However, because of the actual situation on the ground, which is far from favorable to our friends who have chosen to live in the earth of the Land G-d gave to our people, Israel, it is our opinion, that only organizing a massive march to the Knesset will give a clear message to the leftist, liberal Israeli Government, to Obama and to the whole world, that the roughly 300,000 Jews residing in Judea and Samaria are there for good, by the Will of G-d.
___________________________
Nationalists Demonstrate in Jerusalem: Settlers Are Not Enemies
Dozens of nationalists demonstrated outside police headquarters in Jerusalem against the treatment of Judea and Samaria's residents.
By Elad Benari
As hundreds of hareidi-religious Jews were demonstrating in Jerusalem Saturday night against what they said was the unfair treatment of them in the media over the past several weeks, dozens of nationalists demonstrated in front of the Russian Compound in the city, where police headquarters are located, under the title: “The settlers are not enemies.”
The demonstrators protested against what they described as the police's “witch hunt” against nationalists. They carried signs which said that the settlers are not enemies and that supporters of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are not spies.
The protest came following recent allegations against nationalists, according to which a group of young people sent messages to residents of communities warning them against an impending demolition of their homes.
In at least one such case, video footage showed that police officers were harassing a nationalist inside his own home after he was arrested on suspicion of leaking military information to other residents in Judea and Samaria.
“The main message is that the finger that arrested the activists and is accusing them of spying is not only directed towards those young people but at all of us,” Binyamin Gal, one of the organizers of the protest, told Arutz Sheva. “All the residents of Judea and Samaria are being accused of espionage and we must understand that those who ignore the arrests of these young people will at one point find themselves being accused of those same crimes.”
Among the participants in the process were members of the legal aid group Honenu, which provides free legal counsel to those Israeli citizens and soldiers who, despite claiming that they acted in self-defense against Arab attackers, find themselves accused of illegal acts by Israel’s law enforcement authorities.
The Honenu members told Arutz Sheva that they have noticed a rise in the serious violations by police of the basic rights of youth who are arrested. They added that there has been a significant rise in the number of detainees from Judea and Samaria in recent weeks. One such incident involved the arrests last month of seven girls, six of them minors, over events which occurred two months earlier.
Source
BENADOR: Dutch Queen dismisses anti-Muslim Party over her Headscarf
When Beatrix, the Queen of the Netherlands, recently visited the United Arab Emirates and Oman, she covered her head, out of respect of local religious traditions.
Back home, Geert Wilders, the head of the Freedom Party, one of the largest parties in the Netherlands and a staunch opponent of Islamic head scarves and head-to-toe burqa robes for women, did not see with good eyes the Queen's gesture to her Muslim hosts.
It's important to note that in the Emirates, one can find women with heads uncovered, so the Queen *may* have had to cover her head to go into the mosque. Fine so far.
However, the Queen, Wilders et al, are missing an excellent opportunity to promote in the Islamic, Muslim world, the notion and the imperative need for reciprocity.
Reciprocity, in the sense that Muslims are welcome in the West, and most particularly in this case, in the Netherlands where they are authorized to build their mosques. So, in the same way, the Queen should have taken that opportunity to check out some spaces that the Netherlands could buy to build a few churches, so when their people visit in Oman or the Emirates, they can also have places to worship.
Another point open for reciprocity: The head covered in the Emirates and in Oman. The quid pro quo must be the uncovered head in the Netherlands.
Complaining that the Queen has covered her head due to protocol and politeness is a waste of time. But, it could have been used as the best opportunity to demand reciprocity.
And, so, Mr. Wilders, with all due respect, should stick to continue influencing policy making, not fashion and protocol issues.
Source
Saturday, January 14, 2012
COMPILATION: IMAM KHOMEINI'S TEACHINGS ON SEX WITH INFANTS
Islamic Teachings on sex with infants
On Sex with Infants & Animals, Ablution, & Women on Period!
Imam Khomeini's Teachings
On Sex with Infants and Animals, Ablution, and Women during Period!
Compiled by Parvin Darabi and HDF
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."
The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrir-ol-Masael, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"
Imam Khomeini Watches over Children!
Islamic Teachings on sex with animals
"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."
Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?
"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."
Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice toward animals? Where are the animal rights groups?
"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."
"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."
Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?
On Ablution
During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform their ablutions.
Note: Therefore, homosexuality and pedophilia are accepted in Islam.
Why then the punishment for homosexuality is death?
A man who has ejaculated and has not yet performed his ablution must avoid the following ten acts: eating; drinking; reading more than seven verses of the Koran; touching the binding of Koran, or the margin of its pages, or spaces between the lines; carrying the Koran on his person; sleeping; dyeing his beard with henna; anointing himself with grease or oil; having sexual intercourse after having ejaculated in his sleep.
If a man becomes aroused by a woman other than his wife but then has intercourse with his own wife, it is preferable for him not to pray if he has sweated; but if he first has intercourse with his wife and then with another woman, he may say his prayers even though he be in a sweat.
A man who has ejaculated as a result of intercourse with a woman other than his wife, and who then ejaculates again while having coitus with his wife, does not have the right to say his prayers while still sweating; but if he has had intercourse with his wife first and then with a woman not his wife, he may say his prayers even though still sweating.
Note: If a man can have sexual relation with a woman who is not his wife why is adultery punishable with death by stoning? Is the woman only to be blamed?
If a fly or any other insect settled first on something impure that is moist and then on something pure that is moist, the later in turns becomes impure, provided one can be certain that the former was impure; failing that, it remains pure.
Note: let¹s run after flies and insects to find out where they settle.
Besides the ablutions that are necessary and unavoidable there are a number of ablutions that are highly recommended in order to please God. A few of them are:
Ablution performed Friday between dawn and noon.
Ablution performed on the eve of the first day of Ramadan and the eves of all the odd days of that month, (third, fifth, seventh, and so on). The ablutions on the eves of the first, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-ninth days of Ramadan are especially recommended. On the eve of the twenty-third day, one would be well advised to perform two ablutions, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the night.
Ablution performed by a woman who has used perfume for a man other than her husband.
Ablution of the man who has fallen asleep while in a drunken state.
Ablution of a man or woman who, during a total eclipse of the sun or the moon, have not
said their prayers.
Ablution of one who has witnessed the hanging of a person condemned to death. If he did not witness it of his own free will, ablution is not necessarily required.
Note: This is one way of keeping them clean.
On Woman and her Periods
"During the time a woman is menstruating, it is preferable for a man to avoid coitus, even if it does not involve full penetration- that is, as far as the circumcision ring and even if it does not involve ejaculation. It is also highly inadvisable for him to sodomize her during this time.
If the number of days of the woman's menstrual period is divided by three, a husband who has intercourse with her during the first two days must pay equivalent of 18 nokhods (each nokhod is about 3 grams) of gold to the poor; if he has it on the third or fourth days the equivalent of 9 nokhods; and if he has it during the last two days, the equivalent of 41/2 nokhods. Sodomizing a menstruating woman does not require such payment.
If a man has intercourse with his wife during all three of these periods, he must pay the equivalent of 31/2 nokhods in gold to the poor. If the price of gold has changed between the time of coitus and the time of payment, the rate in effect on the day of payment will prevail.
If during an act of intercourse a man notices that the woman has begun menstruating, he must withdraw, if he fails to, he must give alms to the poor.
If such a man cannot afford to give alms to the poor, he must at least give something to a beggar. If he cannot afford that either, he must ask forgiveness of God.
After a wife's menstrual period, her husband may repudiate her, even if she has not yet made her ablutions. He may also indulge in relations with her, but it is preferable that he waits until she has made her ablutions. In the interim, the woman is not authorized to do anything which is forbidden to her during menstruation, such as going into a mosque or touching the writings of the Koran, until she has completed her ablutions."
Notes: It seems it is a lot better if the couple have sex during the entire menstrual period. It would cost 31/2 nokhods rather than 18 nokhods if happens in the first two days. It also says that a man should not sodomize his wife only during this period. However, if he does, no alms is required.
Source
On Sex with Infants & Animals, Ablution, & Women on Period!
Imam Khomeini's Teachings
On Sex with Infants and Animals, Ablution, and Women during Period!
Compiled by Parvin Darabi and HDF
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."
The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrir-ol-Masael, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"
Imam Khomeini Watches over Children!
Islamic Teachings on sex with animals
"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."
Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?
"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."
Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice toward animals? Where are the animal rights groups?
"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."
"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."
Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?
On Ablution
During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform their ablutions.
Note: Therefore, homosexuality and pedophilia are accepted in Islam.
Why then the punishment for homosexuality is death?
A man who has ejaculated and has not yet performed his ablution must avoid the following ten acts: eating; drinking; reading more than seven verses of the Koran; touching the binding of Koran, or the margin of its pages, or spaces between the lines; carrying the Koran on his person; sleeping; dyeing his beard with henna; anointing himself with grease or oil; having sexual intercourse after having ejaculated in his sleep.
If a man becomes aroused by a woman other than his wife but then has intercourse with his own wife, it is preferable for him not to pray if he has sweated; but if he first has intercourse with his wife and then with another woman, he may say his prayers even though he be in a sweat.
A man who has ejaculated as a result of intercourse with a woman other than his wife, and who then ejaculates again while having coitus with his wife, does not have the right to say his prayers while still sweating; but if he has had intercourse with his wife first and then with a woman not his wife, he may say his prayers even though still sweating.
Note: If a man can have sexual relation with a woman who is not his wife why is adultery punishable with death by stoning? Is the woman only to be blamed?
If a fly or any other insect settled first on something impure that is moist and then on something pure that is moist, the later in turns becomes impure, provided one can be certain that the former was impure; failing that, it remains pure.
Note: let¹s run after flies and insects to find out where they settle.
Besides the ablutions that are necessary and unavoidable there are a number of ablutions that are highly recommended in order to please God. A few of them are:
Ablution performed Friday between dawn and noon.
Ablution performed on the eve of the first day of Ramadan and the eves of all the odd days of that month, (third, fifth, seventh, and so on). The ablutions on the eves of the first, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-ninth days of Ramadan are especially recommended. On the eve of the twenty-third day, one would be well advised to perform two ablutions, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the night.
Ablution performed by a woman who has used perfume for a man other than her husband.
Ablution of the man who has fallen asleep while in a drunken state.
Ablution of a man or woman who, during a total eclipse of the sun or the moon, have not
said their prayers.
Ablution of one who has witnessed the hanging of a person condemned to death. If he did not witness it of his own free will, ablution is not necessarily required.
Note: This is one way of keeping them clean.
On Woman and her Periods
"During the time a woman is menstruating, it is preferable for a man to avoid coitus, even if it does not involve full penetration- that is, as far as the circumcision ring and even if it does not involve ejaculation. It is also highly inadvisable for him to sodomize her during this time.
If the number of days of the woman's menstrual period is divided by three, a husband who has intercourse with her during the first two days must pay equivalent of 18 nokhods (each nokhod is about 3 grams) of gold to the poor; if he has it on the third or fourth days the equivalent of 9 nokhods; and if he has it during the last two days, the equivalent of 41/2 nokhods. Sodomizing a menstruating woman does not require such payment.
If a man has intercourse with his wife during all three of these periods, he must pay the equivalent of 31/2 nokhods in gold to the poor. If the price of gold has changed between the time of coitus and the time of payment, the rate in effect on the day of payment will prevail.
If during an act of intercourse a man notices that the woman has begun menstruating, he must withdraw, if he fails to, he must give alms to the poor.
If such a man cannot afford to give alms to the poor, he must at least give something to a beggar. If he cannot afford that either, he must ask forgiveness of God.
After a wife's menstrual period, her husband may repudiate her, even if she has not yet made her ablutions. He may also indulge in relations with her, but it is preferable that he waits until she has made her ablutions. In the interim, the woman is not authorized to do anything which is forbidden to her during menstruation, such as going into a mosque or touching the writings of the Koran, until she has completed her ablutions."
Notes: It seems it is a lot better if the couple have sex during the entire menstrual period. It would cost 31/2 nokhods rather than 18 nokhods if happens in the first two days. It also says that a man should not sodomize his wife only during this period. However, if he does, no alms is required.
Source
BENADOR: King Abdullah of Jordan busy agenda in D.C.
Until now, Jordan has been one of the few countries in the Muslim Middle East that has survived the chaotic situation among Muslim countries, but it won't last for long time, it appears, as dangers are coming his way from inside and from the Syrian border... according to how developments will evolve in the next days and weeks.
It is noteworthy to mention that King Abdullah has already one asset in his hands, his Palestinian Queen Rania -ideal candidate to be the Queen of the Palestinians.
____________________________
By David Schenker and David Makovsky
King Abdullah's trip to Washington will provide ample opportunity for crucial talks on Jordan's stability, the Syrian insurrection, and the state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
President Obama will host Jordan's King Abdullah II this Tuesday for a meeting in the Oval Office. The visit -- King Abdullah's second since the onset of last year's Arab uprisings -- occurs amid a backdrop of increased tension in the kingdom. Not only is Abdullah facing a spike in domestic economic and political foment, but violence across the northern border in Syria threatens to deteriorate into civil war. Making matters worse, across the river to the west, Israeli-Palestinian relations are facing yet another crisis that could see the Palestinians resume their controversial unilateral drive for statehood at the UN later this month, notwithstanding Abdullah's laudable mediation efforts. These developments, along with the general regional trend toward political change, are once again raising concerns about Jordan's stability. Although neither leader is likely to mention these concerns publicly, such issues will shape the context of the discussion.
Domestic Unrest
In early 2011, like several other states in the region, Jordan was racked by mass demonstrations. Atypically for the kingdom, however, the protests were crowded with East Banker Jordanians, a constituency traditionally considered the most loyal to the monarchy. Topping the list of their demands was an end to corruption, a decrease in food prices, and serious political reform. Abdullah responded by dismissing the cabinet, raising civil service salaries, reinstituting subsidies, and setting in motion a real process of constitutional reform. To underwrite the subsidies, he increased deficit spending. These steps proved popular, enabling the monarchy to withstand the initial surge of the regional uprisings.
Still, the protests have continued across the country for the better part of the past year, occurring nearly every Friday. In addition to corruption, the economy has proven a key driver of the demonstrations. Indeed, today's demonstration in Amman was called "Ahmed Matarna Friday," a reference to a former municipal employee in the capital who, laid off during government restructuring, lit himself on fire on January 9. Matarna's tragic self-immolation was the second in Jordan since September. A third man died this week after setting himself alight. A week earlier, a large anticorruption demonstration led by Islamists in Mafraq was broken up by thugs widely believed to be working for the government's security services. The clashes culminated with the burning down of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood's political offices in Mafraq.
Problems across the Jordan River
Another problem for the king (albeit a perennial one) is the Israeli-Palestinian situation, which appears headed for another crisis. The origins of the latest tension date back to September 23, when Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN to request recognition of a Palestinian state. In the aftermath of that speech, the Quartet for Middle East peace (comprising the United States, EU, Russia, and the UN secretary-general) called on Israelis and Palestinians to hold a preparatory meeting within one month, at which they would agree on an agenda and method of proceeding with unconditional talks aimed at putting forth final-status proposals on territory and security within three months. To move the parties toward an overall agreement on these issues by the end of 2012, the Quartet called for "negotiations without delay or preconditions," urging them to "refrain from provocative actions" -- interpreted as a call to avoid new Israeli settlement activity.
Israel welcomed the unconditional dimension of the Quartet proposal, but the PA would accept only exploratory talks, insisting instead that Israel accept the 1967 borders and a West Bank settlement freeze as prerequisites to negotiations. While discussions commenced in Amman on January 5, PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has since said that talks will not continue beyond January 26 -- a mere three weeks after they began -- if the Israelis do not provide a map of the future borders. Similarly, Abbas stated, "After that date, we will take new measures. These measures might be hard." In other words, if Israel does not comply with their demands, the Palestinians will return to the UN regardless of the call for unconditional talks. This week, the State Department publicly called for talks to continue and said not to view January 26 as a deadline.
Conciliatory King
Abdullah has taken a number of steps to alleviate Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Not only did he play host to the talks, he also tried to improve the atmosphere between the parties by negotiating with Israel in December to release the $100 million per month of Palestinian taxes collected and held since November 2011.
He has been even more active on the home front. After the Mafraq incident, for example, he met with both Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Hamam Said and Irhal Gharabah, head of the organization's political office. Afterward, Gharabah all but exonerated the king from responsibility for the clashes and instead blamed the security apparatus, claiming that the violence represented "a conflict within [the kingdom's] power centers."
At the same time, the king apparently gave the green light for the courts to try several high-profile corruption cases. The first casualty to date has been Omar Maani, who served as mayor of Amman from 2006 to 2011. The kingdom is also moving forward with a serious investigation of the 2007 Dead Sea casino scandal, in which the government made a deal with a foreign investor that was subsequently cancelled -- a breach of contract that cost the country $1.4 billion.
More significant, the king has said in recent months that he is amenable to having the elected parliament select the cabinet, an unprecedented concession that could conceivably put Jordan on the path to constitutional monarchy. Perhaps most important, though, Jordanian security forces have been remarkably disciplined in the face of sometimes-intense demonstrations, killing not a single protestor to date.
Saudis to the Rescue
Abdullah's politically astute response to the agitation has been greatly facilitated by Saudi largess. With few natural resources, Jordan has been a debtor nation almost since its inception, counting on the generosity of neighbors -- particularly Iraq -- and Washington for financial assistance. After Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003, however, Jordan had to scramble to find patrons who could replace the lost grants from Baghdad. Intermittently over the past decade, at Washington's behest, Saudi Arabia has filled that gap, usually by providing discounted oil to Jordan.
More recently, though, concerned about the stability of regional monarchies, Riyadh has moved to provide Amman with significant cash infusions. Indeed, by June 2011 -- just six months into the Arab uprisings -- the Saudis had already donated some $1.4 billion to Jordan, contributions that enabled Abdullah to continue substantial food and fuel subsidies while still decreasing the state's budget deficit. This donation is all the more impressive when one considers that Riyadh has yet to provide any of the nearly $4 billion in aid it has promised to Egypt. The Saudis also helped secure Jordan's recent invitation to join the Gulf Cooperation Council, despite the country's location in the Levant. Membership clearly has its privileges: in September 2011, the council committed to providing $2 billion per year to Jordan for the next five years.
Complementary Agendas
With Syria imploding and Jordan under pressure, King Abdullah will want to avert the potential implications of renewed diplomatic turmoil similar to last September's Palestinian confrontation with the United States and Europe at the UN. Having just narrowly avoided a diplomatically costly Security Council veto of Palestinian statehood in the fall, Washington hopes to prevent that scenario as well. Although significant progress on the peace front is unlikely this year, a statement from Abdullah at the White House could help end the manufactured crisis and return the parties to the negotiating table.
While the king would no doubt be pleased to defuse tensions next door, maintaining stability at home is a higher priority. To date, the combination of Saudi funding and proactive steps toward reform have insulated the monarchy from the sweeping and abrupt changes that are engulfing much of the region. But should reform stall, the economy further deteriorate, or Syria's Assad regime fall, Jordan could be shaken.
In the aftermath of Egypt's latest elections -- in which Islamists advocating the end of the peace treaty with Israel are poised to assume control of the parliament -- Jordan's stability has taken on added importance. Not only is the kingdom a peace partner and advocate of political and religious moderation, it is also a reliable strategic friend to the United States. If the past is any indication, Abdullah will likely seek additional financial support from Washington during his visit, even beyond the $360 million in economic aid and $300 million in annual military assistance Jordan already receives. Given the current U.S. political environment, such a request will no doubt be unpalatable. Yet when the administration contemplates a Middle East without King Abdullah's Jordan -- and, perhaps, with the pro-Hamas chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm in Amman -- it may find additional funding worth consideration.
David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute. David Makovsky is the Institute's Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of its Project on the Middle East Peace Process.
Source
* The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
It is noteworthy to mention that King Abdullah has already one asset in his hands, his Palestinian Queen Rania -ideal candidate to be the Queen of the Palestinians.
____________________________
By David Schenker and David Makovsky
King Abdullah's trip to Washington will provide ample opportunity for crucial talks on Jordan's stability, the Syrian insurrection, and the state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
President Obama will host Jordan's King Abdullah II this Tuesday for a meeting in the Oval Office. The visit -- King Abdullah's second since the onset of last year's Arab uprisings -- occurs amid a backdrop of increased tension in the kingdom. Not only is Abdullah facing a spike in domestic economic and political foment, but violence across the northern border in Syria threatens to deteriorate into civil war. Making matters worse, across the river to the west, Israeli-Palestinian relations are facing yet another crisis that could see the Palestinians resume their controversial unilateral drive for statehood at the UN later this month, notwithstanding Abdullah's laudable mediation efforts. These developments, along with the general regional trend toward political change, are once again raising concerns about Jordan's stability. Although neither leader is likely to mention these concerns publicly, such issues will shape the context of the discussion.
Domestic Unrest
In early 2011, like several other states in the region, Jordan was racked by mass demonstrations. Atypically for the kingdom, however, the protests were crowded with East Banker Jordanians, a constituency traditionally considered the most loyal to the monarchy. Topping the list of their demands was an end to corruption, a decrease in food prices, and serious political reform. Abdullah responded by dismissing the cabinet, raising civil service salaries, reinstituting subsidies, and setting in motion a real process of constitutional reform. To underwrite the subsidies, he increased deficit spending. These steps proved popular, enabling the monarchy to withstand the initial surge of the regional uprisings.
Still, the protests have continued across the country for the better part of the past year, occurring nearly every Friday. In addition to corruption, the economy has proven a key driver of the demonstrations. Indeed, today's demonstration in Amman was called "Ahmed Matarna Friday," a reference to a former municipal employee in the capital who, laid off during government restructuring, lit himself on fire on January 9. Matarna's tragic self-immolation was the second in Jordan since September. A third man died this week after setting himself alight. A week earlier, a large anticorruption demonstration led by Islamists in Mafraq was broken up by thugs widely believed to be working for the government's security services. The clashes culminated with the burning down of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood's political offices in Mafraq.
Problems across the Jordan River
Another problem for the king (albeit a perennial one) is the Israeli-Palestinian situation, which appears headed for another crisis. The origins of the latest tension date back to September 23, when Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN to request recognition of a Palestinian state. In the aftermath of that speech, the Quartet for Middle East peace (comprising the United States, EU, Russia, and the UN secretary-general) called on Israelis and Palestinians to hold a preparatory meeting within one month, at which they would agree on an agenda and method of proceeding with unconditional talks aimed at putting forth final-status proposals on territory and security within three months. To move the parties toward an overall agreement on these issues by the end of 2012, the Quartet called for "negotiations without delay or preconditions," urging them to "refrain from provocative actions" -- interpreted as a call to avoid new Israeli settlement activity.
Israel welcomed the unconditional dimension of the Quartet proposal, but the PA would accept only exploratory talks, insisting instead that Israel accept the 1967 borders and a West Bank settlement freeze as prerequisites to negotiations. While discussions commenced in Amman on January 5, PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has since said that talks will not continue beyond January 26 -- a mere three weeks after they began -- if the Israelis do not provide a map of the future borders. Similarly, Abbas stated, "After that date, we will take new measures. These measures might be hard." In other words, if Israel does not comply with their demands, the Palestinians will return to the UN regardless of the call for unconditional talks. This week, the State Department publicly called for talks to continue and said not to view January 26 as a deadline.
Conciliatory King
Abdullah has taken a number of steps to alleviate Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Not only did he play host to the talks, he also tried to improve the atmosphere between the parties by negotiating with Israel in December to release the $100 million per month of Palestinian taxes collected and held since November 2011.
He has been even more active on the home front. After the Mafraq incident, for example, he met with both Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Hamam Said and Irhal Gharabah, head of the organization's political office. Afterward, Gharabah all but exonerated the king from responsibility for the clashes and instead blamed the security apparatus, claiming that the violence represented "a conflict within [the kingdom's] power centers."
At the same time, the king apparently gave the green light for the courts to try several high-profile corruption cases. The first casualty to date has been Omar Maani, who served as mayor of Amman from 2006 to 2011. The kingdom is also moving forward with a serious investigation of the 2007 Dead Sea casino scandal, in which the government made a deal with a foreign investor that was subsequently cancelled -- a breach of contract that cost the country $1.4 billion.
More significant, the king has said in recent months that he is amenable to having the elected parliament select the cabinet, an unprecedented concession that could conceivably put Jordan on the path to constitutional monarchy. Perhaps most important, though, Jordanian security forces have been remarkably disciplined in the face of sometimes-intense demonstrations, killing not a single protestor to date.
Saudis to the Rescue
Abdullah's politically astute response to the agitation has been greatly facilitated by Saudi largess. With few natural resources, Jordan has been a debtor nation almost since its inception, counting on the generosity of neighbors -- particularly Iraq -- and Washington for financial assistance. After Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003, however, Jordan had to scramble to find patrons who could replace the lost grants from Baghdad. Intermittently over the past decade, at Washington's behest, Saudi Arabia has filled that gap, usually by providing discounted oil to Jordan.
More recently, though, concerned about the stability of regional monarchies, Riyadh has moved to provide Amman with significant cash infusions. Indeed, by June 2011 -- just six months into the Arab uprisings -- the Saudis had already donated some $1.4 billion to Jordan, contributions that enabled Abdullah to continue substantial food and fuel subsidies while still decreasing the state's budget deficit. This donation is all the more impressive when one considers that Riyadh has yet to provide any of the nearly $4 billion in aid it has promised to Egypt. The Saudis also helped secure Jordan's recent invitation to join the Gulf Cooperation Council, despite the country's location in the Levant. Membership clearly has its privileges: in September 2011, the council committed to providing $2 billion per year to Jordan for the next five years.
Complementary Agendas
With Syria imploding and Jordan under pressure, King Abdullah will want to avert the potential implications of renewed diplomatic turmoil similar to last September's Palestinian confrontation with the United States and Europe at the UN. Having just narrowly avoided a diplomatically costly Security Council veto of Palestinian statehood in the fall, Washington hopes to prevent that scenario as well. Although significant progress on the peace front is unlikely this year, a statement from Abdullah at the White House could help end the manufactured crisis and return the parties to the negotiating table.
While the king would no doubt be pleased to defuse tensions next door, maintaining stability at home is a higher priority. To date, the combination of Saudi funding and proactive steps toward reform have insulated the monarchy from the sweeping and abrupt changes that are engulfing much of the region. But should reform stall, the economy further deteriorate, or Syria's Assad regime fall, Jordan could be shaken.
In the aftermath of Egypt's latest elections -- in which Islamists advocating the end of the peace treaty with Israel are poised to assume control of the parliament -- Jordan's stability has taken on added importance. Not only is the kingdom a peace partner and advocate of political and religious moderation, it is also a reliable strategic friend to the United States. If the past is any indication, Abdullah will likely seek additional financial support from Washington during his visit, even beyond the $360 million in economic aid and $300 million in annual military assistance Jordan already receives. Given the current U.S. political environment, such a request will no doubt be unpalatable. Yet when the administration contemplates a Middle East without King Abdullah's Jordan -- and, perhaps, with the pro-Hamas chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm in Amman -- it may find additional funding worth consideration.
David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute. David Makovsky is the Institute's Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of its Project on the Middle East Peace Process.
Source
* The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Friday, January 13, 2012
RABBI KAHANE: Parashat Shemot -Jeopardizing all our accomplishments
By killing the Egyptian, Moses bound himself inexorably to his nation and to his destiny. He jeopardized all his property, his glittering life-style, even his very life, if his deed would be discovered – but nevertheless, he did not hesitate. As the Mekhilta says:
[Moses] gave his soul for Israel, and they were called by his name… And where do we find that Moses gave his soul for them? – It is said…“and he went out to his brothers…and he smote the Egyptian”. So, because he gave his soul for Israel, they were called by his name (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirata 1, s.v. “et hashira hazot”).
Now, Moses could have thought this through carefully, and run away from the problem. He could have reasoned: Is it really worth while to endanger myself by killing this Egyptian? Would it not be better for me to ignore this one incident, to remain the king’s son, and thereby be able to help the Israelites in the future? More than this: perhaps it is not worth killing this Egyptian, for in any case, he has already killed the Jew, so what good will killing this Egyptian do? Will that bring the Jew back to life? And in any case, maybe it is forbidden for me to endanger myself, since this is not a case of saving a Jewish life, since this Jew is already dead? And more than this: perhaps I am not allowed to kill this Egyptian, for I am not a duly constituted court, and perhaps the verse Neither is it good for the tzaddik to punish (Proverbs 17:26) applies to me. (See Berakhot 7a: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi wanted to harness G-d’s “moment of fury,” which occurs once every day, to curse a heretic and kill him, but when the time came, he dozed off. His response was that presumably this happened because Neither is it good for the tzaddik to punish.)
Moses, however, understood that this accounting is false. He understood that in a situation of hillul HaShem, all these arguments together carry no weight – even pikuah nefesh (saving of lives), which usually takes precedence over all other commandments, does not justify hillul HaShem (even for an individual in private, unless there is definite danger to life; in public, even if there is an absolute certainty of being killed).
Neither can one make a finely-balanced accounting, to the effect that “perhaps I can do better another way, in another time and another place”.
In the commentary that Rav Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane wrote on Parashat Shemot, we find a similar concept that he also links to our present situation:
At the end of “Parashat Shemot” we find a confrontation between Moses and Aaron on the one hand and the officers of the children of Israel on the other: On the one side stood Moses and Aaron who had been assigned by HaShem to carry out a seemingly suicidal mission: to enter uninvited into the house of the king, of the imperial, menacing kingdom of Egypt, and to request that he let the Jewish slaves go free. In spite of the odds, Moses and Aaron, with faith in HaShem, went and fulfilled their mission completely. (According to our sages, all the elders that accompanied them dropped out along the way because of tremendous fear, until Moses and Aaron alone remained to face Pharaoh). And certainly Pharaoh rejected their request out of hand. [The officers then accused them:] “May HaShem look upon you and judge, for you have brought us into foul odor in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to place a sword into their hands to kill us!”.(Shemot 5:21). And truthfully, reality proves the officers were correct.
Seemingly, just after Moses and Aaron leave Pharaoh's presence, a harsh decree is put upon the nation. And with all this...the officers were not right! The reason (and also the lesson from this) is that there is almost never a revolution or change where the first stages do not involve a loss of accomplishment!
...And sometimes, even in the case of true accomplishments, we must know that in order to bring change, there is no choice but to lose real accomplishments, at least temporarily. Because there will always be one Pharaoh or another who will threaten that if we don't sit quietly he will nullify our achievements, “and you will lose out because of this.” But if we give in to his threats, we will remain captives in the hand of Pharaoh, we, our children and our children's children ... until the end of the generations. ...Whoever wants change needs to warmly thank the “existing officers”for their accomplishments, but say to them: now we are going further, we are going to progress.
It is possible that part of your accomplishments of some of your accomplishments will be lost, either temporarily or permanently. But this is the price to pay for reaching the greater and ultimate goal. We were not born in order to be slaves with improved conditions in Egypt; we were born to be redeemed. We were not born to live in villas in settlements surrounded by fences, like ghettos [...], we were born to conquer and rule all of the land of Israel. [...] And if the price, more or less temporarily, is the loss of status...due to lack of participation on the part of the existing regime, or the necessity to gather our own straw to make bricks for a while, the price is worth it. For we were not born to live with the status quo, after the fact. We were born to establish and ideal world, as it was at the beginning!
Rabbi Meir Kahane continues in Peirush HaMaccabee on Shemot: And he smote the Egyptian, measure for measure. He killed the Hebrew, and Moses killed him. Samson expressed this same sentiment to the Jews who were afraid when they came to hand him over to the Philistines after he smote them: And they said to Samson: Do you not know that the Philistines rule over us? What have you done to us?! And he said to them: As they did to me, so I did to them (Judges 15:11).
This is a Jewish response – not to let the Gentile smite with impunity, for every single blow desecrates the Children of Israel and is blasphemy against G-d’s Name. Anyone who smites a Jew must be smitten in return. More than this: Moses’ smiting the Egyptian was the Children of Israel’s first response ever to the blows they had received, and foreshadowed all the blows, all the plagues, that G-d would yet inflict upon Egypt.
And buried him in the sand. This symbolizes the humiliation of the arrogant Gentile who, in his self-pride, thinks that he can reach the very heavens. The prophet said, Take up a lament for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say to him: You likened yourself to a young lion among the nations, but you are like a crocodile of the seas… With the swords of the mighty I will bring down your multitudes…and they will despoil the glory of Egypt (Ezekiel 32:2, 12). But now, instead of ascending to heaven, the Egyptian whom Moses killed was buried in the sand, in the ground – as low as possible – foreshadowing the humiliation of the whole of Egypt.And such will be in the future, too, when G-d will destroy the nations’ pride and show the glory of His might. Enter the rock, and bury yourself in the dust because of the fear of HaShem and the glory of His greatness. Man’s arrogant eyes will be humiliated, and people’s haughtiness will be humbled, and HaShem alone will be exalted on that day (Isaiah 2:10-11).
[Moses] gave his soul for Israel, and they were called by his name… And where do we find that Moses gave his soul for them? – It is said…“and he went out to his brothers…and he smote the Egyptian”. So, because he gave his soul for Israel, they were called by his name (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirata 1, s.v. “et hashira hazot”).
Now, Moses could have thought this through carefully, and run away from the problem. He could have reasoned: Is it really worth while to endanger myself by killing this Egyptian? Would it not be better for me to ignore this one incident, to remain the king’s son, and thereby be able to help the Israelites in the future? More than this: perhaps it is not worth killing this Egyptian, for in any case, he has already killed the Jew, so what good will killing this Egyptian do? Will that bring the Jew back to life? And in any case, maybe it is forbidden for me to endanger myself, since this is not a case of saving a Jewish life, since this Jew is already dead? And more than this: perhaps I am not allowed to kill this Egyptian, for I am not a duly constituted court, and perhaps the verse Neither is it good for the tzaddik to punish (Proverbs 17:26) applies to me. (See Berakhot 7a: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi wanted to harness G-d’s “moment of fury,” which occurs once every day, to curse a heretic and kill him, but when the time came, he dozed off. His response was that presumably this happened because Neither is it good for the tzaddik to punish.)
Moses, however, understood that this accounting is false. He understood that in a situation of hillul HaShem, all these arguments together carry no weight – even pikuah nefesh (saving of lives), which usually takes precedence over all other commandments, does not justify hillul HaShem (even for an individual in private, unless there is definite danger to life; in public, even if there is an absolute certainty of being killed).
Neither can one make a finely-balanced accounting, to the effect that “perhaps I can do better another way, in another time and another place”.
In the commentary that Rav Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane wrote on Parashat Shemot, we find a similar concept that he also links to our present situation:
At the end of “Parashat Shemot” we find a confrontation between Moses and Aaron on the one hand and the officers of the children of Israel on the other: On the one side stood Moses and Aaron who had been assigned by HaShem to carry out a seemingly suicidal mission: to enter uninvited into the house of the king, of the imperial, menacing kingdom of Egypt, and to request that he let the Jewish slaves go free. In spite of the odds, Moses and Aaron, with faith in HaShem, went and fulfilled their mission completely. (According to our sages, all the elders that accompanied them dropped out along the way because of tremendous fear, until Moses and Aaron alone remained to face Pharaoh). And certainly Pharaoh rejected their request out of hand. [The officers then accused them:] “May HaShem look upon you and judge, for you have brought us into foul odor in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to place a sword into their hands to kill us!”.(Shemot 5:21). And truthfully, reality proves the officers were correct.
Seemingly, just after Moses and Aaron leave Pharaoh's presence, a harsh decree is put upon the nation. And with all this...the officers were not right! The reason (and also the lesson from this) is that there is almost never a revolution or change where the first stages do not involve a loss of accomplishment!
...And sometimes, even in the case of true accomplishments, we must know that in order to bring change, there is no choice but to lose real accomplishments, at least temporarily. Because there will always be one Pharaoh or another who will threaten that if we don't sit quietly he will nullify our achievements, “and you will lose out because of this.” But if we give in to his threats, we will remain captives in the hand of Pharaoh, we, our children and our children's children ... until the end of the generations. ...Whoever wants change needs to warmly thank the “existing officers”for their accomplishments, but say to them: now we are going further, we are going to progress.
It is possible that part of your accomplishments of some of your accomplishments will be lost, either temporarily or permanently. But this is the price to pay for reaching the greater and ultimate goal. We were not born in order to be slaves with improved conditions in Egypt; we were born to be redeemed. We were not born to live in villas in settlements surrounded by fences, like ghettos [...], we were born to conquer and rule all of the land of Israel. [...] And if the price, more or less temporarily, is the loss of status...due to lack of participation on the part of the existing regime, or the necessity to gather our own straw to make bricks for a while, the price is worth it. For we were not born to live with the status quo, after the fact. We were born to establish and ideal world, as it was at the beginning!
Rabbi Meir Kahane continues in Peirush HaMaccabee on Shemot: And he smote the Egyptian, measure for measure. He killed the Hebrew, and Moses killed him. Samson expressed this same sentiment to the Jews who were afraid when they came to hand him over to the Philistines after he smote them: And they said to Samson: Do you not know that the Philistines rule over us? What have you done to us?! And he said to them: As they did to me, so I did to them (Judges 15:11).
This is a Jewish response – not to let the Gentile smite with impunity, for every single blow desecrates the Children of Israel and is blasphemy against G-d’s Name. Anyone who smites a Jew must be smitten in return. More than this: Moses’ smiting the Egyptian was the Children of Israel’s first response ever to the blows they had received, and foreshadowed all the blows, all the plagues, that G-d would yet inflict upon Egypt.
And buried him in the sand. This symbolizes the humiliation of the arrogant Gentile who, in his self-pride, thinks that he can reach the very heavens. The prophet said, Take up a lament for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say to him: You likened yourself to a young lion among the nations, but you are like a crocodile of the seas… With the swords of the mighty I will bring down your multitudes…and they will despoil the glory of Egypt (Ezekiel 32:2, 12). But now, instead of ascending to heaven, the Egyptian whom Moses killed was buried in the sand, in the ground – as low as possible – foreshadowing the humiliation of the whole of Egypt.And such will be in the future, too, when G-d will destroy the nations’ pride and show the glory of His might. Enter the rock, and bury yourself in the dust because of the fear of HaShem and the glory of His greatness. Man’s arrogant eyes will be humiliated, and people’s haughtiness will be humbled, and HaShem alone will be exalted on that day (Isaiah 2:10-11).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)