Tzipiyah.com

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the first part of the second article. Enjoy!

Whether due to modern technology or our national renaissance, our generation has merited (through G-dly necessity! ) to clarify an abundance of contemporary halachic issues which are either uniquely modern or have been “out of commission” for centuries. Entire volumes have been written dealing with various topics regarding the observance of shabbat and kashrut in the modern home or in the Israeli army. Nevertheless, the issue of how to relate to the very existence of the secular State of Israel and the justification for our support, maybe the most basic point of contention between the different streams of religious Jewry, remains, surprisingly and unfortunately, almost untouched territory.

In addition to this unfortunate void, the aftermath of the tragic uprooting of Gush Katif, and the subsequent reassessment of many religious–Zionists regarding their relationship to the government or State of Israel, only strengthens the need to clarify this most basic of questions.

In this article, we will summarize the arguments of those who are opposed to the modern secular State of Israel, we will base our support for the State of Israel upon the biblical and rabbinical sources, through which we will attempt to evaluate her importance in the eyes of the Torah.

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the third part of the first article. Enjoy!

We ended that last part by explaining the gap of generations in Rav Kook’s time between the Religious Elders and Nationalist youth. Then, we said that: Rav Kook tells us that instead of division, the fathers and the sons should learn from eachother. Not only should the young learn religiousness from their elders, but as the navi Malachi directs us, in the generation of ge’ula, the converse is true , as well. והשיב לב אבות .על.בנים ולב בנים על אבותם The fathers should learn nationalism from their children, and the rebellious sons should return to the religion of their fathers. They should both realize that their common rebellion should be against the galut who’s time is up (as the sho’ah and rampant assimilation subsequently proved) , and that their common goal is to return to the days of yore. The artificial mechitza that they commonly erected between nationalism and religion should be removed, and the original religious –zionism should be restored.

The solution, suggests Rav Kook, is to be found in the root of the problem. Instead of seeing Torah as the deepest and most meaningful of G-dly eternal ideals, many, maybe even most, to this day, see Judaism as a religion, or set of shallow and meaningless rituals.

The story is told of how Rav Kook, upon one of his visits to an anti-religious kibbutz, was approached by one of the leaders who greeted him as follows: “With all due respect Rabbi, you shouldn’t waste your time trying to convince us to be religious. It’s not that we don’t know what Torah is, most of us were raised in observant homes. We know Torah, rabbis, mitzvot and we don’t like them!” Rav Kook questioned,”Why?” The kibbutznik replied: “We simply can’t stand your old-fashioned, meaningless, outdated rituals!” Exclaimed Rav Kook, “I agree”. “What?”, asked the surprised rebel. Explained the Rav, “I also hate the “religion” that you describe. But the dynamic, idealistic and deep Torah is so beautiful that anyone who is exposed to it cannot but love it!”.

And now, a few questions and answered:

Q. How could something so basic and appealing as the deepness of Judaism get “forgotten” over the generations?

A. The problem is that, to this day, in most yeshivot, the usual curriculum consists of Talmud, Talmud, Halacha and Talmud. The beauty and depth of Torah is easier to see through the study of the more philosophical, kabbilistic, chassidic, moralistic and deeper sources. Outsiders may find it hard to believe, but even the dynamic Tanach, the “best-seller” of all times in just about all languages, almost ceased to be learned in the Jewish halls of higher knowledge, even though we, Am Yisrael, the People of the Book, are the central figure!
Several explanations are offered as to why we all but ceased to learn the deep, beautiful, idealistic and appealing aspects of Torah.
a. The maskilim embraced the universally acclaimed Tanach, philosophy, and ethics as part of their objective to depreciate the importance of rabbinical Talmud (which they saw as “too Jewish” or restrictive). In reaction, the traditional community veered away from those universally appealing topics in order to distance the danger of assimilation, and conversely stressed the halachic do’s and don’t’s even more. Similarly, the secular zionist interest in Hebrew, Tanach and the Land of Israel knee-jerked many religious to recoil from the Holy Toungue, the Holy Book and the Holy Land!
b. Similarly, the fiasco of Shabtai Zvi, whose claims to being the messiah were based upon sources from the kabbalah, caused a super-conservative reaction against learning the more esoteric or mystical sources.
c. Some leaders in the charedi community have actually admitted that the problem is fear of questions or challenges inevitably raised through the study of these topics. If we try and understand the mitvot with our logic and our emotion in order to identify with them, there is the risk that the student will not understand nor identify. Subsequently he will likely forget that man cannot be the “measuring-stick” for a G-dly Torah, and that the study of the “why’s” cannot be but a partial understanding of G-d’s infinate wisdom. Similarly, the study of Tanach raises many questions and apparent contradictions from within (as expressed by bible critics) as we see in the Talmud. If it is difficult to ascertain that each and every teacher at all levels is adequetely trained to answer all of the many difficult and fundamental questions, some felt it safer to avoid these topics altogether.
d. Chovot HaL’vavot suggests that traditionally, status in the Jewish community came through excelling in the the complex study of Talmud. Other topics such as Tanach, ethics, understanding the meaning of the mitzvot, was seen as material for children and the less intellectual.
e. Technically, man had much less free time than he does today. Although the average Jew always knew how to read and spent much more time than his gentile counterpart on scholarship and study, before the techneologogical revolution, there wasn’t time for to learn everything. As such, the necessity of first learning halacha, Parshat Hashavua, and keeping up with the seasonal holidays took priority and the deeper studies were left for only the most learned.
f. The Tanach and subsequently the study of the depth of mitzvot are a “package deal”. Most mitzvot can be done only in Eretz Yisrael, and the real dynamic total life of Torat Hashem Tmima (=complete, perfect) as seen throughout the Tanach and ta’amei hamitzvot, can only apply when we are living our full national life in the Land where the Torah was meant for. The national, agricultural, military, geographical, purity, and sacrifical aspects, comprise most of the Tanach and ta’amei hamitzvot, and unfortunately were seen by many as secondary (at best) to the areas of Shabbat, Kashrut etc. which apply to everyday life in the galut. In short, Galut inherently is a very partial and incomplete Judaism, but nevertheless, that’s what was relevent to the Jew for 1,900 years. Consequently, the true width and depth of the complete Judaism as seen in the aforementioned topics were far-removed from the Jew in galut, and consequently their study was neglected.

Simply put, “From the time that Israel was exiled, G-d’s only place is in the 4 cubits (= the limited field) of halacha (Berachot 8a). Yet with all due respect to the unquestionable super-importance of g’mara and halacha (to which Rav Kook and his followers dedicatethe vast majority of their countless hours of learning), the depth, ideals and beauty of Torah are hard to see through the technical do’s and don’t’s.

Q. How did we manage on this relatively shallow Judaism without rebellion for so many years of exile? Why did the rebellion against religion wait so long?

A. When there is no competition, a product can stagnate and nevertheless its demand will continue. As long as religion had a monopoly over mankind, people didn’t examine or compare, they just followed the ways of their fathers. With the rennaisance, and afterwards the emancipation, the Jew began to see that the modern outside world has some appealing ideologies to offer. The gentile was no longer an uneducated heathen usually associated with drunkeness and violence. There was now an intellectually palatable alternative outside of Judaism.
Competition is forcing the rabbis to “market” Torah in the most appealing way possible. The question “how much must I pay if my ox gores your cow?” is not going to succeed in bringing back the masses to Judaism. On the other hand, the beauty, depth, and positive experiences of learning ethics, morals, ideals, hassidut, mussar, kabbalah, Tanach, philosophy, the appealing aspects of the G-dly Torah, will undoubtably bring them home!
One of the prevailing themes in the writings of Rav Kook is that in a world created by G-d who is good, everything, even that which appears to be bad, is for the good.

“The lofty ideal essence is revealed, that there are no opposites (contradictions) in the (unity of) reality. There is no “good” as opposed to “bad”, but there are only different levels of reality: “good” as opposed to a “higher good”…”.
This is one of the reasons most of Rav Kook’s books are named “Orot” or “The Lights of …..”. Even that which appears bad does so only because we have yet to see the good that will come. “Even the evil is really… the ‘developing good’.” Not only is failure a preparation for the good, but every advancement must be preceded by falling. This is based upon the kabbalistic idea that the physical world is an allegory to help us understand the metaphysical world. Just as in the physical world, in order to jump, we must first bend our knees. Even moreso, the more you wind –up, the further you can throw, and the lower you press a spring, the higher it will jump. Similarly spiritually,
‘אל תשמחי אויבתי לי כי נפלתי קמתי’ - אלולא שנפלתי לא קמתי ‘כי אשב בחשך ה’ אור לי’ - אלולא שישבתי בחשך לא היה אור לי:
“’For (because) I fell, I rose. Were I not to have fallen, I would not have risen”.
We can now understand Rav Kook’s explanation to the original question: Why did our rabbis teach us already 1,800 years ago that, preceding the ge’ula, there will be a mass rebellion against religion? What do we “benefit” from this terrible rebellion?
The answer: This rebellion against the seemingly shallow and stagnant old-fashioned Torah, is davka what necessitated the rediscovery of the original deep, exciting, dynamic and idealistic Torah of Eretz Yisrael, which had been forgotten and neglected. It was always around, just not studied by the masses. As we approach the ge’ula, Hashem wants the original Torah to be re-revealed, in all of her glory and appealing truth.

Q. Some question whether Rav Kook’s ideas in this article, which were ingeniusly appliccable in his generation, a generation of super-idealists, are still true regarding today’s non-religious in Israel?

A. It’s true that unfortunately, that entusiastic idealism once found among the chalutzim, is less common among the non-dati in Israel today. Nevertheless,
1. The high rate of 17% of Israeli adults who have become significantly more observant shows that although it’s obviously easier to be chiloni, when convinced, they are willing to “make the change”. Just as many get “turned on” by vegetarianism, humanism or other idealistic or activist causes or unfortunately, l’havdil by the far-east beliefs and ways, all of which demand a price for their idealism.
2. The main point is that they are still significantly closer to the modern rebel as described by Rav Kook, than they are to the rebel in the Tanach and Jewish history who knew that there is a G-d but He is too demanding. Today, the problem is not that Judaism is too difficult, but that since the renaissance, man will ask questions and won’t settle for something that seems shallow and meaningless. They wouldn’t be interested in “mumbo –jumbo” even if it were easy! They are not going to other, more convenient religions or movements (such as Reform or Conservative), but are definitely capable of being convinced. Even the argumentive nature of Jews (3 Jews will have 4 opinions), and especially Israelis (having in most elections more than 20 political parties, wheras America, about 4,000% larger, manages to make do with 2!), reflects the idealistic and uncompromising personality that demands meaning and won’t stand for emptiness.
3. In the modern world of freedom and transprtation, almost anyone who really wants to leave Israel, can (and not a few actually do). Among the majority that does stay, most serve in the army and are, when necessary, even willing to die for their land and country which they believe in. If chalila, another Yom Kippur War would break out, I have no doubt that the majority will stick and fight together and won’t flee to other countries, worrying just about themselves. Although most may not express it in day-to-day life, our rabbis say that the way to find out who a person really is inside, is how by his reaction under pressure and extenuating circumstances. As such, Am Yisrael is likened to the the olive whose goodness comes out under pressure.

In short, idealism is far from dead by the People of the Book. All we have to do is expose them to the beauty, depth and super-morality of Torah, and they are not only capable, but thirsty and searching.

Q. Granted, the beauty of Torah often speaks for itself, yet what about the difficulties, questions, apparent inconsistencies between the torah and modern morality and reality?

A. To relate seriously to each and every question people ask on Judaism is obviously beyond the scope of this publication. Not only is each question different and often unrelated, so too each questioner is unique. The only proper framework for this is “the oral Law”, face-to-face, and step –by-step, through personal guidance geared towards the pace, level, and mindset of the questioner.
Nevertheless, I believe it important to mention one issue which answers many of the most legitimate questions on halacha and Torah practice.
The “Master-Plan”of Torat Hashem tmima”, calls for a Sanhedrin to gather all gedolei hador to discuss and concretely decide how to deal with each new question or challenge that may arise. The fractionalization of Judaism into so many different customs and streams, where every local rabbi decides what is Judaism, was necessary during galut, but with modern communication, it is not only confusing but is often correctly seen as inconsistent and contradictory.
In addition, with no collective responsibility, most individual rabbis will inevitably shy away from making many significant statements or innovative decisions for fear of what the others will say. Subsequently, even if there are some (not many) “outdated” customs or halachot, they technically cannot change until the Sanhedrin is renewed. I don’t believe that we will forever pray in Y’kum Purkan for the great rabbis of Babylon, especially since for decades, there are no and will not be any more rabbis there at all! I obviously do not think it wise to give more controversial examples, yet the more learned a person is, the more he knows that there is a lot more flexibility than the current halachic framework allows.
Today, we are unnaturally and illogically in abeyance. On the one hand, with kibbutz galuyot, the centralization of the yeshivot and globalization, we are no longer in the disconnected dispersion, where each local rabbi monolithically defined halacha for his congregants. Not only are we all aware of the different approaches which need to be settled, but additionally, the abundance of questions raised by modern reality, deem necessary the Sanhedrin which has yet to be revived.
Here too, as in many cases, Rav Kook, in his historical and evolutionary view of the world, would say that not only is this a religious prayer, or blind belief, but it is logically inevitable, as well.

We now turn to the last of our forefathers as we continue our journey through the history of the land of Israel.

Yaacov went out of Israel, but it was not out of his choice, rather because he had to flee from his brother Esav.

On his way out of the land, he got his famous dream in which he saw “a ladder set up on the ground and its top reached to heaven; and behold, angels of God were ascending and descending upon it.” (Bereishit 28:12). Rashi explains ascending and descending - Ascending first and afterwards descending. The angels who escorted him in the [Holy] Land do not go outside the Land, and they ascended to heaven, and the angels of outside the Holy Land descended to escort him.[From Gen. Rabbah 68:12]. From his dream we saw, once again, the special holiness of the land of Israel

Once he had 11 sons, he was ordered by God: “Now, arise, go forth from this land and return to the land of your birth.” (31:13)

In the Zohar, it says that when Yaacov returned to Israel, he had an even greater level than when he left. I heard from a Rav that the reason for that was that he came back with his 11 sons, as a Tsibur, a collective, not alone, as a yahid. This is a much greater level of aliyah!

Yakov then went to Schem and he bought a peice of land. With this kinyan, there is a proof for generations that we a have double claims to these places: Schem, Maarat Hamachpela as we saw with Avraham, and the Beit Hamikdash which David will eventually buy.

There was, afterwards, another famine, and Yakov had to go to Egypt there, finding Yossef there. Through this descent the promise of brit ben habeitarim given to Avraham – that we will be foreigners in a land which is not ours, was becoming a reality. In the torah, God tells Yacov not to worry since he will be buried in Israel. From this, we see that Yacov was worried not to be buried in Israel. God promised him his sons will return to Israel.

Right before his death, one of his last wishes was to be buried in Israel. He also had an influence on Yossef who also ended up being buried in Israel.
From these things we see the importance of being buried in Israel. The Gemara in Ktuvot says that those who are buried in Israel are as if they are buried under the sanctuary. It is also said that those who are buried in Israel are alive during their deaths – an obviously positive reference (even if difficult to understand precisely). There has been a minhag for generations to burry people with some land from Israel, once again showing the importance and holiness of this land even to this death.

Here, I want to add a little note: I heard a few people say that since it is so important to be buried in Israel, they will want to be buried there when they died. This is praiseworthy. However, as Jews living in a special generation of rebirth, our goal should not simply be to be buried in Israel, to die in Israel, but rather to live in Israel. Eretz Israel is called the land of the life, and it is by living in Israel that we can truly integrate the holiness of the land into our being, not simply by being buried there.

We will now continue the history of Eretz Israel with a look at Itzhak’s connection to the land.

Itzhak became linked to Jerusalem through Akeidat Itzhak. There, God promised him he would received this land, the land already promised to Avraham.

Since Itzhak had a special connection to Israel, Avraham told his servant to go look for a wife for his son in Chutz Laaretz within his family, but under no circumstance could he take Itzhak out of the country. “Rak et Beni Lo Tashev Shama” – Just do not bring my son there (Bereishit 24:8). Avraham found Itzhak’s connection to the land more important than the connection to the special family of his. Also, he had faith that through his connection to the land, God would help him succeed find a wife: “The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.”

When there was a famine in Israel, Itzhak went down on his way to Egypt to get food but God stopped him on his way, telling him: “’Go not down unto Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore unto Abraham thy father;” (Bereishit 26:2-3). Rabbi Hoshaya said in Midrash Rabbah that Itzhak was like an Olah Tmima, a kind of sacrifice, who, went it goes out of the beit hamikdash, cannot be put on the alter. So too, Itzhak could not go out of Israel.

Itzhak has an even greater connection to the land than Avraham. He was asked not only to walk the land, but also to work the land, to plant and to build.

(Inspired by a shiur I heard by David Hai Hakohen)

This article has been written by Rav Ari Shvat (Chwat), Rosh Midreshet Tal Orot in Michlelet Orot, Elkana. He has graciously offered to share his wisdom with the readers of Tzipiyah.com, and given me a few, very powerful and all very relevant, articles to share with you. This is the second part of the first article. Enjoy!

Last time, we ended by saying that: Rav Kook points out that as opposed to the rebel in biblical and midieval times, the chalutzim ran from Torah not because it was too difficult or “high” for them but the opposite, because it was too “low” for them. They wanted ideals and were answered with negatives.

The chalutzim were not lazy people! For the ideals that they believed in, they were willing to move to a far and deserted Land, to struggle and often die fighting malaria and Arab marauders. They simply did not find Judaism as an ideology but as empty ritual.

The chidush of Rav Kook was that he explained to the fathers and sons alike, that the youthful rebellion was not against Torah but against galut!

An objective examination of the “original” Torah (as opposed to the galuti one) finds that those very ideals of the chalutzim not only did not contradict Judaism, but in those respects, the rebellious sons were even more “religious” than their elders!

An objective reading of the Jewish sources finds that Am Yisrael has a nationalist aspect which is actually embedded within the religious one. Moshe, Yehoshua, Shaul, David and all of our biblical heroes were all religious-nationalists! They spoke Hebrew, led the national army, worked the land as farmers or shepherds, and saw their national and their religious roles as one-and-the-same.

• The conquering of Eretz Yisrael and running the Jewish State cannot but be called nationalism. This is exactly the mitzva to conquer, rule and settle the Holy Land called mitzvat yishuv haAretz, “והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה”.
• Even though it’s not always possible, Aliya is always a Jewish ideal.
• How much more so when associated with the national revival stressed so often in the tanach as the ultimate Jewish dream!
• Our forefathers were preoccupied with physical labor and working the Holy Land of Israel, as part of the aforementioned mitzva of settling the Land. Just as we shouldn’t be embarrassed to don our holy tfilin, if necessary, even publicly before the eyes of gentiles, how much more so, there is no shame to be a farmer and cultivate the holy fruits of the Holy Land, for the sake of the holy People!
• It is a mitzva to speak even about secular topics in Hebrew, Lashon haKodesh, as did our forefathers in the Tanach. Moshe spoke with Yehosua in Hebrew, not yiddish, and was called Rabbenu, not Rabinowitz!
• Our forefathers and national heroes were not warmongers, but when oppressed or mocked, Avraham, Moshe, Yehoshua, Gidon, Yiftach, Samson, Shaul, David, the Maccabees were far from being pushovers! They all served in the Israelite (sounds more frum than “Israeli”, but it means the same thing!) army and stood up for Jewish pride. “Turning the other cheek” is a Christian, not a Jewish, concept.
• The ideals of equality and social justice were not invented by modern socialist but are the very backbone of Judaism. Especially in Eretz Yisrael, we give about 2% of our produce for truma, 10% for ma’aser and trumat ma’aser, 10% for tzedaka or ma’aser ani, every seventh year (=14%) our produce is left for the poor, in addition to the year of yovel (=2%), not to mention 22 (!) other matnot kehuna, and other significant percentages for the poor (leket, shikcha,pe’ah, peret, olilot, etc.). All this amounts to about half (!) of what we earn, we share with the less fortunate! The most common mitzva in the Torah (35 times) is to love and take care of the ger, the foreigner, that he shouldn’t be exploited.
• Being that complete Judaism is not only a religion but a nationality as well, when living our natural national life in Erets Yisrael, there obviously always was an Israelite (sounds more frum than “Israeli”) culture.
• Inevitably, in the modern world, that Jewish State must have not only farmers but also universities, trade schools, think-tanks, institutions for research and development, plumbers, etc. etc.

Rav Kook tells us that instead of division, the fathers and the sons should learn from eachother. Not only should the young learn from their elders, but as the navi Malachi directs us, in the generation of ge’ula, the converse is true , as well. והשיב לב אבות .על.בנים ולב בנים על אבותם The fathers should learn nationalism from their children, and the rebellious sons should return to the religion of their fathers. They should both realize that their common rebellion should be against the galut who’s time is up (as the sho’ah and rampant assimilation subsequently proved) , and that their common goal is to return to the days of yore. The artificial mechitza that they commonly erected between nationalism and religion should be removed, and the original religious –zionism should be restored.