Barbara Ginsberg Presents Rabbi Meir Kahane Writings : July 2016

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Wars Of Vengeance Have Different Rules

Kahane on the Parsha

Rabbi Binyamin Kahane- Parshat Matot

WARS OF VENGEANCE HAVE DIFFERENT RULES

When Pinchas and the Jewish army return from battling Midian (in revenge for the Midianite women causing Israel to sin), Moses angrily questions Pinchas, "Have you kept all the women alive?!" Concerning this verse, the Ramban quotes the Sifri: "Pinchas answered Moses, 'As you commanded us, so we did!'"

The Ramban, however, notes: Nowhere in the Torah do we find Moses instructing Pinchas and his troops whom to kill and whom to keep alive. If so, the Ramban asks, what did Pinchas mean by his reply, "As you commanded us, so we did"? And if Pinch as did what Moses asked him to do, why was Moses upset?

The Ramban answers that a misunderstanding occurred. Pinchas assumed that the war against Midian was to be conducted like any other obligatory war (milchemet mitzvah) or permissible war (milchemet reshut), in which only males are generally killed. That is why Pinchas said, "As you commanded us, so we did." He meant, "We only killed the men as you commanded us in the Torah."

Why, then, did Moses get upset? Because the women "caused the Children of Israel, through the counsel of Bila'am, to revolt against the L-rd in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the L-rd" (Numbers 31:16).

This verse contains a vital lesson regarding warfare. In essence, it informs us that in addition to obligatory and permissible wars, there is another category of wars: wars of vengeance. For regular wars, the laws regarding whom to kill and whom to spare are clear and pre-set (see Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6). For wars of vengeance, however, the laws are contingent upon the harm done to Israel.

Therefore, the rules of engagement vary from war to war, depending on the specific circumstances that led up to it. In the case of the war against Midian, which was fought because of the Midianite women's immoral behavior, the Jewish army should have made the women their very first victims. But the army did not understand this, and that is why Moses grew angry.

The notion that wars of vengeance should be fought in a different manner appears in the Book of Judges as well. When 3,000 men of Yehuda come to arrest Samson and turn him over to the Philistines, they ask him why he terrorized the Philistines. Samson answers: "As they did to me, so I did to them" (Judges 15:11). In other words, measure for measure. This is similar to what Shmuel HaNavi said to Agag, the Amalekite king, as he took him out to be executed: "Just as your sword made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women" (1 Samuel 15:33). It is incumbent upon the haters of Israel to know: Punishment will be exacted from them in precise proportion to the measure they oppressed Israel!

King David, warrior and conqueror, also followed this principle. Our Rabbis tell us that David's war against Moab was retribution for the murder of his parents and brothers by the Moabite king. And when he defeated the Moabites, David treated them in a most unconventional fashion: "He measured his captives with a rope, laying them down on the ground and measuring two rope lengths to be put to death, and one rope length to be kept alive" (II Samuel 8:2). The Radak explains: "It was an act of revenge and humiliation." Once again, we see that treatment of the enemy during war is tailored to fit the circumstances at hand.

Darka Shel Torah, 1998

Shabbat Shalom!

Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane or Rabbi Binyamin Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles and would like to be, please contact me at:barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rabbi Binyamin Kahane go to blog: www.barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com

To view Rabbi Meir Kahane site of Youtubes, Videos. CDs posted by Michael Miller go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/bayitvegan

Newly published “Kahane on the Parsha” can be bought at the following links on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Kahane-Parsha-Meir/dp/098867680X , it's also available on website, www.BrennBooks.com

Rebbitzen Libby Kahane is happy to announce that the second volume, “Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought, 1983-1976” is available on Amazon.com. The book comes up immediately when you type into the main search box: Meir Kahane Life 1976

Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought, 1976-1983” (volume 2), has been published. and now available in Israel. Can be bought from Yeshivat Haraayon Hayehudi (02-5823540) and from Pomeranz Books (02-6235559)

Facebook Links:

Michael ben-Ari- Jewish Strength:

https://www.facebook.com/…/Michael-Ben-Ari…/1531135183822770

Barbara Ginsberg – Do search

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Kill For Peace Parsha Pinchas Binni

Kahane on the Parsha
Rabbi Binyamin Kahane- Parshat Pinchas
KILL FOR PEACE

The true definition of "peace" has been so badly distorted in this generation that the word itself has come to represent a particular political point of view. So much so that even when the Right speaks of peace, it does so within the confines of the Left's view and twisted definition of the word.

Though it is not an easy task, it behooves us to uncover the Torah's understanding of peace. By doing so, we will be able to map out basic policy guidelines for a Jewish peace that, with G-d's help, will eventually be used by the government in the Land of Israel.

The first place to look to discover the Torah's understanding of peace is Pinchas. Why Pinchas? Because he is the man whom G-d Himself chose to give the covenant of peace. (Such a covenant was not even given to his grandfather, Aaron, who was famous as a "lover and pursuer of peace.") The question that begs asking is: Why? Why of all things was Pinchas given the covenant of peace? Would it not have been more appropriate to give him the covenant of zealousness? Wasn't Pinchas's recourse to violence the very opposite of what peace represent?

It is these very questions, however, which illustrate the confusion inherent in every contemporary discussion of peace. After all, what has peace come to mean today? It means shaking hands with evil -- and the more evil, the grander the peace, for "only with enemies do you make peace." You proclaim, "Peace," get photographed on the White House lawn, and hope that your enemy stops killing you. In other words, peace means that one comes to terms, or makes peace with, evil. Obviously, for any thinking person, this definition does not go down smoothly. After all, normal instincts tell us that no good can come of giving into evil and making peace with it. Nonetheless, many people get dragged along this distorted interpretation because they know no alternative.

What, then, is true peace? According to the Torah, peace is a RESULT -- a consequence of making the world a better place. And the first step in bettering the world is uprooting evil and evildoers from it. "Sur me'ra" -- turn from, or remove, evil. Making peace with evil or -- even worse -- giving into it is the very OPPOSITE of what one should do if one wants to achieve true peace.

Peace is NOT the mixing of good and evil, as we have been trained to think. The very opposite. There can be NO coexistence between good and evil, nor can there be a partnership between good people and evil people. The Master of the Universe expects the righteous to expunge evil from the world. "And you shall burn (vi'arta) the evil from thy midst," the Torah commands us in numerous places. ONLY THEN will peace reign in the world.

Indeed, the Rabbis compare killing the wicked to offering sacrifices on the altar, which is a symbol of peace -- "to teach you that when the blood of the wicked is spilled it is as if a sacrifice was offered" (Tanchuma, Pinchas 1). For there are two sides to peace -- removing evil and doing good, sur me'ra va'asei tov. One cannot exist without the other.

That is why Pinchas received the covenant of peace. For when all the Jewish people's leaders, including Moses and Aaron, cried in paralysis as Zimri sinned with Kozbi (see Numbers 25:6), the younger Pinchas took action and eradicated the evil before him. True, his grandfather, Aaron, was a symbol of the love and pursuit of peace, but evidently he was weak in the area of uprooting evil. And since there is no peace without the purging of evil, it was his grandson, Pinchas -- who understood both sides of the equation -- who received the covenant of peace.
Darka shel Torah, 1995

Shabbat Shalom

Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane or Rabbi Binyamin Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles and would like to be, please contact me at:

barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rabbi Binyamin Kahane go to blog:

www.barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com

To view Rabbi Meir Kahane site of Youtubes, Videos. CDs posted by Michael Miller go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/bayitvegan

Facebook Links:

Michael ben-Ari- Jewish Strength:

https://www.facebook.com/…/Michael-Ben-Ari…/1531135183822770

Barbara Ginsberg – Do search

Shabbat Shalom!

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Behind The Smiles Rabbi Binaymin Kahane 1993

Kahane on the Parsha

Rabbi Binyamin Kahane- Parshat Balak

BEHIND THE SMILES

If someone were to read Parshat Balak objectively without any previous knowledge, he could easily get the impression that Bilaam is, at the very least, a righteous man. Throughout the entire parasha, Bilaam proclaims that he will only do what G-d tells him to. What piety! And let us not forget the wonderful blessings he bestows upon us. The fact is, we don't see any serious indication in the text that Bilaam is a vicious anti-Semite.

Someone, however, who reads Rashi's commentary from the outset of the Parsha will come away with a very different impression. Indeed, he will notice an interesting pattern. Every time Bilaam sounds righteous, Rashi places Bilaam's words and actions in a totally different light, attributing to him all kinds of strange motives. How can Rashi deviate so sharply from the Parshat, from the simple meaning of the text?

The fact is, however, that Rashi isn't deviating from the Parsha. For Rashi notices from the very beginning something strange about Bilaam's behavior. In his capacity as a prophet, he is asked to curse Israel. What is his answer? Does he reject the idea out of hand as one would expect from a decent person? No. Instead, he procrastinates- "Wait until morning," "Let us hear what G-d says," etc. - as if our "Tzaddik" somehow thinks he can pull it off!

More importantly, Rashi knows from the very beginning that Bilaam cannot be a saint considering that later on Bilaam advises Balak- completely on his own initiative- how to destroy the Jewish people. Indeed, in Parshat Mattot, when the Jews take vengeance against Midian, the Torah emphasizes: "And Bilaam ben Beor they killed by the sword" (Numbers 31:8)- for he was one of the major culprits responsible for the Jews sinning with the Midianite women.

Although somewhat ambiguous in Parshat Balak, the Torah later makes everything clear. It exposes the true fact of Bilaam the Jew-hater. The reason he didn't curse the Jews is because G-d forcibly prevented him from doing so. But his venom found a different outlet in his scheme to entice the Jews to immorality. Knowing the end of the story, Rashi realizes that Bilaam's righteous posturing in Parshat Balka is just that- behind which he is hiding his true desires. Bilaam is a fraud!!!!

In our own era, we encounter many "Bilaams." A superficial look at the Clintons of the world might reveal much good intention and even a certain "love of Jews." It may appear that the saying of the Rabbis, "It is a well-known rule that Esau hates Jacob," does not apply to them. However, a person who reads the Parsha of the gentile, Parshat Balak, accompanied by Rashi will see the situation for what it really is. The gentile's friendly demeanor and even the praises he may help upon us are a cover for the "final act" he has in store for us.

Like Rashi, we must have the foresight to see what they are really planning for us at the end of the "Parsha"- total retreat to the 1967 borders and the dismantling of our nuclear capabilities. In short, total submission. All their sweet talk is only a smoke screen for their demonic plans. Like Rashi, we must use foresight and interpret their deeds in the proper light from the very outset.

Darka Shel Torah, 1993

Shabbat Shalom!

Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane or Rabbi Binyamin Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles and would like to be, please contact me at:

barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rabbi Binyamin Kahane go to blog:

www.barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com

To view Rabbi Meir Kahane site of Youtubes, Videos. CDs posted by Michael Miller go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/bayitvegan

Facebook Links:

Michael ben-Ari- Jewish Strength:

https://www.facebook.com/…/Michael-Ben-Ari…/1531135183822770

Barbara Ginsberg – Do search

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Chukim: To What End???

Kahane on the Parsha

Rabbi Meir Kahane- Parshat Chukat

CHUKIM: TO WHAT END???

The Torah declares concerning the Red Heifer, "This is the chok of the Torah" (Numbers 19:2). Rashi comments: "Since Satan and the nations ridicule Israel, saying, 'What is this commandment and what is its rationale?' the Torah uses the word 'chok,' as if to say, 'It is a divine decree and you have no license to question it.'"

Truthfully, however, why DID G0d give us chukim which Satan and the nations would be able to ridicule for being arational? The answer is that the chukim are certainly rational, but the Torah leaves us in the dark so that they operate solely as decrees, serving as prototypes for all the other commandments. They inform us that we must relate to all mitzvot as decrees - we must do them simply because G-d said so - even if the reason for some of them are relatively straightfoward. The Sifra (as quoted by Rashi to Kedoshim 20:26) states:

"How do we know that a man should not say, 'I cannot abide pork, I cannot bear to wear a garment of Shaatnez,' but should rather say, 'I can eat the pork and wear the garment, but what can I do if my Father in Heaven has decreed otherwise?' It is said (Leviticus 20:26), 'And I have separated you from the nations that you should be Mine' - that you should be separated from them for My Name's sake and accept the yoke of heaven."

Doing the mitzvot out of submission to G-d brings merit to the Jewish people. As the Rabbis said: "The Torah states, 'Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life' (Deuteronomy 12:23). If we are awarded for abstaining from blood, something which man finds disgusting, then how much more so will we bring merit to ourselves, our children, and all our descendants until the end of time if we abstain from thievery or illicit relations, things which man craves and desires" (Makkot 23b).

Even without G-d's commands, there are many mitzvot a person would fulfill anyway, either because they are loathsome (e.g., consuming blood) or because they are moral and beneficial (e.g., honoring one's parents). If, however, he fulfills them not because they are divine commands but because they seem logical, he does NOT achieve the holiness one attains as a result of breaking one's lust, arrogance, and ego. Only when a person does a mitzvah because he is COMMANDED can he ascend spiritually.

G-d therefore COMMANDED us not to consume blood, transforming an instinctive act into a holy means of quashing the ego. This is the intent of R. Chanania ben Akashia's comment that "G-d wished to bring Israel merit (l'zakot); He therefore provided them with much Torah and mitzvot" (ibid.). The word "l'zakot" connotes not only merit (zechut), but purity (zach). G-d wished to purify His people and refine them of the dross of egotism. He wished to purge their egos and place fetters on the bestial will and pride of man. He therefore gave us the mitzvot. When man performs all his deeds exclusively in aoccrodance with the command of G-d, he becomes purified and ascends spiritually, which is the purpose of life.

The Rabbis said: "Does G-d care whether a person chooses a kosher animal or a non-kosher one; whether he slaughters it proerly before consuming it or not? Does it help G-d? Does it harm Him? [No, rather the] mtizvot were given to refine Israel and mankind" (Tanchuma, Shemini 8).

The Jewish Idea

Shabbat Shalom!

If you are interested in reading more divrei torah from Rabbi Meir and Binyamin Kahane HY"D, you can purchase the book at both of the following two links:

http://brennbooks.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Kahane-Parsha-Meir/dp/098867680Xchu

Rabbi Binyamin Kahane Land for Peace -1992

KAHANE ON THE PARSHA

Rabbi Binyamin Kahane

LAND FOR PEACEThe modern buzz phrase, "occupied territories," rears its ugly head in our parsha and haftarah (Judges 11:1-33). In Parshat Chukat we read of Og, king of Bashan, and Sichon, king of Ammon, trying to prevent the Jewish people from passing through their borders to reach the Land of Israel. Both kings decide to wage war against the chosen people and both kings lose. The Children of Israel conquer their lands and inhabit them.

Interestingly enough, no one at the time thought of suggesting that the Jewish people return the land they had just conquered to the nations that tried to annihilate them. But what if such a proposal had been raised? What would the Jewish response have been?

To answer this question we move the clock ahead 300 years. In the era of the Judges, the king of Ammon brazenly demands that the Jews return his terrotiries and threatens war if they refuse. The king recounts some well-known history: "Israel took away my land when they came out of Egypt, from Arnon as far as the Yabok and the Jordan" (Judges 11:13).

Compared to the claims of today's Arabs, this demand is quite "moderate." The king of Ammon, unlike the PLO, does not call for the total destruction of the Jewish state. He only wants what was taken from his people. In words that echo in the UN and Washington, the king concludes his demand in the following manner: "Now, therefore, restore these lands peacefully" (ibid.).

Peace. That magic word. What normal Jewish leader can refuse such an offer? After all, the king of Ammon's claim is not unreasonable; the lands were, indeed, taken from his nation. Ammon, unlike the PLO, once had a sovereign empire with a capital and an army on these lands. And most importantly, here is a genuine opportunity for peace. No more war, no more bloodshed.

The answer, however, that Yiftach - the Jewish people's leader - gives the king of Ammon is very different than the answer Rabin and Peres gave Arafat. Yiftach recounts all the past history, and then concludes: "So now the L-rd of Israel has driven out the Amorites from before His people, Israel, and you should possess the land?!?! Will you not posses what your god, Kemosh, gives you to possess??? We will possess all that the L-rd, our G-d, has dispossessed before us" (ibid. 11:23-24).

THIS is the reaction of a true Jewish leader. A reaction based on FAITH in the word of G-d. The land is ours not because of any historical claim or because we defeated the former inhabitants in battle. Rather, the land is OURS because G-d GAVE IT TO US AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO GIVE IT UP!!!

If we TRULY BELIEVE in our G-d-given right to the land and act with faith in the Almighty, we will achieve the same results that Yiftach did: "And Ammon was subdued before the Children of Israel" (ibid. 11:33).
Darka Shel Torah, 1992

Anyone reading this Rabbi Meir Kahane or Rabbi Binyamin Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles and would like to be, please contact me at:

barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view articles written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rabbi Binyamin Kahane go to blog:

www.barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com

To view Rabbi Meir Kahane site of Youtubes, Videos. CDs posted by Michael Miller go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/bayitvegan

Facebook Links:

Michael ben-Ari- Jewish Strength:

https://www.facebook.com/…/Michael-Ben-Ari…/1531135183822770

Barbara Ginsberg – Do search