Why Shmuel Was Denied Semicha (Ordination)

I go to a Gemara Chaburah (group) on Shabbos and during one of the many discussions I found out something very interesting. Someone mentioned a very interesting point about Shmuel and why he was not given semicha. I asked for the source and the doctor who mentioned the idea was kind enough to share with me his sefer "Doros Ha'amoraim."

Translation:
Why was Shmuel not ordained?
This question has brought about different answers.
1) [Shmuel] was an expert in the calendar [for which months were full (30 days) and which months were not (29 days)]. Therefore, if he were ordained it is possible that the people of Bavel would follow after him with regards to when to bless the new month and when the holidays would fall and they would not rely on the institutions in Israel. Perhaps this is why they gave Shmuel the sharp nickname of Yarhinaah (referring to the moon).
2) Shmuel dealt with Mada (secular knowledge), outside knowledge, and foreign languages. He also attached himself to wise men from other nations. These things created a stumbling block in the road for him to get ordained. Even though he had good intentions this was a burden and pain to Rebbi [Yehuda Hanasi].

According to the first opinion I can understand why the Rabbis of Israel did not want to ordain Shmuel. They wanted to keep a center for Torah Judaism. If the Rabbis of Israel came up with one date for the holidays and Shmuel came up with another date, then there would be total chaos. Therefore, they needed to keep Shmuel from getting ordained in order to prevent this potential split within Rabbinical Judaism.

However, the second opinion sounds much more disturbing in my eyes. The reason they refused to give Shmuel ordination was because he was well versed in secular knowledge and associated with non-Jews? That is a reason not to ordain someone, because he knows everything in Torah and secular society? This seems like the Rabbis of Israel were making more of a power play than a just decision. They don't want people associating with non-Jews or learning secular knowledge so they refuse to ordain Shmuel. However, it seems like Shmuel would encourage these things and that is the sole reason they did't want to ordain him.

I prefer to believe the first opinion to be correct for the following inferences that we can draw. According to the first opinion the Rabbis did not ordain Shmuel because they realized Rabbinical Judaism must be united, whether in Israel or Bavel. There must be one law for everyone. Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, etc needs to be on the same day for all Jews no matter where they are in the world. If Jews in Israel kept Rosh Hashana on Sept. 1st and the Jews in Babel kept Rosh Hashana on Sept. 10th, that disparity would cause major problems. That is a unity issue that seems, to me, a very legitimate concern.

However, to disregard someone from the leadership because he is well versed in secular subjects and associates with non-Jews seems ridiculous. If anything it would seem, to me, that associating with non-Jews and having secular knowledge as well as Torah knowledge would make a person MORE capable of being a leader. Shmuel felt that way and so did many Rishonim after him (Rambam, Ralbag, etc).

This is why I believe the first opinion to be correct and the second opinion to be wrong. However, even if the second opinion were true, we clearly have a Mesorah that learning secular subjects and associating with non-Jews is definitely acceptable..   

Rambam Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 11: How Righteous People Should Act

I split the Rambam's last halacha in chapter five into two sections. The first section discusses how a righteous wise person should not act and the second section discusses how he or she should act.

ויש דברים אחרים שהן בכלל חילול השם. והוא שיעשה אותם אדם גדול בתורה ומפורסם בחסידות דברים שהבריות מרננים אחריו בשבילם. ואע"פ שאינן עבירות הרי זה חילל את השם כגון שלקח ואינו נותן דמי המקח לאלתר. והוא שיש לו ונמצאו המוכרים תובעין והוא מקיפן. או שירבה בשחוק או באכילה ושתיה אצל עמי הארץ וביניהן. או שדבורו עם הבריות אינו בנחת ואינו מקבלן בסבר פנים יפות אלא בעל קטטה וכעס. וכיוצא בדברים האלו הכל לפי גדלו של חכם צריך שידקדק על עצמו ויעשה לפנים משורת הדין. 

There are other things which also count as a desecration of G-D's Name. [They consist of:] if there is a man that is great in Torah knowledge and it is known that he is pious, if he performs certain actions and others perform these actions simply because he does these things [this is considered a desecration of G-D's name.] Even though these things are not sins, they still count as a desecration of G-D's name. For example, if this righteous man buys something without paying for it immediately in a case where he can afford to pay for it immediately and the seller asks for the money immediately, but this righteous man says "put it on my tab (credit)." Or this righteous man is excessive in joking around. Or this righteous person eats near or among Amei Haaratzim (People of the land). Or if this righteous person speaks to others in a non-calm way without a pleasant face, but [he does speak] in a kurt and angry manner. And other things similar to these examples. [The desecration of G-D's name] is all according to the level of this righteous man's wisdom and he needs to search within himself and [understand how far to] go beyond the letter of the law. 

This last halacha of the Rambam might be the most important one for our everyday lives. It does not discuss clear cut halacha that is saying this is clearly forbidden and this is clearly permitted. Rambam is teaching us that we must use our heads and understand what is considered appropriate behavior for a righteous Jew. Sure, there are no laws being violated when a person puts off payment until later. However, is it right to cause someone else to wait for payment? No one can ever truly know how badly another needs payment. For example, let's say you have a dry cleaners that you think is doing very well. One day you decide not to pay for your dry cleaning, but instead want to put it on credit. What if that dry cleaner lives paycheck to paycheck? You are now causing this dry cleaner to wait for his food for that payment period or some other sorely needed cash. It is not always so simple. A regular person is not expected to be extra sensitive to others needs, but a wise righteous person taints G-D's name when he or she is not sensitive to others because they are considered, as the Maharal tells us in many places, representatives of G-D in this world. People look at wise righteous people as performing G-D's will and G-D is the ultimate compassionate being, so how can those who know His will the best not be compassionate?

The Rambam also speaks about joking around. People look up to wise and righteous people as leaders. For example, would you want a president of anything to be joking around all the time? No, you want someone who is serious, maybe they joke around a little, but they must give off an impression of seriousness and care, not carelessness and laxity.

The Rambam also mentions that a righteous person should not eat among Amei Haaratzim (people of the land) this refers to people that are unlearned and lewd. There are a few reasons that a wise righteous person should not dine with these types of people. The main one is taught in a Mishna in Avos (3:3). It says:

Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradion said: If two sit together and no words of Torah are interchanged between them, theirs is the session of the scornful, as it is written (Psalm 1:1) "Nor sit in the seat of scoffers." But when two sit together and words of Torah pass between them, the Divine Presence rests between them, as it is written (Malachi 3:16) "Then those who revered the Lord spoke with one another. The Lord took note and listened, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who revered the Lord and thought on his name." Scripture speaks here of two. Whence do we learn that if even one sits and occupies himself in the Torah, the Holy One blessed be he, appoints him a reward? Because it is written (Lamentations 3:28) "to sit alone in silence when the Lord has imposed it."

An Am Haaretz is someone who is unable to speak words of Torah, for he does not know of them and does not care to learn them. Therefore, his sessions are considered those that are scornful. A righteous person should not be a part of this type of situation.

The idea of speaking to people in a kurt and angry manner should be obvious. A wise righteous person should always be respectful of others. When a person is kurt and speaks with anger there is no respect, just an aura of haughtiness and impatience. This is not the impression a representative of G-D wants to make on others. Also, it leads to those around you disregarding your opinion. As we will see in the next part of the Rambam's halacha, the wise righteous people that can keep their calm even when they are being insulted themselves show the ultimate respect to those they are conversing with. This shows true respect and will lead to those who originally disregarded what these righteous people said to changing face and now listening to their every word with deep respect.

וכן אם דקדק החכם על עצמו והיה דבורו בנחת עם הבריות ודעתו מעורבת עמהם ומקבלם בסבר פנים יפות ונעלב מהם ואינו עולבם. מכבד להן ואפילו למקילין לו. ונושא ונותן באמונה. ולא ירבה באריחות עמי הארץ וישיבתן. ולא יראה תמיד אלא עוסק בתורה עטוף בציצית מוכתר בתפילין ועושה בכל מעשיו לפנים משורת הדין. והוא שלא יתרחק הרבה ולא ישתומם. עד שימצאו הכל מקלסין אותו ואוהבים אותו ומתאוים למעשיו הרי זה קידש את ה' ועליו הכתוב אומר ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר:

[On the other hand] if the righteous wise man is exacting with himself and he speaks in a calm and collected manner with others, he tries to understand them, appears pleasant to them and allows himself to be insulted WITHOUT INSULTING THEM BACK. He will then be honored by them, even those who did not think highly of him and they will be able to have a conversation with trust. Also, if he does not increase his time on the road of Amei Haaratzim and their dwellings, rather he is only seen dealing with Torah, wrapping himself in Tzitzit (tzistzis), putting on Tefilin, and performing all of his actions beyond the letter of the law. Also, if he does not make himself too distant or withdrawn. [If he performs all of these proper deeds] to the extant that everyone adores and loves him and desires [to follow] his ways, this is a sanctification of G-D's name. On this righteous man the verse says (Yishaya 49:3), "You are My servant, Israel, amongst whom I will be glorified."

The Rambam, in essence, is telling us two ideas. A wise righteous person needs to be consistent and respectful, for that is the only way that others will take him seriously. A person who walks the walk and talks the talk will be respected more than one who says he is righteous, but degrades others and is always seen doing the wrong thing. A righteous person needs to occupy himself with acts of kindness and commandments as well as speak to others with respect. Only then will these righteous individuals be listened to and respected.

As an aside, I would like to say how disappointed I am at the dialogue that goes on today. No matter what the situation, people no longer discuss things respectfully. Everyone is always trying to discredit their rival with ad hominem attacks or completely false accusations. If we would actually listen to one another perhaps there would be more understanding and less abuse. I hope that one day soon we can have real discussions with those we disagree with and not just close our ears to other people's points of view. Let us all, at least, pretend we are righteous and act according to what the Rambam prescribes here.

Why Would G-D Test Avraham By Asking Him To Sacrifice His Son Yitzchak (Isaac)?

In this week's Parsha we find the confusing task that G-D gives Avraham, to sacrifice Yitzchak (Isaac). This seems very odd to me for several reasons. However, once I looked up child sacrifice in the Tanach (Bible) there were two other instances that are mentioned. One is that of Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:30-40) and the other is that of the son of the King of Moab (Kings II 3:27). I think that these two later verses will help us understand the Akeida (binding of Isaac on the alter).

 It seems to me that the King of Moab, in Kings II reveals to us a custom of the nations that surrounded Israel. The verses there (Kings II 3:26-27) state:


כו  וַיַּרְא מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב, כִּי-חָזַק מִמֶּנּוּ הַמִּלְחָמָה; וַיִּקַּח אוֹתוֹ שְׁבַע-מֵאוֹת אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חֶרֶב, לְהַבְקִיעַ אֶל-מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם--וְלֹא יָכֹלוּ. 
26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not.  


כז  וַיִּקַּח אֶת-בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר-יִמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו, וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ עֹלָה עַל-הַחֹמָה, וַיְהִי קֶצֶף-גָּדוֹל, עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּסְעוּ, מֵעָלָיו, וַיָּשֻׁבוּ, לָאָרֶץ.
27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

The idea here is that the Moabite nation thought that the ultimate sacrifice that was a last ditch effort to conjure up the gods favor was to sacrifice your most prized possession, your favorite child. This is why the verse tells us that this was the child who was the heir to the throne. Who is the heir to the throne? The kings favorite child. The one that the king chooses and says, "You will be my heir." So, we learn from this verse in Kings II that, at the very least, the Moabites believed that the ultimate act of faith in the gods was to sacrifice your child, your FAVORITE child. The one who would be your heir. (I don't want to go into the reason why this sacrifice worked in the Moabite kings favor, but it is something to think about.)

However, what happened in Judges (11:30-40) by Jephthah's daughter:

ל  וַיִּדַּר יִפְתָּח נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר:  אִם-נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, בְּיָדִי.	30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand,
לא  וְהָיָה הַיּוֹצֵא, אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִדַּלְתֵי בֵיתִי לִקְרָאתִי, בְּשׁוּבִי בְשָׁלוֹם, מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--וְהָיָה, לַיהוָה, וְהַעֲלִיתִיהוּ, עֹלָה.  {פ}	31 then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.' {P}
לב  וַיַּעֲבֹר יִפְתָּח אֶל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, לְהִלָּחֶם בָּם; וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה, בְּיָדוֹ.	32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hand.
לג  וַיַּכֵּם מֵעֲרוֹעֵר וְעַד-בֹּאֲךָ מִנִּית עֶשְׂרִים עִיר, וְעַד אָבֵל כְּרָמִים, מַכָּה, גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד; וַיִּכָּנְעוּ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  {פ}	33 And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto Abel-cheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. {P}
לד  וַיָּבֹא יִפְתָּח הַמִּצְפָּה, אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, וְהִנֵּה בִתּוֹ יֹצֵאת לִקְרָאתוֹ, בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלוֹת:  וְרַק הִיא יְחִידָה, אֵין-לוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּן אוֹ-בַת.	34 And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
לה  וַיְהִי כִרְאוֹתוֹ אוֹתָהּ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲהָהּ בִּתִּי הַכְרֵעַ הִכְרַעְתִּנִי, וְאַתְּ, הָיִית בְּעֹכְרָי; וְאָנֹכִי, פָּצִיתִי פִי אֶל-יְהוָה, וְלֹא אוּכַל, לָשׁוּב.	35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said: 'Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art become my troubler; for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.'
לו  וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אָבִי פָּצִיתָה אֶת-פִּיךָ אֶל-יְהוָה--עֲשֵׂה לִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָצָא מִפִּיךָ:  אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ יְהוָה נְקָמוֹת, מֵאֹיְבֶיךָ--מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.	36 And she said unto him: 'My father, thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD; do unto me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.'
לז  וַתֹּאמֶר, אֶל-אָבִיהָ, יֵעָשֶׂה לִּי, הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:  הַרְפֵּה מִמֶּנִּי שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵלְכָה וְיָרַדְתִּי עַל-הֶהָרִים, וְאֶבְכֶּה עַל-בְּתוּלַי, אָנֹכִי ורעיתי (וְרֵעוֹתָי).	37 And she said unto her father: 'Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.'
לח  וַיֹּאמֶר לֵכִי, וַיִּשְׁלַח אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים; וַתֵּלֶךְ הִיא וְרֵעוֹתֶיהָ, וַתֵּבְךְּ עַל-בְּתוּלֶיהָ עַל-הֶהָרִים.	38 And he said: 'Go.' And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
לט  וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים, וַתָּשָׁב אֶל-אָבִיהָ, וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ, אֶת-נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָדָר; וְהִיא לֹא-יָדְעָה אִישׁ, וַתְּהִי-חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed; and she had not known man. And it was a custom in Israel,
מ  מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה, תֵּלַכְנָה בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְתַנּוֹת, לְבַת-יִפְתָּח הַגִּלְעָדִי--אַרְבַּעַת יָמִים, בַּשָּׁנָה.  {פ}	40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. {P}

Other than some oddities in this story, we see that Jephthah is greatly distressed over having to sacrifice his daughter. He does not want to, but he had made a vow that, he felt, he could not undo. This was not intentional, he did NOT WANT to sacrifice his daughter. Leaving alone the idea that Chazal (the Rabbis) tell us that he was punished for sacrificing his daughter, we can see even in the Tanach itself that the Jewish people did NOT sacrifice children. It was something that Jephthah was distressed about, as he clearly states in verse 35.

With this in mind I can now offer an explanation as to what was going on with this whole sacrificing your son business. First, as we saw above, the pagans believed that the ultimate show of faith to the gods that would conjure their favor was the sacrificing of the child that was the person's heir to the gods. So too, it is possible that, in the time of Avraham (Abraham), the pagan cultures that surrounded him believed the same thing. People would only do this if they wanted to show their ultimate faith to their gods. However, it was probably a rare occurrence because people would want their heir's to outlive them, hence why it is called an heir. This is also why the Moabite King did not sacrifice his heir until he exhausted all other options. He only sacrificed his son once he realized he was doomed without some type of divine intervention.

So, why is this connected to Avraham? I think it is appropriate to bring up the Rambam's opinion on regular sacrifices here. The Rambam, in the Sefer Moreh Nevuchim (3:46) says, 

"Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep, and held shepherds in contempt. Comp. "Behold we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians," etc. (Exod. viii. 26); "For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians" (Gen. xlvi. 34). Some sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore "goats" [se‘irim]. This worship was widespread. Comp. "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring" (Lev. xvii. 7). For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats' flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians] up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three kinds: "Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd and of the flock" (Lev. i. 2). Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are diametrically opposite."
 
The whole reason for sacrifices in the first place is to completely separate us from the false principles of idolatry. With this, I think it is quite obvious what the purpose of the Akeida was. Avraham was told by G-D to take his son Yitzchak to be sacrificed. However, the Torah tells us that G-D said "Take your son, your only one, whom you love, Yitzchak." Why does G-D give such a vivid description of Yitzchak? The reason is, as pointed out above, the ultimate sacrifice that would conjure up the favor of the gods is the sacrifice of the heir, the most loved child. G-D needed to purge Avraham of this insane ritualistic act of faith. However, the only way to do that was to confront it head on. G-D needed Avraham to experience the whole situation in order for him to realize just how crazy and absolutely moronic this act of sacrificing one's heir is. Once Avraham got to the point just before killing Yitzchak, he is stopped, G-D has an angel call out to Avraham, "Avraham! Avraham! Do not stretch out your hand against the lad!" G-D was telling Avraham that this is not the proper way to worship G-D. G-D needed Avraham to overcome the idea that was engraved in Avraham's mind, that you must be willing to do the unthinkable in order to properly worship your gods. That is utterly false, G-D would never ask you to do something so ridiculous.

However, there were two lessons learned on that day. The first was that Avraham realized that he was willing to do anything for G-D and the second was that idol worship and G-D worship are completely different. Idol worship is full of false ideas and wicked practices, I mean, who the heck would kill their child? This is the main reason G-D tested Avraham in this manner, it was to purge these false beliefs from his psyche and to teach us a valuable lesson, we do not serve G-D like the rest of the world serves their gods.

This lesson was most appropriate in the times of the crusades and the Jihaads of the Middle-Ages. The other monotheistic religions were constantly killing people in the name of G-D. This is not what Judaism is about, we do not kill in the name of G-D. We kill only for self defense purposes and not because some guy who claims to know the will of G-D says so. However, I think this lesson is applicable now more than ever because we have the State of Israel. It may be true that there are Islamic Terror Organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah that are trying to kill Jews all the time. They do it in the name of their religion and god. We can NEVER sink to this level. Any Jew that kills in the name of G-D is a fool, plain and simple. They are not following G-D's commands, nor are they acting in the Jewish people's best interest. However, killing in self defense is acceptable and should be done, everyone has a right to defend themselves from harm. 

This, I think, is one of the lessons to be learned from the Akeida. Jews need to be able to recognize unacceptable society norms. In this situation it was that sacrificing children is the ultimate show of faith. Nowadays, it is many other things that I don't want to go into right now, but I will let you think about what those other things are.  

Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 10- How Others View G-D Through The Jews

כל העובר מדעתו בלא אונס על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה בשאט בנפש להכעיס הרי זה מחלל את השם. ולפיכך נאמר בשבועת שקר וחללת את שם אלהיך אני ה'. ואם עבר בעשרה מישראל הרי זה חילל את השם ברבים. וכן כל הפורש מעבירה או עשה מצוה לא מפני דבר בעולם לא פחד ולא יראה ולא לבקש כבוד אלא מפני הבורא ברוך הוא כמניעת יוסף הצדיק עצמו מאשת רבו הרי זה מקדש את השם:

"Anyone who knowingly and purposefully transgressed one of the commandments stated in the Torah with disgust and out of spite is performing a Chilul Hashem (Desecration of G-D's name). Therefore it says by one who makes a false oath (Vayikra 19:12), 'And you disgraced the name of your G-D, I am G-D.' If this person [performs this] transgression in front of ten other Jews then he or she is disgracing G-D's name in public.

[On the other hand,] anyone who separates himself or herself from performing a sin or anyone who performs a commandment without being compelled, not by fear, or trepidation, or to gain honor, rather [they are performing this commandment] simply because of the Creator, blessed be He, just like Yosef the righteous one held himself back from the wife of his master, then this person is performing a kiddiush Hashem (sanctification of G-D's name)."


There is a very valuable idea that can be taken away from this idea in the Rambam. Other people view G-D based on the actions of a Jew. It is not even the actions of the Jewish people as a whole that matter, but every single Jew. This is also not exclusively for a non-Jew basing his or her opinion on the Jewish people based on a single Jew, but a Jew basing his or her opinion of the Jewish people solely on individuals.

Here is a good example, if a Jew from Dallas is visiting Chicago and the Jew from Dallas sees another Jew in Chicago eating at a Burger King then the Jew from Dallas will think that Jews from Chicago do not keep kosher. Similarly, if a non-Jew sees a Jew running a Ponzy Scheme, then that non-Jew will think all Jews are thieves. However, this will not only reflect on the Jewish people, but G-D as well. Why? People will think that the G-D of the Jews must not be real or care about His people because they do whatever they want.

The essence of a desecration of the name is not the action that is being performed, but the backlash that comes off of that action. The statements that will be whispered around because of the action. If one Jew steals, that is not the nations problem. However, the gossip that leads to a bad reputation for all Jews IS the ENTIRE nations problem.

This is most easily seen by the old joke that all Jews are bankers and are money hungry. Also, it can be seen by Muslims since everyone says Muslims are terrorists. These things are based on individuals or small groups that lead to the larger population of that religion being labeled as evil because of a select few.

Also, when a nation is labeled as evil then their G-D is attacked as well. Again, this is easily seen by the fact that many people say Allah is an evil god or that  G-D is evil. These declarations are either made by complete idiots (which we don;t need to worry about) or people that have come to this conclusion based on people that misrepresent the religion.

On the other hand, a person that is able to cause people to respect our religion or love our religion is to be applauded. Respect leads to peace and tranquility that will allow us to pursue our goals of serving G-D and making connections with Him. We should all believe that this peace and tranquility is dependent upon us, as individuals, and think that every action we make is being scrutinized by those around us. If we act appropriately and lovingly, people will respect our religion and our G-D. If we act with hate and disgusting behavior the exact opposite will happen and people around us will not only hate us, but our G-D as well.

Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 9- A "Deathly Ill" Man After Seeing a Woman

מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים אין לו רפואה עד שתבעל לו. ימות ואל תבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה. ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבואו בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות: 

Someone that sees a woman and becomes sick and is on the verge of death and the doctors say, "There is no cure for him except to have relations [with this woman that he saw]," he should die and not have relations with this woman even if she is unmarried. We don't even allow him to speak with her from behind a partition, rather he should die and we should not allow him to speak with her from behind a partition because it should not be that the daughters of Israel will be "loose" (harlot) and they will become, through these things, promiscuous in the city.    

Obviously, this law has no connection to modern day. Why? Because there is no doctor, a real doctor, that would prescribe relations with a specific woman as a cure to a DEATHLY illness. There is just no way this would be a plausible situation that would occur today with modern medicine. However, there are a few ideas the Rambam brings up that CAN relate to us nowadays.

The first thing the Rambam says here is that the DOCTOR says this guy needs a specific cure. If there was no worry about the Jewish girls being treated as harlots then the Rambam would have said we listen to the doctor. This shows us that the word of the doctor, in a life threatening situation, can override halacha in almost every case. As we have shown before, if the doctor tells you to do something that will save your life you do it (unless it is a violation of one of the three big sins: illicit relations, killing and idol worship). Rambam gave so much authority to doctors, it is absolutely amazing.

The second idea here is a little bit more hidden. Rambam reveals that a Jewish girl being modest is so important that we would prefer that the man die rather than force the girl to discard her modesty, or do we? It seems to me that the logic behind the Rambam (or the Gemora) is that if we allowed anyone who was "deathly ill" to have relations with the woman that he desires, there are going to be a lot of "deathly ill" people and thereby the daughters of Israel would become harlots. Therefore, the Rambam's idea here protects women from sinister men that would try to abuse them. That is why the Rambam does not even allow the man to speak with them, because the Rambam is weary of those that are "deathly ill."

The Shrinking Brain, Yeridos Hadoros (Dumbing Down Through the Generations), and Aggressiveness

Over Shabbos I saw this great article in Discovery Magazine (September 2010 Issue). It was "The Incredible Shrinking Brain" written by Kathleen McAuliffe. I was absolutely shocked by the consensus of scientists, the human brain has been shrinking for the past 10,000-20,000 years (From 1500 cc to 1350 cc, the size of a tennis ball). That seems to be counter to evolution and the idea that man has been getting smarter. However, as with all things in life, there are differing opinions as to what this means. (Just for clarity, the article says that the human brain grew bigger and bigger over the past 2 million years. Only recently has it begun to shrunk. This is not a counter evolution post.)

The first opinion brought down in the article is the "Dumbing Down theory." David Geary, a cognitive scientist of the University of Missouri said, "The best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory." He is referring to a film made by Mike Judge in 2006 where the story line is that "Private Joe Bauers, the definition of 'average American', is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive." Geary and a colleague of his, Drew bailey, conducted experiments to back up this idea, but I won't bore you with the details.

The next idea is the polar opposite, that this brain shrinkage means we are getting smarter (which seems counter intuitive to me). This idea is present by the Anthropologist named Hawks. He performed research similar to Geary and Bailey and came up with the same exact data. In fact, he shows a large change between the Bronze Age and Medieval times. However, he interprets the data completely differently. Bailey and Geary just focus on the size decrease and say that it shows we have decreased our intelligence based on size. However, Hawks says that the decrease in size is in order to make the brain more efficient. A brain that is smaller, but gets the most output for the least amount of energy is the best possible brain and this is how our brains have changed.

There is a third school of thought that does not even relate this change to intelligence, but rather aggressiveness. According to a primatologist at Harvard University, Richard Wrangham, the same thing that has happened to domesticated animals has happened to humans. Domesticated animals have a 10%-15% reduction in brain volume compared to their wild progenitors. Wrangham says that this same trend has happened in humans. The easiest explanation is that, as Wrangham says, "Over the last 100,000 years, language became sufficiently sophisticated that when you had some bully who was a repeat offender, people got together and said 'We've got to do something about Joe (the bully).' And they would make a calm deliberate decision to kill Joe or expel him from the group." This would lead to natural selection weeding out aggressive traits and favoring those that are more calm and amicable. (He goes into a whole explanation as to why a less aggressive brain is smaller, if you want to read the whole science behind it get the magazine.)

Another shocking realization in this article comes at the end, the human brain has started to increase in size again. This finding was discovered by Richard Jantz, an anthropologist of the University of Tennessee. Hawks says this finding is most probably due to nutrition, since food today is much more abundant. Jantz and other scientists say that, based on their research (IQ tests), it seems like the brain size does correlate with intelligence.

Christopher Stringer, a paleontologist and expert on human origins at the Natural History Museum in London says the closing statement for the article, "It's perfectly plausible our modern brain is smarter in some ways, dumber in others and more docile overall."

I found this article absolutely fascinating for several reasons. Obviously, I think science is remarkable and the new information scientists of every field discover has a "Wow" factor for me. However, it is not every day that I come across an article that helps me understand ideas in Judaism in a new light. People always claim Yeridos Hadoros (Dumbing Down of the Generations) means that people get dumber and dumber as the years go by. At first, anyone who thinks evolution is probable (most people that think science makes sense) would write this off and say that evolution completely contradicts this. However, this article shows the EXACT OPPOSITE. Well, depending on which opinion we are going to give the most credence. However, the opinion that seems to make the most sense to me is that of Christopher Stringer, the last statement in the article. A shrinking brain can mean so many different things and it seems like a combination of all three changes (less intelligent in some areas, more intelligent in others and more docile) seems to be the most reasonable.

In light of this, it makes sense to say that Yeridos Hadoros could be that we have become less intelligent in certain areas and that is why halacha can not be argued on. However, hashkafa and science found in the ancient texts are not obligatory for this very reason (unless they are explicitly stated by G-D). An example as to why halacha would not be allowed to change, but hashkafa could is that halacha is based on memory. One must remember what Moshe said on Sinai and apply that ruling to a case. Hashkafa, on the other hand, is completely based on abstract thinking (Metaphysics is clearly abstract thinking. The beginning of the Universe and so on.) Perhaps we have been getting smarter in abstract thinking, but our memories are not as good (I mean, Einstein and others).

Also, the docile idea, we were more aggressive as a species in the past. Maybe this is why laws have changed in the way that they have. Also, perhaps this is why there are commandments in the Torah, from 3500 years ago, that make some people uncomfortable today (like killing Amalek). Back then it was necessary for the survival of a group to destroy their enemies, because that is how humans survived. However, today many groups (not all) are much more civilized and docile. The Torah was given 3500 years ago and needed to be able to relate to all times, especially at the time it was given. G-D knew that Amalek would not exist in the future, so maybe that is why He commanded them to be wiped out back then, because what was human nature back then is not what human nature is today (as shown in this article, the brain is smaller and more docile).

I don't know, but these are all possibilities. Only G-D really knows why everything is and how things have progressed. All we can do is guess and see if we are right.

Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 8- When and How One is Allowed To Use Forbidden Things

במה דברים אמורים שאין מתרפאין בשאר איסורים אלא במקום סכנה. בזמן שהן דרך הנאתן כגון שמאכילין את החולה שקצים ורמשים או חמץ בפסח או שמאכילין אותו ביוה"כ. אבל שלא דרך הנאתן כגון שעושין לו רטיה או מלוגמא מחמץ או מערלה. או שמשקין אותו דברים שיש בהן מר מעורב עם אסורי מאכל שהרי אין בהן הנאה לחיך הרי זה מותר ואפילו שלא במקום סכנה. חוץ מכלאי הכרם ובשר בחלב שהן אסורים אפילו שלא דרך הנאתן. לפיכך אין מתרפאין מהן אפילו שלא דרך הנאתן אלא במקום סכנה: 

What case are we dealing with that a person can only be healed with any forbidden thing (other than the big three sins) when there is life endangerment? This is only speaking about a case where the forbidden object is used in a way that one can derive pleasure from it. For example, a sick person is allowed to eat creepy and crawly things, anything leavened (bread) on Passover, or even food on Yom Kippur in a manner that one can derive pleasure from this food. (A better example to understand today is that a person would be allowed to eat shrimp in a normal fashion, if it had medicinal qualities, if they were dangerously ill.) However, if the forbidden object is used in a way that one can not derive benefit from it, for instance, that this forbidden object is made into a bandage, an emollient of Chametz (leaven) or Orla (forbidden fruit that the tree is not 3 or 4 years old depending on the situation), or the sick person drinks something bitter combined with this forbidden object and there is no benefit from the forbidden object, this is permitted even if the person is not dangerously sick. This is true by everything except Klai hakerem (mixing species: planting two seeds of different species together is forbidden and called klai hakerem) and milk mixed with meat, because these things are forbidden even if they are used in a manner that one can not derive benefit from them. Therefore, one may not use these things (Klai hakerem and milk mixed with meat) even in an non-beneficial way unless they are dangerously ill. 

I find it so interesting that almost all forbidden things are only forbidden to be used if there is a benefit that can be derived from them. What can we learn from this? To me, it seems like the idea is that G-D put us (Jews) in this world for two reasons, to follow the laws of G-D and to benefit from this world. G-D originally put Adam into this world to benefit and the only thing he was not allowed to do was eat from the tree of knowledge. G-D only gave him one stipulation that allowed him to enjoy everything else, but Adam sinned. However, now that we, the Jews, have received the Torah, there are a lot more stipulations. Why is this? There is a saying at the end of every chapter or so in the Mishna in Avos (Ethics of Our Fathers) that says, "Rebbe Chananya ben Akashya says, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to cause Israel to merit, therefore, He increased for them the Torah and Mitzvos (commandments) as it says (in Isaiah 42:21), G-D desired for the sake of his (Israel's) righteousness, to make the Torah great and glorious.'" This statement clearly tells us why there are so many stipulations, because it allows us to merit.

However, what is this merit? Some might say that the Torah and Mitzvos only benefit a Jew in the world to come. This is NOT the position of the Rambam. He says (In The Guide 3:27), "The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body." Clearly, the Rambam believes that the Torah and Mitzvos were given in order that man can benefit in this world and the next world. The Rambam, later in The Guide (3:33) elaborates to tell us that:

IT is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise, and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare for the purpose of taking what another possesses. The cause of all this is the circumstance that the ignorant considers physical enjoyment as an object to be sought for its own sake. God in His wisdom has therefore given us such commandments as would counteract that object, and prevent us altogether from directing our attention to it, and has debarred us from everything that leads only to excessive desire and lust. This is an important thing included in the objects of our Law.

This idea seems to be present in this law here in the Mishna Torah as well. The Rambam tells us that G-D forbids pleasures that lead us astray. The laws of the Torah are there to guide us to the proper path of life. Not only so that we can merit the world to come, but also so we can enhance our enjoyment and life in this world. They help us curb hatred, lust (like cheating on spouses) and other despicable acts. This is why, when there is no benefit derived from these forbidden things, they are allowed, because if there is no pleasure or benefit, one will not come to perform these forbidden acts, or consume these forbidden objects. However, Klai Hakerem and milk mixed with meat are two things that their PREPARATION are forbidden and that is why even if there is no benefit or pleasure from them while eating them, they are still forbidden. However, a deathly ill person overrides all other commandments except the big three sins.

Does Rav Moshe Feinstein Think Women Can Be Rabbis

On another blog someone told me that Rav Moshe goes against the Rambam and believes that women can be Rabbis. I decided to see for myself whether this was true or false. Based on this shiur that was given by Aryeh and Dov Frimer, it seems like Rav Moshe does not hold this way. However, let us look at the pertinent sources in Iggros Moshe (rav Moshe's responsa).

The first source makes it seem like Rav Moshe might hold against the Rambam. Found here (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 44):

אבל יש לדון בזה מצד
אחר, דהנה הרמב"ם בפ"א ממלכים ה"ה כתב וכן
כל משימות שבישראל אין ממנים בהם אלא איש,
ואף שלא ידוע לי בעניי מקום לדבריו דבספרי
שציין הכ"מ והרדב"ז ומ-ע לא הוזכר אלא מלך ולא
מלכה אבל רין כל משימות שלא יהיו נשים לא
הוזכר שם, וצריך לומר דהוא סברת עצמו כמו
שדרשינן לכל משימות שלא יהיו אלא מקרב אחיך
ביבמות דף מ"ה, דרשינן נמי כל הדינים שבפרשה
שנאמר על מלך גם לכל משימות שהוא גם לזה
שנאמר בספרי מלך ולא מלכה שה"ה לכל משימות
שלא ממנים אשה.


(Not a word for word translation) Rav Moshe says that it’s not clear to him what the source of the Rambam is for forbidding not only a malka but also a parnesset(any position of authority).  Rambam may have analogized from a non-Jew to women, but that isn’t clear. [We now know that there is an alternate reading of the Sifrei, but that’s not our reading.]   (From here)

So, this Rav Moshe seems to be saying that the Rambam's psak is based on his own logic. Some might want to read that as saying that Rav Moshe would not hold like the Rambam. This is especially true because of the next thing that Rav Moshe says:

ולכן לצורך
גדול בשביל חיות האלמנה ובניה היתומים יש לסמוך
על החולקים על הרמב"ם ולמנותה תחת בעלה
להשגחה.

(Not an exact translation) Then Rav Moshe goes on to note that the Rambam is not the only view, and demonstrates that there are a whole series of Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam and are lenient on parnesset. And then he says that bi-she’at ha-dehak – in a crisis situation, where we are dealing with a woman’s livelihood, certainly these other opinions could be relied on so that she could continue to be a mashgihat kashrut. In other words, he maintains that the Rambam is a pillar of Halakha, and we would generally prefer to be stringent and rule like the Rambam. However, since this is a dire situation, and there are major authorities- including, Ramban, Rashbah, Ran, and Rabbeinu Tam – who disagree with the Rambam, we can rely on these other sources to give us the flexibility to allow this woman to be a mashgihat kashrut. (From here)

So it seems like Rav Moshe is allowing for a woman to hold a position of authority against the Rambam. This would seem to indicate that Rav Moshe is open to the idea of women taking on leadership roles. (However, he clearly states this would only be allowed in a dire situation. I am still unsure why people would quote Rav Moshe's opinion here to say women should be in leadership positions where a religious man IS capable of doing the same thing.)

However, after this seemingly positive attitude of Rav Moshe for women in leadership roles, there is a turn against them having such roles. In the next part of the same responsa he says:

האסור כי הלא עיקר
האחריות שהקונים סומכים הוא על הרב ונחשבת
היא רק כעושה מלאכת הרב ברברים שיכולה לעשות
שנחשבת לגבי הרב רק כפועל בעלמא שאפשר לו
גם להעמיד אשה כיון שהיא נאמנת כלעיל

(Not an exact translation) But then Rav Moshe suggests what he believes is a better idea. We will ask some Rabbi to be the the rav ha-makhsir – that is, the one who will assume the ultimate authority for the Kashrut will be a male, while the almana will be the mashgiha and do the actual supervision work. The rav ha-makhshir is the person or the organization who assumes ultimate responsibility for the hekhsher, and the mashgiah is the employee who’s on the site doing the actual supervision. (For example, the OU is the boss – the supervising kashrut organization ultimately responsible; everyone else who works for them, including women, who supervise all the time for the OU, are the mashgihim.) Rav Moshe indicates that if we do it that way, then even the Rambam would agree, because she’s now working for the rav ha-makhshir, and not for the ba’al ha-bayit.(From here)

There is even a responsa of Rav Moshe's that goes further and straight out says that women are not even allowed to be shul presidents. He states in the very next siman (Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 45) 

הנה מש"כ כתר"ה שמצד תשובתי בזה שהקשתי
על הרמב"ם שפוסל נשים אף לכל משימות שלא
ידוע לי בעניי מקור לדבריו, וגם שמשמע לי שלא
כו"ע סברי כן יוצא מכשול..........

ולשמא ימנו
אשה להבתי כנסיות שבמדינתנו אמעריקא נמי לא
שייך שיוצא מזה מכשיל, דהבתי כנסי.ת והמוסדות
שמתנהגים ע"פ דרך התורה לא יעשו בלא הוראת
רב מובהק וממילא סגי לזה גם שיטת הרמכ"ם שלא
למנות אשה, ולאלו שסרו מדרך התורה הרי גם אם
הוא איסור ברור ומפורש שבתורה לא ישגיחו ע-ז
ואיז אנו אחראין עליהם. וממילא נמצא שליכא שום
מכשול ח"ו מברור ההלכה שכתבתי שלא כו"ע מודו
להרמב"ם

(Not a full translation)Regarding women as shul presidents, most shuls have rabbis. The rabbis are fully aware that the Rambam is against it, so that it’s not a default position. Therefore, they will not allow women to be president of the shul. (From here)

I would just like to add that anyone who can understand this last quote from Rav Moshe can see that he thought it was 100% against the Torah to have women as presidents of shuls. He goes so far to say that anyone who makes a woman president clearly does not care to follow halacha.

Based on this siman in Iggros Moshe I think it is impossible to claim that Rav Moshe would allow a female Rabbi. He doesn't even allow a female to be president of a shul! How could one assume that he would allow a woman to be a Rabbi?

This does not mean there are not other poskim that allow female rabbis. If one wishes to see the whole argument I would suggest reading the article that I link to for the translations of Rav Moshe's responsa. I was just disturbed that someone would say Rav Moshe argues on the Rambam and would hold female Rabbis are allowed. That is clearly not the truth.

Rambam-Yesodei Hatorah Perek 5 halacha 7- Why The Big Three Sins Can't Be Transgressed Even to Save A Life

ומנין שאפילו במקום סכנת נפשות אין עוברין על אחת משלש עבירות אלו שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך אפילו הוא נוטל את נפשך והריגת נפש מישראל לרפאות נפש אחרת או להציל אדם מיד אנס. דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין מאבדין נפש מפני נפש. ועריות הוקשו לנפשות שנאמר כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה:


From where do we know that even in a life threatening situation [a Jew is not allowed] to transgress any of the three big sins? [The reason is because] it says (Devarim 6:5) "And you shall love Hashem, your G-D, with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your possessions" even if He takes your soul. [That is good for Idol worship, but how do we know that we are not allowed] to kill a Jew to save the soul of another Jew or to save a man from the hand of the one forcing him [to kill]? This is something that logic dictates, one can not destroy one soul to save another. Also, illicit relations is connected to murder [and, therefore, one can not commit illicit relations in order to save their life or the life of another] because it says (Devarim 22:26) "For as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter."

The Rambam only bases one of the three big sins, Idol Worship, on a verse. The prohibition for the other two big sins is based solely on logic: murder (because that is logical) and illicit relations because it is connected to of murder through a verse. This seems contradictory to the basis of the big three sins. If these are the only sins that are to be "special" and we are not allowed to transgress them for any reason, shouldn't they all be explicitly stated in a verse and not just implicitly extracted or completely based on logic?

Every other sin in the Torah can and must be transgressed when faced with a life or death situation. This is why Rav Moshe Feinstien would get upset with doctors who hesitated to violate shabbos in the hospital (found here). Pikuach Nefesh (A life in danger) trumps everything other than these three big sins. It stands to reason that, therefore, these three sins be explicitly prohibited or so logical that even the most simple person can understand why they must not be transgressed.

I think that it is extremely logical for the three big sins to be excluded from the rule of "A life in danger trumps everything" in the way that they are for the following reason. The first law the Rambam talks about is Idol worship. This requires a verse because it involves the direct connection between man and G-D. If a person decides to worship idols he or she is severing that direct connection. Since this is a direct connection between a person and G-D, the Torah must come and tell us that one must die rather than sever this connection, because it deals with a direct relationship between man and G-D. Murder is the opposite extreme, it deals solely with the relationship between man and man, therefore, it must be through man's logic that he or she realizes that one life is not greater than another. Finally, illicit relations is a combination between logic and a verse because it combines the relationship with man and the relationship with G-D. How? Relations is what leads to child birth and everyone knows the famous Midrashim that talk about the three way partnership that exists for when a baby is created: Man, woman and G-D. Therefore, the verse must be combined with the logic of man in order for this rule to stand.

Rambam-Yesodei Hatorah Chapter 5 halacha 6- Saving a Deathly Ill Person By Transgressing the Commandments

כענין שאמרו באונסין כך אמרו בחלאים. כיצד מי שחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים שרפואתו בדבר פלוני מאיסורין שבתורה עושין. ומתרפאין בכל איסורין שבתורה במקום סכנה חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכת דמים שאפילו במקום סכנה אין מתרפאין בהן. ואם עבר ונתרפא עונשין אותו בית דין עונש הראוי לו: 

Similarly to that which we said by a case of being forced to do something (i.e. someone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to do something) so too [the same laws apply] by sick people. How so? Someone who is sick and on the verge of death and the doctors tell him [or her] that he [or she] can be cured with some object that is forbidden by the Torah, they can use it (i.e. pig will cure a disease, then the sick person can eat pig). [In fact,] a person can be cured using anything that is forbidden by the Torah in a life threatening case except for Idol Worship, illicit relations or killing, for even in a life threatening situation you can not use these things as a cure. If the sick person transgresses and cures himself [or herself with any of these things] the court punishes him [or her] with whatever the punishment is supposed to be [for transgressing this law].  

The idea in this Rambam is to show that in the case of an illness that is bringing someone to death and the cure is a forbidden object is basically a situation where the person is being forced to use that cure that is forbidden by the Torah. It is as if someone is holding a gun to your head and saying eat the non-kosher food or I will kill you. Therefore, the person is allowed to eat the non-kosher food, because he or she is being forced.

However, there is one big difference between this case and the case where someone is actually forcing you to transgress the law (Law 4 in this chapter), the case of transgressing one of the "Big Three" commandments. If a person has a gun held to his or her head and they are told to perform Idol Worship, illicit relations or to kill someone, if they transgress they are not punished. However, in the case of a sick person they are punished if they transgress one of these three commandments. What is the difference?

The difference has nothing to do with the persons situation. For all intents and purposes, these situations are identical. The difference comes in when we are playing the blame game. Who can we blame for the transgression in these cases. In the situation where someone is holding a gun to a Jew's head then, when they transgress the law, they are considered to be doing it against their will. As the Rambam says in fourth halacha,

"Even so, since he or she is forced to transgress he or she is not given lashes and it doesn't even need to mentioned that Beis Din (the court of law) doesn't kill him or her even if he or she is forced to kill against his or her will. The reason for this (that it doesn't have to be stated that he or she is not killed by the court of law) is because a person is only flogged or killed if the person transgresses willingly, with witnesses and a warning." 

However, in our case of a sick person, how can we say it is against their will? Whose will is it if not the sick person's? In the case where someone has a gun to your head, then you are performing the will of the person with the gun. In the case of a sick person there is only one will, the will of the sick person. One can't say that the bacteria eating away at his life has a will (nor did anyone before the 20th century know of any bacteria that could have been blamed). Therefore, if a dying person chooses to transgress one of the "Big Three" commandments in order to save his or her life, as long as there was warning, that person is liable to punishment from the courts.

Practically speaking, there is no cure, to my knowledge, that would require a person to transgress one of the "Big Three" commandments that would have any medical benefits, let alone be capable of saving a person's life. So, in the end of the day, if a person is dying, anything and everything that has proven medical benefits should be done to save the life of a dying person.

Rambam- Yesodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 5- You Can't Forcibly Hand Over One to Save Many

נשים שאמרו להם עובדי כוכבים תנו לנו אחת מכן ונטמא אותה ואם לאו נטמא את כולכן יטמאו כולן ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל. וכן אם אמרו להם עובדי כוכבים תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגנו ואם לאו נהרוג כולכם. יהרגו כולם ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל. ואם יחדוהו להם ואמרו תנו לנו פלוני או נהרוג את כולכם. אם היה מחוייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי יתנו אותו להם. ואין מורין להם כן לכתחלה. ואם אינו חייב מיתה יהרגו כולן ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל:


[In a case where] there is a group of Jewish women and Idol Worshipers say to them, "Give us one of you and we will make her impure (aka rape her), but if not then we will make you all impure" then these women should all become impure and they should not hand over a single Jewish soul. So too, if Idol worshipers would say [to a group of Jews], "Give us one of you and we will kill him/her, but if not we will kill all of you" everyone should be killed and not a single Jewish soul should be handed over. If they (the Idol Worshipers) singled out a specific person and said give so and so to us or we will kill all of you, then [what should be done depends on this person]. If this person is deserving of the death penalty like Sheva ben Bichri (See Shmuel 2 chapter 20: he rebelled against King David) then you can give him/her over, but don't teach this to them (the people making the decision) as a first option. If this singled out person is not deserving of the death penalty then everyone should be killed and not a single Jewish soul should be handed over. 

This Rambam brings up the idea of "Who says your blood is redder than his/her blood" found throughout Judaic literature. Indeed, the Rambam is telling us that there is no situation where it is desirable to hand over any Jew, no matter what their status, to be mistreated by Idol Worshipers. For, the Rambam tells us that if someone is liable for the death penalty, even that person should not be handed over (although they are allowed to hand that person over). So we see that no matter what the situation a person should never consider their life more valuable than the person's next to them. All Jews are equal in the value of their lives.

I think this law teaches us the true meaning of comradery. Every Jew is responsible for the well being of every other Jew. This is what the phrase of כל ישראל ערבין זה לזה means (All of Israel is guarantors for each other; see Rashi Vayikra 26:37) It is not just that we must try to eradicate sin from amongst our nation, but also that we must protect one another like brothers and sisters.

It is important to remember that the Rambam is talking about handing over a person to unjust and barbaric people where the person being handed over will be abused and mistreated. However, this law does not apply to handing over a person to just non-Jews that follow the Noahide laws. The Rambam specifically says Idol Worshipers because of their base nature and unjust characteristics. However, if the just laws of a non-Jewish nation would require a punishment of a Jew living in that nation then this whole discussion does not even come up because it falls under the precept of "The Law of The Land" (found in several Gemoras, one being Baba Kama 113a).

Does Jewish Mother=Jewish Child? Not According to Everyone!

Everyone "knows" that you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish. That is what we are always told. However, in the Gemorah in Kiddushin on 75b there is an argument among the Rishonim (Rabbis from 1000-1500 approximately) if this is true. Some of the Rishonim actually present the opinion that you are not Jewish if your father is a gentile and your mother is a Jew. Let us take a look at this now.

First, we must understand two opinions in the Gemorah, These are the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua. On 70a it says:

Now he [the Tanna of our Mishnah]holds that if a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, the child is a mamzer. That is well on the view that the child is a mamzer; but on the view that it is legitimate[kasher].....

Rabbi Akiva is the opinion that holds the child is a mamzer (child born from an illicit relationship) and can not marry a regular Jew. This is seen in several places, but just to show a source here is Rabbi Akiva's statement on 75b:

R. Akiba, who said: If a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, the child is a mamzer.

So, what is the reason that a child born from this relationship, a non-Jew or slave with a Jewess, is a mamzer according to Rabbi Akiva? This is because of the Mishna in Yevamos 49a:

WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A MAMZER (a child born from an illicit relationship)? [THE OFFSPRING OF A UNION WITH]ANY CONSANGUINEOUS RELATIVE WITH WHOM COHABITATION IS FORBIDDEN (aka that leads to any punishment not just death or the soul being cut off);THIS IS THE RULING OF R. AKIBA.

Therefore, if a non-Jew cohabits with a Jewess, that is a forbidden relationship and the child is a mamzer. However, Rabbi Yehoshua says in the same Mishna that only a relationship that leads to the death penalty, like a Jew sleeping with a married Jewish woman that is not his wife, is the child a mamzer. These are the two opinions that matter for our case.

Now, let us read the Gemorah inside on 75a-75b in Kiddushin:

It was taught: And thus did R. Eleazar say: A male Samaritan may not marry a female Samaritan. What is the reason? — Said R. Joseph: He, the male Samaritan, was treated as a proselyte after ten generations. For it was taught: A proselyte, until ten generations, may marry a mamzereth (Female born from an illicit relationship); thereafter he is forbidden [to marry] a mamzereth. Others state: [He is permitted] until the name of Gentile has completely fallen away from him.

Said Abaye to him: How is this comparable! There, the case that a proselyte can marry a female mamzereth, it is a proselyte of ancient [stock] and a recent mamzereth, so it will be said: He is an Israelite marrying a mamzereth (which is not allowed), whereas here they are both alike (they are both Samaritans and thus have the same status and should be able to marry one another)?

— But when R. Dimi came, he said: R. Eleazar agrees with R. Ishmael, and R. Ishmael agrees with R. Akiba. [Thus:] R. Eleazar agrees with R. Ishmael, who maintained: Samaritans are proselytes [through fear] of lions (meaning their status as proselytes are questionable). And R. Ishmael agrees with R. Akiba, who said: If a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with the daughter of an Israelite, the child is mamzer. (Therefore, Samaritans can not marry one another because they are safeik mamzers, aka we don't know if they are mamzers, kosher Jews, or non-Jews. If one is a kosher Jew and the other is a mamzer or non-Jew then that marriage is not allowed, therefore we do not allow the union.)

This seems like a good answer as to why Rebbe Elazar says Samaritans can not marry one another. However, Tosfos asks a question on this that is shocking. Tosofs says on Kiddushin 75b (DH Virebbe Yishmael):

Why do we need to say that Rebbe Elazar is holding like Rebbe Akiva that a non-Jew or a slave that has relations with a Jewess then the child is a mamzer? [Rebbe Elazar] can hold that in that situation the child is kosher [like Rebbe Yehoshua] and the problem is that we do not want a Jewess marrying a non-Jew. Why do we need the problem to be that we don;t want her to marry a non-Jew AND the child would be a mamzer (Isn't one problem enough)?

Tosfos answers:

Perhaps we can answer and say that if [Rebbe Elazar] holds the child is kosher then he also has to hold that the child takes the status of the non-Jew, THE FATHER, and this is like that which we said before on 67b, the rules of who the child follows, and we don't have to worry about a Jewess marrying a non-Jew [because the child is kosher]. Therefore, he holds the child is a mamzer and thereby the child's status is being determined through the mother and we are also now concerned that the woman should not marry a non-Jew (Basically, you can't have the problem of the woman marrying the non-Jew without having the problem of the child being a mamzer).

Before we take a step back and realize how amazing this idea is there is some clarification that is needed. Some of you might have noticed that this idea does not make sense. How could the child be KOSHER if he is going after the status of the father, the father is a NON-JEW? That would make the child a non-Jew not someone who is kosher.

The Maharsha commenting on this Tosfos (75b Virebbe Yishmael) answers this question by bringing in a Piskei Tosfos that clarifies Tosfos' meaning. When Tosfos says that the child is kosher, he means that the child is a kosher non-Jew. If the child wants to convert to Judaism he will not be a mamzer. The Maharsha goes on to explain Tosfos as not holding like this as a second option and leaves Rashi (who says like Tosfos) as a Tzarich Iyun (needs looking into), but Rav Elyashiv in his Ha'aros on 75b tells us that Rashi and Tosfos do, in fact, hold that the child would be a non-Jew (that the child follows the father's status).

So we see here it was not always so simple to say that if your mother was/is Jewish then you are a Jew. However, the way most opinions hold is that we go after the status of the mother in an illicit relationship. This would include, according to most opinions, a Jewess with a non-Jew as well. I just wanted to show that there are opinions out there that do argue. I thought is was fascinating because we always think it is a simple matter and, in truth, it is complicated and based on Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim. All of which are part of Torah Shebaal Peh.

What Happened Between Bas (Bat) Sheva And King David

While learning Tractate Kesubos (Ketuboth) 9a-b I came across an interesting insight into the Dovid Hamelech-Bas Sheva incident. I will not get into the technicalities of the Gemorah, but I will just focus on the ideas brought forward that are relevant to the story.

The Gemorah has two opinions as to why Dovid Hamelech was allowed to marry Bas Sheva after he had relations with her. This is a question because the Gemorah tells us that once a woman has relations with another man while she is married (aka she cheats on her husband) she can't go back and have relations with her husband or the man she cheated on her husband with. Therefore, the question is how could Dovid have married Bas Sheva after Uriah (Bas Sheva's husband) passed away?

The Gemorah gives two answers: 1) She was raped and this rule (That the wife can no longer have relations with her husband or the one she cheated on her husband with) only applies when both parties are willing conspirators and 2) Every warrior in Dovid's army divorced their wives before going to battle (This is in order to avoid a problem of agunah). Therefore, either Dovid was allowed to marry her because she was raped and thereby the rule of her being forbidden to the one that she cheated on her husband with does not apply (because both parties must be willing) or she was divorced and Dovid had relations with an unmarried woman.

Normally, most people only quote the second answer as the reason why Dovid was allowed to marry Bas Sheva. In fact, the way we rule is that the first instance, rape alone, would not cause her to be permitted (that was just a thought that ended up being ruled out). Therefore, what must have happened is that Uriah wrote a divorce document for Bas Sheva before the war and Dovid had relations with an unmarried woman.

The question we must now focus on is does the second answer of the Gemorah preclude the fact that Dovid forced Bas Sheva to have relations with him, or is it that Dovid did force her, like the first answer suggests, but it also had to be that she had a document of divorce since that is the only way they would have been able to get married later on?

Unfortunately, based on the pesukim, it seems like the latter possibility, that Dovid forced Bas Sheva, is the true understanding. Let us now look at the pesukim with commentary. It says in Samuel II 11:4:

ד וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת, מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ; וַתָּשָׁב, אֶל-בֵּיתָהּ.

4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness; and she returned unto her house.

The Daas Mikra on this pasuk tells us what happened, "וַיִּקָּחֶהָ - [This refers to] Dovid [taking her] against her will. This language is like the language of the Torah by Sara (Avraham's wife). In Breishis 20:2 it says:

ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל-שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲחֹתִי הִוא; וַיִּשְׁלַח, אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ גְּרָר, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שָׂרָה.

2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife: 'She is my sister.' And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

[So we see from this that וַיִּקַּח means to take against her will]."

It seems like, even according to the latter opinion in the Gemorah (That Bas Sheva was divorced and therefore not married), Dovid forced Bas Sheva (an unmarried woman) to have relations with him. Therefore, once Bas Sheva found out that Uriah had died and she mourned for seven days Dovid brought her into his house. This was Dovid following the Torah's command when a man forces an unmarried woman to have relations (Devarim 22:28-29):

כח כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

כט וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ, לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ--חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ--לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו.

29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

(Although this pasuk refers to a virgin and Bas Sheva might not have been a virgin, the Torah Temima on Devarim 22:28 says that this only means the 50 shekalim are not given, but everything else applies. However, the Rosh on Kesubos Perek 3 Simin 8 says that even the 50 shekalim are required, but they are given to the woman that is not a virgin instead of her father. Irregardless, everyone holds that even by a non-virgin that is not married the man is required to marry her if she so chooses.)

However, the second time that Dovid brought Bas Sheva in to his house was not by force, it was her choice. As the end of the chapter (Shmuel II 11:27) tells us:

כז וַיַּעֲבֹר הָאֵבֶל, וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד וַיַּאַסְפָהּ אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ, בֵּן; וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה דָוִד, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.

27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and gathered her home to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.

וַיַּאַסְפָהּ (gathered her) means, according to the Metzudas Dovid on this verse, that she came by her own will and was not forced by Dovid. That is why it uses the word gathered as opposed to took here.

(As a side point this teaches us something about the verse in Devarim that tells us if a girl, who is not married, is raped she marries her attacker. It does not mean she HAS to marry the one who forced himself upon her, but if she chooses to marry him then HE can never divorce her.)

So what are we supposed to take away from this story? It is not exactly a flattering story and it seems like it hurts people's faith in Judaism more than it encourages them. So what is the point of this story where a great man of Israel commits such a heinous crime?

I believe the lesson can be seen in the subsequent chapter (ibid 12) to the Bas Sheva Incident. There it says (ibid 12:9-13):

ט מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת-דְּבַר יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בעינו (בְּעֵינַי), אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב, וְאֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה; וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ, בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.

י וְעַתָּה, לֹא-תָסוּר חֶרֶב מִבֵּיתְךָ--עַד-עוֹלָם: עֵקֶב, כִּי בְזִתָנִי, וַתִּקַּח אֶת-אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי, לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה.

10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

יא כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, הִנְנִי מֵקִים עָלֶיךָ רָעָה מִבֵּיתֶךָ, וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶת-נָשֶׁיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, וְנָתַתִּי לְרֵעֶיךָ; וְשָׁכַב עִם-נָשֶׁיךָ, לְעֵינֵי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ הַזֹּאת.

11 Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

יב כִּי אַתָּה, עָשִׂיתָ בַסָּתֶר; וַאֲנִי, אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, נֶגֶד כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.

12 For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

יג וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל-נָתָן, חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה; {ס} וַיֹּאמֶר נָתָן אֶל-דָּוִד, גַּם-יְהוָה הֶעֱבִיר חַטָּאתְךָ--לֹא תָמוּת.

13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.' {S} And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Dovid, after receiving such a harsh rebuke, immediately admits to the sin that he tried to cover up. No excuses, unlike Saul, only the simple truth. Dovid realized that G-D knows all, but he sinned because he was overcome by desire. However, unlike so many other kings, Dovid did not make excuses for his behavior or try and weasel his way out of the facts, rather he admitted his faults and took the punishment that he deserved. This punishment was also immediately reduced because of Dovid's attitude, obedience and subservience to G-D combined with truth and a will to do the right thing. In the end, Dovid did Teshuva (repentance) and that is all G-D asks.

This is the lesson that we can learn from the Dovid-Bas Sheva incident: Man sins, however, man's reaction to the sin matters much more and tells what type of person that man is. Does he have a good soul and admit his mistake and try to correct the wrong, or does he enhance the sin by denying his faults and go deeper down the rabbit hole? G-D only wants us to try our best, be honest and faithful. That is all we are capable of and that is all G-D expects from us.

How Can Anyone Think It is Against the Torah to Have the Modern State of Israel

I have been wondering this question for a very long time. How on earth can any Jew claim it is against the Torah for the Jews to have the modern State of Israel? It baffles me, so I went to look up some sources. The main literature for the contenders to the legitimacy of having a Jewish state is found in Tractate Kesubos (or Ketuboth). So, let's have a look, shall we.

In Kesubos (111a) it says:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, [that ye awaken not, nor stir up love (for the land of Israel), until it please]'.(Song of Songs 2:7) And R. Zera? — That (This verse in Song of Songs) implies that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall. (Rashi: Unified and with force, aka an army to conquer the land) And Rab Judah? — Another 'I adjure you' (Song of Songs 3:5) is written in Scripture (To teach that you can not come to Israel Unified with force). And R. Zera? — That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Jose son of R. Hanina who said: 'What was the purpose of those three adjurations? (The 2 just mentioned from the Song of Songs and a third in Song of Songs 5:8) — One, that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall (aka conquer the land with an army); the second, that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against the nations of the world; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much'.

(Translation found at http://come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_111.html#111a_10 with my additions for clarity)


This is the text in the Gemorah that some like to use to say that Jews are not allowed to have the modern State of Israel. They go so far to say that having it is a sin. However, let us look at the sources that explain this Gemorah and I think we will be shocked at how ill conceived this challenge to the State of Israel really is.

First, let us understand how the State of Israel was founded, the UN general assembly gave the Jews land in Israel and said make a state. That is what happened. There was a vote that said the Jews get land for a state in Israel. If you do not want to take my word for it you can see the entire UN resolution here, UN resolution 181.

Now that we have established that the UN gave the land to the Jews in Israel and told them to make a state the question arises: Did this violate the idea of conquering Israel with an army? Thankfully, the Maharsha answers this question with little uncertainty. He says:

"This Gemorah is saying that we can not go up to Israel united with a strong force and build the walls of Jerusalem. By Nechemiah (Who did go up to Jerusalem and built the walls) we see that he had the permission of the Persian King."

Very interesting, so according to the Maharasha it is ok for the Jews to go up to Jerusalem with a united and strong force as long as they have the permission of the King. So, if Nechemia was able to rebuild Jerusalem and go up to Israel with a strong force after the destruction of the first temple and the only reason he did not violate the command from G-D that our Gemorah talks about was because he had the kings permission, how is he different from the modern state of Israel? Did the modern State conquer the land or were they given the land by the UN general assembly?

That is just exhibit A.

(Let me just say this. In the 9th century CE there was a kingdom called Khazaria which converted to Judaism. One of the kings there talked about sending an army to conquer Jerusalem. Apparently, THAT would have been a violation of the command from G-D.)

Next, I wanted to bring up something from the Rambam. In Rambam Shoftim: Laws of Kings and Wars: 11:3 he says:

ואל יעלה על דעתך שהמלך המשיח צריך לעשות אותות ומופתים ומחדש דברים בעולם או מחיה מתים וכיוצא בדברים אלו. אין הדבר כך. שהרי רבי עקיבא חכם גדול מחכמי משנה היה. והוא היה נושא כליו של בן כוזיבא המלך. והוא היה אומר עליו שהוא המלך המשיח. ודימה הוא וכל חכמי דורו שהוא המלך המשיח. עד שנהרג בעונות. כיון שנהרג נודע להם שאינו. ולא שאלו ממנו חכמים לא אות ולא מופת.

"Do not think that the King Moshiach needs to perform miracles and wonders and create new things in the world or revive the dead and things like this. This is not so. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was a great wise sage of the Mishna and he carried the vessels of Ben Koziba the King. He (Rabbi Akiva) would say that Ben Koziba was the Moshiach. Rabbi Akiva, along with all the other wise men of his generation, believed Ben Koziba to be the Moshiach until he (Ben Koziba) was killed because of his sins. Once he was killed then they knew he was not the Moshiach. The wise men never asked from Ben Koziba a sign or a miracle."

Rabbi Akiva, along with the rest of the wise men of his generation believed Ben Koziba to be the Moshiach. However, Ben Koziba had an army that conquered Israel and held it for 2 and a half years. All the while they were rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple. This is known from archeological evidence and from history sources as well as Jewish sources. So, if a strong and united force is not allowed to conquer Israel, how was Ben Koziba allowed to do it according to all of the wise men of Rabbi Akiva's generation?

That is exhibit B.

Unfortunately, with my limited knowledge, I am only able to bring one more Iron clad proof that disproves the people that say the State of Israel is against the Torah. However, it is probably the most convincing argument for anyone that believes in Judaism and the Tanach.

If anyone who is reading this looks in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 they will be very confused and befuddled with the opinion that there can be no Jewish state until G-D gives it to us.

In Ezekiel 38 it discusses the war of the King Gog and his nation of Magog against the Jews in Israel. In Ezekiel 38:8-9 it says:

8 After many days thou shalt be mustered for service, in the latter years thou shalt come against the land that is brought back from the sword, that is gathered out of many peoples, against the mountains of Israel, which have been a continual waste; but it is brought forth out of the peoples, and they dwell safely all of them.

9 And thou shalt ascend, thou shalt come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many peoples with thee.

(The prophecy speaks about a war between the armies of Gog the king of Magog and the Jews that live in Israel. )

The compelling evidence continues with Ezekiel 38:14

14 Therefore, son of man, prophesy, and say unto Gog: Thus saith the Lord GOD: In that day when My people Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?

15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the uttermost parts of the north, thou, and many peoples with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company and a mighty army;

16 and thou shalt come up against My people Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the end of days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the nations may know Me, when I shall be sanctified through thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

(Read it yourself here)

The idea continues with even stronger words that reveal a nation in Israel. Ezekiel 39:1-10

1 And thou, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal;

2 and I will turn thee about and lead thee on, and will cause thee to come up from the uttermost parts of the north; and I will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel;

3 and I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.

4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the peoples that are with thee; I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort and to the beasts of the field, to be devoured.

5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and on them that dwell safely in the isles; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

7 And My holy name will I make known in the midst of My people Israel; neither will I suffer My holy name to be profaned any more; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

8 Behold, it cometh, and it shall be done, saith the Lord GOD; This is the day whereof I have spoken.

9 And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall make fires of the weapons and use them as fuel, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the hand-staves, and the spears, and they shall make fires of them seven years;

10 so that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests, for they shall make fires of the weapons; and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.

If one thinks that the war of Gog, king of Magog happens after G-D already gathered in the exiles then they will be saddened to learn what the next part of chapter 39 says to disprove this belief. Ezekiel 39:25-29

25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Now will I bring back the captivity of Jacob, and have compassion upon the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name.

26 And they shall bear their shame, and all their breach of faith which they have committed against Me, when they shall dwell safely in their land, and none shall make them afraid;

27 when I have brought them back from the peoples, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations.

28 And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them unto their own land; and I will leave none of them any more there;

29 neither will I hide My face any more from them; for I have poured out My spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.'

So we see from here that there will be Jews dwelling safely in the land of Israel before Gog, King of Magog attacks us and after he is defeated then G-D will gather in the exiles from around the world to Israel. Sounds like there has to be a nation of Jews in Israel to be attacked by Gog and his armies before any in gathering of exiles can occur.

If anyone wants to add their ideas or sources to this let me know. Any questions are arguments feel free.

Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah perek 5 halacha 3- Anti-Jewish Decrees and Sacrificing One's Life

וכל הדברים האלו שלא בשעת הגזרה אבל בשעת הגזרה והוא שיעמוד מלך רשע כנבוכדנצר וחביריו ויגזור גזרה על ישראל לבטל דתם או מצוה מן המצות. יהרג ואל יעבור אפילו על אחת משאר מצות בין נאנס בתוך עשרה בין נאנס בינו לבין עובדי כוכבים :

All of these cases are when there is no decree [against the Jews]. However, in a time where there is a decree, when an evil king is in charge like Nevuchadnezzar and his friends and they make a decree against the Jews in order to negate their religion or one of the commandments, then one must give up their life instead of transgressing even one of the regular commandments, whether they are forced to transgress in front of 10 Jewish people or the sin is only between the Jew and the non-Jew [that is forcing them to transgress].

The question here is what is a Jew doing wrong when a Jew is forced to transgress one of the commandments in the Torah? Is it a chilul Hashem (disgrace of the name)? It seems like, from the previous halachas in the Rambam, that this idea (of chilul Hashem) only applies in front of 10 Jews. What, then, is a Jew doing that is so severe that it is better that he or she give up their life rather than transgress one of the regular commandments, not even one of the three special commandments?

I think the answer lies in why the three big sins of illicit relations, murder and idol worship also require one to give up their life even when there are not ten Jews around. The effect that it has on a person is tremendous. When a person is living in a society where being a Jew is looked down upon and then they are forced to transgress a commandment in the Torah, this effects a person on a deep level. The person sees him or herself as part of something that is despicable to others. On top of that, when they transgress, they think that there is no harm in this transgression. Nothing happened to me so why should I continue to be a part of this nation that is oppressed? This mentality would lead to the downfall of Judaism. Therefore, in order to protect the religion and perpetuate it throughout eternity we need these laws and show that we will never surrender to these evil temptations.

In truth, if one were to transgress one of the commandments in this time, there would be no punishment for it. This rule was set in place in order to allow people to choose death over the transgression of the commandments. Usually a Jew is not allowed to sacrifice his or her life for anything. However, this rule was made in order that devoted people could stand up and show that they are proud to be Jewish and that even the most, seemingly, mundane commandment is dear to them.

Rambam- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 5 Halacha 2- When One Should Give Up Their Life For The Commandments

במה דברים אמורים בשאר מצות חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגלוי עריות ושפיכת דמים. אבל שלש עבירות אלו אם יאמר לו עבור על אחת מהן או תהרג. יהרג ואל יעבור. במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהעובד כוכבים מתכוין להנאת עצמו. כגון שאנסו לבנות לו ביתו בשבת או לבשל לו תבשילו. או אנס אשה לבועלה וכיוצא בזה. אבל אם נתכוין להעבירו על המצות בלבד. אם היה בינו לבין עצמו ואין שם עשרה מישראל יעבור ואל יהרג. ואם אנסו להעבירו בעשרה מישראל יהרג ואל יעבור. ואפילו לא נתכוין להעבירו אלא על מצוה משאר מצות בלבד:

"What case is the first halacha speaking of (that one must violate the commandments rather than give up his or her life)? In a case of all the commandments except idol worship, illicit relations and bloodshed. However, by transgressing these three sins, if one is given the object to transgress or die one must die rather than transgress.

Also, with what is the first halacha speaking of (that one must violate the commandments rather than give up his or her life)? In a time that the idol worshipper (that is forcing the Jew to choose to die or transgress) is doing this for his or her own benefit. For example, the idol worshipper forces the Jew to build a house on shabbos, cook, forces a Jewess to have relations with him and similarly. However, if the idol worshipper's only goal is to have the Jew desecrate the commandments for that purpose in and of itself then if it is private (less than 10 Jews are there) then the Jew or Jewess should transgress and not die, but if it is public, in front of ten Jews, then the Jew or Jewess should die and not transgress. This holds true even if it is in regard to any commandment."

These two exceptions to the rule of "transgress and do not die" need to be further analyzed. If the idea of the commandments truly is that one should "live by them" and not die by them then why are there any exceptions? How could we find any case where one should die for the sake of the commandment if the whole purpose of the commandments are for us to live and observe them?

I think there are two very unique answer as to why we must die rather than transgress in these two situations. In the cases of illicit relations, bloodshed and idol worship there is an inherent rebellion against G-D in these three sins. The idea of living by the commandments is that one realizes that G-D is the creator of the world and that He is G-D. Illicit relations inherently denies this, bloodshed inherently denies this and idol worship inherently denies this.

Idol worship goes counter to the idea that G-D controls the world. Someone who worships idols asks the idols for rain, money and other events. This detracts from the belief that G-D is the ruler and guider of the world. Illicit relations represents the antithesis of G-D's ultimate power over the granting of life. Someone who has illicit relations uses a forbidden path to form life. Bloodshed is a man taking the power of ending life. These three ideas are the antithesis of Torah and Judaism. When someone falters in one of these three areas it is impossible to worship G-D with the same level of fervor. Therefore, the idea of "live by them" does not apply in these situations.

In the other situation, that a non-Jew is forcing a Jew to transgress a commandment just because he is Jewish and the non-Jew wants him or her to violate the laws of the Torah, this is similar, but a little different. The non-Jew's sole purpose is to hear the Jew renounce G-D. In this situation a Jew is given a choice, is G-D the ultimate truth or is man in charge of the world. The non-Jew or idol worshiper is trying to show that he or she is in charge and not G-D. Therefore, one must stand up and say that G-D is the only one that is all powerful and this disgusting person is worthless. However, it is only necessary to give up one's life in public in this case because if it was in private there is no real statement being made. However, in public there is a public act of acknowledgment that is being conveyed. So in private, one may transgress, but in public it is necessary to give up one's life.