The Rebbe's Stand on the State of Israel

[mbczion]

With Yom Ha'azmaut coming up, I figured I'd provide this link from the Chabad galyon in Israel that talks about the late Lubavitcher Rabbi's stand on the State of Israel and what he believed the Medina's function is supposed to be:

http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=2921&CategoryID=840

[rebbi1]

Which one is "the late Lubavitcher rebbe"?

[magdiel]

Which one is "the late Lubavitcher rebbe"?
Late for what?

[why]

Late for what?
Supper? I should hope not... Maybe it was a shiur or something... no, wait, that would be worse...

[mbczion]

Never said inglish was my 4teh....oops more skiyot:rolleyes:

[noahidelaws]

mbczion: so have you now realised the error of the philosophy that claimed that the founding secular state was part of the future redemption, G-d forbid?

[IshKoton]

An important contribution to the struggle against Zionism was made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Sholem Dov Ber Schneersohn ZT"L. His words that are here translated, deal at some length with the character of Zionism and some of the falsifications and ambiguities connected with it. They were uttered in response to questions raised by Rabbi Aaronson who sought to justify the Zionists in the eyes of the Rebbe and ventured to raise questions on the subject of the strong letter written by the Rebbe three years earlier. This account of the dispute with Rabbi Aaronson was written by the Rebbe himself and here are a few extracts:
Rabbi Aaronson:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe:
From all the writings of the Zionists we can clearly see that their main aim and activity is to create the impression among the Jewish People that the whole purpose of the Torah and the commandments is merely to strengthen national feeling. This theory can easily be adopted by the youth who regard themselves as instruments prepared for the fulfillment of the Zionist ideal. They regard themselves as completely liberated form Torah and the commandments. They think nationalism has replaced religion... When Herzl was in the Holy Land he was far removed from G-d. He OPENLY PROFANED THE TORAH BY ENTERING THE HOLY CITY ON THE SABBATH. HE WENT TO THE SITE OF THE SANCTUARY WHICH EVEN FROM A HUMAN POINT OF VIEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE, THUS OPENLY PROFANING THE SABBATH IN THE HOLY CITY, AND IN THE PLACE OF HIS TEMPLE, DOING EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF G-D. In order to influence our brethren in favour of the Zionist aspiration for an independent nation and government, they have no alternative but to lead the people astray from the path of Torah and the commandments, or at least, to weaken their attachment as much as possible SO THAT NATIONALISM SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TORAH, BECAUSE IT IS KNOWN THAT THOSE ATTACHED TO THE TORAH ARE UNLIKELY TO CHANGE AND ACCEPT SOME OTHER FORM OF FAITH. It is surely clear that the Zionists not only are not approaching Judaism, but that they entirely destroy Jewish souls intentionally TAKING AWAY FROM THEM EVEN THE HIDDEN AND MYSTICAL FEELING IN THEIR SOULS FOR THE TORAH AND THE COMMANDMENTS.... Sholem Ber Schneersohn

[mbczion]

mbczion: so have you now realised the error of the philosophy that claimed that the founding secular state was part of the future redemption, G-d forbid?

You obviously don't understand hebrew, but I am too busy to translate, as I am a full-time working man, family man, and study Torah on top of that.

[noahidelaws]

I understand Hebrew very well. My question was not what that article said (as I had read it before you posted it, but) whether you have come to accept the ideas in that article.

[mbczion]

I understand Hebrew very well. My question was not what that article said (as I had read it before you posted it, but) whether you have come to accept the ideas in that article.

You mean like how you are obligated to go to the best doctor for medical advise/cure even if the doctor is NOT religious. Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly.

[noahidelaws]

huh? I thought I understood Hebrew. That wasn't the topic of the link you posted. Why don't you answer my question in post#6 above?

[mbczion]

huh? I thought I understood Hebrew. That wasn't the topic of the link you posted. Why don't you answer my question in post#6 above?

That's all right. You live in galut and don't speak hebrew on an everyday basis, but to give you a gist of the Rebbe's Stand on Medinat Yisrael, his stance was closer to mine than yours. While the Rebbe did not consider Medinat Yisrael to be intrinsicly holy or the beginning of the redemption, he did consider the Medina a chance for us to show that we are worthy of the redemption:

הרבי ראה בהקמת המדינה מעין הזדמנות שנתן הקב"ה לעם-ישראל להוכיח שהוא ראוי לגאולה. לכן ייחס חשיבות עצומה לדמותה של המדינה ולדרך התנהלותה, לא רק בגלל ערכם העצמי של אלה, אלא גם בגלל המשמעות שיש באמירה כזאת כלפי שמיא. כשהקב"ה נותן ליהודים הזדמנות לשוב אחרי אלפיים שנים לארץ-ישראל ולכונן בה ממשלה עצמאית – מוטלת עליהם אחריות עצומה, כלפי כל הדורות.

Certainly, the Rebbe did NOT consider the Medina to be a "curse":

הרבי מליובאוויטש שלל לחלוטין את ההתייחסות למדינה כאל 'מעשה שטן'. חס-ושלום לומר שהניסים הכבירים שליוו את עם-ישראל במלחמותיו נגד אויביו הם 'מעשה שטן'. הטענה שאין הקב"ה עושה ניסים באמצעות חיילים שאינם שומרי תורה ומצוות – מופרכת מיסודה. הרבי הוכיח שעל-פי ההלכה יש לפנות לרופא המומחה, ולא להעדיף את הרופא הפחות מומחה שהוא יותר ירא-שמים (אף שהרפואה באה מהקב"ה). הקב"ה פועל ומביא את ישועתו גם על-ידי יהודי שעלול לטעות ולחשוב כי "כוחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה".

Read the link I posted again and more carefully and don't be ashamed to ask for a translation .

[noahidelaws]

You live in galut and don't speak hebrew on an everyday basis
You also live in galut! That's why you say in your prayers, even when davening at the Kosel, mipnei chata'einu galinu mei'artzeinu.

And FYI, I do speak hebrew on an everyday basis, with chavrusos who speak Hebrew.
his stance was closer to mine than yours
how so? his stance is my stance!
Certainly, the Rebbe did NOT consider the Medina to be a "curse":
Where in the quote you quoted does it refer to the institution of the state? It only refers to the process of winning the war and the miracles Hashem showed then. The establishment of the state and the secular, anti-Torah rules that it imposed was a separate phenomenon.

Also, when did I say the opportunity to have control over Eretz Yisroel is a curse, G-d forbid? However, the character of those who seized power and abused that opportunity could definitely be described as such.

And you still haven't answered my original question above: "have you now realised the error of the philosophy that claimed that the founding secular state was part of the future redemption, G-d forbid?"

[mbczion]

You also live in galut! That's why you say in your prayers, even when davening at the Kosel, mipnei chata'einu galinu mei'artzeinu.


Whatever, you live in the diaspora where hebrew is NOT the national language....

And FYI, I do speak hebrew on an everyday basis, with chavrusos who speak Hebrew.


Yaisher Koach. Then you should have no trouble understanding the link.

how so? his stance is my stance!


That's certainly not what is coming out of your posts....


And you still haven't answered my original question above: "have you now realised the error of the philosophy that claimed that the founding secular state was part of the future redemption, G-d forbid?"

I realize that that is one of the opinions amongst Rabbanim, but NOT the ONLY one....

[noahidelaws]

That's certainly not what is coming out of your posts....
to which post are you referring?
I realize that that is one of the opinions amongst Rabbanim, but NOT the ONLY one...
What is the halachic basis to reject the halachic ruling of the Rambam that only Moshiach brings the Redemption (Hilchos Melachim, 11:1), with which all the commentaries on the Rambam (including the Kessef Mishnah, R' Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch) agree (as they do not comment, and thus, according to the rules of understanding the Mishneh Torah, they agree)?? G-d forbid!

No rabbi nowadays has the authority to reject the consensus of Gedolei Yisroel of past generations!There is no legitimacy to such words!

[mbczion]

to which post are you referring?


The post/s in which you refer to the Medina as a "curse". Again, maybe the Rebbe did not consider the Medina to be part of the redemption or to have inherent holiness, but the Rebbe also did NOT consider the Medina a "curse". I think we have beat this topic to death.

What is the halachic basis to reject the halachic ruling of the Rambam that only Moshiach brings the Redemption (Hilchos Melachim, 11:1), with which all the commentaries on the Rambam (including the Kessef Mishnah, R' Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch) agree (as they do not comment, and thus, according to the rules of understanding the Mishneh Torah, they agree)?? G-d forbid!

No rabbi nowadays has the authority to reject the consensus of Gedolei Yisroel of past generations!There is no legitimacy to such words!


First of all, I thought that we are responsible for helping the bring the Geulah by doing teshuva, hesed, mitzvot, etc. At any rate, I don't see what the above has to do with Medinat Yisrael.

The whole argument of the Medina rests on one word- timing. Can Jews have their own Medina before the arrival of Moshiach? And those who say know use the three oaths from Masechet Ketubot to support their stance that the Medina is assur. It has nothing to do with our government being secular or whether zionism is built on an "empty ideology".

At any rate, regarding the three oaths, many Rabbanim of today hold that they are no longer binding. That is what I meant when I mentioned about that [the Medina being assur because Moshiach has not come]being one of the opinions amongst Rabbanim, but NOT the only one.

[noahidelaws]

The post/s in which you refer to the Medina as a "curse". Again, maybe the Rebbe did not consider the Medina to be part of the redemption or to have inherent holiness, but the Rebbe also did NOT consider the Medina a "curse". I think we have beat this topic to death.
We haven't finished discussing this at all, because you haven't understood me at all. All I've said is that the anti-religious nature of those who set up the state and continue to run it in that spirit is a curse, which I had thought was stating the obvious. I never said that having military control over the Land that Hashem gave us is, in and of itself, a curse--something that you are attributing to me incorrectly. The Rebbe considers it a blessing. This is what the Rebbe was referring to when he said that our ability to control the Land is a positive opportunity.

First of all, I thought that we are responsible for helping the bring the Geulah by doing teshuva, hesed, mitzvot, etc.

absolutely!

At any rate, I don't see what the above has to do with Medinat Yisrael.

The above was written against the notion that the state is "the start of the redemption," G-d forbid, which is a claim in direct contradiction to the Rambam, no matter which rabbis endorsed that notion.

At any rate, regarding the three oaths, many Rabbanim of today hold that they are no longer binding. That is what I meant when I mentioned about that [the Medina being assur because Moshiach has not come]being one of the opinions amongst Rabbanim, but NOT the only one.

But the 3 oaths had nothing to do with my original question above. Now I see that you were answering a question that I didn't ask. In that case, could you please now answer the question that I did ask.

[mbczion]

We haven't finished discussing this at all, because you haven't understood me at all. All I've said is that the anti-religious nature of those who set up the state and continue to run it in that spirit is a curse, which I had thought was stating the obvious. I never said that having military control over the Land that Hashem gave us is, in and of itself, a curse--something that you are attributing to me incorrectly. The Rebbe considers it a blessing. This is what the Rebbe was referring to when he said that our ability to control the Land is a positive opportunity.


And what if the Medina was run by overwhelmingly frum yidden? Would the Medina still be a "curse" because it was established before Moshiach, according to your view? At any rate, what I am saying is that I do NOT see where the Rebbe considered Medinat Yisrael to be a curse. Of course the Rebbe would rather Israel be run by policies according to G-d fearing Jews. Who in this forum (including myself) wouldn't? However, to say the Rebbe considered Medinat Yisrael (and I am NOT talking about the secular/anti-religious government, but the Medina) a "curse" would be a bit of a stretch (at best) and a lie (at worst). Especially, since the Rebbe had good relations with no small number of the secular Israeli leaders.








The above was written against the notion that the state is "the start of the redemption," G-d forbid, which is a claim in direct contradiction to the Rambam, no matter which rabbis endorsed that notion.


Whether or not the state is the start of the redemption has nothing to do with the quote you provided from the Rambam. Your quote from the Rambam claims that only the Moshiach can bring the redemption. Then you would have an issue with most of today's Rabbanim (including Chabad) who are always saying that we are NOT exempt from doing our part to bring the redemption by hesed, tzedaka, teshuva, mitzvot, etc. In the Chabad shul I daven at on Shabbat there are posters all over with the Rebbe's picture that say "le'karev et ha'geulah". You understand hebrew, right? "Le'karev" is NOT a passive verb, but active. Medinat Yisrael being the beginning of the redemption or not has nothing to do with the Rambam's quote that you provided.


But the 3 oaths had nothing to do with my original question above. Now I see that you were answering a question that I didn't ask. In that case, could you please now answer the question that I did ask.

You asked if I am beginning to see the "error" in the belief that Medinat Yisrael is the beginning of the Geulah. And I say that this is like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife (Chas Ve' Shalom), as there is no consensus amongst the Rabbanim as to whether the Medina is or not. Again, this has nothing to do with Rambam's above quote, but EVERYTHING to do with the three oaths- nothing more, nothing less.

Do I understand that the Rebbe did NOT view the Medina with inherent holiness, nor did the Rebbe consider the Medina to be the beginning of the Ge'ulah? Yes.

Does this mean that the Rebbe considered the Medina (again, not the secular leadership, but the Medina) to be a "curse"? Nope.

[Bittul]

to give you a gist of the Rebbe's Stand on Medinat Yisrael, his stance was closer to mine than yours.
Read the link I posted again and more carefully and don't be ashamed to ask for a translation .
Why does every Tom Dick and Harry (Todres Dreikup and Chaim Yankel) need the Rebbe's opinion to be what they need it to be? Leave the Rebbe alone, believe what you wish, you don't need a twisted interpretation based on an amateur rework of the Rebbe's Torah to justify your existence.

Aside from that, your arrogance is apalling.

[mbczion]

Why does every Tom Dick and Harry (Todres Dreikup and Chaim Yankel) need the Rebbe's opinion to be what they need it to be? Leave the Rebbe alone, believe what you wish, you don't need a twisted interpretation based on an amateur rework of the Rebbe's Torah to justify your existence.

Aside from that, your arrogance is apalling.

Actually, it is NOT me who needs the Rebbe's opinion to be what I need it to be, but it DOES seem like most people in this forum, certainly the poster who I am engaged in this discussion regarding Medinat Yisrael is always bringing up what the Rebbe said. If one brings a source (whether of the Rebbe, Rambam, or anyone else) to back up his agenda, then I have a right to rebut and show why the source does NOT necessarily back his agenda.

Now throwing around labels at those you disagree with is easy to do. We used to do that in kindergarten, but if you want to make a point, then bring up a source or a proof and show it. At any rate, if I am "arrogant" for expressing my stance, which most posters on this forum might not agree with, then you are right- I plead guilty about my "arrogance".

[noahidelaws]

And what if the Medina was run by overwhelmingly frum yidden? Would the Medina still be a "curse" because it was established before Moshiach, according to your view?
If it was run by only frum Yidden strictly in accordance with Torah (the two are not necessarily related, as evident from the way that Mafdal voted for Mihu Yehudi, UTJ for "hitnatkut", etc.) then no, I wouldn't consider it a curse. If you had read my posts more closely instead of automatically assuming that I think like whoever, you'd have seen clearly that I didn't imply that.
At any rate, what I am saying is that I do NOT see where the Rebbe considered Medinat Yisrael to be a curse. Of course the Rebbe would rather Israel be run by policies according to G-d fearing Jews. Who in this forum (including myself) wouldn't? However, to say the Rebbe considered Medinat Yisrael (and I am NOT talking about the secular/anti-religious government, but the Medina) a "curse" would be a bit of a stretch (at best) and a lie (at worst).
I have highlighted above the crucial conceptual distortion that I wish to address.

Again, one cannot distinguish between the state, its symbols, and ideology and those who set it up and run it. The state in its current manifestation, with the ideology and symbols (flag, anthem) that perforce represent that ideology--the ideology of denial of Moshiach and the desire to imitate the goyim and throw off the yoke of Torah "lihyot am chofshi be'artzeinu"--is a curse. The sellouts and surrenders ever since the 6 day war just demonstrate that further. I'd have thought that's a statement of the obvious.

What the Rebbe said contains good potential is the inherent ability to have (limited) military control in certain parts of the Holy Land. It is this potential that the state in its current constitution (i.e., those who actually seized power after the first war was won) took and spoilt with their secular, let's copy the goyim ideology.

Especially, since the Rebbe had good relations with no small number of the secular Israeli leaders.

The Rebbe spoke to them not as equals, but to influence them to change the state into a Torah-based state.

Whether or not the state is the start of the redemption has nothing to do with the quote you provided from the Rambam. Your quote from the Rambam claims that only the Moshiach can bring the redemption. Then you would have an issue with most of today's Rabbanim (including Chabad) who are always saying that we are NOT exempt from doing our part to bring the redemption by hesed, tzedaka, teshuva, mitzvot, etc. In the Chabad shul I daven at on Shabbat there are posters all over with the Rebbe's picture that say "le'karev et ha'geulah". You understand hebrew, right? "Le'karev" is NOT a passive verb, but active. Medinat Yisrael being the beginning of the redemption or not has nothing to do with the Rambam's quote that you provided.

I'm surprised tha tyou don't see the connection. The Rambam says that the Redemption, including the ingathering of the exiles, is to be accomplished by Moshiach. Those who claim that this process has begun without Moshiach are thus denying this explicit ruling of the Rambam, whether they are rabbis or not.

You asked if I am beginning to see the "error" in the belief that Medinat Yisrael is the beginning of the Geulah. And I say that this is like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife (Chas Ve' Shalom), as there is no consensus amongst the Rabbanim as to whether the Medina is or not.


Yes there is a consensus! Open up the Rambam, and you'll see that none of the commentaries there disagree (ncluding the Raavad) with his ruling that Moshiach is the one who brings the Redemption and gathers the exiles. No rabbi of today has the authority to reject this consensus!

Again, this has nothing to do with Rambam's above quote, but EVERYTHING to do with the three oaths- nothing more, nothing less.

I never referred to the 3 oaths, nor does the original article you posted. I don't see why you keep changing the topic.

Btw, for the record, I don't find your posts arrogant. Please feel welcome here! If I write strongly, don't take it personally. I'm addressing the issue, not you or anyone else personally.

[Bittul]

This:
With Yom Ha'azmaut coming up,

And this:
You obviously don't understand hebrew, but I am too busy to translate, as I am a full-time working man, family man, and study Torah on top of that.

And this:
That's all right. You live in galut and don't speak hebrew on an everyday basis, but to give you a gist of the Rebbe's Stand on Medinat Yisrael,
Read the link I posted again and more carefully and don't be ashamed to ask for a translation .
Are sheer arrogance.

[noahidelaws]

uh, actually, you have a point, Bittul

[mbczion]

What is so arrogant about talking about Yom Ha'atzmaut when Chabad didn't find it such an irrelevant topic to talk about?

Regarding my other comments about the hebrew, I apologize for my arrogance regarding those comments?

For that I offer NL an apology....

However, the rest of the words in my posts still stand....

[noahidelaws]

I accept your apology. Any response to my last post?

[mbczion]

NoahideLaws, I think I understand what your position is regarding Medinat Yisrael. I might not agree with it, but I think I understand it. However, what I am still confused about is how on the one hand you are using the Rambam to claim that only Moshiach can bring the Geulah and gather the exiles from the ends of the earth and then turn around and agree 100% that we are responsible for hastening the arrival of the Geulah by teshuva, hesed, mitzvot, etc. and that you also agree that Jewish sovereignty over E"Y (even before Moshiach and/or Geulah) is a positive development. I mean, in order to have this Jewish sovereignty, this required the influx of millions of Jews to E"Y (i.e. the "ingathering of the exiles"), but according to Rambam, this is only supposed to happen after Moshiach by the hands of G-d.

At any rate, the last thing I want to do here is cause strife because of where I live or my stance, so if by leaving this forum, it will be a more peaceful place, then I am gone after this post.

FWIW, I have nothing against you BN. I think you might have been a little to harsh with you first post to me when I first joined this forum because of where I live, but I am over that.

Kol Tov,

Menachem

[Gevurah]

his stance was closer to mine than yours

Always bugs me that some assume the Rebbe was above time at all times and that he would not have changed his mind.... at least in relation to us...:tongue:

[mbczion]

Always bugs me that some assume the Rebbe was above time at all times and that he would not have changed his mind.... at least in relation to us...:tongue:

Fair enough, but then does this just bug you when one assumes he would not have changed his mind to suit YOUR stance or a stance that you don't agree with....

It works BOTH ways:tongue: :confused:

[Gevurah]

I have no stance or all stances.... on this issue...or any... Objectivity supercedes subjectivity:biggrin:

[Bittul]

I am so honored to have caused all of this Tshuva in the month of Elul. My good deed for the month. Now I can rest.

[Gevurah]

Sheer Arroagnce ;)

[Bittul]

You are right, it is arrogant of me to rest of my labors on behalf of fellow Chabad Talkers. No good deed goes unpunished. :frown: I will have to soldier on. Now let's talk about people that think code words are a language.

[mbczion]

I am so honored to have caused all of this Tshuva in the month of Elul. My good deed for the month. Now I can rest.

One can never rest; sin is always crouching at the door;)

[noahidelaws]

what I am still confused about is how on the one hand you are using the Rambam to claim that only Moshiach can bring the Geulah and gather the exiles from the ends of the earth and then turn around and agree 100% that we are responsible for hastening the arrival of the Geulah by teshuva, hesed, mitzvot, etc.
Well, the answer to that is simple. Teshuva doesn't in and of itself bring Ge'ulah. Rather, it makes us worthy of Ge'ulah, such that once we have done enough of it ("ein Yisrael nigalim ela bi'teshuva") Hashem decides that the time has come to send Moshiach to bring the Ge'ulah.

and that you also agree that Jewish sovereignty over E"Y (even before Moshiach and/or Geulah) is a positive development. I mean, in order to have this Jewish sovereignty, this required the influx of millions of Jews to E"Y (i.e. the "ingathering of the exiles"), but according to Rambam, this is only supposed to happen after Moshiach by the hands of G-d.

Again, no contradiction here. According to a simple reading of the above Rambam, Jews returning to Eretz Yisroel is only consider "kibbutz galiot"--the ingathering foretold by the Prophets--if it is carried out by Moshiach. If it is carried out by anyone else (even a great Tzaddik), then it is merely settlement of Eretz Yisrael during exile. Since the aliyah movement is not the fulfillment of "tikvat shnat alpayim", it is also something that has its ups and downs; thus, we find a very high rate of yeridah. Is that cleared up the questions?

By the way, to qualify, I don't believe that Jewish sovereignty is a purely positive development. It had tremendous negative potential, and unfortunately that negative potential has been and continues to be actualised. For example, if an American gov't would expel every last Jew from an area where Jews were the constant brunt of antisemitic attacks, the ADL would be crying murder. But when Jews commit the same crime, it suddenly becomes legitimate, etc. Or, as the Previous Rebbe said, it is worse to be oppressed by wicked Jews than wicked non-Jews, because the latter only oppress the Jewish body, whereas the former oppress the Jewish soul. H"Y.

All I meant to say was that according to the Rebbe's view, Jewish sovereignty is not inherently negative. It has tremendous positive potential, and until Moshiach comes we must do our best to actualise that potential, without compromise halacha and Torah values one iota.

At any rate, the last thing I want to do here is cause strife because of where I live or my stance, so if by leaving this forum, it will be a more peaceful place, then I am gone after this post.

As I've said, please feel welcome here! This is not "strife," it's discussing an important issue.

[amoretz]

I hope this letter from Rebbe will help those seeking guidance on the topic.

[Yankel Nosson]

The following is a transcript of the Rebbe’s remarks given in a private meeting on Av 5, 5727 (August 12, 1967), shortly after the Six-Day War, as recalled by Rabbi Chaim Gutnick of Melbourne, Australia, and published (in Hebrew) in Kfar Chabad Magazine, issue no. 806:

...Three times in our generation, G-d has granted us an opportunity for the beginning of the Redemption. But these opportunities were missed, and it is the Jewish leadership which is to blame.

The first opportunity was in 1948. You know that I have a particular enthusiasm for Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. Well, Rashi says regarding the waters of the Flood that, at first, G-d brought down “rains of blessing" upon them and waited to see if they would repent; only after they failed to do so did this turn into the very opposite of “rains of blessing,” G-d forbid.

In 1948, G-d sent “rains of blessing.” This was a time when even the Russians supported the Jewish people against the British, who had attempted to annihilate the nation of Israel. This was a time of opportunity. But the Jewish leaders stood by and debated whether or not to make mention of G-d’s name in the “Declaration of Establishment.” Thus the Redemption was put off by fifty years.

The second opportunity was the Sinai Champaign [of 1956]. If the Jewish people would have believed that their salvation would come from G-d rather than from French MIGs and British warplanes, all would have been different.

But never has there been an opportunity such as this one. This was a war won by Torah and mitzvot. There can be no doubt of this. A Jew in Moscow recited Psalms, and a Jew in Buffalo, New York, put on tefillin, and this helped the Jews defeat their enemies in the Land of Israel.

If the Jewish leaders would have utilized the opportunity to rouse the people to the observance of Torah and mitzvot, our situation today would be entirely different. Think about it: a young man in Israel was summoned, handed an Uzi, and told: “Leave your wife and children at home and go to El-Arish to fight.” In every war there are draft-dodgers; here, no Jew, not even one for whom the word “Jew” is nothing more than an appellation, refused to fight. It was a time when the entire people of Israel were in a state of “We shall do and we shall hear.” When this young man fought at El-Arish, his Torah and mitzvot fought for him. The Shechinah (Divine Presence) came down into the trenches to assist the soldier fighting on the borders of the Land of Israel.

If the Jewish leaders would have told that soldier to utilize the reserves of faith and courage that were revealed in him during the war toward a commitment to Torah and mitzvot, with the same “We shall do and we shall hear,” he, and the entire Jewish nation, would have responded, and everything would have been different. But again the leaders were silent, and the great opportunity was lost. They were too timid to tell the Jew the truth: that this is the time for a return to Torah.

The very first chapter of the first section of the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) begins not with Maimonides’ “Thirteen Principles of Faith,” but with the Rama’s ruling that “One should not be intimidated by mockers.” Why? Because when one does not fulfill this rule, one is prevented from fulfilling the entire Shulchan Aruch. Perhaps I speak too sharply, but the Jewish leadership is bankrupt. They avoid me because they know that I will demand of them to speak the truth. Their timidness to speak the truth, contrary to the rule, “One should not be intimidated by mockers,” is holding back the Redemption.