Emuna: Purim in the Eyes of Our Generation

by Rav Yosef Carmel, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

May one save himself at the expense of others? Does the same law apply during both times of peace and times of war?

[Written in 2008, but could have been written today]

One of the axes around which the Purim story revolves is the manner in which the Jews saved themselves from the horrific empire-wide decree of destruction initiated by Haman: "The Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and with slaying and destruction, and they did to their enemies as they wished." (Esther 9,5)

Every year on Purim, this question is placed upon the table of the sages: What are the limitations of warfare? And in our situation, in which the State of Israel is essentially in a constant state of war, what are our responsibilities, to ourselves and to others?

Our enemies take advantage of the sensitivity of the Jewish People in general, and of Israeli society in particular, to the sanctity of human life – while at the same time, they seek with all their might to specifically target non-combatant citizens, including women and children. They do this primarily via steep-trajectory weapons that conceal their source and protect them from return fire. 

One of the uglier and more revolting phenomena that we have seen of late was the use of women and children as "human shields" for these war criminals. They fire rockets as us indiscriminately, seeking to "destroy, kill and annihilate" as many Jews as possible, "from youth to elderly, children and women," every day and not just "on one day" (see Esther 3,13). 

Let us note, too, that during the Purim story, as today, the objective of our enemies was, as stated, total destruction of our nation, Heaven forbid. But after executing Haman, King Ahasuerus issued a new decree – not revoking the original decree, but giving permission to the Jews to "destroy, kill, and annihilate the entire host of every people and province that oppress them, small children and women, and to take their spoils for plunder" (8,11). 

However, in the event, when the Jews went to defend themselves, they smote only "those who hated them" (9,1) and "those who sought to cause them evil" (verse 2), and "all their enemies" (verse 5). There is no mention that they hurt the women and children; on the contrary, the emphasis there is specifically on "man" (verse 6).

Let us clarify whether it is permitted for a person to save his life whilst hurting another or his property? And is there a difference between times of peace and times of war?

The Talmud discusses this question in Tractate Bava Kama (61b, 117b). According to Rashi and the Raavad, one is not permitted, for instance, to burn someone else's field in order to kill his enemy hiding there. However, the Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat 359,4) rules like Tosafot, that one is permitted to do so – but only with intent to compensate the owner for his losses. 

What is the reasoning? The Rashba explains that the owner, if he would have been present at the time, would have been obligated to save the man's life even at the expense of his own property. Therefore, even if the owner is not present, the same law applies – but the beneficiary must pay him back. 

This then brings us to the next question: May a person save his life by killing someone else? The answer is that this is forbidden, whether the "someone else" is a Jew or not. This is because one has no obligation to give up his life in order to save someone else. So explains Rav Shaul Yisraeli (d. 1995, Jerusalem) in his work Amud HaYemini.  

All of the above pertains to relations between individuals. To this let us add a heart-filled plea, even to those whose heart burns with a holy desire to avenge Jews, to refrain from all acts of private vengeance, such as that which occurred of late in the village of the wretched Arab murderer; it must be the army's decision if and when to take such action.

What is the law in war-time? When Israel's army – the military arm of the king/government – goes out to "save Israel from the hand of its enemies" (the Sages' description of the classic 'obligatory war'), what limitations does it face? 

Rav Yisraeli, in his long treatise cited above, clarified and formulated several clear principles on this topic: 

1. Women and children should not be targeted (as per the Rambam, Laws of Kings, 6,4).

2. Those who are not involved in the warfare must be warned beforehand to leave the area, unless the warning will prevent the mission from being carried out. See Samuel II 15,6.

3. If "innocent civilians" are killed in a government-declared war or battle, this is not considered murder, given that international law recognizes the nature of war as such that sometimes those who are not involved are killed. This is true as long as the battle is carried out according to international law.

4. All the more so is it not considered murder when the enemy himself is responsible for purposely placing the citizens in harm's way. Once they do so, the situation becomes their responsibility and liability, and we have no obligation to refrain from military operations to "save Israel from the hand of its enemies." It continues to be incumbent upon the government to protect its own citizens' lives, even in the face of the fear that innocents will be harmed – as Rav Yisraeli concludes: "because they, not we, brought about this situation, and we are free of sin."

Let us conclude with a call to honest and upright jurists, who do not employ a "double ethical standard," to formulate their stance on the following question: 

"Who is considered an innocent civilian in a society in which the majority voted for war criminals to stand at their helm and whose every action is taken for the stated goal of wiping out a neighboring country, quite in contrast with international law?"

[Note: Today, in 2024, we may also ask these experts whether non-combatant civilians are considered "innocent" when it is known that in every home are weapons, maps of "Palestine" with no trace of Israel, and other materials of incitement, and that the actual fighters are encouraged and cheered on not only by their families, but also by the general populace.]

Ki Tisa: Moshe on Mt. Sinai: First Get to Work!

by Rav Yehuda Roth, Yeshivat Beit El, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

This week's Torah portion of Ki Tisa (Sh'mot 30,11-34,35) tells the famous and momentous story of the sin of the Golden Calf, followed by Moshe's smashing of the first set of Luchot HaBrit, Tablets of the Covenant. 

We also find here that Moshe asks G-d: "Please show me Your glory" (33,18). Hashem agrees in principle, but stipulates that He can show him only His back, not His front. 

The Torah does not state straight out that G-d in fact showed Moshe His glory. However, it can be implied that this is what happened later on when the Torah tells us: "G-d passed by before Moshe's countenance" (34,6), and told him the 13 Attributes of Mercy (verses 6-7). This follows also from the next verse, which tells us that "Moshe hurried and bowed his head and prostrated himself." That is, here is where Moshe saw the great revelation of G-d's presence, and for this he bowed down. (The verses at the end of Chapter 33 tell us only that G-d told Moshe what was to happen, not that it happened.)

A few verses earlier, G-d commanded Moshe to fashion a second set of Tablets and to bring them up to the mountain. And here we ask: Why was this command issued to Moshe precisely here, between his request to see G-d's glory and the actual fulfillment, even if only partial, of this request? What is the essential connection between the second set of Tablets and G-d's revelation to Moshe?

Much can be said and explained about the difference(s) between the two sets of Tablets. Here, however, let us just say in short that the first set was on a high level of Divine revelation, and that mankind had nothing to do with making them. Rather, the assignment to man was simply to take from these Tablets as much as possible on his level. In the event, the illumination of these Tablets was so great that Israel was unable to receive any of it, and the Tablets were broken.

The second set, however, are on a level of human activity. It was one of mortal work, of building and constructing and ascending, adapted to a human level. As such, it need not be broken, and can exist in our world, "as is." How do we know this? Because G-d told Moshe that he himself must make the second Tablets! "Carve out two tablets for yourself," G-d told Moshe (34,1). 

The first set, therefore, was made by G-d, while the second set was sculpted by Moshe Rabbeinu. This critical difference expresses the distinction that we stated: Tablets fashioned by Moshe have a human touch and are connected to our mortal world. In addition, the work required to make them symbolizes the work that is necessary for us to climb up from one spiritual level to another. 

Moshe had asked to see G-d's glory, to attain an understanding of Divinity. G-d answers him with a hint as to what is necessary: "I will allow you to see My glory, but first you must 'carve out for yourself' a set of Tablets. First you must work with the spiritual vessels at your disposal, and only then will you be able to merit attaining a level of knowledge of G-d."

Emuna: To Live a New Life!

by Rav Yosef Naveh, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

With Purim only a month away, let us discuss a topic that has more to do with Purim than is generally thought: Teshuva, repentance. 

The renowned Sfat Emet (the Gerrer Rebbe, R. Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter, d. 1905) compares two types of teshuva: When we repent in the month of Elul, in preparation for the High Holy Days, it stems from fear and awe of the Day of Judgement – but during Adar, the month of Purim, the teshuva can be of happiness and love for G-d, as happened on the first Purim itself: "Israel reaffirmed their acceptance of the Torah during the days of Ahashverosh," the Talmud tells us, meaning that they received the Torah anew, of their own free will. 

The author of HaLekach v'HaLibuv (R. Avraham Schorr, nephew of Rosh Yeshivat Torah Vodaas Rav Gedaliah Schorr) cites a verse in B'reshit in which Yehuda says to his father, "If not that we delayed, we could have returned already [from Egypt] twice by now." He notes that the Hebrew for "if not" in the verse is lulei, which is "Elul" spelled in reverse, referring to fear-based teshuva. On the other hand, the word for "already" is zeh, spelled zayin heh, 12 in gematriya – an allusion to the 12th month of the year, Adar, in which our teshuva is love-based. 

The verse also says "twice," referring to the double value of love-based teshuva in that it turns sins into merits. Rabbi Schorr adds that the primary aspect of this type of teshuva is alluded to by yet a fourth word in this verse: atah, "now." That is, the teshuva must also be now-based, as he explains: 

"The way a Jew can overcome the husk of Amalek, may his name be blotted out, is by not thinking about the past at all – but only about now! For the Amalekite weakness is manifest in the force that tells us, "You can't serve G-d; you're a sinner, you have failed!" This raises doubts within us as to whether we can really do good – and Amalek and safek, doubt, are the same gematriya. On the other hand, the opposite of safek is vadai, whose gematriya is the same as that of G-d's name Ehyeh, which literally means "I will be," – or, "From now on, I invite myself to 'be.'" That is, one must see only the future and try to do good, and not look back at what was." 

The Moharosh, the Rebbe of Yavne'el near Tiberias, explains this point in his inimitably straightforward manner: "The main point of complete teshuva is to forget the past totally, as if you have no past, and to begin from scratch a new life! Think that from now on, 'I will start anew to be a Jew, to study Torah, to fulfill the mitzvot, to pray to G-d… And when a person forgets his past, he can then make progress in his life…" 

Rav Y.M. Charlop writes that Purim is a time in which we have the potential to attain great spiritual depths in Torah and spirituality. In this connection, let us consult an interesting – but unfinished! – passage by Rabbe Nachman of Breslov: 

"For at first, all the beginnings were on Pesach, and that's why all the mitzvot are as a memento of the Exodus, zekher liy'tziat Mitzrayim. But now – [and he did not finish]."  

What does it mean that he didn't finish? Two explanations have been offered. Reb Nosson, the Breslover Rebbe's primary student, said that he understands from other writings of the Rebbe that he meant to say that whereas Pesach used to mark the beginnings, now Purim has taken on that role (as alluded do in the first letters of five consecutive words in Sh'mot 23,15 having to do with leaving Egypt, which spell out "Purim"). 

The other explanation, by R. Levi Yitzchak Bender, of saintly blessed memory, takes a different approach, based on the Rebbe's teaching regarding the war with Amalek. Moshe told Yehoshua, "Go out to battle with Amalek tomorrow" (17,9) – because Amalek stands for "postponement," for "procrastination." The power of Amalek gives us thoughts such as, "I'll do it tomorrow, not today! I'll start serving G-d better tomorrow, I'll study tomorrow, etc. etc." But the Rebbe teaches that what we need for true service of G-d is precisely the opposite; the way to beat Amalek is to do it "now!" We should do a mitzvah now, and start our new spiritual path now. It doesn't matter what was; now is the time to start revealing what we really want; do it now!

This, then, is what is meant by "he, the Rebbe, didn't finish" – because there is no end to new beginnings! Begin now! The goal is to do and to want and to please G-d more and more. Don’t be weak in your own eyes, but rather know that with even the smallest act or littlest desire, you can sanctify G-d's name. As Maimonides taught, one should always imagine that the world is on the scales, and the worthy and unworthy parts are perfectly balanced – and your next little act of goodness can make the difference and tip the scales for goodness!

Reb Nosson also writes that Purim is like pirurim, crumbs; just as we gather crumbs, we should also snatch up our good points, no matter how small, and realize how important they are. Thus a person will build himself up, step by step, and also attain true happiness. 

Tetzave: In the Holy Temple: Garments of Honor and Glory

by Rav Moshe Leib HaCohen Halbershtat, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

This week's Torah portion of Tetzaveh (Sh'mot 27,20-30,10) discusses, inter alia, the priestly garments worn by the Priests in the portable Tabernacle, and later in the Holy Temple. It is the only portion in the Torah (not including Genesis) that does not mention Moshe Rabbeinu by name, although his presence is strongly felt throughout the portion because of all the actions in which he is involved for the Tabernacle (as per Rabbi Eliyahu KiTov). 

For instance, Moshe is commanded: "You shall make holy garments for your brother Aharon [the High Priest] for honor and for beauty" (28,2). Let us discuss these garments.

The Holy Temple is the source of the spirit of the Nation of Israel. It was to there that the nation ascended on the three annual festivals from all over the country to see and partially participate in the Divine service. There they watched the Priests in their service, heard the Levites in their sacred song and music, and experienced the spiritual uplift that would then accompany them throughout the year. It was to there that they gathered on Sukkot every seven years for the majestic and inspiring Hak'hel ceremony. Presiding over the Temple proceedings were the Cohanim (priests), whose job was to influence and teach Israel the ways of Torah and sanctity (D'varim 33,10). 

G-d commanded Moshe to fashion the High Priest's garments out of only the best: gold, beautifully colored wool, and fine linen, adorned with gold, precious stones, luxurious bells, and more. In addition, the High Priest was to wear a sash, turban, ephod, and more, all from the finest and most luxurious materials. 

All this raises a strong question: Fancy expensive clothing would seem to be the height of flashy materialism. What type of example can the Priests give to the nation amidst all this extravagance? Is this how the people will learn to suffice with less and choose spirituality and Torah over physical lusts? Would it not have been more appropriate for the People of Israel to see Aharon and his priestly sons serving in holiness wearing simple white clothing that radiate purity and spirit?

To understand this, let us look back at the first appearance of clothing in the Torah: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and not ashamed… The woman took from the fruit [of the Tree of Knowledge] and ate, and gave to her husband as well, and he ate. Their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked and they … made themselves loincloths… G-d made for them coats of skin and clothed them." (B'reshit 2-3)  

What changed suddenly in the middle of this story? Why were they not bothered by their nakedness before they ate of the forbidden fruit, while immediately afterwards, they became both aware and ashamed of it?  

R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843–1926), in his classic Bible commentary Meshekh Chokhmah (B'reshit 12,7), explains that Adam, before his sin, was a pure and bright substance, separated by nothing from the vision of G-d's glory. This is why he went naked, for he was on a level on which even his nakedness aroused no lust or evil; it was equivalent to where one places his tefillin. But when he ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he turned into coarse matter, distinct from the truths that he had attained and from closeness to G-d; his substance was filled with evil forces resulting in lust, anger, vengeance, and the like. When he and Chava (Eve) sensed this and realized that their purity had turned into impurity, they knew that they were naked.

At this point, Adam realized he had to wear clothing, so that he could once again rise up and attain truth and closeness to G-d. This teaches us that clothing are a means by which to reveal our inner truth and spirituality. To the extent that our body is not covered, it interferes with and impedes that goal, while covering it allows our soul and spirit and true personality to emerge and function. 

We are bidden to "honor" the Sabbath, including by wearing special Sabbath garments. "Clothes make the man" in the sense that they honor him; special Sabbath clothing reveal his spirituality by which he honors the Sabbath. 

Similarly, the grand garments worn by the Priests "for honor and for beauty" were designed to reveal the inner content of the priestly service in the Holy Temple. They did not wear these clothes outside the Temple, but only for and during the service. 

Each garment symbolized another aspect of the inner content of the Temple service. The Sages derive that just like the sacrifices atone for our sins, so do the Priestly garments: The breastplate atones for the judges; the ephod vest expiates idolatry; the cloak atones for public slander; the tunic redresses bloodshed; the turban atones for rudeness; the sash atones for unacceptable thoughts; the golden headdress atones for brazenness; and the pants atone for immorality and for walking to commit a sin. The Children of Israel lived with this, and learned from these beautiful garments both knowledge and fear of G-d.

We thus learn from Parashat Tetzaveh an important principle regarding the essence of clothing and their function in honoring a person and revealing his inner truth that is otherwise concealed by the physical. 

Emuna: Israel's International Relations in the Bible

by Rav Avraham Vasserman, Yeshivat Ramat Gan, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

What does the Bible tell us about political alliances? It tells us that they can have some benefits, but that we must not rely on them. 

Let us start with the Prophets. They are not against diplomatic ties, but they most definitely oppose the idea that an alliance or treaty with a particular country or super-power will bring us salvation. On the contrary: An alliance of this nature leads to loss of faith in G-d and to the drifting away from Torah life. This is because our ally gains the ability to influence us both spiritually and culturally. 

But the problem is political as well. We occasionally hear things like, "Our relationship with the United States has never been better," or, "The U.S. is our 'best friend forever.'" There was even one leader who said that we and the U.S. "have an intimate relationship." Those who say such things ignore the well-known rule of international relations coined by Charles de Gaulle: "Nations don't have friends - only interests."

They also ignore Israel's relatively short history as a state, during which we have felt first-hand the wishy-washiness of friendships with more than a few countries. France, for instance, was our good friend up until the Six Day War, when it turned its back on us. The U.S. was hostile towards us just before we established our state, pressuring us heavily not to declare independence – and only afterwards began to support us.  

We must also not forget that during our War of Independence, we received our needed weapons not from the West, but from eastern European Communist nations. The USSR had no relations with us for many years, until suddenly its interests determined that developing diplomatic ties with Israel was a good idea. There is no reason to assume that the Russians suddenly began to appreciate the Bible and its endorsement of the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. Rather, they saw that we could be their key to the Western economies. Things change by the minute in international diplomacy.

One of the most important lessons of the Holocaust is that we must never depend on other nations when it comes to our own survival. Let us recall the apathy of the United States towards the destruction of European Jewry in the 1940's. Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, said at the time: "Future historians will find in Jewish history two things that they will not be able to believe: the murder of the millions, and the apathy of the Western world to it."

This is nothing new. All of our Prophets warned us against relying on treaties with other countries. Most unfortunately, too many kings during the First Temple period ignored them, and suffered the consequences. Even King Solomon erred in this regard, marrying Pharaoh's daughter in order to forge an alliance with the Egyptian power. How bitterly ironic it was that the royal dynasty in Egypt was soon overthrown, and Shlomo's wife, and Shlomo with her, became enemies of the Egyptian regime overnight. The new Pharaoh even gave refuge to Shlomo's adversary Yerovam – soon to become the first king of the breakaway kingdom – when he first began his rebellion against Shlomo. That is to say, it was precisely the coalition that Shlomo made with Egypt that brought about the unwanted result.

Some 200 years later, several kings after Yerovam, King Hoshea ben Elah forged a covenant with Egypt against the powerful kingdom of Assyria (Ashur). When the Assyrians in fact attacked Israel, Egypt did not lift a finger to help us – and the Ten Tribes were exiled, up to this very day. 

Tzidkiyahu, too – the last king of the Davidic dynasty – fell into the trap of allying with Egypt, against the counsel and warnings of the Prophet Yirmiyahu. When Judea rebelled against Bavel, Egypt again sat on the sidelines – and the kingdom of Judea was overthrown and 70 years of exile began. This is why Egypt is known as a "leaning staff of a broken reed" (Kings II 18,21). 

But it wasn't only Egypt. While Hoshea was allying with Egypt, King Achaz of Judea was working out a deal with Assyria. Initial results were positive for Judea, but, as mentioned, it led to the catastrophe of the exile of our Ten Tribes, and also to the conquest by "friendly" Assyria of large parts of Judea. Under the reign of Achaz's son Chizkiyahu, Judea was nearly wiped out; only the miraculous defeat of Sancheriv's tremendous army prevented this. This is why the Prophet Hoshea says (14,1-4): "Return, o Israel, to Hashem your G-d… Assyria will not save us, we will not ride upon horses [a reference to Egypt, the land of war horses]." We must return to, and rely only upon, our G-d.

Later on, Yirmiyahu rebuked his generation (2,18): "And now, why are you going to Egypt to drink the water of the Shihor and what have you to do in the way of Assyria to drink the river's water?"  Even what appears at first to be a beneficial treaty with positive results – when it becomes a relationship of dependence and cancellation of our own judgements, the results are calamitous. This is what happened with Chizkiyahu, who developed an alliance with Bavel after the miraculous defeat of Ashur – but the Prophet Yeshayahu told him even then that the time will come when Bavel will destroy the Beit HaMikdash. This of is exactly what happened, despite the early years of a beneficial alliance.

Were the prophets opposed to all diplomatic ties? Not at all. Even military cooperation was not necessarily frowned upon. But they most definitely did oppose absolute reliance on alliances with others. They taught that this approach is not only politically wrong, but also means cultural reliance upon them, leading to a loss of faith in G-d and a drifting away from Torah. This is what happened with King Shlomo when his wives' negative influences brought idol-worship to his kingdom. Other kings, too, were influenced by the pagan practices of the countries with which they forged covenants. 

This is of course true today with our own reliance upon the Americans. We have long seen how the perversions of American culture have infiltrated us and gained a stronghold.  One of the reasons is that we depend on their political and economic strength. This reliance also prevents us from fulfilling the great Torah mitzvah of holding on to our Land. We must know that our salvation comes only and exclusively through G-d, and that our political and military success depends only on His love and support for us.

When Israel functions in the light of the teachings of the Prophets, it will be totally independent, free of the yoke of others, trusting in its G-d, and developing its own strengths. It will forge international ties based on a position of strength, and with its spiritual and existential interests as a supreme value. This approach is the correct one even practically, for it frees us from being subjugated to the "stronger" country. May we have the foresight, vision, and faith in G-d to adopt it!