Free Survey for new Jewish Leadership in Israel
Free Survey for new Jewish Leadership in Israel
Ariel your Representee, Representee of Ephraim and adviser (not a rabbi but friendly adviser) of Bet Yisrael international on the Har HaBayit.
Please read first the whole story on the end you see the link: 'Free Survey for new Jewish Leadership in Israel'
Government approves hostage deal with Hamas after seven-hour debate:
The deal with the devil! 33 (dead or alive?) for more than 2000 murders to be freed in Yudea, Samaria and Jerusalem!
There is nothing honorable of this government!!
7-10-2023 came on us and so this 'Surrender-to-Hamas deal......'
'Our Ministers are Sending 380 Israelis to Their Deaths' click: https://rebrand.ly/82rg0s5 with this deal!
It is like the past 'deals', a deal with the devil! Every deal brought dead-misery!
Dear fellow Jews Stand Up! Let the world and our leaders know: You have to stop and all of you (our leaders) go home!
You have no right to put this on us!
We desire real Jewish Leadership.
It really exists and we (the Jews) have the power to call up real good Jewish Leaders.
To establish a good Jewish High Court and a good Jewish Government! We have to ask HaShem, on the Har HaBayit, forgiveness and asking help from HaShem to start with good Leadership, like we did it under HaMeleg/Messiah David.......
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hajj Amin al-Husayni: The Mufti of JerusalemMuhammad Amin al-Husayni (189?-1974) was the Mufti (chief Muslim Islamic legal religious authority) of Jerusalem under the political authority of the British Mandate in Palestine from 1921 to 1937. His primary political causes were:
In exile between 1937 and 1945, al-Husayni, claiming to speak for the Arab nation and the Muslim world, sought an alliance with the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) based on their publicly recognizing
In exchange, al-Husayni collaborated with the German and Italian governments by broadcasting pro-Axis, anti-British, and anti-Jewish propaganda via radio to the Arab world; inciting violence against Jews and the British authorities in the Middle East; and recruiting young men of Islamic faith for service in German military, Waffen-SS , and auxiliary units. In turn, the Germans and the Italians used al-Husayni as a tool to inspire support and collaboration among Muslim residents of regions under Axis control and to incite anti-Allied violence and rebellion among Muslims residing beyond the reach of German arms. Despite his collaboration, the Axis powers were unwilling to promote al-Husayni's political ambitions as he wished. As the Nazi regime collapsed in 1945, French authorities took al-Husayni into custody. He escaped to Egypt in 1946. Al-Husayni devoted the remainder of his life to supporting Palestinian nationalism and to agitating against the State of Israel. He continued to produce and disseminate anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel propaganda. He died in Beirut, Lebanon, on July 4, 1974.
A simple question with a complex answer. Until the late 19th century, the term Palestinian was used as a regional term. Residents living in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean identified themselves primarily in terms of religion: Muslims felt far stronger bonds with remote co-religionists than with nearby Jews and Christians. Living in that area did not imply any sense of common political purpose or sense of discrete peoplehood or nationhood. An identity as a people is one precursor to nationhood. And nationhood is the presence of common identity together with the three key elements of sovereignty, self-determination and self-sufficiency. The “Palestinians” have never had this, and they still don’t have it. The concept that such a people exists is being forced on the world to achieve a base political goal. In actual fact, the deliberate creation of the “Palestinian people” as a discrete entity in 1967, and the political group known as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 was for the political purpose of destroying a sovereign and legally mandated Jewish state. Till that point in time, nor, it will be shown, after that time, was there ever ANY sense or mention of a “Palestinian” people or nation. The term Palestinian was ALWAYS followed by a descriptive noun – Arab; ie Palestinian Arab. According to Palestinian historian Muhammad Y. Muslih, during the entire 400 year period of Ottoman rule (1517-1918), before the British set up the 30-year-long Palestine Mandate, “There was no political unit known as Palestine.” When the Islamic armies conquered the Levant, they adopted the administrative name used by the Byzantines and dubbed part of Palestina Prima (“the first Palestine”) – more or less today’s Jerusalem area and the Shfela [coastal plain] – as “Jund Filastin.” Jund means “army;” Jund Filastin means “the Palestine military command.” In other words, the name did not signify the national identity of a “Palestinian people” who lived in the land, but instead, a military district, in line with the Byzantine nomenclature. Until Israel was re-established as a nation in 1948, Palestine was the term for the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The word Palestinian was applied to anyone living in that area. As late as 1909 the first recorded Arab to use the term “Palestinian” was Farid Georges Kassab, a Beirut-based Orthodox Christian who, in 1909, espoused sympathy for Zionism. Kassab’s 1909 book stated that “the Orthodox Palestinian Ottomans call themselves Arabs, and are in fact Arabs.” Even Kassab decried the use of the term “Palestinian” Arab. Nevertheless, apart from the ancient indigenous Jews in the Levant, the largely Muslim Arab population identified only as Arab and ONLY with the start of the British mandate, was the term used to describe both Jew and Arab. So, the term Palestinian did not take on its current popular meaning until the mid-20th century and was used as a regional reference. On a related tangent, in 1948, the invasion of Israel by 6 pan-Arab armies had NOTHING to do with creating an Arab Palestinian state but ALL to do with a classic imperialist Muslim scramble for Palestinian territory. Had they succeeded, as the first secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, admitted to a British reporter, Transjordan “was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine with access to the Mediterranean at Gaza. The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to Lebanon.” Had Israel lost the war, its territory would have been divided among the invading Arab forces. The name Palestine would have vanished into the dustbin of history. So, are the “Palestinians” an invented people for purely political (anti-semitic) purposes? Well, even Mandate Palestinian Arab leaders during the British mandate era (1920-48) who, as products of the Ottoman imperial system where religion constituted the linchpin of the socio-political order of things, had no real grasp of the phenomenon of nationalism. Hence, they had no interest in the evolution of a distinct Palestinian nation, or acknowledging a Palestinian “people”, because there simply wasn’t one. As an example that there was no concept of “Palestinian” nationhood or peoplehood, the April 1920 pogrom in Jerusalem was not in the name of independence of the “Palestinian people” of the Mandate area, but under the demand for its incorporation into the (short-lived) Syrian kingdom, headed by Faisal ibn Hussein of Mecca…. In 1926, the Arab Executive Committee still referred to Palestine as the unlawfully severed southern part of “the one country of Syria, with its one population of the same language, origin, customs, and religious beliefs (emphasis mine), and its natural boundaries, as I pointed out earlier. In July 1937, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) justified its rejection of the Peel Commission’s recommendation for the partition of Palestine on the grounds that “this country does not belong only to [the] Palestine Arabs (that qualifying noun again….) but to the whole Arab and Muslim Worlds (emphasis mine).” And finally, as late as August 1947, three months before the passing of the U.N. resolution partitioning Mandate Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, the AHC’s mouthpiece, al-Wahda, advocated the incorporation of Palestine (and Transjordan) into “Greater Syria (emphasis mine).” No, there was no concept of a “Palestinian people” but rather, always one of Palestinian Arabs who were part of the wider Arab Muslim ummah. How did they then suddenly appear as homogeneous ethnic group in 1967 when not even the Arab High Commission had ever heard of them? There are undereducated misconceptions too that pan-Arabism was of no consequence in the dialogue surrounding the authenticity of the “Palestinian” “people”. This is untrue. Even the younger generation of post 1948 Arab activists supported this ideal as evidenced by Ahmad Shuqeiri, a Lebanon-born politician of mixed Egyptian, Hijazi, and Turkish descent who served as the Arab League’s deputy secretary-general. As he put it, “Palestine is part and parcel in the Arab homeland.” Asked to clarify which part of the “Arab homeland” this specific territory belonged, he added that Palestine “is nothing but southern Syria.” And so, it is no surprise that Yasser Arafat, the (Egyptian born and educated) father of the “Palestinian people” followed this pan-Arab line. The 1964 PLO charter defined the Palestinians as “an integral part of the Arab nation”, rather than a distinct nationality (emphasis mine) and vowed allegiance to the ideal of pan-Arab unity – that is, to Palestine’s eventual assimilation into “the greater Arab homeland.” In 1996, even that bastion which proclaims itself as the leader in the “struggle” for the Palestinian “people”, Hamas, said this, “Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state … In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state. … [Hence] our main goal is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic… This…land…is not the property of the Palestinians…. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world.” (senior Hamas leader Mahmud Zahar, 1996) And finally, on this line of reasoning, it is not possible to go past the words of Azmi Bishara, founding leader of the nationalist Balad Party (with seats in the Israeli parliament since 1999). In a statement he made in 2002 he said: “My Palestinian identity never precedes my Arab identity…. I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation, there is [only] an Arab nation…. “ Not much more needs to be said; the concept of a Palestinian “people” engaged in a struggle of “liberation” from a colonial Jewish “oppressor” is a purposely misleading one, invented solely for the purpose of de-legitimising the Jewish state and its people. The Levantine Arabs, up to and including 1948 , ALWAYS identified firstly on the basis of religion and secondly on the basis of ethnicity. Thus the Levant contained Christian ARABS, Muslim ARABS but only and always, Jews. In other words, the identity of those Arabs who today would like to be known as an ancient “Palestinian “people” have in actual fact NO distinguishing markers of a discrete peoplehood (ever) given that their identity is mostly based on shared customs and beliefs of their Arab Muslim brothers, ALL of them mediated by Islam. Till 1967, nobody had ever heard of the “Palestinians” as a people, let alone a “people” steeped in antiquity. Its subsequent use is merely a political tool to delegitimise the Jewish claim to what was left of the division of the British Mandate into two projected Arab Muslim entities and one Jewish one. However, there are those who will use meaningless terms like endogenesis and ethnogenesis in an attempt to pointlessly philosophise with words that have no concrete impact on the issue to hand. Besides, the concept of a homogeneous, ethnic and disparate “Palestinian people” (endo/ethno genesis) is frankly ludicrous when one considers that through centuries of Muslim imperialism right down to the end of Ottoman Empire in 1918, caliphs and other rulers brought in hundreds of thousands of soldier slaves loyal to their pay masters. The Tulunides brought in Turks and Negroes. The Fatamids introduced Berbers, Slavs, Greeks, Kurds, and mercenaries of all kinds. The Mamelukes imported legions of Georgians and Circassians. Saladin brought in 150,000 Persians who were given lands in Galilee and the Sidon district for their services. In the fourteenth century, 18,000 Yurate Tartars from the Euphrates were brought in, soon followed by 20,000 Ashiri and 4,000 Mongols who occupied the Jordan Valley and settled from Jerusalem south!! Mongols… In 1830, as a further example, Mehemet [Muhammad] Ali colonized Jaffa and Nablus (Jewish Schem before the arab invasion and occupation…) with Egyptian soldiers and their Sudanese allies. So much so that british estimates of the 13,000 inhabitants of Jaffa, for example, ran at 8,000 Turco-Egyptians, 4,000 Greeks and Armenians, and 1,000 Maronites. The british did not consider that there were any Arabs at all in that city. …. For her/his part, it would be a brave soul who would deny the constancy of the presence of the Jewish PEOPLE in the Levant over the past 3,000 years. No, the whole concept of a “Palestinian people” is a base political strategy invented not to build a state but to destroy a neighbouring one. For this reason, many who are knowledgeable on this issue will continue to say they are an invented “people”. Today, while the term Palestinian is applied to the Arabic-speaking residents of what is largely the State of Israel, this usage is purposely misleading because for most of human history, a “Palestinian” was simply a person born or living in that land with no connotation of being a “people”. When used in reference only to non-Jews, it implies an historical claim to the territory in opposition to Israel. In reality, the concept of Palestine as a nation-state in opposition to Israel or as a racial group ( a “people”) predating the presence of Jewish inhabitants is historically false and is currently pushed as part of a broader strategy of delegitimising Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. The tactic of the myth of a “Palestinian people” is simple yet sophisticated: preaching and dispersing lies and distortions of reality. History proves that the bigger the lie and the more common its reiteration, the more it is accepted as authentic and genuine. After all, who can believe that an entire national leadership would dare to totally distort and fabricate history in full? But the notion of a “Palestinian people” has been forced on Europe and America through the ploy of telling all players what they want to hear. To a guilty Europe, where there is a high level of guilt and remorse about its own colonialist past, the creation of Israel is pitched as an excess of a bygone European colonialist era where Europe is directly blamed for the creation of the Jewish state. To the Americans, where many feel guilt and remorse over historic racism, the Palestinians depict Israel as a racist state, which treats them in the same way as African Americans were treated. And for the broader international community and for human rights organizations, Israel is a cruel occupier that violates all human rights and freedoms of the Palestinians. But no matter the myth of a Palestinian “people”, ANY Palestinian national identity is overwhelmingly founded, and heavily predicated, on the negation of Jewish and Israeli identity, rather than on positive attributes or real history. Arguably, the international community’s enabling and legitimizing of the wishes of a group of people with such an open hatred of a neighbouring sovereign state may be down to simple things: Oil, wilful naiveté, anti-semitism, and a politically correct unwillingness to offer any challenge to such falsehoods. In the end though, it matters little. The modern re-constituted Jewish State of Israel and the Jewish people are celebrating 71 years of existence as contributing members of the family of nations; without the need to revise, falsify or fabricate its 3000 year old history. The same cannot be said for the Palestinian “people”. Shabbat Shalom. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Alan Meyer is a retired educator with an interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict, photography and Australian road trips. Source: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-invention-of-the-palestinian-people/Kabbalah details the spiritual sources of Israel's enemies. Beginner From the teachings of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria; translated and edited by Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky This passage from the Arizal's writings is a continuation of the previous installment on this parasha - see The Magician and the Sorcerer. And Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted [because of the Israelites]. (Num. 22:3) ...the Jews themselves who lived in that generation...whose souls were sparks of Moses'…. The [mystical] explanation of this is as follows: There were two types of [people that made up] Israel [in that generation]. The first was the Jews themselves who lived in that generation, the source of whose souls were sparks of Moses' [soul] who in turn derived from Abel. (This is explained in our exposition on the generation of the desert on the verse, "And a new king arose over Egypt.") The second type [of people] was the Mixed Multitude, who are referred to in Scripture simply as "the people", without any qualifier. (Ex. 32:7, Rashi; Likutei Sichot, vol. 16, pp. 408 ff) They derived from the evil aspect of Cain, as explained above. It is with reference to them that it is written, "And Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous." This refers to the Mixed Multitude, who are described as "numerous". The literal meaning of the words translated as "Mixed Multitude" [in Hebrew, "erev rav"] is "a numerous mixture". The phrase "the people, for they were numerous", therefore quite clearly refers to the Mixed Multitude. The narrative then goes on to say that "Moab became disgusted because of the Israelites," referring to the Jews themselves, who were derived from Abel. The literal meaning of the words translated as "the Israelites" (benei Yisrael) is "the children [or 'descendants'] of Israel", i.e. of Jacob; this refers only to the direct descendants of Jacob as opposed to Moses' converts. "[And Moab said to the elders of Midian, 'Now this assembly will eat up everything around us] as the ox eats up the greens of the field.'" (Num. 22:4) An ox that has been established legally as a goring ox derives from the evil of Esau, who is the "black ox" mentioned in the Sages' teachings. (Berachot 33a) The union of Zeir Anpin and Nukva…produces the grass of the earth, the souls that issue from this union…. Once an ox gores other animals three times unprovoked, it is legally classified as a "goring ox" and its owner becomes liable for full damages it causes instead of just half. (Ex. 21:35-36) In discussing under what dangerous circumstances a person may interrupt his prayers in order to flee for safety, the Sages said that "If an ox's head is in a [fodder] basket, go up to a roof and kick the ladder away from underneath you," i.e. get as far away as possible, for the ox will not take kindly to anyone it perceives as interrupting it from its meal. "Samuel said: 'This applies only to a black ox in the month of Nisan, because then the Satan is dancing between his horns.'" Rashi says on this: "Because the days of autumn have passed, when the land is dry, and the ox now sees it full of greenery, it gets high-spirited and the evil inclination enters it." No longer having to worry about food, the ox becomes mischievous, so it is better to stay away from it. In any case, we see here that the image of a "black ox" is a particularly threatening type of evil, associated with the evil inclination, which in turn is often personified as Esau. Translated and adapted by Moshe-Yaakov Wisnefsky from Shaar HaPesukim, Likutei Torah, and Sefer HaLikutim; subsequently published in "Apples From the Orchard." Reprinted with permission from Chabad of California. Copyright 2004 by Chabad of California, Inc. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work or portions thereof, in any form, without permission, in writing, from Chabad of California, Inc. From the teachings of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria; translated and edited by Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky Rabbi Yitzchak Luria […Ashkenazi ben Shlomo] (5294-5332 = 1534-1572 c.e.); Yahrtzeit (anniversary of death): 5th of Av. Buried in the Old Cemetery of Tzfat. Commonly known as the Ari, an acronym standing for Eloki Rabbi Yitzchak, the G-dly Rabbi Isaac. No other master or sage ever had this extra letter Aleph, standing for Eloki [G-dly], prefaced to his name. This was a sign of what his contemporaries thought of him. Later generations, fearful that this appellation might be misunderstood, said that this Aleph stood for Ashkenazi, indicating that his family had originated in Germany, as indeed it had. But the original meaning is the correct one, and to this day among Kabbalists, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria is only referred to as Rabbenu HaAri, HaAri HaKadosh [the holy Ari] or Arizal [the Ari of blessed memory]. Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky is a scholar, writer, editor and anthologist living in Jerusalem. He is a co-founder of Ascent Institute of Safed and one of the first contributing writers for KabbalaOnline.org. He has produced two monumental works: "Apples from the Orchard: Arizal on the Weekly Torah and a Chumash translation with commentary based on the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Kehot).Kabbalah details the spiritual sources of Israel's enemies. Advanced From the teachings of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria; translated and edited by Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky This passage from the Arizal's writings is a continuation of Mystical Roots of Evil - Part 1. It "eats up the greens of the field". (Num. 22:4) This refers to the souls that issue from the supernal coupling, i.e. from the "field that G‑d blessed". (Gen. 27:27) This is why they said "the field", with the definite article. When Jacob appeared before Isaac disguised as Esau, in order to receive his blessings, Isaac said, "Behold, my son's fragrance is like that of the field that G‑d blessed." Rashi says this means that Isaac recognized on Jacob's garments the fragrance of the Garden of Eden (which he remembered from when he was temporarily there when he was almost slaughtered). Thus, "the field that G‑d blessed" is the Garden of Eden, or in Kabbalistic terms, the sefira of malchut. In this imagery, holy souls are the "grass" that grows in the "holy field". The union of Zeir Anpin and Nukva, which is often allegorized as the fertilization of the earth by the rain of heaven, produces the grass of the earth, the souls that issue from this union. This is also alluded to by the fact that the numerical value of the word for "the field" [in Hebrew, "hasadeh" = 314] is the same as that of the name Sha-dai, alluding to the supernal righteous one, who is also called "the soul of all life", from which all souls take flight. "Hasadeh" is spelled: hei-sin-dalet-hei = 5 + 300 + 4 + 5 = 314. "Sha-dai"is spelled: shin-dalet-yud = 300 + 4 + 10 = 314. The name Sha-dai…is associated with sexuality…. The name Sha-dai is associated with the sefira of yesod, which in turn is associated with sexuality, the area of life that serves as the basic test of righteousness. Thus, the Moabites complained to the Midianites that the Jews threatened to wipe them out, just as evil threatens to annihilate the holy souls produced by the holy union of Zeir Anpin and Nukva. They saw themselves as the good ones and the Jews as the embodiment of evil. [Balak] sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Petor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "…please come and curse this people for me." (Num. 22:5) Balaam's power was sorcery, for he derived from the enveloping breath, and [therefore] his power was solely in his mouth. As explained previously, Balaam derived from Abel, whose Hebrew name (Hevel) means "breath". But Balak derived from Cain, who personified action. As explained previously, Cain is derived from Imma, which is expressed in action, as opposed to Abba, which is expressed in thought. He was therefore a magician, for he derived from the states of gevura [in the] arms, the hands, and the fingers, and that is why it is written "with magic [tokens] in their hands." (Ibid. 22:7) As mentioned previously, Balak's emissaries came to Balaam with magic instruments, so that he not be able to refuse on account of not having the right tools. The implication of the verse's phraseology is that magic is something done with the hands, as opposed to sorcery, which is more a matter of incantations and charms, uttered with the mouth. Inasmuch as he derived ultimately from Imma, Balak was associated with the axis of gevura. Both chesed and gevura are associated anatomically with the arms, hands, and fingers - chesed with the right and gevura with the left. Balak wanted Balaam - who personified breath, which is the encompassing light, signified by the name Eh-yeh - to curse them from his source in which he was rooted. Therefore the name Eh-yeh is alluded to twice [in this passage]: the first as the initials of the words for "the ox the greens of the field", and the second as the final letters of the words for "please come and curse for me". (Ibid.22:6) Both of these letter-sequences are permutations of the name Eh-yeh, which has twelve permutations, as is known. The encompassing light is higher and more powerful, but the inner light permeates more thoroughly…. "The ox the greens of the field" in Hebrew is "hashor et yerek hasadeh"; the initial letters of these words are hei-alef-yud-hei. "Please come and curse for me" is "lechah na arah li"; the final letters of these words are hei-alef-hei-yud. Although the name Eh-yeh is composed of four letters, and should therefore have 24 permutations (4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24), two of its letters are the same (the two hei's), and there are therefore only 12 unique permutations. Balaam, on the other hand, wanted to curse them from [the spiritual source of] Balak, who was rooted in the Inner Light, signified by the name Havayah. Therefore three permutations of the name Havayah are alluded to in the words of Balaam, all in reverse order: The first is the final letters of the words for "Lodge here for the night, and I will give you an answer…" (Ibid. 22:8) The Hebrew for these words is "linu poh halailah vehashivoti", the final letters of which are vav-hei-hei-yud. The second is the final letters of the words for "Come and curse them for me". (Ibid. 22:11) The Hebrew for these words is lechah kavah li oto, the final letters of which are hei-hei-yud-vav. The third is the final letters of the words for "[to do] either good or evil on my own." (Ibid. 24:13) The Hebrew for these words is "tovah o ra'ah milibi", the final letters of which are hei-vav-hei-yud. This explanation accords with what I have told you in connection with how the sefirot are called in the world of Beriya. There, [the sefirot] are known by the permutations of the names Eh-yeh and Havayah. And since it is from the world of Beriya on down that the powers of evil begin to have dominion, [Balaam] therefore wanted to curse them from there. As explained in the previous installment, Balak derives from the lights of Imma in Leah's heels, while Balaam derives from the lights of Abba in Rachel's keter. Thus, Balak is an inner light and Balaam is an encompassing light. The encompassing light is higher and more powerful, but the inner light permeates more thoroughly. Each party therefore wanted to curse the Jews with the other's qualities. Translated and adapted by Moshe-Yaakov Wisnefsky from Shaar HaPesukim, Likutei Torah, and Sefer HaLikutim; subsequently published in "Apples From the Orchard." Reprinted with permission from Chabad of California. Copyright 2004 by Chabad of California, Inc. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work or portions thereof, in any form, without permission, in writing, from Chabad of California, Inc. From the teachings of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria; translated and edited by Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky Rabbi Yitzchak Luria […Ashkenazi ben Shlomo] (5294-5332 = 1534-1572 c.e.); Yahrtzeit (anniversary of death): 5th of Av. Buried in the Old Cemetery of Tzfat. Commonly known as the Ari, an acronym standing for Eloki Rabbi Yitzchak, the G-dly Rabbi Isaac. No other master or sage ever had this extra letter Aleph, standing for Eloki [G-dly], prefaced to his name. This was a sign of what his contemporaries thought of him. Later generations, fearful that this appellation might be misunderstood, said that this Aleph stood for Ashkenazi, indicating that his family had originated in Germany, as indeed it had. But the original meaning is the correct one, and to this day among Kabbalists, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria is only referred to as Rabbenu HaAri, HaAri HaKadosh [the holy Ari] or Arizal [the Ari of blessed memory]. Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky is a scholar, writer, editor and anthologist living in Jerusalem. He is a co-founder of Ascent Institute of Safed and one of the first contributing writers for KabbalaOnline.org. He has produced two monumental works: "Apples from the Orchard: Arizal on the Weekly Torah and a Chumash translation with commentary based on the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Kehot).
|
Hamas Celebrates Ceasefire Deal in Gaza, and With Good Reason
click https://rebrand.ly/bnemsap Follow the link to fill out the Survey: 'Free Survey for new Jewish Leadership in Israel' It is depending on how many people fill out the form and also what you fill in, answer to the different questions. What we can do is praying and studying. And if there are many people who fill out the Survey, I like to start a forum discussion based on the answers in the Survey. Every week I like to go to the Har HaBayit to let you Pray with us....... And soon when we fix it good, we do life streaming from the Har HaBayit. So that everyone can Pray with us from wherever you are in our world.The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Beit Yisrael International.Become a member.Get the MemberShip from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic/Lost Tribes of Efrayim/‘Ger Toshav‘: Israelite by accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Chasidut, the teachings of CHaBaD, hearing and doing.)
Click: Beit yisrael international
Until........:
Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.and He shall lead: the exiles within it.with shoes: on dry land.16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Together we Triumphby Gal Einai February 28, 2024
"And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moav; and the children of Amon shall obey them."(Isaiah 11:14)This verse refers to the days of Mashiach, when the Nation of Israel will defeat all its surrounding enemies. The verse is particularly relevant to us today, while we are fighting in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is the ancient “land of the Philistines.” Today’s “Palestinians” are the Arabs who live in Gaza, on Israel’s western flank, on the sea.To defeat the Philistines, we have to be united, as is written in the same prophecy about the ingathering of the distant members of the Nation of Israel and the unity between Judah and Efraim. “And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west.” Rashi explains: “Israel will fly and run with one shoulder upon the Philistines who are in the west of the Land of Israel and will conquer their land.” We have to be “with one shoulder” – united, shoulder-to-shoulder. Today, we can also add that “And they shall fly down” can be understood literally as the defeat of the Palestinians with Israel’s air force. Our soldiers will spread their wings and fly to destroy the enemy and assist the ground forces in their conquest of Gaza.We receive the power of “one shoulder” from Joseph, who is buried in Shechem (In Hebrew, Shechem is both the name of the city and means “shoulder”). Shechem is the city of the covenant, as we say in Psalms 80:2 “The shepherd of Israel, listen, He Who leads Joseph like a flock – appear, He Who is enthroned upon the cherubs.” (And in gematriah, עפו = יוסף: “shall fly” equals “Joseph”).The concept of “one shoulder” is connected to the ultimate Messianic purpose of rectification of the world, when all people will recognize God and the Torah of Moses: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of God, to serve Him with one shoulder.”[1] The current war in the land of the Philistines in the west, on the shores of the Great Sea, is particularly associated with the clarification and rectification of the Western world and Western culture, reaching to the US on the other side of the world.Triumph in the land of the Philistines is the realization of the promise in the Torah, “And I will place your border from the Red Sea until the Sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the river, for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.”[2] This is our map of the “New Middle East’: “From the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines” including the entire Sinai Peninsula. (Surrendering Sinai to Egypt 45 years ago was the root of all further surrenders and retreats). “From the desert to the river” – From the Sinai desert in the southwest until the Euphrates in the northeast. This includes the elimination of the combined threat from Syria-Iraq-Iran. And so in Isaiah’s prophecy, “together shall they spoil the children of the east” – the defeat of the enemies to the east (such as the hostile nations on the Arabian Peninsula). “…for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.” This is the directive and our mission: to create a new Middle East, to expel Israel’s enemies from the Land of Israel – and to extend Israeli rule and benevolence to those non-Jews who desire the status of foreign resident in Israel.[1] Tzephania 3:9.[2] Exodus 23:31.
We like to invite you to join our new social network where you shall find good Torah and News Updates from Yisrael even translated Israeli Newspapers articles click picture:
Blessings
Bet Yisrael International From Gaddi and Ariel, Many Blessings to all the ShneymAsarHaShevatim (Twelve Tribes) in the Golus, Shalom!
Comments
Post a Comment