Pre-State Israel: Jewish Claim To The Land Of Israel

Jewish Virtual Library

by Mitchell Bard

A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.

The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.

The term “Palestine” is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century A.D., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word “Filastin” is derived from this Latin name.

The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation’s capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. This is almost as long as Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.

When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called “the holy land” (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria” and that, “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.” A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel’s capture of the West Bank.

Israel’s international “birth certificate” was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.


Sources: Moshe Kohn, “The Arabs’ ‘Lie’ of the Land,” Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 1991); Avner Yaniv, PLO, (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Study Group of Middle Eastern Affairs, August 1974), p. 5; Encyclopaedia Judaica.

“This is the law of tzar’at”

newsletter-banner-new
 
“This is the law of tzar’at”
(Leviticus 14:57)
Iyar 4, 5781/April 16, 2021
This week’s double Torah reading of Tazria-Metzora deals exclusively with the subject of ritual purity and impurity, a very difficult concept for our modern minds to fully comprehend.
To make things even more obscure, following the opening verses concerning the birth of a baby boy or girl, the mother’s subsequent period of purification, concluding with the bringing of an offering to the Holy Temple, parashat Tazria-Metzora focuses exclusively on the even more obscure issue of tzar’at, a particular type of ritual impurity caused by the appearance of lesions upon one’s flesh, discoloration in one’s garments or a mold-like discoloration of the stones of one’s house.
What are we to make of this? That tzar’at, often mistranslated as leprosy, was a psychosomatic, or spiritual-somatic ailment is made clear by Torah’s assigning of the kohanim (Temple priests) to both diagnose and prescribe the ritual cure for the outbreak of the malady.
The cure involved immersion in pure waters and the bringing of an offering once the symptoms had disappeared and the the individual reentered into a state of purity.
Similar, but somewhat more extensive means were applied concerning a person whose garments or house became afflicted with tzar’at.
While certain aspects concerning ritual purity are still relevant to a modern Jewish lifestyle, the vast majority of the commandments concerning ritual purity are no longer applicable, by virtue of the fact that the Holy Temple is currently not standing.
Naturally, being deprived of the actual application of these laws of purity for two thousand years has made them much more foreign to our modern sensibilities, much more difficult to grasp intellectually. What does Torah intend by the terms tahara (purity) and tum’a (impurity)?
Note that Torah doesn’t employ an equivalent of our modern qualifier “ritual” in discussing purity. The modern use of the word ritual in this context is merely an admission of a lack of true understanding.
In the Torah mindset tahara and tum’a are two very real realities unto themselves.
To put it simply, to be tahor, (in a state of tahara) is to be connected to the life giving force of the Creator. To be ta’mei, (in a state of tum’a) is to be disconnected from G-d’s life giving energy.
The Holy Temple is the place on earth of the highest level of purity.
It is there where G-d’s Presence, known as Shechinah, is greatest on earth. This is why we cannot enter into the inner Temple courtyards unless we have been sprinkled by the waters of the ashes of the red heifer, which render us pure of any impurity contracted through contact with death.
Clearly, we aspire to be pure, to be connected to HaShem, and as close to His Presence as possible.
When the woman with whom parashat Tazria-Metzora opens, gives birth, she is rendered impure, due to the fact that her body has been temporarily rendered unable to produce new life, thus creating a temporary disconnect from G-d’s life giving force.
The new mother’s impurity is not a negative reflection of her, neither morally nor spiritually, G-d forbid, but a physiological reality into which she has temporarily entered. Her subsequent period of waiting the prescribed amount of days and immersing in the pure waters of a mikvah, returns her to her former state of purity.
Our natural state is to be connected to G-d’s life generating energy and therefore pure.
Impurity is a temporary disconnect from this reality that can be readily rectified via the Torah prescribed remedies discussed above.
As for the mysterious tzar’at, a phenomenon which seems to have passed from the world many thousands of years ago, what was it all about?
Identifiable by physical symptoms, it nevertheless was a spiritual malady, which, according to what we have learned, was somehow brought on by a disconnect to the life force? How so?
Our sages teach us that tzar’at was the result of lashon hara – evil speech – speaking negatively of others, being careless, insensitive and hurtful in how we speak of others, either to their faces, behind their backs, or, today, on social media.
To speak ill of someone, Torah tells us, is a form of murder by diction – character assassination.
Once upon a time, the speaker of lashon hara would come down with a case of tzar’at. His use of evil speech would be immediately exposed, and shameful as that was, he or she was afforded a path back to purity and rehabilitation. Today, of course, it is much easier to “get away with” speaking ill of others.
But suddenly this archaic, ancient, extinct affliction known as tzar’at doesn’t seem quite so obscure or dubious.
For it makes explicit the power of language, the need to keep our sharp tongues sheathed and to speak only life affirming words of positivity.
For even necessary words of criticism can be couched positively. How the world might benefit today by a return of the tzar’at affliction, as a guard against evil speech. But even without the reappearance of tzar’at, we have the teachings of Torah and our sages to remind us that we need to be on the side of life and always in the life affirming presence of G-d, and must be ever so careful of every word which exits our lips. For in our words is the power of life and death. Let’s choose life – and guard our tongues!

The Divine Monarch

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

B’rashith 17.5-6 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

B’rashith 17.15-16 “And G-D said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.’

Shmoth 19.6 “and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’ ”

We see from these sources in the Torah that the Will of HaShem is a monarchy; a holy nation! Not a nation like all other nations as the people clamored for, before Navi Shemuel. 1 Samuel 8.18-20:

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the L-RD will not answer you in that day.’ 19 But the people refused to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said: ‘Nay; but there shall be a king over us; 20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.’

****

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

1 Chronicles 28.4 “Howbeit the L-RD, the G-D of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for He hath chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel; ….”

2 Chronicles 6.6 “But I have chosen Jerusalem so that My Name will be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ ”

Tehillim 78.70 “He chose David also His servant, And took him from the sheepfolds;….”

1 Samuel 16.1 “And the L-RD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”

The mitzvah is to appoint a king for HaShemwhom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….” HaShem chose David as King over all Israel, even as King David confirmed in 1 Chronicles 28.4.

As the Tanak pointedly states, the people chose Saul as King rather than allowing the prophet and high priest as agents for HaShem to choose a king (presumably through the Urim and Thumim)!

From 1 Samuel 16.1 (“… for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”) we see that the Tanak makes clear [that] the king chosen by G-D serves HaShem; as Tehillim 78.70 points out: “He chose David also His servant,…” and as 1 Samuel 13.14 points out, David was found by HaShem to be a “man after the heart of G-D:

1 Samuel 13.14 “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the L-RD hath sought him a man after His own heart, and the L-RD hath appointed him to be prince over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the L-RD commanded thee.’ “

R. Yossi and R. Yehuda, the Rambam (R. Moshe ben Maimon, 12th century, Egypt) and Sefer HaChinukh (author unknown, 13th century, Spain) and all those commentators who are of the opinion that there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, imply in their opinion both the fact that the Torah involves itself in the regulation of human affairs and that it chose to endorse monarchy as the proper form of government.

So if (since) HaShem chose David as King then there is no need to select, choose or appoint a king from outside King David and Shlomo’s lineage. In fact, it was improper for the Hasmoneans to rule over the people for they were of the priestly caste!

****

To quote from one article on the discussion of “Appointing a King” –

“In Sanhedrin (20b) which states that the phrase “Ki yad al keis Kah” (“Hand upon the throne of the Lord,” Shemot 17:16) refers to the king: “Ve-ein kisei ela melekh she-ne’emar Vayeshev Shelomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” – “‘Throne’ refers to the king, as it is written, ‘Shelomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king’ (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:23).” (See also Ramban ad loc., who adopts this position.) The upshot of this statement, further emphasized by the gemara’s subsequent statement that “Be-tchila malakh Shlomo al ha-elyonim she’ne’emar vayeshev Shlomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” (“At first Shelomo ruled over the the upper spheres”), is that the king is not solely a human figure serving the needs of his countrymen, but rather he is also a sacral figure, representing Divine interests in the human world. Just as the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is the Divine representative in the religious sphere, serving as a “shelucha de-rachmana” (emissary of God) no less than a “shelucha didan” (emissary of man), so too is the melekh an ambassador of God in the political sphere. The Heavenly Throne (kisei Hashem) serves as a symbol of Divine involvement in the human world and, therefore, the description of the king as sitting upon this throne serves to establish his rule as a manifestation and executor of Divine Will in our world. In this context, mention should already be made of the fact that the king, as the kohen, is anointed with shemen ha-mishcha (the anointing oil).

If we accept this line of reasoning, the Torah’s interest in a royal head of state is not due to his practical utility to human society, but rather is due to the fact that a royal figure is a better representative of God on Earth. By adopting such a position, we are able to understand the need for a king, despite the drawbacks which Abarbanel pointed out. To offset those, the Torah added a whole list of regulations and mitzvot designed to distance the monarch from “gavhut ha-lev” (arrogance), involvement with earthly affairs and the temptations of power (i.e. women, money and horses) and to instill in him and his subjects the sense of a Divine mission (the need to constantly have a Torah scroll at his side).”

SOURCE: YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)

**************************************************************

JEWISH POLITICAL THEORY – HILKHOT MELAKHIM

SHIUR #1: The Commandment to Appoint a King

by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein

Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.

****

While the above article does not touch upon the subject of the unifying mission of the King, it is important to note that I Divrei Ha-yamim (1 Chronicles) 29:23 concludes with the phrase “… and all Israel obeyed him.”

“David came and increased their number to 24.”

24 mishmarot (lit. “guards”; Ta’an. 4:2), which served in a regular weekly rotation. The mishmarot were further broken up into a varying number of battei avot (“houses” or “families”). Each division and subdivision was presided over by a head, called rosh mishmar and rosh bet av respectively (Tosef., Hor. 2: 10); there is also mention made of a bet av (Tam. 1:1; Mid. 1:8; cf. Yoma 1:5). The levites were similarly divided into 24 mishmarot, which replaced each other every week (I Chron. 25:8ff, et al.; Jos., Ant., 7:363ff.; Ta’an. 4:2). These were in turn subdivided into seven battei avot, and presided over by “heads.” Finally, there was an analogous division of the Israelites themselves into 24 mishmarot, each of which had to take its turn in coming to Jerusalem for a week. They served to represent the whole body of the people while the daily (communal) offerings were sacrificed, for “how can a man’s offering be offered while he does not stand by it?” (Ta’an. 4:2, et al.).

That part of the mishmar of priests, Levites, or Israelites actually engaged in the performance of its duty was called a ma’amad or ammud (“station”) and was headed by a rosh ma’amad (Tam. 5:6). When the time for the service of a mishmar came round, all the priests and Levites belonging to it would go to Jerusalem. Not all the Israelites of that mishmar, however, proceeded to Jerusalem. A portion of them certainly did (Ta’an. 4:2; cf. Tosef., Ta’an. 4:3) but those who could not do so assembled in their own towns and read the story of creation, etc. Only those in Jerusalem who actually “stood by” while the sacrifice was being offered could, strictly speaking, be called a ma’amad, or ammud (see Sof. 17:5; but see Lieberman , Tosefta ki-Feshutah 5, 1962, 1104, who shows that according to a different opinion the ma’amadot were of Israelites alone).

23 “And Solomon sat on the throne of the L-RD as king instead of David his father, and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.” 24 And all the leaders and the mighty men and also all King David’s sons placed their hand under King Solomon.

Hoshea 3.5 “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek [desire] the L-RD their G-D, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the L-RD and to His goodness in the end of days.”

Yekezkel 37.22 “and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;”

Thus, in a Divinely chosen monarchy, the king sit as an emissary of the Merciful One on the throne of the L-RD uniting the people, to worship as one by an oath; even as Avraham’s servant swore by the “Covenant of Circumcision” B’rashith (Genesis) 24:3!

The Commandment to Appoint a King

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

B’rashith 17.5-6 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

B’rashith 17.15-16 “And G-D said unto Abraham: ‘As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.’

Shmoth 19.6 “and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’ ”

We see from these sources in the Torah that the Will of HaShem is a monarchy; a holy nation! Not a nation like all other nations as the people clamored for, before Navi Shemuel. 1 Samuel 8.18-20:

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the L-RD will not answer you in that day.’ 19 But the people refused to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said: ‘Nay; but there shall be a king over us; 20 that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.’

****

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….”

1 Chronicles 28.4 “Howbeit the L-RD, the G-D of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for He hath chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel; ….”

2 Chronicles 6.6 “But I have chosen Jerusalem so that My Name will be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ ”

Tehillim 78.70 “He chose David also His servant, And took him from the sheepfolds;….”

1 Samuel 16.1 “And the L-RD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”

The mitzvah is to appoint a king for HaShemwhom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; ….” HaShem chose David as King over all Israel, even as King David confirmed in 1 Chronicles 28.4.

As the Tanak pointedly states, the people chose Saul as King rather than allowing the prophet and high priest as agents for HaShem to choose a king (presumably through the Urim and Thumim)!

From 1 Samuel 16.1 (“… for I have provided Me a king among his sons.”) we see that the Tanak makes clear [that] the king chosen by G-D serves HaShem; as Tehillim 78.70 points out: “He chose David also His servant,…” and as 1 Samuel 13.14 points out, David was found by HaShem to be a “man after the heart of G-D:

1 Samuel 13.14 “But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the L-RD hath sought him a man after His own heart, and the L-RD hath appointed him to be prince over His people, because thou hast not kept that which the L-RD commanded thee.’ “

R. Yossi and R. Yehuda, the Rambam (R. Moshe ben Maimon, 12th century, Egypt) and Sefer HaChinukh (author unknown, 13th century, Spain) and all those commentators who are of the opinion that there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, imply in their opinion both the fact that the Torah involves itself in the regulation of human affairs and that it chose to endorse monarchy as the proper form of government.

So if (since) HaShem chose David as King then there is no need to select, choose or appoint a king from outside King David and Shlomo’s lineage. In fact, it was improper for the Hasmoneans to rule over the people for they were of the priestly caste!

****

To quote from one article on the discussion of “Appointing a King” –

“In Sanhedrin (20b) which states that the phrase “Ki yad al keis Kah” (“Hand upon the throne of the Lord,” Shemot 17:16) refers to the king: “Ve-ein kisei ela melekh she-ne’emar Vayeshev Shelomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” – “‘Throne’ refers to the king, as it is written, ‘Shelomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king’ (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:23).” (See also Ramban ad loc., who adopts this position.) The upshot of this statement, further emphasized by the gemara’s subsequent statement that “Be-tchila malakh Shlomo al ha-elyonim she’ne’emar vayeshev Shlomo al kisei Hashem le-melekh” (“At first Shelomo ruled over the the upper spheres”), is that the king is not solely a human figure serving the needs of his countrymen, but rather he is also a sacral figure, representing Divine interests in the human world. Just as the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is the Divine representative in the religious sphere, serving as a “shelucha de-rachmana” (emissary of God) no less than a “shelucha didan” (emissary of man), so too is the melekh an ambassador of God in the political sphere. The Heavenly Throne (kisei Hashem) serves as a symbol of Divine involvement in the human world and, therefore, the description of the king as sitting upon this throne serves to establish his rule as a manifestation and executor of Divine Will in our world. In this context, mention should already be made of the fact that the king, as the kohen, is anointed with shemen ha-mishcha (the anointing oil).

If we accept this line of reasoning, the Torah’s interest in a royal head of state is not due to his practical utility to human society, but rather is due to the fact that a royal figure is a better representative of God on Earth. By adopting such a position, we are able to understand the need for a king, despite the drawbacks which Abarbanel pointed out. To offset those, the Torah added a whole list of regulations and mitzvot designed to distance the monarch from “gavhut ha-lev” (arrogance), involvement with earthly affairs and the temptations of power (i.e. women, money and horses) and to instill in him and his subjects the sense of a Divine mission (the need to constantly have a Torah scroll at his side).”

SOURCE: YESHIVAT HAR ETZION

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)

**************************************************************

JEWISH POLITICAL THEORY – HILKHOT MELAKHIM

SHIUR #1: The Commandment to Appoint a King

by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein

Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.

****

While the above article does not touch upon the subject of the unifying mission of the King, it is important to note that I Divrei Ha-yamim (1 Chronicles) 29:23 concludes with the phrase “… and all Israel obeyed him.”

“David came and increased their number to 24.”

24 mishmarot (lit. “guards”; Ta’an. 4:2), which served in a regular weekly rotation. The mishmarot were further broken up into a varying number of battei avot (“houses” or “families”). Each division and subdivision was presided over by a head, called rosh mishmar and rosh bet av respectively (Tosef., Hor. 2: 10); there is also mention made of a bet av (Tam. 1:1; Mid. 1:8; cf. Yoma 1:5). The levites were similarly divided into 24 mishmarot, which replaced each other every week (I Chron. 25:8ff, et al.; Jos., Ant., 7:363ff.; Ta’an. 4:2). These were in turn subdivided into seven battei avot, and presided over by “heads.” Finally, there was an analogous division of the Israelites themselves into 24 mishmarot, each of which had to take its turn in coming to Jerusalem for a week. They served to represent the whole body of the people while the daily (communal) offerings were sacrificed, for “how can a man’s offering be offered while he does not stand by it?” (Ta’an. 4:2, et al.).

That part of the mishmar of priests, Levites, or Israelites actually engaged in the performance of its duty was called a ma’amad or ammud (“station”) and was headed by a rosh ma’amad (Tam. 5:6). When the time for the service of a mishmar came round, all the priests and Levites belonging to it would go to Jerusalem. Not all the Israelites of that mishmar, however, proceeded to Jerusalem. A portion of them certainly did (Ta’an. 4:2; cf. Tosef., Ta’an. 4:3) but those who could not do so assembled in their own towns and read the story of creation, etc. Only those in Jerusalem who actually “stood by” while the sacrifice was being offered could, strictly speaking, be called a ma’amad, or ammud (see Sof. 17:5; but see Lieberman , Tosefta ki-Feshutah 5, 1962, 1104, who shows that according to a different opinion the ma’amadot were of Israelites alone).

23 “And Solomon sat on the throne of the L-RD as king instead of David his father, and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.” 24 And all the leaders and the mighty men and also all King David’s sons placed their hand under King Solomon.

Hoshea 3.5 “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek [desire] the L-RD their G-D, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the L-RD and to His goodness in the end of days.”

Yekezkel 37.22 “and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;”

Thus, in a Divinely chosen monarchy, the king sit as an emissary of the Merciful One on the throne of the L-RD uniting the people, to worship as one by an oath; even as Avraham’s servant swore by the “Covenant of Circumcision” B’rashith (Genesis) 24:3!

A synagogue on the Temple Mount? Activists say let the Jews move in

Jews believe the site – venerated as holy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike – is where the Beit Hamikdash used to sit.

Jpost – Israel News
By Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman
March 6, 2019 04:09

A general view of Jerusalem's old city shows the Dome of the Rock in the compound known to Muslims a

A general view of Jerusalem’s old city shows the Dome of the Rock in the compound known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, October 25, 2015. (photo credit: AMIR COHEN/REUTERS)

A group of Israeli activists are calling on the government to establish a synagogue on the Temple Mount and open it for Jewish prayer.

According to Asaf Fried, a spokesman for an association of organizations dedicated to Jewish rights on the Temple Mount, more than 50 leaders from across the religious spectrum gathered on Sunday to discuss the situation on the Temple Mount. Participants included Rabbi Yehudah Glick (Likud), Baruch Marzel (Otzma Yehudit) and members of the rabbinate.

Jews believe the site – venerated as holy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike – is where the First and Second Temples used to sit.

Riots have continuously erupted on the Temple Mount since last month, when thousands of Palestinians stormed the Golden Gate, which had been closed by a court order since 2003. Jerusalem Police arrested two senior Wakf officials – east Jerusalem Wakf chairman Sheikh Abdel Azim Salhab and deputy director of the Wakf Sheikh Najeh Bkeirat – banning them from entering the Aqsa Mosque compound for 40 days.

In response, the Muslims took over and converted a 1,500-year-old structure located near the Golden Gate (known as Shaar Harachamim in Hebrew) into a mosque. Currently, the Muslims have four other mosques on the mount, said Fried. Jews, on the other hand, “if you try to pray, you will be arrested.”

The activists argue that by opening the Golden Gate and establishing a new mosque, the Muslims have broken the status quo agreement. Israel has made attempts to shutter the gate, but the Muslims have refused, threatening increased violence.

“If the status quo is broken anyway, then Israel needs to break it, too,” said Fried, arguing that Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. “We need a place to pray and we want that structure near the Golden Gate.”

Establishing a synagogue is not unprecedented, explained Yaacov Hayman, head of the Yishai Organization for the Establishment of Synagogues on the Temple Mount. He said in Temple times there was always a synagogue near the Temple.

“The Talmud tractate that talks about Yom Kippur clearly states there was a synagogue,” he said.

His organization has mapped the Temple Mount and created renderings for where up to four synagogues could be located on the holy site.

Marzel told The Jerusalem Post that the Temple Mount is “the holiest place for the Jewish people. Our enemies are taking it over, they are breaking the law, destroying archaeology sites and disgracing Judaism and God. We have to fight.”

Fried said the group is not asking to take over authority on the mount. Currently, the Jerusalem Wakf Islamic religious trust controls and manages the Islamic edifices on and around the Temple Mount. The east Jerusalem Wakf is controlled by Jordan.

However, they would like to see the Temple Mount divided like the way that the Cave of the Patriarchs was divided into a synagogue and a mosque in 1967.

This latest call for a synagogue on the Temple Mount is not the first.

In 2017, MK Bezalel Smotrich (Bayit Yehudi) called for the construction of a synagogue on the Temple Mount in the aftermath of the brutal Halamish (also known as Neveh Tzuf) attack, in which a Hamas terrorist infiltrated the West Bank settlement and murdered three people at their Shabbat table.

“I would set up a synagogue on the Temple Mount today, this morning,” Smotrich said then. “If someone thinks that through terrorism, violence, and the massacre of a family that he will push our sovereignty back, then – if I am the prime minister – this morning, I would close the Temple Mount to Arab prayer and establish a synagogue for Jews. And if the terrorism continues, I would close the mount to Arabs and there will be only Jews there.”

A similar demand was made in 2014, when a large group of religious-Zionist rabbis – including Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi Eliyahu Zinni and Rabbi Haim Cohen – penned a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advocating the construction of a synagogue on the Temple Mount. No action was taken.

Furthermore, there have been bills raised in the Knesset calling for equal prayer rights for Jews on the Temple Mount, but they have generally been shut down, as Muslims threaten violence if the status quo is altered.

Fried said he believes that this time the goal can be accomplished because Israel is in an election period and politicians who can effect change will want to appear responsive.

On March 14, the group is arranging a massive Jewish trip to the Temple Mount. He said he expects hundreds of Jews to attend and to pray in their hearts.

Then, in late March, they will run a protest rally from City Hall to outside the Golden Gate.

“We are all angry about what is going on the Temple Mount,” said Fried. “If we will it, we think this time it will be.”

Bennett’s platform revealed

Arutz Sheva Staff, 28/02/19 08:39

New Right party platform opposes giving away land, supports increased construction in Judea, Samaria, J-lem, applying sovereignty in Area C.

 

 

Bennett

Bennett

Hadas Parush 90

The New Right party is committed to applying Israeli sovereignty in Area C and opposing the release of terrorists. In the political part of its platform, which was obtained by Israel Hayom, it is written, “As long as we are in the government, we will not allow a return to this pattern of returning terrorists, which is morally flawed and destructive.”

In the document, drafted by ministers Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett, the party commits to refraining from handing over territories, and instead to significantly expand construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

“We oppose the handing over of our land and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel. We stand by the value settlement in all parts of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem, the united, is the capital of Israel – we will work to renew the building within united Jerusalem and to realize the potential of Givat Hamatos, Har Homa, Pisgat Ze’ev, the City of David and other neighborhoods … In Samaria and Judea there is enormous potential for building, and we will work for free construction, which will enable the doubling of the Jewish population in the area. ”

The New Right intends to apply Israeli sovereignty in Area C and grant Israeli citizenship to tens of thousands of Arab residents in the area. “The residents of Judea and Samaria are not treated equally in terms of construction and property rights … We support the application of Israeli law to the territories under Israeli control.”

MK Glick to be compensated for removal from Temple Mount

Court rules police violated MK Yehuda Glick’s rights in removing him from the Temple Mount.

 

Arutz Sheva Staff, 21/01/19 16:47

 

Yehuda Glick on the Temple Mount

Yehuda Glick on the Temple Mount

Yossi Zamir/Flash 90

The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court ruled that the police violated MK Yehudah Glick’s rights when they removed him from the Temple Mount.

In Judge Karen Miller’s ruling, the court criticized the Israel Police and stated that it did not fulfill its obligation to provide an explanation for the conduct against Glick. “The lack of sufficient explanation raises concerns about the arbitrariness of the police toward the Plaintiff,” the judge said.

The decision also criticized the conduct of the then commander of the David region, Brig.-Gen. Avi Biton, who was responsible for the violation of Glick’s rights. Biton was recently appointed police commander of the Sharon region.

The lawsuit dealt with seven cases in which Glick was not allowed to ascend the Temple Mount, after the Israel Police promised the High Court of Justice that it would allow him to ascend to the holy site and that it would remove him only after providing him the right to be heard during a hearing.

The court ruled that in five cases Glick proved that the Israel Police was negligent in preventing him from ascending the Mount and causing him harm.

Brig. Gen. Biton had claimed that Glick caused provocations on the Temple Mount, but the court rejected this argument, noting that “it is surprising how at least some of the events claimed by the defendant were not documented.”

The judge noted that the police documented the entry of Yehuda Glick into the site on two daily lists “in a specific and exceptional manner to the prosecutor.” Therefore, the court concluded that in the cases in which Glick ascended the Temple Mount, he was photographed by a police photographer.

“The police and Brigadier General Biton could not point to a single photographed incident that supports their general claim on provocations,” the judge ruled.

She added that because of the fact that since the events there has been a significant change in the conduct of the police on the Temple Mount, and because of Glick’s current role as a member of the Knesset where he “can influence the policy and conduct of the Temple Mount in the framework of public and political conduct,” the court ordered the police to pay Glick NIS 7,500 in compensation as well as NIS 6,000 to cover his attorney’s fees.

“Uti possidetis juris” & Eretz Yisrael

 The rights that the Jewish Community acquired under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate upon expiration of the Mandate as per Article 80 of the UN Charter. There is a principal in international law that “emerging states acquire the territory of their former administrative district(s)” – As well, Uti possidetis (lit. “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.
Since the Hashemite Kingdom of [trans-]Jordan was established as “a [temporary] administrative power” under Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and trans-Jordan illegally annexed and ethnically cleansed Judea and Samaria; at the end of hostilities (in this case at the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 1984) territorial sovereignty reverts back to the beneficiary of the “sacred trust” under which it was held (per Article 80 of the UN Charter and Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine) – the Jewish People – terra nullius does not apply as these [“disputed”] Lands are “Liberated Lands” under the principal of Uti possidetis; now that Israel possesses peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan these Liberated Lands are “Treaty Lands” (It might be argued that since Israel is still in a state of war with Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in a defensive posture, terra nullius could never apply due to the Treaties of Sevres and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924).
One might invoke the principal of Uti possidetis per the 1969 Convention on the Laws of Treaties, as relevant to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and the rights acquired under the Mandate, now reserved in Article 80 of the UN Charter and as acquired under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (e.g. Jewish territorial integrity, self-determinism) and demand recognition of past acts of Arab (“Palestinian”) self-determinism (the December 1948 Jericho Conference) (estoppel and laches) as no Trusteeship Agreement has been made under emerging or developing international law with respect to these Treaty Lands.
More recently, the principle has been used in the modified form “Uti possidetis juris” to establish the frontiers of newly independent states by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old territorial entities from which they emerged.

‘Send Waqf back to Jordan’

MK Yehuda Glick says Israel should respond to Jordan cancelling part of peace treaty by kicking Wafq out of Temple Mount.

 

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Hezki Baruch, 23/10/18 18:55

 

Yehuda Glick

Yehuda Glick

Yoni Kempinski

MK Yehuda Glick (Likud) called Tuesday afternoon for a response to the Jordanian announcement of the cancellation of the annex to the peace treaty between the two countries which leases regions of the Arava and Naharayim to Israel.

“Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi announced yesterday that the Jordanian government had decided not to renew the annexes to the 1994 peace agreement in accordance with their wording and the law,” Glick said at the start of his speech.

Glick quoted the Jordanian minister as saying that “the move serves the Jordanian interests, and if there is pressure on Jordan, the king will be able to deal with them. We acted according to the law and have the tools to defend our interests.”

“Indeed, Jordan has laws and interests,” Glick noted. “The State of Israel is an independent state and has laws and interests.”

“I called upon the Prime Minister today to act in accordance with our interests and to inform the King of Jordan that if they act independently in accordance with their interests, we will act in accordance with those of our own. We will send the Waqf people that Israel generously allows to move around the Temple Mount back to Jordan, and we will apply full Israeli sovereignty to the Temple Mount,” Glick concluded.

ha’aretz and ha’adamah

B”H

What is the difference between ha’aretz and ha’adamah?

As I understand the two words, the difference between the two words is that ha’aretz refers to the earth generally, B’rashith (Genesis) 1.1, 2; whereas ha’adamah specifies:

  1. “the place” Adam was formed,
  2. the place which was cursed; and,

3. the place of Noach’s sacrifice –

B’rashith (Genesis) 2.7, 3.17-19, 8.21, or

4. Bikkurim (First Fruit) Offering of Devarim (Deuteronomy) 26.2 “that thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground (ha’adamah), which thou shalt bring in from thy land (me’artzcha) that the L-RD thy G-D giveth thee; and thou shalt put it in a basket and shalt go unto the place which the L-RD thy G-D shall choose to cause His name to dwell there.” (The structure of this passuk [verse] implies a possessive quality the ground has taken [of the Bikkurim] since HaShem chose this place for His altar (see Shmoth [Exodus] 20.20 below….)  HERE: “[…] the fruit of the ground (ha’adamah), […] which thou shalt bring in from thy land (me’artzcha) […].” plainly makes a difference between the two words; while the words asheer tavi אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא   focus our attention on the act of “bringing in” from thy land (me’artzcha); the words “kal pri ha’adamah” already have described the Bikkurim as “belonging” to “the ground!” See Rule 5 (Prat Uk’lal) of Rabbi Yishmael’s Rules of Interpretation: “through a specification broadened by a general statement.”)

A clue to understanding “ha’adamah” is why HaShem rejected Qayin’s (Cain’s) offering of the fruit of the ground B’rashith (Genesis) (4.3-5): he offered “the fruit of” that which was cursed – In addition, we can see from 8.13, and 8.21 there is a distinct difference between ha’aretz and ha’adamah, that which was [past tense] cursed – “and behold, the surface of the ground had dried up.” (8.13); “And the L-RD smelled the pleasant aroma, and the L-RD said to Himself, “I will no longer curse the ground because of man….”
In fact, Devarim 26.2 (as stated above) specifies the difference between “me’artzcha and ha’adamah” – “that thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that the L-RD thy G-D giveth thee; and thou shalt put it in a basket and shalt go unto the place which the L-RD thy G-D shall choose to cause His name to dwell there.”

Additionally, Devarim 26.15 distinguishes between HaAdamah and [Ha]Aeretz: “Look down from Your holy dwelling, from the heavens, and bless Your people Israel, and the ground הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה which You have given to us, as You swore to our forefathers a land אֶ֛רֶץ flowing with milk and honey.”

Note: B’rashith (Genesis) 4.10-11, (Hark! Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.) and 9.20 (And Noah began to be a master of the ground, and he planted a vineyard.) וַיָּ֥חֶל נֹ֖חַ אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וַיִּטַּ֖ע כָּֽרֶם

also note Devarim (Deuteronomy) 11.17 “[…] and the ground shall not yield her fruit; […] , 21 upon ha’adamah which the L-RD swore unto your fathers […].” the blessing of rain is specified in 11.17

The J.H. Hertz (Soncino) Commentary (B’rashith 2.7, page 7) says “the dust of the ground” was taken from the future place of the Holy Temple where the Altar of Atonement was located. NOTE: “An altar of adamah thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.” (Shmoth – Exodus 20.20)