Yeshiva University - Yom Ha'Atzmaut To-Go - Iyar 5770

1
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY YOM HAATZMAUT TO-GO IYAR 5770
Iyar 5770
Dear Friends,
It is my sincere hope that the Torah found in this virtual may serve to enhance your
( holiday) and your ( study).
We have designed this project not only for the individual, studying alone, but perhaps even
more for a ( a pair studying together) that wish to work through the study matter
together, or a group engaged in facilitated study.
With this material, we invite you to join our Beit Midrash, wherever you may be,
( to enjoy the splendor of Torah) and to engage in discussing issues that touch on a
most contemporary matter, and are rooted in the timeless arguments of our great sages from
throughout the generations.
Bivracha,
Rabbi Kenneth Brander
Dean, Yeshiva University
Center for the Jewish Future
RICHARD M JOEL, President, Yeshiva University

RABBI KENNETH BRANDER, David Mitzner Dean, Center for the Jewish Future
RABBI ROBERT SHUR, General Editor
RABBI MICHAEL DUBITSKY, Editor
Copyright 2010
All rights reserved by Yeshiva University
Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future
500 West 185th Street, Suite 413, New York, NY 10033
office@yutorah.org 212.960.5400 x 5313
2
Table of Contents
Yom Haatzmaut 2010/5770
Our Dependence Upon Israel's Independence
Rabbi Norman Lamm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
The Religious Significance of Israel

Rabbi Yosef Blau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
Maintaining a Connection to the Land of

Israel from the Diaspora
Rabbi Joshua Flug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12
Establishing Yom Haatzamut as a Yom Tov

Rabbi Eli Ozarowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
The Roots of the Disputes over Yom HaAtzmaut

Rabbi David Pri-Chen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31
The National and Personal Calling of Shir Hashirim

Mrs. Daphne Secunda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30
Israel: Motherland and Mother

Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42
3
Our Dependence Upon

Israel's Independence
Rabbi Norman Lamm
Chancellor and Rosh HaYeshiva, Yeshiva University
This derasha was originally delivered in the Jewish Center on May 1, 1965. It is taken with permission
from the Yad Norman Lamm Heritage collection of Yeshiva University.
The seventeenth anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, which we shall celebrate
later this week, affords us the occasion to reexamine our own attitudes and orientations towards
the State. I do not, in all honesty, believe that full justice can be done to such a significant theme
in the confines of a single sermon. Let us, therefore, merely outline some general principles
which ought to guide such considerations.
This introspection must be characterized, above all, by a radical frankness and an honesty that
may prove painful. In the past, economic exigencies, organizational bias, and the normal desire
to avoid confronting unpleasant dilemmas, have usually deterred us from a self-analysis. Indeed,
such a searching self-examination will probably leave many of us perplexed, and even deeply
disturbed. But it is a blessed perplexity that takes the place of the pedestrian platitudes that have
so long substituted for thinking in the past.
The fact is that American Jews of all persuasions are in a state of crisis concerning their position
and orientation towards the State of Israel. We are beset by certain paradoxes and
contradictions. If I be permitted to paraphrase from Avot 1:2, the world stands on three pillars:
on Torah, on avodah (which means prayer or the sacrificial service), and on charitable
endeavors. So may it be said of the American Jewish world with regard to Israel, that it is
comprised of three groups. First is "Torah": the Orthodox Jew, whose love for Israel and
devotion to the State is part of the larger context of his commitment to Torah and Judaism. The
second is avodah - literally the word means work, and here I include those who are devoted
organizational workers for the various Zionist groups. The third, gemillat hassadim, comprises
those many people whose major expression of interest in Israel is through financial support, such
as the U.J.A. and Bonds for Israel.
The American Jews whose orientation to Israel is expressed as avodah, that is, the political
Zionists, especially the secular Zionists, are in a state of deep crisis. Their dilemma is well
known: they have, paradoxically, been defeated by success. Their stated purpose was the
creation of an independent state. They succeeded in this goal; because it was fulfilled they
therefore are left without a purpose. It is fairly apparent to all objective observers that without
4
institutional inertia, these organizations would have disappeared with the emergence of the State
of Israel in 1948.
Gemillat hassadim as an expression of loyalty to Israel is very important. Israel needs our financial
assistance. But all of us hope that the time is not far off when the State will achieve economic
independence from us as well as peace with its neighbors. What then? When we shall no longer
have to contribute financially or politically to the State, how shall we relate to the State of Israel?
Is it conceivable that American Jews will be left with no special relationship towards Israel?
We Orthodox Jews, whose position in Israel is expressed by the word "Torah," have been spared,
largely, the crises of the other two. Our love for Israel is independent either of political or
economical conditions. Our program is not merely one of supporting an economy or creating a
government machinery. Our purpose depends neither upon votes nor upon funds, though it
may include both. Therefore, neither independence nor peace nor security constitutes a threat
to our relationship to Israel, for these do not represent the fulfillment of our goals. Our end is
nothing less than the Messianic vision of the complete redemption, a term which includes a
spiritual renaissance of the Land of Israel and the People of Israel according to the Torah of
Israel; and, ultimately, the spiritual regeneration of all mankind in universal peace and justice.
Yet, American Orthodox Jews do face a problem that they cannot continue to avoid indefinitely.
Our critics in Israel, both those who are Orthodox and those who are not, have pressed this
problem upon us, and we ought to consider it seriously and courageously, not as we have
done polemically. That is, the act of settling in the Land of Israel is one of the 613
commandments. In a remarkable passage, the late Rav Kook points out that, surprisingly,
Maimonides in his Sefer HaMitzvot does not include as detailed commandments those precepts
which are fundamental to the whole of Torah; and therefore yishuv Eretz Yisrael is not reckoned
by him as an individual commandment because it is an underlying principle of the whole of
Judaism. It is too important to be regarded as just a mitzvah.
In the past, our people did not emigrate to the Land of Israel en masse because of the extremely
difficult conditions that prevailed: hostile government, harsh and forbidding environment, and
the absence of a community large enough and stable enough to absorb immigrants.
But today Israel is a free and independent State, and is even blessed with a measure of prosperity.
Hence, the question is asked: why not practice and stress this great precept of aliyah? And we
ought to honestly ask the same question of ourselves: indeed, why not aliyah? There has been
some trickle of American Jews emigrating to Israel, but how about the rest of us? How can we
square our religious conscience and intellectual integrity with our apparent non-concern with
aliyah?
There are of course a number of objections to aliyah that are offered as an excuse for our neglect
of this great principle of Jewish life. Upon reflection, most of them are not worth taking
seriously. Let us, for the sake of analysis, consider them briefly.
We are told by some people that American Jews are not in exile, in galut, and that therefore
aliyah is not obligatory upon us. Some of those who propose this comparatively novel thesis are
motivated by an exaggerated Americanism. They fear that the assertion of our exilehood is an act
5
of disloyalty to the United States. Historically, this is false. There were amongst our ancestors
some who lived in countries of the Diaspora that were blessed with benign governments that
allowed full freedom to Jews and Judaism. Yet they never doubted that they were in exile, and
never were aware of any conflict between their loyalty to their government and their desire for
redemption. Only a totalitarian government insists upon the total loyalties of its citizens. A
democratic government asks only that its citizens perform their civic duties and affirm their
allegiance to the constitution; it does not forbid them to cherish ancient dreams, present prayers,
and visions of a future redemption. It is odd that those who protest loudest against the idea that
we are in exile in this country do so largely because they are afraid of the impression that will be
made upon other Americans if American Jews consider themselves in exile. What greater exile is
there than this?!
Indeed, we are in galut! To deny this is to abandon our hopes for geulah, for redemption, to
scuttle our belief in the Messiah, to make a shambles of our Torah, to invalidate all of our Jewish
past and its sublime dreams for the future, and to reduce our prayers to a kind of sanctified
hypocrisy. Ours may be a comfortable galut, a galut in which we have a large measure of
freedom; but a convenient galut remains a galut!
The Baal Shem Tov once taught this principle in one of his inimitable comments. We read in
Isaiah a verse with which we are familiar because we recite it on Rosh Hashanah:
On that day (the day of the redemption) a great shofar will be
sounded, and those who are lost in the land of Ashur (Assyria)
and those who are dispersed in the Land of Egypt will return to
the Holy Land.
Isaiah 27:13

'
:
:
But, asks the Baal Shem Tov, will Assyria and Egypt be the only countries from which the exiles
will return in the future? He replies that these two countries represent two types of exile. He
explains these symbols by rearranging the vowels. Egypt, or ( Mitzrayim), can be
rearranged to read ( metzarim), narrow straits, difficulty, oppression. Assyria, ,
(Ashur), can be read as ( osher), happiness, prosperity, plenty. In other words, there are two
types of exile: one of them, symbolized by Egypt, is the classical form of galut, that of oppression
and hatred and bigotry, in which our people are persecuted and dispersed. But there is also
another kind of exile which is just the reverse. It is the one symbolized by Assyria. It is the exile of
Jews in luxury in which we are lost, because our sublime aims and lofty goals have become
deflected as a result of the abundance of convenience and comfort and plenty and prosperity. As
a result, we have lost sight of the great Jewish vision of redemption. It is from these two exiles,
that of oppression and that of prosperity, that Messiah will redeem us on the day that the great
shofar will be sounded.
Indeed, the greatest exile - as one great Jew once said - occurs when we do not know that we are
in exile. The more we forget our exilehood, the deeper we are caught in it. And what is our
condition in America if not exile when we read of the increasing assimilation and growing
intermarriage, when non-Jews nationally proclaim that we are the "vanishing Jews of America"?
6
One need not be a pessimist as to the future survival of our people in this country to admit that
we are suffering a terrible attrition. Galut indeed! The argument against aliyah because we
American Jews are not in exile is a spurious one, and does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Then there are those who turn the argument around, and would discourage aliyah, or excuse our
neglect of it, because of faults they find in the State of Israel. Israel, they tell us, is itself not
exactly a complete religious state; not all of its citizens are totally observant. The Israelis too are
in galut!
Perhaps conditions in Israel are less than ideal, but this argument is only a semantic trick. One
need not equate the State of Israel with the complete redemption and the ultimate Messianic
state in order to promote the idea of aliyah. The fact is that there is more "Yiddishkeit" and
opportunity for the practice of Judaism in Israel than any place else in the world Brooklyn
and Manhattan included.
It is true, that to the untrained eye of a tourist, it sometimes seems as if Judaism is in exile in the
Holy Land. However, it requires a special insight, an extraordinary gift, in order to be able to see
the truth: that Judaism is much more vibrant, much more prevalent, much more real in Israel
than it is any place in the world. A great Rabbi once explained, with regard to this special insight,
one of the prayers in our amidah. We pray thrice daily, may our
eyes behold when Thou returnest to Zion in love. Why, he asks, do we pray that our eyes behold
that God returns to Zion; why do we not simply pray that God returns to Zion? The answer is
that even if God returned to Zion, we might not notice it. Sometimes He is there in His full
holiness and glory only we fail to see it! We are blind to the great and sacred realities of Gods
presence in the Holy Land. Therefore we implore Him Almighty God, allow our eyes to see
what already is a fact, that Thou hast indeed returned to Zion!
The only real objection to aliyah is not theoretical but practical. We have made our lives here in
this country. We have settled here, raised our families, struck our roots, built our businesses, and
advanced our careers and professions. Aliyah proves very difficult for us, no matter how genuine
our commitment to it.
This is a more honest position than to attempt to argue away our responsibility and justify our
failure. It is a frank admission of a practical failure, and not an attempt to rationalize our
inadequacy by discarding the ideal as such.
Nevertheless, we must never remain satisfied with merely abstract ideals, for that which is
unrealizable is essentially unreal. Aliyah must be not only an ideal but a principle. It must govern
behavior and conduct. Therefore, if we ourselves, for very practical reasons, cannot emigrate to
the Holy Land, we should encourage and assist those who can.
But that too is insufficient. Such an approach might well lead us into the classical position of the
two Zionists who express their Zionism by deciding that a third must go on aliyah to Israel. If we
are honest about our reasons for not emigrating that they are practical, not theoretical
then we must at least see to it that our children will go. We must prepare our children for aliyah
before they are settled here. If not all our children, at least each family must decide that the one
child most fit for emigration ought to be prepared for it. We must decide to train at least one
7
child in that kind of career or profession or business that will enable him to go on aliyah. We
must imbue him with the spirit of Israel, and create in him that idealism which will help him
fulfill the destiny which all of Israel must ultimately share.
No parent regards it as a tragedy if his child becomes a lawyer in California or marries an
engineer in South America, or goes into business in Alaska. The world is smaller today than it
ever was before. It will be smaller yet ten years from now. We should regard it as a blessing if a
child of ours fulfills our dreams, our duties, our highest spiritual and national vocation, by
directing him to settle in the Holy Land, on aliyah, and live a full vibrant Jewish life.
Our religious integrity requires it. Israel needs olim from the United States. And America needs
it! The American Jewish community will be able the better to survive if it sends some of the
cream of its youth to the Holy Land. American Jewish youth has begun to look elsewhere for the
outlets for its native idealism. We must redirect our children and their idealism to the State of
Israel. These precious olim will be the permanent human bond between Israeli and American
Jewry. For indeed, if we will not be olim, we will be yordim. If we will not go up, we may, heaven
forbid, go down!
While the solution is not overly difficult, it is not easy. Facing this issue is no easier for me than
for anyone else. But we ignore it at the peril of our own souls and our own integrity.
Now that Israel is independent, we must consider aliyah as an opportunity. The future of
American Jewry itself will be enhanced by such aliyah. We are, in a large measure, dependent
upon Israel's independence.
As seen in this perspective, the question of aliyah is not a problem but a prospect, not a
perplexity but an opportunity. Let this be uppermost in our minds on this seventeenth birthday
of Israel. It can be a most powerful stimulus for the good for us and our children. Indeed, the
numerical value of the Hebrew word for "good" ( )is seventeen the number of the birthday
of Israel this year! It was Eretz Yisrael that was described in the Torah as "good" -
, "the Land is very very good!"
Let us never lose sight of our attachment to that Land. Let us never substitute for our real loyalty
to it a mere financial commitment or political interest or sentimental association. For the land is
indeed very very good. Through our loyalty to it, may it continue to be very very good for us, for
our children, for all Israel, and ultimately for all mankind.
8
The Religious
Significance of Israel
Rabbi Yosef Blau

Mashgiach Ruchani, Yeshiva University
If we treat the phrase reishit tzmichat geulateinu as granting the state of Israel clear messianic
implications, then celebrating Yom Haatzmaut as a religious holiday follows automatically. I
believe that we should celebrate the birth of Israel without introducing any messianic motif.2
This emerges from an analysis of the transformational impact Israels existence has had on
Jewish life and religious observance.
In the ebb and flow of Jewish history we have experienced times of joy and moments of sorrow.
In the Torah, critical events became incorporated into the Jewish calendar as holidays. Chazal
added Purim and Chanukah. After the destruction of the second temple, which was mourned
through observing the pre-existing fast of Tisha BAv, there has been a reluctance to add new
commemorative days to the calendar. This has led to a lack of clarity in halakhic responses to
the creating of the state of Israel and the return of the Jewish people to our homeland after
almost nineteen hundred years of exile.
The debate about saying full, half, or no hallel, caused us to lose focus on the enormous
significance of what has transpired. Sixty-two years later, Israel has become the largest Jewish
community in the world and its Jewish population is approaching being a majority of world
Jewry. It has become clarified that the emergence of the state is a transforming event. The
trajectory of Jewish history has radically shifted.
Serious challenges remain, and at times, frustrations with mistakes by a particular government
can lead to losing sight of the fundamental change. Grandiose expectations of immediate
redemption have led some to become disillusioned. The Zionist vision, when translated to a
reality, failed to resolve the Jewish problem. The State of Israel has not proven to be a panacea.
We need to remind ourselves that the generation of Jews freed from Egypt did not merit
entering the land of Israel because of their inadequacies. Ezra and Nehemiah were unable to
convince the overwhelming majority of the Jews in Babylonia to return to the land of Israel.
The greatest believers in the State did not even dream that more than a million Jews from the
former Soviet Union would become Israeli citizens. Few knew that there were Jews in Ethiopia.
1
This paper is a revision of an article that I wrote in Jewish Action on the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of
the state of Israel.
2
The messianic and non-messianic approaches to religious Zionism are associated with the thought of Rav Kook
and Rav Soloveitchik respectively.
9
The ingathering of the exiles may be incomplete but that primarily reflects the reluctance of
American Jewry to make aliya. The Diaspora still exists but it is increasingly dependent on Israel
for sustenance. Only in the Unites States is there a comparable number of Jews. However, if we
trace the trajectory, the number of American Jews has barely increased in sixty years while the
Jewish population in Israel has gone from six hundred and fifty thousand to more than six
million.
The number of Jews learning Torah full time in Israel dwarfs the numbers in Europe before the
Second World War. Without the support of secular governments this community could not
survive economically. The period of Torah study for American yeshiva students, girls as well as
boys, includes at least a year in Israel. In countries with a small Jewish population the rabbis and
teachers are often shlichim from Israel.
Orthodox opposition to Israel is no longer significant. With the exception of the minuscule
Neturei Karta, it has been reduced to opposing symbols of the State but supporting it as a reality.
Ideological anti-Zionism which was dominant among Reform Jewry, is now a fringe
phenomenon. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which
represents a broad spectrum of organizations, stands firmly in supporting Israel and combating
all threats to its security.
Even with the wide diversity of American Jewry, the primary Jewish issue for American Jews is
where the candidates stand on Israel and its security needs. When all the major candidates
express support for Israel the Jewish community searches for any sign that the support is not
absolute. If anything, the organized Jewish community is to the right of the Israeli government.
The Birthright program, which offers eight days in Israel to college students, is proving to be a
most successful approach for connecting unaffiliated Jews to their Jewish identity. Planned
follow-up programs will involve spending significantly more time in Israel. Israel is an assumed
component of a Jewish identity.
Speculation about alternative realities is rarely productive. However, we should remember the
precarious state of Jewish life after the Holocaust. Many stories have appeared about prominent
Americans, who are actually Jewish, but whose parents decided after the Second World War that
that they should abandon their identity. They thought that this would protect their children and
give them a better chance of having a good life. Pride in being Jewish began to reappear in 1948
when Israel was established.
The wondrous victory of the Six Day War, with the return to Jewish control of the Temple
Mount, had enormous impact on Jewish life throughout the world. Those of us who recall the
fear of catastrophe felt prior to the war retain the sense of awe at the miraculous reversal. We
experienced Hashems salvation in the proverbial blinking of an eye. Over forty years later the
picture is no longer clear. It has become necessary to regain perspective on what has been
achieved.
The up and down experiences of Jewish history, with the black cloud of the Holocaust imbedded
in our collective memory, has made the Jewish people nervous. Lacking prophets to assure us,
10
we worry about the fragility of the Jewish state. Concerns lead to vigilance but fears may lead to
losing sight of how much has been accomplished.
Israel is a viable state capable of defending itself from its many enemies. Without a true peace it
has grown exponentially with a flourishing economy. While the internal conflicts within Jewry
have not disappeared, it is far better to debate while having a Jewish country how to best define
the nature of being a Jew, rather than whether it would be preferable not to be Jewish at all.
For religious Jews, the new reality creates great opportunities as well as challenges. The existence
and financial support of the state has helped enable observance to flourish. This has often come
with greater hostility from segments of the secular community. This is not a healthy situation
for the Jewish people however one assigns blame for the dispute.
We did not settle in Israel in sufficient numbers to play a major role in the founding of the state.
The religious parties have, at best, been junior partners in coalition governments. It is not clear
whether legislation is the effective way to preserve the Jewish character of the state. A minority
attempting to limit the behavior of the majority creates resentment.
Orthodox Jewry in Israel is split into many factions. Many elements oppose army service. The
question whether our focus should be in assuring that society maintains a basic level of public
observance or whether we should work to protect the full rights of observant Jews has yet to be
answered. What level of kashrut are we willing to sacrifice in order that the entire Israeli army
keeps kosher?
Our rabbinical leaders have yet to demonstrate that a modern state can function while observing
halakha. Great progress has been made in dealing with modern technology and medicine. In
other areas less has been accomplished.
Different proposals have been made for balancing public observance of Judaism with
maintaining individual choice. No consensus yet exists for the appropriate parameters but
efforts continue. Our present inability to maximize the opportunity for a deeper Jewish identity
for all Jews does not negate the religious value of having our own state.
Much has been written about governmental mistakes and wrong policies. Let us not forget the
lessons of Jewish history that great moments were invariably followed by disappointments. As a
people, the creation of the state of Israel has redefined the contours of our history. As religious
Jews, observant life has been expanded and Torah learning has exploded. The secular,
traditional and observant, whether Sefaradi or Ashkenazi, Chassidim or Misnagdim, religious
Zionist or Haredi, all have a joint responsibility to maintain a united people.
Without a state perhaps each group could function in isolation assuming that the Arab
government would leave the Jewish community alone. It is absurd to prefer that option because
difficult choices have to be made. After sixty-two years we should bless Hashem for giving us the
state of Israel with all the complications that come with being responsible for our own destiny.
11
Maintaining a Connection
to the Land of Israel from
the Diaspora
Rabbi Joshua Flug
Director of Torah Research, Yeshiva Universitys Center for the Jewish Future
As we celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut each year, many people in the Diaspora reflect on their
connection to the Land of Israel. For those who are planning aliyah, the connection is tangible.
For those who don't see aliyah as an option in the near future, there are other means of
connecting to the Land of Israel for the Diaspora. In this article, we will discuss some of the
activities people from the Diaspora perform in order to maintain a connection to the Land of
Israel and frame them in a Torah context.
Visiting Israel
One of the ways people from the Diaspora maintain their connection is by visiting the Land of
Israel. Is there a Torah value to visiting the Land of Israel? The Gemara implies that there is:
Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan, that whoever
walks four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured of a place in the
world to come.
Ketubot 111a (Soncino Translation)
" "

.
.
The rabbis considered walking in the Land of Israel valuable enough to merit a portion in the
world to come. There is a dispute among the commentators as to why it is considered valuable.
R. Yitzchak ben Sheshet ( Rivash, 1326-1408) states that walking in Israel is a fulfillment of the
mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel:
Since it is permissible [to embark on a journey] for mitzvah
purposes, even if one leaves on Friday, there is no doubt that
travelling to the Land of Israel is considered a mitzvah They
also stated that anyone who walks four cubits in the Land of Israel
is assured a place in the world to come One should not say that
one does not fulfill a mitzvah by travelling [there], only by settling.
Teshuvot HaRivash no. 101
12
'
"
...
'
... "

.
" " '
R. Yosef Trani (Maharit, 1568-1639) does not consider walking in the Land of Israel a mitzvah.
Rather, he considers it a merit:3
It seems to me that the reason of Rabbeinu Asher in this responsa,
where he equates this vow [to travel to the Land of Israel] to all
other types of non-mitzvah vows, is that a vow to travel [to the
Land of Israel] does not constitute a mitzvah because the primary
mitzvah is not travelling there, but settling there, as stated by
Ramban. However, regarding one who travels there to visit with
intent to return, we do not find a prominent mitzvah. Even if one
were to say that there is a merit, from what they said that anyone
who walks four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured a place in
the world to come as it states 'and spirit to those who walk within
it', nevertheless, there is no mitzvah.
Teshuvot Maharit, Vol. II, Yoreh De'ah no. 28
"

'
" "
"
' .

' "
'
."
" " " '
The dispute between Rivash and Maharit is cited by R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1633-1683),
Magen Avraham 248:15, in the context of certain travel arrangements that are only permissible
when one is travelling to fulfill a mitzvah. According to Rivash, these travel arrangements are
permissible for someone who is travelling to visit the Land of Israel. According to Maharit,
visiting the Land of Israel without intent to remain there does not constitute a mitzvah and
therefore, these types of arrangements are prohibited.
Purchasing Land in Israel

Some people maintain their connection to the Land of Israel by owning property in the Land of
Israel. The Gemara implies that purchasing property in the Land of Israel is considered a
mitzvah:
[Our authority further says that] a field bought in Syria is like one
bought on the outskirts of Jerusalem. What rule of conduct can be
based on this? R. Shesheth Says: It means that a contract for selling
it [to a Jew] can be drawn up even on Sabbath. What? On Sabbath?
You know the dictum of Raba, He tells a non-Jew to do it. So here,
he tells a non-Jew to draw up the contract. And although there is a
Rabbinical prohibition against telling a non-Jew to do things on
Sabbath [which we may not do ourselves], where it was a question of
furthering the [Jewish] settlement of Eretz Israel the Rabbis did not
apply the prohibition.
Gittin 8b (Soncino Translation)

'

"

"
"
"
.
:
Maharit also suggests that perhaps there is no independent merit to visiting the Land of Israel. The Gemara's
statement regarding someone who walks four cubits in the Land of Israel may only be referring to one who visits
during his lifetime and then is buried in the Land of Israel.
13
It is permissible to ask a non-Jew to sign the closing documents on Shabbat in order to purchase
property in the Land of Israel.4 The Gemara does not stipulate that one must live on that
property in order to fulfill the mitzvah.
If one can fulfill a mitzvah by purchasing property in the Land of Israel, this implies that there is a
mitzvah to acquire the land, independent of the mitzvah of living there. This, in fact, is the
opinion of Ramban (1194-1270):5
We are commanded in its conquest and its settlement. From
the rabbis statement that the war of Joshua to conquer [was
considered an obligatory mitzvah], you will understand that
the mitzvah is conquest We are commanded in the mitzvah
of conquest in all generations. I say that the mitzvah that the
rabbis praise is living in the Land of Israel to the extent that
they said that anyone who leaves [the land] and lives in the
Diaspora should be viewed as one who worships idols This
is all part of the positive commandment that we were
commanded to acquire the land and settle it.
Hasagot HaRamban to Sefer HaMitzvot, Aseh no. 4
.

...
.

...

.
" "
'
R. Shlomo ben Shimon (Rashbash, 1400-1467) is of the opinion that acquiring property in the
Land of Israel is not a mitzvah. Rather, it is necessary step for the mitzvah of living in the Land of
Israel. The leniency to allow a non-Jew to sign the closing documents on Shabbat is a leniency
to allow for a preparatory stage necessary to live in the Land of Israel:
In the first chapter of Gittin and in Perek Merubah [the
seventh chapter of Baba Kamma] it is stated that one
who acquires a house in the Land of Israel can draft the
contract on Shabbat etc. The primary purpose is settling
the land, which means that one lives there. Travelling to
the land is the means by which one can settle and settling
is a means of living there One who is outside of the
Land of Israel, if he does not first travel to the Land of
Israel, he can't enter the land. Settling it includes
[activities] such as planting fields and orchards and
acquiring homes, because wherever one finds food and
"
. "
".
" ,
, ...

...
,
, ,
"
,
,
According to Tosafot, Gittin 8b s.v. Af Al Gav, and Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 6:11, this is the only mitzvah that
warrants asking a non-Jew to violate a biblical prohibition in order to fulfill the mitzvah.
5
R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, L'Ohr HaHalacha pg. 269, notes that the Talmud Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 2:4, proves the
permissibility of asking a non-Jew to sign the closing documents on Shabbat from the fact that Yericho was
conquered by Yehoshua on Shabbat. R. Zevin sees this as a support to Ramban's position that there is an
independent mitzvah of conquest of the Land of Israel. See also, R. Avraham Pietrokovski (early 20th century),
Piskei Teshuva 1:248, who writes that acquiring land is a fulfillment of the mitzvah of conquest because we follow
the opinion that a "private conquest" of the Land of Israel is also considered a conquest. As such, there is no
mitzvah to purchase property from another Jew.
14
shelter, one finds proper settlement. It is possible for

someone to have fields, orchards and homes that allow
him to settle there, but he doesn't live there. Therefore,
settlement is not included in living there For this
reason, I say that settling and travelling to the Land of
Israel are two prerequisites to the mitzvah, but the
mitzvah itself is living there.
Teshuvot Rashbash no. 1
,
, ,
,
,
.

.
" " '
While Rashbash does not consider purchasing property in the Land of Israel a mitzvah, R.
Avraham Borenstein (1838-1910), Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah no. 454, seems to accept the
opinion of Ramban and still considers purchasing land in Israel while living in the Diaspora a
"great mitzvah" that is "partially comparable to living in the Land of Israel."6
Providing Financial Support to Causes in the Land of

Israel
One can maintain his connection to the Land of Israel by providing financial support to its
inhabitants. The Midrash addresses how to prioritize one's charitable distributions and states:
Within your gates. The people of your city precede the
people of another city. In your land. The people of the
Land [of Israel] precede the people of the Diaspora.
Sifri, Re'eh no. 62
.
: :
. "

The Midrash states that the people of one's own city take precedence over the people of another
city and that the people of the Land of Israel take precedence over people in the Diaspora. The
Midrash does not address whether the people of one's own city take precedence over the people
of the Land of Israel. R. Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640), Bach, Yoreh De'ah no. 151, rules that the
people of one's own city take precedence. R. Yisrael of Shklov (d. 1839) disagrees. In disputing
Bach, he states the following:
By giving to the people of the Land of Israel, one fulfills two
mitzvot: supporting the poor and maintaining the settlement in
the Land of Israel.
Pe'at HaShulchan, Hilchot Eretz Yisrael, Beit Yisrael 2:29
' "

."
, ' ,
:
R. Yisrael of Shklov is of the opinion that one can fulfill the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel
by supporting its poor inhabitants.
R. Chaim Y.D. Azulai (Chida, 1724-1807) provides a compromise between the opinion of Bach
and the opinion of R. Yisrael of Shklov:
See Tzitz Eliezer 6:32.

15
It is possible that Bach did not say [that one should give to the
people of one's own city before the people of the Land of Israel]
except when one gives to the poor people living in the Land of
Israel. However, if a representative comes from the Land of
Israel whose purpose is to promote the settlement of the Land of
Israel, and if not for the support of those in the Diaspora, the
land and its people would be downtrodden by the other nations
and by thieves with their persecutions and despicable acts, and
the Jews would have no presence in the Land of Israel, it would
seem that even Bach would agree that they precede the poor of
one's own city. The rabbis were so concerned about settling the
Land of Israel that they allowed purchasing a home in the Land
of Israel from a non-Jew on Shabbat etc.
P'nei David, Parshat Re'eh no. 15
"
"
"
"

" "

"
"
"
.
'
Chida suggests that Bach agrees that a person (or organization) representing the settlement of
the Land of Israel as a whole takes precedence over the poor of one's own city. Chida seems to
be focused on maintaining a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. In this regard, his approach
differs slightly from R. Yisrael's. According to R. Yisrael, supporting the poor in the Land of
Israel is a fulfillment of the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel because it allows those poor
individuals to live in the Land of Israel. According to Chida, there is an additional fulfillment to
support the settlement of the Land of Israel as a whole. This fulfillment appears to be based on
Ramban's understanding of the mitzvah of conquering the Land of Israel. In order for the Jewish
People to control the Land of Israel, there must be a Jewish presence. By allowing those who
maintain the Jewish presence to remain in the Land of Israel, one is contributing to the conquest
of the Land of Israel. Based on Chida's comments, one can add that there are other means of
financially supporting the settlement of the Land of Israel including the purchase of Israeli
products and investment in Israeli companies.
Performance of Mitzvot in the Diaspora

There is a Midrash that provides a means of connecting to the Land of Israel on a daily basis:
Another interpretation 'you will be quickly lost' 'you shall place
these words etc.,' even though I exile you from the Land [of
Israel] to the Diaspora, you should be decorated with mitzvot
so that when you return, they should not be new to you. This is
comparable to a human king that was angry at his wife and
sent her to her father's house. He said to her 'Continue to
adorn jewelry so that when you return, they should not seem
new to you.' Similarly, G-d said to the Jewish People, 'My
children, be decorated with mitzvot so that when you return,
they should not be new to you.'
Silfri, Ekev no. 7
,
,'

,

.

16
According to the Midrash, there are certain mitzvot that are observed in the Diaspora so that the
people of the Diaspora will be familiar with these mitzvot upon returning to the Land of Israel.
Rashi (1040-1105) seems to understand that the Midrash refers to all mitzvot:7

, ,

.
:"
Even after you are exiled, you should be decorated in mitzvot, place
tefillin, make mezuzot in order that they should not be new to you
when you return.
Rashi, Devarim 11:18
Ramban also follows Rashi's approach and provides an additional explanation:

The verse that states ''you will be quickly lost' 'you shall place these
words etc.,' only requires one in the Diaspora to perform mitzvot
that relate to the body [and not the land] such as tefillin and
mezuzot. The rabbis explained that the obligation is so that they
don't seem new to us when we return to the land because the
mitzvot are primarily for those who are living in the land of G-d.
Therefore, they stated in the Sifri 'You shall inherit it and settle in
it, And you shall observe [the mitzvot] settling the Land of Israel
has the same weight as all of the other mitzvot combined.'
Ramban, Vayikra 18:25

,'

,

,
.'

.
:"
If one takes Ramban's comments at face value, one would come to the conclusion that the
mitzvot are meant to be observed in the Land of Israel and the only reason why mitzvot are
observed outside of the Land of Israel is so that we are able to properly perform the mitzvot
upon returning to the Land of Israel. However, this cannot be true for a number of reasons.
First, the agricultural laws that apply in the Land of Israel are observed to some extent outside of
the Land of Israel in order to properly perform these mitzvot upon returning to the Land of
Israel. When these laws are applied in the Diaspora there are many leniencies. Yet we find no
halachic distinctions between observance of non-agricultural mitzvot in the Land of Israel and
observance of these mitzvot in the Diaspora. Second, if observance of mitzvot in the Diaspora
was merely a training exercise, one who performed mitzvot in the Diaspora would be required to
repeat those mitzvot upon entering the Land of Israel (if the timeframe of the original mitzvah
has not passed). Yet, we don't find such a requirement. Third, the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 13a,
7
Divrei Eliyahu, Parshat Ekev quotes the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) that there is a mistake in our version of Rashi.
Originally, Rashi wrote an abbreviation "" "." This was meant to say " ," that one
should observe the mitzvot of terumot and ma'asrot while in the Diaspora in order to be accustomed to observing
these mitzvot upon returning to the Land of Israel. However, the copiers thought that since Rashi's comments
appear in a section dealing with tefillin and mezuzah, the abbreviation must stand for " ." The
Vilna Gaon contends that it is logical to assume that Rashi meant to refer to terumot and ma'asrot because there is
no inherent requirement to observe agricultural laws in the Diaspora and there is an inherent requirement to
observe tefillin and mezuzah in the Diaspora.
17
states that it is permissible to leave the Land of Israel in order to perform certain mitzvot. If it
were true that observance of mitzvot outside of the Land of Israel is only for preparation
purposes, what value is there to any mitzvah in the Diaspora that would justify leaving the Land
of Israel?8
One must conclude that even Ramban agrees that the mitzvot performed in the Diaspora are not
merely training exercises9. Ramban's opinion is understood by R. Naftali Z.Y. Berlin (Netziv,
1816-1893) as follows:
The verse teaches us an important principle that Ramban
wrote about in Parshat Toldot and other places that the
Torah and its mitzvot, even though the non-agricultural
mitzvot are observed in the Disapora, they are nevertheless,
more specific to the Land of Israel. For this reason, mitzvot
are called 'the laws of the G-d of the Land.' It is understood
that for this reason, even though its purposes also apply in
the Diaspora, they are nevertheless, more relevant to the
Land of Israel
Ha'Amek Davar Shemot 20:12

"
"

"

" " "
.
:
The mitzvot have inherent significance whether they are observed in the Diaspora or in the Land
of Israel. The difference between mitzvot observed in the Land of Israel and mitzvot observed in
the Diaspora is that mitzvot observed in the Land of Israel have greater significance.
Based on Netziv's explanation, one must then question the reference by the Midrash, Rashi and
Ramban to mitzvot in the Diaspora as preparation. If the mitzvot have inherent value in the
Diaspora, why is their observance considered preparation for the observance of mitzvot in the
Land of Israel?
Perhaps the answer lies in the parable provided by the Midrash. The Midrash compares
observance of mitzvot in the Disapora to adorning jewelry. Jewelry is not considered a necessity.
The purpose of jewelry is to enhance one's appearance. Similarly, mitzvot can be observed in an
8
Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 5:9, writes that there are four situations that allow one to leave the Land of Israel: to
learn Torah, to find a spouse, to escape persecution, or to earn a livelihood. Of the four, learning Torah and finding
a spouse are the only two that constitute mitzvot. It is possible that according to Rambam, the permissibility of
leaving the Land of Israel is not based on the ability to perform the mitzvah in a more enhanced manner in the
Diaspora, but rather to enable one to perform the mitzvah in a more enhanced manner upon returning to the Land
of Israel. Finding a spouse allows one to perform the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu, procreating. Torah learning provides
one with the knowledge to perform all other mitzvot. Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 13a, s.v. Lilmod, write that the
permissibility to leave the Land of Israel for these mitzvot is a function of the fact that finding a spouse and learning
Torah are considered very important mitzvot. The comment of Tosfaot implies that the value of fulfilling the
mitzvah in the Diaspora is greater than the value of remaining in the Land of Israel. R. Achai Gaon, She'iltot no. 103,
rules that one may leave the Land of Israel to perform any mitzvah.
9
See Chamesh Derashot pp. 91-92, where R. Yosef D. Soloveitchikstates that there are two separate covenants
relating to the observance of mitzvot. The first is the covenant of Avraham that only requires mitzvot to be
observed in the Land of Israel. The second is the covenant of Sinai that applies in all places and is not limited to the
Land of Israel.
18
ordinary manner or in an enhanced manner. When one is in the Land of Israel, the sanctity of
the Land allows and demands that one observe the mitzvot in an enhanced manner. Through
the sanctity of the land, there is an ability to achieve greater spiritual heights through the
observance of mitzvot. The sanctity of the land also demands a more meticulous observance of
mitzvot.10 The message of the Midrash is that when one is in the Diaspora, one should try to
observe mitzvot in that same enhanced manner so that when one returns to the Land of Israel,
one is accustomed to the observance of mitzvot in an enhanced manner. Our efforts to fulfill
mitzvot in an enhanced manner can be categorized as a longing to fulfill mitzvot in the Land of
Israel.
Summary
We presented various means of maintaining a connection to the Land of Israel while living in the
Diaspora. Most of these means are a form of the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel or living in
it. We also noted that one can maintain the connection by striving to perform mitzvot in an
enhanced manner reflective of the observance of mitzvot in the Land of Israel.
10
Ramban's comments begin by addressing the question of why the Torah (Vayikra 18:25) refers to the violation of
incest as a defilement of the Land of Israel. Ramban explains that the sanctity of the Land of the Israel allows for
even less tolerance of violations of incest and idol worship than the Diaspora does.
19
Establishing Yom
Haatzamut as a Yom Tov
Rabbi Eli Ozarowski
Faculty, Michlelet Mevaseret Yerushalayim and Midreshet Yeud, Jerusalem
Introduction
In the religious Zionist public, Yom Haatzmaut has emerged in the last fifty years as one of the
most important days on the Jewish calendar. On this day, individuals can express their gratitude
to Hashem for the modern miracle known as the State of Israel in a religious framework. In this
essay, we will attempt to understand the halachic and hashkafic basis for instituting this new
Yom Tov, some of the problems raised against it, and responses to those problems.11
Unlike some other halachic controversies, there is a strong correlation between the hashkafic
perspective on the State of Israel and the halachic position of whether to celebrate this day in any
form. Someone who argues that the establishment of the State was a negative occurrence will
most likely contend that Yom Haatzamut should not be celebrated; while someone who believes
that this was a positive development will be more inclined to argue in support for the
significance of such a day. It is therefore important to investigate the different hashkafic
positions concerning the State of Israel before discussing the halachic opinions concerning
establishing a Yom Tov on the fifth of Iyar.
Hashkafic Responses to the State of Israel

Since its inception, there have been a number of varied responses concerning the proper
reaction to the founding of the State of Israel.
Atchalta DGeulah (beginning of the redemption process)
According to R.Tzvi Yehuda Kook12 and many others in the Religious Zionist camp, the
founding of the State is to be considered the beginning of the final redemption process.13 They
11
This question is related, but distinct, from the question of whether to recite Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut. For
summaries in English concerning Hallel, see R.Josh Flug, Should you make a berachah on Hallel on Yom
Haatzmaut?, Yom Haatzamut to go 5768; R. Ralph Pelcovitz and R.Solomon Rybak, Reciting Hallel on Yom
Haatzmaut, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Spring 1984, 5-24; and R.Chaim Jachter, Hallel on Yom
Haatzmaut, found at www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735867.
12
R.Tzvi Yehuda Kook, BNetivot Yisrael, p.182.
13
See Aharon Ahrend, "Pirkei Mechkar L'Yom Haatzmaut," p.14; see also R.Menachem Kasher, "HaTekufah
HaGedolah," p.374 (cited in footnote #3 of Ahrend's book and in Teshuvot Yabia Omer 6:41:5) where he
documents a famous proclamation of many rabanim from all segments of orthodoxy who declared that "we should
20
argue forcefully that the large segments of the Jewish people returning to our homeland, the
establishment a Jewish government, and the miraculous resurgence of the economy after two
thousand years of desolation all point towards this conclusion. This conclusion may be
supported by RAba's statement in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 98a) Ein lecha meguleh mizu, there
is no greater indication of the end of days than that which the prophet Yechezkel (Yechezkel
36:8) prophesizes, now mountains of Israel, your branches shall come forth and your fruit will
be offered to my people Israel.14 Ramban (Shir HaShirim 8:12) also comments that the
beginning of the future redemption will take place based on the permission of the governments
(of the world) and this will be a partial kibutz galuyot.15 This phenomenon is exactly what has
been occurring over the past fifty years. This ideology certainly would yield the conclusion that
we must recognize the founding of the State as a nes nigleh, an open miracle, requiring some sort
of positive response on our part, and this is in fact what most of the authorities that subscribe to
this approach believe.
Kol Dodi Dofek (my beloved is knocking)
R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in his seminal work Kol Dodi Dofek, also viewed the establishment of
the State of Israel in a positive light, but did not attach as much inherent significance to this
event. In the mind of R.Soloveitchik, Hashem is knocking on our door in different ways,
including through the military arena, political arena, and the historical arena, all of which clearly
indicate the Divine imprint on events leading to the founding of the State. But the significance
of a knock, explains R.Soloveitchik, is that He is waiting for us to answer. If we respond properly
through embracing the gift we have been given and building on our connection to Eretz Yisrael,
then this certainly can be the first step to redemption. However, if we do not respond properly,
we might miss the opportunity.
Maaseh Satan (the work of the Satan)
According to the former Satmar Rebbe, R. Yoel Teitelbaum,16 the establishment of the State is
all a test from Hashem to see if we remain faithful to him. Since He put us in exile, only He can
return us to Israel as a nation, and we cannot do so on our own prior to this. Therefore, since
Hashem has not yet brought the Mashiach Himself, we must reject what we are being offered
here, since its basis is essentially human intervention in the Divine plan.17 Therefore, this event
must be viewed in an extremely negative light, and is certainly not one to celebrate. This
approach has been adopted by many in the radical charedi world who totally reject the existence
of the State of Israel today.
thank Hashem to be able to see the first sparks of the Atchalta D'Geulah with the establishment of the State of
Israel; see also R.Hershel Schachter's comments discussed below concerning this issue.
14
This source has been noted by many, including R.Tzvi Yehuda Kook (ad loc.).
15
For additional sources which treat Kibutz Galuyot and the blooming of the land as the beginning of the
redemption, see Tzitz Eliezer (7:48), Yeshuot Malko (YD 2:66), & others cited by R.Yaakov Moshe Bergman,
HaMedinah HaYehudit, pp.104-111.
16
R.Yoel Teitelbaum, Hakdamah LSefer Al HaGeulah Val HaTemurah and VaYoel Moshe p.178
17
See below for more concerning the Satmar Rebbes Talmudic basis for his position. See also R.Kenneth Brander,
The Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Yom Haatzmaut to go 5768 for more on this issue.
21
Shev Val Taaseh (no response)

There are many others, mainly in the more mainstream charedi world today, that simply ignore
the day of Yom Haatzmaut as having any significance whatsoever: it is a regular day, just like any
other. In contrast to the religious Zionist world as well as the Satmar position, both of whom do
view this event as a critical one, this position does not respond at all to the establishment of the
State, neither positively or negatively. This may stem from tensions concerning whether
halachah allows us to celebrate such a day or initiate new religious days on the Jewish calendar,
the lack of religious direction in the government of Israel, or a variety of other reasons. Although
there certainly may be legitimacy to these concerns, the danger in this approach is that our
uncertainty as to how to respond or our intentional lack of response may begin to obscure our
view of Hashems guiding hand through history, and we may begin to lose sight of the amazing
significance and consequences of having our own State.
What Is So Special About Yom Haatzmaut?

Most individuals in the religious Zionist world accept either position one or position two
which requires acknowledgment on our part. However, to contemplate instituting a Yom Tov
on Independence Day, the fifth of Iyar, we must analyze what exactly occurred on this day that
warrants potentially giving it a special status. What is so great about David Ben Gurion declaring
independence, when the very next day the Arab countries declared war? How were the Jews
saved from their enemies on this day? There are a number of answers given to this question:
Freedom for Jews to live in Israel
R. Meshulam Roth argues (Teshuvot Kol Mevaser 1:21) that Yom Haatzmaut constitutes a shift
from avdut lcherut, servitude to freedom, similar to Pesach.18 Until this point, for almost two
thousand years, the Jews had nowhere they could truly call home, and relied on the good will of
the local rulers to be allowed to live and conduct business. They did prosper in many countries,
only to be thrown out and forced to wander. This reached a climax during the Holocaust when
Jews that escaped often had nowhere to go. Some arrived at the shores of other countries,
including Palestine, begging to be saved, and many were turned away or sent back to Europe to
their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Suddenly, now, after Israel declared independence, all
Jews had a country they could call home, and no Jew would be turned away. This, says R. Roth,
is an extremely significant development, and should be recognized as no less than a miracle from
Hashem. R.Yitzchak Nissim19 adds that although there was much pain and distress immediately
after declaring statehood, over the years the pain will pass and be forgotten, while the very fact
that statehood was declared and all the positive consequences that resulted from it will be
foremost in peoples minds. This indeed appears to be what has happened.
Being saved from enemies
R. Roth continues that Yom Haatzmaut also constitutes a yeshuah, salvation, from mitah
lchaim, from death to life, similar to Purim, since many were saved from death. However, he
18
See below for elaboration on the themes of Avdut Lcherut and Mitah Lchaim and for their Talmudic basis.
R.Yitzchak Nissim, Arichat Nisuin VTisporet bYom Haatzmaut, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut VYom Yerushalayim,
p.338.
19
22
doesnt explain exactly how. Perhaps we can explain that many who came to Israel as a result of
its independence might otherwise have been killed in other hostile countries around the world.20
Additionally, even those in Israel now were given the right to defend themselves, whereas before
the struggle for independence they often would be subject to the whims of the Arabs, and even
those that did defend themselves risked being deported by the British. Alternatively, we can
explain that Yom Haatzmaut also celebrates being saved from our enemies during the War of
Independence. Although the war and the danger did extend for a few months after the fifth of
Iyar, we celebrate our deliverance on the day independence was declared as an arbitrary day.
This explanation would contend that it is not so important which day is celebrated, but rather the
critical fact is that some day is designated to acknowledge these events.21
Explosion of Torah
R.Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 6:41) argues that the tremendous increase in Torah
learning is also sufficient reason to establish a Yom Tov. He describes how this dramatic
development has altered Torah learning not just in Israel but across the globe. Most critical
questions pertaining to Klal Yisrael, as a whole, are sent to the Gedolim in Israel and many
individuals have studied in Israel before pursuing professions, which has helped to raise the level
of Torah and mitzvah observance in many communities worldwide.22
Establishing a New Yom Tov Today

So far, we have established that Yom Haatzamut and Israeli independence have had an
enormous impact on Jews in Israel as well as around the world. But does this alone give us the
right to establish a new holiday on the Jewish calendar? Do rabbis today halachically have the
power to declare such a day as a Yom Tov? What in fact would be the halachic parameters of
such a Yom Tov? To answer these questions, we must look at some of the halachic literature
20
It should be noted that the Satmar Rebbe (in context of ascribing the blame for the Holocaust to the Zionists
ascent to Israel) argues exactly the opposite: these Jews, primarily in Arab countries, were not in danger until after
Israel declared independence, and therefore it is actually the Zionists at fault for placing these Jews in danger and
forcing them to flee to Israel. See Vayoel Moshe, p.123.
21
This issue also arises in the context of a nidche, a year when the day of Yom Haatzmaut is moved due to
concerns for desecration of Shabbat. Some poskim argue that although the fifth of Iyar is the regular day of
celebration, other legitimate concerns such as preventing Shabbat desecration permit us to change the date. They
explain that our celebration really encompasses the entire victory of the War of Independence, and the fifth of Iyar
was chosen simply because independence was declared on that day. See for example R. Shlomo Goren, Yom
Haatzmaut SheChal BShabbat, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut Vyom Yerushalayim, p.322 who suggests this at the very
end of a discussion of a nidche. R. Yona Metzger also authored a pamphlet published by the Rabanut HaRashit for
Yom Haatzamut 5764 (which was a nidche) where he also subscribes to a similar explanation.
22
For an interesting source somewhat related to this, see R.Samson Rafael Hirschs commentary on the Torah
(Vayikra 2:10) who suggests that chametz symbolizes national independence (Atzmaut Medinit). He continues
that we eat matzah on Pesach, our holiday of freedom, because Hashem is truly the one Who took us out of Egypt,
since we never would have been capable of doing it ourselves. However, our observance of Torah and mitzvoth
does allow us the ability to demonstrate our own role in Atzmaut Medinit, which can only take place in this way,
which is why on Shavuot the national korban of the Shtei HaLechem was actually chametz. In our case, it is
somewhat reversed since the independence of the State paved the way for the growth of Torah in Israel.
23
concerning previous attempts to establish additional Yomim Tovim, whether this was accepted
in practice, and whether the criteria in other cases can be applied to Yom Haatzmaut as well.
Ibn Ezra
Interestingly enough, one of the earliest sources related to this question is a comment by Ibn
Ezra (Bamidbar 10:10) on the section of chatzotzrot, the trumpets. The Torah details the
situations when there is a mitzvah to blow these trumpets: on the days of your rejoicing and
appointed holidays and on your days of Rosh Chodesh, and you shall blow the trumpets
What does the Torah mean by yom simchatchem, the days of your rejoicing? Which holidays
during the year does this refer to? Although the Sifrei (Piska 77) explains that this refers to
Shabbat,23 Ibn Ezra interprets this to mean a time when we have been victorious over our
enemies and established a day of simcha to commemorate it, similar to Purim. This day, says
Ibn Ezra, is a day when we blow the chatzotzrot to express our thanks to Hashem for saving us.
Thus, according to Ibn Ezra, there may be grounds for establishing a day of rejoicing when we
triumph over our enemies, which could serve as an interesting precedent for Yom Haatzmaut.
Although this Ibn Ezra is not quoted in most of the classic halachic sources concerning
establishing a Yom Tov below,24 it is quoted by some of the contemporary authorities discussing
Yom Haatzmaut, including R. Yehoshua Ehrenberg (ad loc.), R. Meshulam Roth (Teshuvat Kol
Mevaser 1:21), and others.
Maharam Alashker
The first source to directly raise the question of establishing a Yom Tov is Teshuvot Maharam
Alashkar (Siman 49) who was asked whether a community can institute a day of celebration
binding on all inhabitants, including future generations and individuals that move away. Basing
himself on the Gemara (Bava Basra 8b) that permits the leaders of a city to institute binding
decrees on its residents, Maharam Alashkar permits them to institute the observance of such a
day. Maharam Alashkar also cites another relevant passage from the Gemara (Eruvin 41a) that
R.Elazar bar Tzadok did not fast on the tenth of Av, even in years when Tisha Bav was observed
on that date (such as when the ninth of Av falls out on Shabbos), since according to the Mishnah
(Taanit 26a), his ancestors brought the wood offering on that day in the Beit HaMikdash during
the time of Ezra, so for him it was a family Yom Tov. This ruling is subsequently cited by many
acharonim, including Magen Avraham (686:4), Chida (Chaim Shaal 1:6), Beer Heitev (686:5),
and Mishnah Berurah (686:8).
Pri Chadash
Pri Chadash (496:14) disputes this ruling of Maharam Alashkar. He notes that there is a dispute
in the Gemara (Rosh HaShanah 18b) whether batlah Megillat Taanit, whether all of the days
23
This explanation is somewhat difficult, since we do not usually find Shabbat referred to as a day of Simcha in the
Torah, and it is usually assumed that Shabbat does not have a mitzvah of simcha, rejoicing, like the other Yamim
Tovim. Perhaps this is why Ibn Ezra interprets the pshat of the verse differently. See R.Yehoshua Ehrenberg,
Berurei Halachah Bkesher Im Chag Haatzmaut, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut VYom Yerushalayim, p.25, who
elaborates on this Sifrei, and R.Shlomo Wahrman, Sefer Orot Hashabbat, Siman 18, who cites other sources that do
seem to recognize a mitzvah of simcha on Shabbat, some of which even quote the Sifrei directly.
24
Perhaps the reason they do not cite this is because in most situations during exile we did not actually defeat our
enemies, we simply were saved from death or destruction in specific situations.
24
of celebration in the times of the second Temple recorded in the Megillat Taanit have been
abolished or not. R. Elazar bar Tzadok, claims Pri Chadash, must have been following the
opinion that lo batlah Megillat Taanit, and we can continue to observe these special days as
Yomim Tovim even after the Temples destruction. However, argues Pri Chadash, the Gemara
there seems to pasken that batlah Megilat Taanit, and these days have indeed been abolished
and cannot be celebrated anymore. If so, the passage in Eruvin cannot serve as a proof that we
can institute a new Yom Tov in our times for any type of salvation.25
Chatam Sofer
Teshuvot Chatam Sofer (OC 191) was also asked this question and cites both of the above
opinions, ultimately preferring that of the Maharam Alashker. However, his proof for this
approach differs from Maharam Alashker. He accepts the argument of Pri Chadash that the
Gemara Eruvin is not a valid proof, but instead offers two additional proofs for his opinion. First,
the Gemara (Arachin 10a) says that after the Jews were exiled from Israel, huchsheru kol haAratzos
lomar shirah, literally meaning that all lands were prepared to say shirah. According to Chatam
Sofer, this means that we can celebrate a miracle or salvation even from a country other than
Israel.26 Second, he argues that the conclusion of batlah Megillat Taanit only applies to cases of
Yomim Tovim relating to events in the Beit HaMikdash, but there is no problem celebrating
events that do not relate to the Beit HaMikdash by establishing a Yom Tov.27
Application of the shitot to practical halachah
According to Maharam Alashker and Chatam Sofer, it would seem that it is permitted to
establish a new Yom Tov today, and there are records of many individuals and communities that
indeed accepted days such as these upon themselves to celebrate various events in which they
were saved.28 On this basis, many recent poskim, especially within the religious Zionist
25
From the actual text of Maharam Alashkar, it seems that his main proof is actually the first Gemara quoted from Bava
Basra, and the second quote about R.Elazar bar Tzadok only adds that even if the heads of the community did not
actually decree a Yom Tov but it was simply a minhag the community practiced, it is still binding. It is interesting that
Pri Chadash only attacks the second source and completely ignores the first. Perhaps Pri Chadash felt that the first
source from Bava Basra alone does not prove at all that the ability of the elders to institute community takanot extends
to establishing a Yom Tov as well, and only the second source could serve as a potential proof.
26
This interpretation is not accepted by all commentaries. Turei Even (Megillah 14a), for example, explains that
this refers only to the destruction of the first Temple, after which the Kedushah of the land did not remain
(kedushah rishonah lo kidshah latid lavo). The Gemaras point is then that despite the rule discussed in that sugya
that we dont recite Hallel for a miracle in chutz laaretz, that does not apply when Eretz Yisraels kedushah is lacking.
However, after the destruction of the second Temple, when we hold that the kedushah of the land does remain
(kedushah shniyah kidshah lshaatah vkidshah latid lavo), reciting shirah for miracles is still limited to Eretz
Yisrael. Apparently Chatam Sofer interpreted this passage differently than Turei Even. See R.Yehudah Gershuni,
Al Keviat Yom Tov, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut Vyom Yerushalayim, p.57.
27
See also Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 233, Orach Chaim 163, Orach Chaim 208) for other teshuvot related to our
topic.
28
See R.Shariah Devlitzky, Keviat Yom Hadayah Lachar Milchemet Sheshet Hayamim, and R.Ovadya Hadaya,
Keviat Yom chag Klali, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut Vyom Yerushalayim pp.61-68 who mention a number of examples
of this, including Purim Frankfurt, a Yom Tov celebrated in Frankfurt on 20 Adar 1 for miracles they experienced
as reported in Sefer Yosef Ometz (1109), a community Yom Tov in Tripoli on 23 Tevet (also discussed in his
Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi OC 6:44), and a Yom Tov celebrated by the Chayei Adam after his family was saved from a
terrible fire (Chayei Adam 155:41).
25
community, sanctioned the establishing of Yom Haatzmaut as well, including R. Shlomo Goren,
R. Ovadya Hadaya, R. Yehoshua Ehrenberg, R. Meshulam Roth, and many others.29,30
We should note that Chatam Sofer does limit his allowance of making a Yom Tov to a case
where the Jews were literally saved mimitah lchaim, based on the Gemara (Megillah 14a)
which explains that this is why Purim was permitted to be established based on a kal vchomer
from Pesach: on Pesach when they were taken from avdut to cherut, Hallel is recited, so certainly
when Jews are taken from potential death to life, Hallel should be recited (and a Yom Tov can be
established). Chatam Sofer says that as long as we are still in galut, there can be no true avdut
lcherut, and therefore one shouldnt make a Yom Tov on being saved from troubles other than
threat of death. According to this, it should follow that on Yom Haatzmaut, where no
individuals were actually saved from death on that day, a Yom Tov cannot be established.
Nevertheless, argues R.Shlomo Goren (ad loc.), Chatam Sofer would certainly permit
establishing it, since now we are not in galut: we have returned to our land and we have a
sovereign government, so this might actually count as a true avdut lcherut, especially since many
Jews began returning from other countries where they were indeed in literal slavery.
According to Pri Chadash, however, it would be forbidden to institute any such Yom Tov.
R.Chaim Regensberg, after suggesting a number of proofs to his position, adopts the Pri
Chadashs approach as normative and explains his opposition to such a holiday on this basis.31
Although he did not quote the Pri Chadash directly, the Chazon Ish32 also opposed instituting
new religious days to the Jewish calendar, and thus was strongly against Yom HaShoah as the
national day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Presumably, he would have opposed Yom
Haatzmaut for similar reasons. This approach may also be one of the reasons why many groups
do not accept the establishment of this day of religious celebration.
29
See their articles in Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut Vyom Yerushalayim where they all accept this conclusion.
The character of such a Yom Tov and what exactly should be done to celebrate it is the subject of some debate.
Based on the Talmudic sources regarding Megilat Taanit (Rosh Hashanah 18b, Taanit 18b) it seems clear that such a
Yom Tov would forbid eulogies and fasting. Another widely accepted practice for this type of Yom Tov is to arrange a
seudat mitzvah, which is also mentioned in some of the sources concerning Yomim Tovim. This is also evident from
the words of Rama (Orach Chaim 670:2) who notes that although there is no mitzvah to have a seudah on Chanukah,
a seudah with words of Torah and praise (divrei shirot vtishbachot) would still qualify as a seudat mitzvah. However, as
mentioned above, sources concerning reciting Hallel are much less clear. Many communities instituted their own
special customs to commemorate their miracles, such as lighting special candles and reciting special Tehillim. See the
sources cited in note 17. There is also a debate whether a Yom Tov such as Yom Haatzmaut permits shaving, haircuts,
and weddings despite the restrictions of Sefirah. From RChaim Palagi, Moed Lchol Chai Siman 6, it seems that a Yom
Tov celebrated by a family for a miracle that occurred during Sefirah permits shaving as well, and many authorities in
Eretz Yisrael use this source to permit shaving on Yom Haatzmaut. See R.Yitzchak Nissim, Arichat Nisuin VTisporet
BYom Haatzmaut and R.Moshe Maimon, Im Nohagin Divrei Aveilut BChag Haatzmaut, Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut
VYom Yerushalayim, pp.341-348, and Teshuvot BMareh HaBazak (4:53). However, R.Schachter, Sefer Nefesh HaRav,
p.94, cites R.Soloveitchik as disapproving of this approach.
31
Sefer Mishmeret Chaim (Siman 38). R.Regensberg was a well known Rosh Yeshiva at Hebrew Theological College in
Skokie, IL, in the first part of the twentieth century. Interestingly enough, my father, R.Joseph Ozarowski, who
attended and received semichah from HTC, has told me that R.Regensberg was known to be a very big supporter of
religious Zionism and the State of Israel. Contrary to other opinions discussed above, this positive outlook of Medinat
Yisrael did not impact on his decision that halachically instituting Yom Haatzmaut as a Yom Tov was incorrect.
32
R.Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, Igrot Chazon Ish, # 97.
30
26
A Yom Tov for all of Klal Yisrael?

Even if we accept the more lenient approach permitting the establishment of a Yom Tov, R.
Hershel Schachter (Bikvei HaTzon siman 32) notes that Yom Haatzmaut may pose more of a
problem than the others discussed in earlier poskim. Chatam Sofer himself in the above teshuvah
gives an additional answer to how R. Elazar bar Tzadok kept his own personal Yom Tov despite
the fact that batlah Megilat Taanit. He says that personal or communal holidays are permitted to
be instituted, but national holidays, such as those in Megilat Taanit, would be forbidden to
establish anymore. Chayei Adam (Hilchot Purim 155:41) also expresses similar sentiments to
that of Chatam Sofer forbidding a Yom Tov for the whole nation. According to this, argues R.
Schachter, the fact that Yom Haatzmaut was meant to be established for the entire Jewish people
means that it should actually be forbidden to do so according to these authorities.33
Interestingly, most of the contemporary poskim mentioned above discussing Yom Haatzmaut
do not mention this point; they simply quote the first part of the Chatam Sofer in support of
establishing a Yom Tov. Perhaps they interpreted Chatam Sofer to be giving an additional
explanation why R. Elazar bar Tzadok was permitted to keep his own personal Yom Tov on the
tenth of Av, but this does not reject his first explanation that a Yom Tov is permitted if it has no
relation to events in the Beit HaMikdash, and this would hold true even if it was for Kol
Yisrael. Alternatively, some poskim, such as R. Ovadya Hadaya (ad loc.), rely mainly on the
Maharam Alashkar (perhaps because they are both Sefardim), who never mentions this
limitation of Kol Yisrael.34
R. Schachter himself suggests another defense for Yom Haatzmaut that an event which qualifies
as atchalta dgeulah would still warrant a Yom Tov, despite being targeted to the whole Jewish
nation. He bases this on a comment of R.Yaakov of Lisa (author of the Netivot HaMishpat) in
his commentary to Megillat Esther35 who says that the reason Purim was established as a Yom
Tov was because it was considered atchalta dgeulah. Based on the Rambans introduction to
Sefer Shmot where he says that the Jewish people were considered redeemed after arriving at
Har Sinai and subsequently building the Mishkan, R. Schachter argues that the definition of
geulah is building the Beit HaMikdash, and the Purim miracle was a step on the way to the Jews
returning to Israel to build the Bayit Sheni. So too, he says, Yom Haatzmaut can be viewed as
the first step of restoring Jewish sovereignty over its homeland which will hopefully lead to the
building of the Temple, similar to the mitzvah of appointing a king, which the Gemara
(Sanhedrin 20b) says is the first step to building the Beit HaMikdash.36
33
This may be one important difference between the parameters for reciting Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut and the
question of establishing Yom Haatzmaut as a formal Yom Tov of sorts. Regarding Hallel, a miracle affecting the
entire nation is more likely to obligate its recitation (see Yabia Omer ad loc.), whereas for establishing the day as a
Yom Tov, the Kol Yisrael aspect makes it harder to allow according to Chatam Sofer and Chayei Adam.
34
In fact, even Magen Avraham, Beer Heitev, and Mishnah Berurah, who accepted the possibility of establishing a
communal Yom Tov, only quote the Maharam Alashker but make no mention of Chatam Sofer.
35
R.Yaakov MiLisa, Megillat Setarim, 9:19.
36
See the remainder of R.Schachters piece for other sources and details concerning his position, including his
conclusion that although one is not obligated to celebrate a holiday related to atchalta dgeulah, including Yom
Haatzmaut, nevertheless one is permitted to do so.
27
R. Ovadia Yosef (ad loc.) argues that even an atchalta dgeulah is not sufficient to warrant
reciting Hallel with a berachah on Yom Haatzmaut, since there are still numerous challenges and
troubles in Israel. Although it is possible R.Ovadia would distinguish between Hallel and the
other characteristics of establishing a Yom Tov, it is clear that he feels this type of atchalta
dgeulah is not strong enough at least regarding certain aspects of such a chag. He bases this on
the Yerushalmi (Pesachim 10:6) that says although one should indeed recite praises (shirah)
to Hashem when He does miracles for you, this does not apply to techilat geulatan, such as the
night they left Egypt (as opposed to after crossing the sea).37 Also, it is worthwhile to note (as
does R. Goren in passing) that we dont have records of a specific day of Yom Tov for the return
of Jews to Israel in the time of Ezra, so too here one could argue that atchalta dgeulah alone
would not warrant a designation of Yom Tov.
Bal Tosif
Another challenge dealt with by contemporary poskim in attempting to establish Yom
Haatzamut as a religious holiday is the prohibition of bal tosif. The Torah tells us (Devarim 4:2)
that we are not allowed to add or detract in any way from the Torah as it was given to Moshe.
According to Ramban there, this prohibition includes establishing new holidays on the Jewish
calendar. How can we justify our establishing of Yom Haatzmaut as a Yom Tov when Ramban
seems to explicitly prohibit such an action? In fact, this source, or at least the general hashkafah
behind it, may be another reason why many in the charedi world have been opposed to Yom
Haatzamut and why Chazon Ish was opposed to Yom HaShoah.
To answer this problem, rabbinic authorities have suggested the following two explanations.38
First, it is noteworthy that Rashi (Megillah 14a s.v. chutz) appears to disagree with Ramban and
implies that bal tosif is only violated when a Navi, a prophet, institutes a new mitzvah or holiday.
However, a Beit Din does have the authority to establish such a day as a rabbinic enactment.
Therefore, says Rashi, the Gemara was only bothered by the introduction of mikra megillah into
halachic practice since nevuah still existed at this time, but Chanukah, which took place after the
conclusion of prophecy, is not questioned. So too, Yom Haatzmaut should not violate bal tosif
according to this since it was not instituted through a Navi. Second, Ramban himself must
confront the question of how the Jews during the second Temple were allowed to institute all of
the holidays detailed in Megilat Taanit, mentioned in the Gemara (Taanit 18b and elsewhere).
Shouldnt these days of celebration violate bal tosif according to Ramban? The answer is that
apparently Ramban must also agree that these days do not violate bal tosif because they are done
37
R. Schachter could respond that the Yerushalmi only refers to leaving Egypt which has nothing to do with
building the Beit HaMikdash, or that the Yerushalmi means that one is not obligated to do so, but if one wanted to
it would still be allowed. Nevertheless, the Yerushalmi does not appear to differentiate between Yetziat Mitzrayim
and other types of miracles other than based on techilat geulatan.
38
See R.Shlomo Goren (ad loc.). See also R.Yehudah Gershuni, R.Betzalel Cohen, and other authors in Hilchot
Yom Haatzmaut VYom Yerushalayim who discuss this question. R.Schachters approach discussed above could
answer that normally bal tosif would apply when establishing a new holiday for Klal Yisrael, which would be the
reason for Chatam Sofer and Chayei Adams limitation of instituting new days of Yom Tov to personal or
community events alone. However, here when done for an event which is atchalta dgeulah this may not apply.
R.Schachter discusses this issue in a shiur recorded on www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/725325 concerning
Yom Haatzmaut.
28
with the sanction of the Chachamim, and their purpose is to praise Hashem for His salvation.
Consequently, Ramban will agree that any day designated to celebrate by thanking Hashem
would not qualify.
Hashkafic Challenges to Yom Haatzmaut and the State

Many of those that oppose celebrating Yom Haatzmaut, and even some that support it, wonder
how we can celebrate the inception of a state with numerous failings and deficiencies in the
spiritual realm. Is celebration the response when we havent truly achieved our goals yet? Let us
briefly detail a few of these concerns and possible responses to them.
The government is not run according to the Torah
One of the most troubling questions asked is how we can rejoice when Jews are not running the
country in accordance with the laws of the Torah. Furthermore, the entire state was founded by
secular Zionists, many of whom were even anti-religious. How can the beginning of the
redemption be brought about in this manner? R. Yaakov Moshe Bergman39 and others explain
that the development of Israel can be a positive thing even when achieved by the secular. The
Gemara (Sanhedrin 102b) already tells us that the reason the wicked Omri merited to rule the
Jewish people as king was because despite all his wickedness, he built up a number of cities in
Eretz Yisrael. So Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, even when brought about by non-religious, carries great
merit with it. In addition, Rav Soloveitchik (in Kol Dodi Dofek) and others point out that the
religious Jews could in fact have had more of a role in running the country had more of them
come on aliyah. However, the vast majority of those that came were secular, and they were the
ones who helped the shape the fledgling state in its formative years.
Shalosh Shevuot (the three oaths)
The Gemara (Ketubot 111a) tells us that the Jewish people swore to the nations of the world
that they would not conquer the land of Israel (shelo yaalu bchomah, literally they wont go
over the wall) before the proper time. How then can we celebrate the founding of a State if we
are not allowed to be there in the first place? This question is in essence the main attack of the
Satmar Rebbe on Yom Haatzmaut and the State of Israel as discussed above. One of the main
responses to this question is that the Jews in fact did not conquer the land of Israel, but were
given permission by the nations of the world, first after the Balfour Declaration, and later after
the U.N. vote in 1947, to return to Israel and establish a Jewish state there.40
The security situation in Israel
Another question raised by many, including R.Ovadya Hadaya (Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi 6:10 in
explaining why we cannot make a berachah on Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut), is that although we
are in control of our own land, there are constant threats directed at Israel by its hostile
neighbors, and one does not feel a sense of national security. How can we celebrate when we
39
R.Yaakov Moshe Bergman, HaMedinah HaYehudit, pp.27-31.

For more sources and detailed analysis of this question, see R.Kenneth Brander, The Mitzvah of Living in the
Land of Israel: Is it a Biblical Commandment?, Yom Haatzmaut to go 5768; R.Hershel Schachter, ad loc;,
R.Menachem Kasher, ad loc.; and R.Shlomo Aviner, Maamar Shelo Yaalu bChomah (also found in Noam Volume 20
and online at: http://bit.ly/cdRxT8).
40
29
never know when the next war might erupt or the next missile might hit? Although this
contention was even truer during the first thirty years of Israels existence, it certainly is still
relevant in our day as well, with Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran amassing weapons, and frequent
shooting attacks by Arabs in various parts of the country.
We still dont have the Beit HaMikdash
One of the final challenges raised is that the true complete Geulah is certainly the rebuilding of
the Beit HaMikdash, which has not happened yet. How can we celebrate Yom Haatzmaut when
we have not yet achieved our primary goal? What is our country worth without the Beit
HaMikdash? The answer to the last two challenges is that our celebration of Yom Haatzmaut
does not indicate that all of our problems are solved and that we live in the ideal society as will be
experienced in the days of Mashiach. However, if we ever want to reach that stage, we must
thank Hashem for everything he gives us along the way. Each step is significant, similar to a
child growing up whose parents take pride each time the child learns how to do something new,
such as crawl, walk, speak in full sentences, and graduate school. If we thank Him for every
stage, we hope that He will continue to help us pass through subsequent stages successfully.
Conclusion
Although rabbinic authorities debate whether one can and should establish a Yom Tov on the
occasion of the establishment of the State of Israel, this disagreement should not obscure the more
critical issue that those of us in the religious Zionist camp are in agreement about: we have been
witness to the monumental event of the founding of a Jewish state in Israel in our times, and the far
reaching effect that this has had, and it is our responsibility to demonstrate to Hashem how much
we appreciate it, in whatever method we feel is halachically and hashkafically acceptable.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 94b) tells us that Chizkiah was set to be the Mashiach, but Heaven was
upset at him because he had not properly thanked Hashem for the salvation of the Jews from
Sancheriv and Ashur. Metzudat David has a similar thought concerning the pasuk in Shirat
Devorah (Shoftim 5:12) of uri uri dabri shir kum Barak vshaveh shevyecha ben Avinoam,
awaken, awaken, speak the words of song, arise Barak and capture your captives (of war) son of
Avinoam. According to Metzudat David, the connection between the singing in the first half of
the pasuk and the taking of captives in the second half is that the more we praise Hashem for
how He has helped us, the stronger the salvation will be. If we dont thank Hashem now, how
can we expect for Him to give us more of the vision that we want for our nation?
Perhaps we can merit the fulfillment of the berachah of the Metzudat David through
internalizing the lesson of Chizkiah: the more we thank Hashem for the gifts He has given us, the
more He will increase our salvation in todays challenging times, leading to the final step of the
ultimate redemption through the building of the Beit HaMikdash once again in Jerusalem.
30
The Roots of the

Disputes over Yom
HaAtzmaut
Rabbi David Pri-Chen
Kollel Fellow, YU-Torah Mitzion Chicago Community Kollel
-" ' "

'"-"
Kibutz Galuyot - Ingathering of Exiles

Yom HaAtzmaut is intended to be a day of thanks and jubilation, one that transcends
boundaries, for all of world Jewry. After all is said and done and beyond all the intricate analysis
regarding the relationship between Zionism and Judaism, the religious significance of the State,
the nature of the redemption and other issues, this day marks the occurrence of one of the most
meaningful days in the history of our nation. It is an event that, without any dispute, constitutes
sufficient reason to be established as a national holiday. The significance of the day goes beyond
the mere announcement of a State, the establishment of Tzahal, and other events connected to
this day, which may not be sufficient reasons for many parts of our people to establish a holiday.
The opening of the gates of the Land of Israel to Jewish aliyah on a mass scale and the
ingathering of the exiles that began on this day are singular events in history, which undoubtedly
have much religious significance. We have never seen a comparable moment in history where
Jews scattered in all corners of the earth left their lands and immigrated to G-d's chosen land;
and all with the endorsement of the U.N., the institution created to represent the consensus of
the nations of the world. It would seem that this alone would warrant the establishment of a day
of thanks and praise, whether or not it is the beginning of the final redemption.
Interestingly, the source from which we derive the halachic obligation for an individual person to
give thanks in response to the occurrence of miracles lies in the context of national ingathering
of exiles41. Tehillim 107 begins as follows:
Give thanks to God, for He is good, for His mercy endures for
ever. So let the redeemed of Hashem say, whom He has redeemed
from adversity and gathered them out of the lands, from the east
41
: '

'
:
:
: "
31
and from the west, from the north and from the sea. They
wandered in the wilderness in a desert way; they found no city of
habitation. Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. Then
they cried unto God in their trouble, and He delivered them out of
their distresses. And He led them by a straight way, to go to a city
of habitation. Let them give thanks to God for His mercy, and for
His wonders to mankind.
Tehillim Perek 107

:
:

:'

' :

:

The fundamental event from which we learn the obligation to give thanks is derived from
precisely the event with which we are concerned. The pesukim speak about the ingathering of the
exiles from the farthest reaches of the earth. From a halachic perspective, this event serves as the
archetype for miraculous events in general.
How then is it possible that despite the great miracles that undoubtedly occurred on this day,
impacting wide parts of the Jewish world, Yom HaAtzmaut became a day that is so associated
with conflict, and so saturated with the tensions that exist between the different factions
amongst the Jewish religious public?
Yom HaAtzmaut !?
The major reason to this controversy, just like many historical phenomena is that one may offer
various, wide ranging interpretations for this event. Perhaps a modest insight to shed light on the
tension that surrounds this day will actually illustrate that is part of its unique essence. In other
words, the heated debate and spirited discussion about this day may be an inextricable part of
Yom HaAtzmaut and the time in which we live.
At first glance, it seems that the notion of independence is clearly a foreign notion to
Judaism. Inpendence as it is commonly understood is impossible in our religious worldview, one
which is based on our continuous dependence on Hashem, Who recreates in his kindness daily,
constantly.42 Yet, people are given free will and have the option of acting contrary to the will of
Hashem. Man has the capacity to build and create or destroy and tear down, yet man can never
shake loose from his constant dependence on his Creator. Seemingly, a declaration of
independence flies in the face of our consistent reliance on Hashem. Is there a concept of Jewish
independence, and if so, what is its nature?
and
Firstly, in order to understand Jewish independence, let us find the source of the word Atzmaut independence, in the Tanach. In its current form the word does not appear in any of the twenty four
books of the Tanach, but an interestingly similar word is found in several places- Atzmiut or Atzmi:
My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made
in secret, and figured in the lowest parts of the earth.
Tehillim 139:15
42

:
:
Birkot Kriat Shema

32
The author of this psalm sings to Hashem, acknowledging that even his most hidden parts are
not hidden from Him. From the moment of creation of an embryo, although it occurs in a
hidden place, it is all revealed before the Master of the world. Some commentators explain that
the word atzmi in this verse refers to the fetus and it relates to the bone (from the word
etzem). In contrast, the author of the Metzudos commentary suggests that the word connotes the
essence of the matter in its qualities, an interpretation closer to today's usage of that
word. However, even when we accept the first interpretation, referring the word atzmi to etzem,
the bones of the fetus, his intent is to the basic elements and perhaps the most inner component
of the person's personality. Just as the skeleton of the person is the basis of the human being, as
it holds up and gives shape to the entire being, so too, atzmi is the hidden aspect of the person
that gives form and shape to ones personality.
As a person is a tree of the field.43 Often, the Torah draws a comparison between the physical
structure of a person and trees of the field, or to the world of flora at large. A person has seeds,
much like a tree; ones children are ones saplings:
Your wife shall be as a fruitful vine, in the innermost parts of
your house; your children like olive plants, around your table.
Tehillim 128:3
In light of this comparison, etymologists offer that the word etzem is related to the word etz,
tree. People have branches, fruit and leaves but the etzem, the essence, is the tree itself. If so, we
can continue this analogy and suggest that just as trees, although they are hard and strong,
continuously grow and develop, so too do human bones:
And you shall see and your hearts shall gladden, and
your bones shall blossom like fields.
Yeshayahu 66:14

'
:
Perhaps this is the basis for the Ibn Ezras explanation of the word atzmi in the psalm, which
states that this refers to the innate capabilities of the embryo when it is still unborn, the potential
that is found within the child that develops and grows over the years.
Hence, the notion of atzmiut ha'adam reflects the basic potential within a person. On one
hand it is hidden but on the other hand it is the backbone and foundation that exists and
develops on the outside. The atzmiut is the source of energy and potential which is found in the
person, which grows and develops with him.
Likewise, we suggest that the atzmaut of the Jewish people is also its atzmiut.
Between freedom and Atzmiut

After more than 200 years of slavery, Am Yisrael finally leaves Egypt as a free and united nation.
On the one hand, the Exodus from Egypt marks the end of a long process, the process of
43
Dvarim 20:19
33
transforming a family to a nation. However, at the same time it also serves as a starting point for
a long and arduous journey.
Our sages in the Midrash 44 compare the Exodus to an antedated birth of an animal. Like a
veterinary surgeon, Hashem pulls the fetus, Am Yisrael, out of the animal uterus. According to
this description, it seems that our sages viewed the Egyptian exile as a prolonged pregnancy, the
process of forming the nation. Just like an embryo, the growth process of the nation occures in
an exponential fashion: Starting from twelve sons, going through seventy people who went
down to Egypt. We find out in the beginning of Sefer Shmot that Bnei Yisrael became a huge
nation, threatening the world's strongest empire at the time. During this stage, Bnei Yisrael do
not have their own identity yet, and are still a part of the Egyptian culture similar to the
opinion quoted in the Gemara that considers the fetus an integral part of his mother (Yevamot
78:1). In fact, the first to realize that a separate entity is being created in Egypt, are not Bnei
Yisrael themselves, but rather the 'animal', or the surrogate mother - the Egyptians. Pharaoh is
the first one to define the family of Yaakov as a 'nation ':

:
And he said behold, the Jewish nation is greater and

more powerful than us
Shemot 1:9
The bloods of the Korban Pesach and the Brit Milah represent the blood of the labor:
And when I passed over you, and saw you wallowing
in your blood, I said to you: By your blood, live; and
I said to you: By your blood, live
Yechezkel 16:6
The Exodus, then, constitutes the final stage of the birth process of Am Yisrael.
The Exodus, however, is not the end of the story, rather the beginning of a different journey, the
point where the newborn starts its life. This journey begins in Parashat Beshalach:
And when Pharaoh had let the people go, and God led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines,
although that was near; for God said: 'Lest the people
repent when they see war, and they shall return to Egypt.'
Shemot 13:17

:

:
In the early days of the journey to the land of Israel, God guides the nation through the barren
desert and not through the main road. Seemingly, in order to prevent any feelings of regret from
the newly freed slaves, God seeks to hide any risk of war from Am Yisrael. According to this
explanation, the divine plan was to grant some rest to the slaves who were enslaved for so many
years, at least for a few days. Ramban on those verses has already pointed out the difficulty in this
explanation: If so, why did Hashem confront Am Yisrael with the Egyptians so close to their
44
",
34
departure? Furthermore: this plan was soon disrupted by the war against Amalek! If the purpose
of marching through the desert was to avoid war immediately after leaving Egypt, this goal was
not achieved, when Am Yisrael still had to fight for its life! Moreover: later in the book, we read
that Am Yisrael wished to return to Egypt because of the wars and perhaps even more because of
the hard life in the desert. Was it not better then to guide the people through the shorter route
and thus avoid the physical hardships?!
Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun45 explains, in line with Rashbam's approach46, that the divine purpose of the
guidance through the desert was different than what was previously suggested. R' Bin-Nun
claims that in order to understand God's intent in this act, one needs to understand the
concerns about the risk of return to Egypt.
Only he shall not have too many horses to himself, nor
cause the people to return to Egypt for more horses; as
God said to you: You shall no longer return that way.
Devarim 17:16

'

:
Throughout the Tanach various examples seem to reveal a deeper meaning of the prohibition on
the king of Israel to allow the return of Am Yisrael to Egypt. Hashem does not forbid only the
physical return to the land of Egypt, but in addition prohibits a development of a political and
security dependence on the southern kingdom. Many prophets criticize the kings of Israel and
Judah for relying on the military strength of Egypt. Isaiah contrasts the reliance on Egypt to
having faith in Hashem:
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and rely on
horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many, and
in horsemen, because they are exceeding mighty; but they
look not unto the Holy One of Israel, and dont seek God.
Yeshayahu 31:1

: '

:
God commands the king not to concede the independence of the Jewish people, to avoid
bringing about the patronage of Egypt over the Jewish People. The goal of the long haul in the
desert is the development of this independence and the non-dependence on Egypt. God does
not lead Am Yisrael to Israel via the shortest route, but in an indirect, winding route to stress the
complete separation from the Egyptian authority. By leading his people straight to the inevitable
encounter with their former oppressors, God emphasize that they are redeemed thanks to his
own mighty hand, and not by virtue of the consent of Pharaoh. At the end of the grueling
journey through the desert, a journey which was designated to create independence and even
more so atzmiut for the people of Israel, they arrive at the Promised Land. With all the
foreseeable difficulties involved in conquering the land they do not turn to Egypt for help. The
atzmiut is being created during the long process in which Am Yisrael receives the Torah, the
unique substance of the nation, and starts to fight all alone without any visible miracles by God.
45
46
43-39 ' ' ) "( ,''

R. Shmuel Ben Meir (1080-1160) ,
35
On Pesach, Am Yisrael gains its freedom, which means lack of dependence on Egypt, but this is
only a negative content. In their wanderings in the desert, the nation achieves its atzmiut, the
positive self content.
The repentance process of Am Yisrael

In the long years of exile, Am Yisrael lost its independence as well as their atzmiut. For centuries
we were not dependent on our own actions, but on the whims of emperors and czars, kings,
prime ministers and Fhrers.
The liberation from this dependence is the first level of Yom HaAtzmaut - freedom and lack of
dependence on others, but it is only the 'negative' meaning of the day.
The more profound and significant event which happened on this day, was the opportunity
given to us by G-d to take our fate in our hands. Am Yisrael has the ability to create a reality in
which not only they do not depend on others, but they also determine their very own destiny. By
the return of Am Yisrael to its land, a long process of rediscovery begins, a process of revealing
their atzmiut and their own substance. Atzmiut can be expressed in various aspects of the
nation's life - its culture, political choices and many more aspects.
The 5th of Iyar is not only a celebration of Independence and lack of dependence, but mostly
Yom HaAtzmiut. On that day Am Yisrael returns to its self-essence, and its personalized and
unique substance.
At this point let us return to our starting point. It seems that all the discussions and debates
within Am Yisrael about the essence of Yom HaAtzmaut are an integral part of the celebration.
The nature of these disputes is perhaps the nation's attempts to find out what is this atzmiut,
what is the unique essence of the people of Israel. The arguments over the meaning of Yom
HaAtzmaut are themselves a very powerful expression of Israel's independence. As mentioned
above this atzmiut is not static and those discussions demonstrate that we even have the
mandate to figure out our own self-definition.
Thus explains Rav Kook the essence of teshuva, repentance:
, ,

' "
Teshuva is a return to the basics, to the

beginning, to connect all the leaves of life to the
root that they come from.
Orot Hateshuva p. 134
Yom HaAtzmaut for the klal, the public, is analogous to what Yom Kippur is for the individual.
During Yom Kipur the individual tries to remove his external layers and to return to his deeper
self, so on Yom HaAtzmaut -HaAtzmiut the klal returns to its uniqueness and originality. The
tension and debates which surround this day are mere an implication to this repentance.
36
The National and

Personal Calling of Shir
Hashirim
Mrs. Daphne Secunda
Since its inclusion in the canon, Shir HaShirim has presented its readers with formidable
interpretive challenges. Aside from the question of how a book that is apparently a collection of
love poetry fits within the sacred contours of Tanakh, the twists and turns of the relationship
between the lovers at times forlorn yet at other times fulfilled represent a whole different set
of cruxes. Jewish interpreters in ancient and medieval times were well aware of these difficulties
and attempted to address both issues in their writings.
Famously, Rashi opens his introduction to his commentary on the sefer by referring to the multivaliancy of Scripture:
One statement of God, these two I heard. One verse
extends to a number of explanations, and the final thing
is that a verse does not stray from its literal meaning.
The commentarys ambitious goal is to somehow link classical midrashic interpretations with
the Sefers passionate plot despite the apparent gap between the two. Rashi explains that on the
whole, the overarching approach of the midrashim is to recount Jewish national history, and
particularly, the relationship between God and the Jewish people. By using this approach, Rashi
also attempts to account for the complex trajectory of the lovers relationship:
And I say that Solomon saw with a holy spirit that the Jewish
people were eventually to be exiled, exile after exile, destruction
after destruction, and in order to mourn in the exile for their
glory of old, and to remember the love [God had] to make of
them a chosen one of all the nations, so they should say let me
go and return to my original husband, for it was better for me
then than now and that [God] should remember His
kindness and the level He raised them to, and all the goodness
He said He would give them at the end of days.
37
The numerous points of exile and destruction in the national story are represented by the
moments of distance between the lovers. Interestingly enough, the high points in the
relationship are seen as a kind of nostalgia for the initial love that God showered on Israel during
the formative years of her existence.
A good example of Rashis method can be found in his comments to Shir Hashirim 1:5:
I am black, but attractive, daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of

Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
:"

Rashi: I am black in my actions, and attractive in the actions of my

ancestors, and even in my actions there are attractive ones, if I have
the iniquity of the golden calf, to contrast that I have the merit of the
acceptance of the Torah.
In other words, according to Rashi, all of the signifiers in this verse refer to national issues that
can be located in the distant, formative past.
Although the Rambam did not author a commentary on Shir Hashirim, it is clear that the sefer
held great importance in his religious phenomenology. The Rambam describes the nature of
proper love of God47:
What is the proper love? One should love God with a great,
abundant, strong love to the point where ones soul should
be bound with the love of God, until one is obsessive over it,
lovesick, as one who cannot stop thinking about a woman,
and contemplates it constantly, while awake, while eating
and sleeping, greater than that should be the love of God in
the heart of His lovers, as we are commanded with all of
your heart and all of your soul and that is what Solomon
said in the form of parable for I am sick with love and all
of Shir HaShirim is a parable for this concept.
Hilkhot Teshuva 10:3

'
'

,
'
,
,
.
:
True, all-encompassing love of God can be compared to the lovesick emotions that one lover
feels for another. For our purposes, the final line of the halakha is of particular importance: And
all of Shir Hashirim is a parable for this matter. That is, the Rambam reads the story of Shir
Hashirim as reflecting the overpowering love that a person experiences if they fulfill the mandate
of loving God with all their heart. Unlike Rashi, it would seem that the Rambam locates Shir
Hashirim both in the present and on an individual plane not in the distant, national past.
The Voice of My Beloved Knocks

I sleep, but my heart is awake; Hark! My beloved knocks:
'Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my
47
See also Hilkhot Teshuva 10:6.

38
head is filled with dew, my locks with the drops of the night.' I
have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my
feet; how shall I defile them? My beloved put in his hand by the
hole of the door, and my heart was moved for him. I rose up to
open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and
my fingers with flowing myrrh, upon the handles of the bar. I
opened to my beloved; but my beloved had turned away, and
was gone. My soul failed me when he spoke. I sought him, but I
could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
The watchmen that go about the city found me, they smote me,
they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my
mantle from me. 'I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, if you
find my beloved, what will you tell him? That I am love-sick.'
Shir Hashirim 5:2-8
:
:

:

:

:

:
-:
The great emotional force of these passukim lies in their ability to completely draw the reader
into the story, encourage her to identify with the protagonist, and ultimately, to frustrate this
sympathy by marking the beloveds laziness as, paradoxically, both understandable and
inexplicable. The question burns: What is the meaning of the female lovers inertia? Why does
she not simply get herself out of bed and open the door for her lover, instead of enjoying a few
moments of rest that will inevitably lead to frantic searching?
Although we can only speculate, it is nevertheless worth asking how the Rambam understands
the tumultuousness of the lovers relationship if their story is supposed to exemplify the highest
level of human love of God. Rav Soloveitchicks insight about the ideal religious experience is
instructive in this regard. In a celebrated footnote at the beginning of Halakhic Man, the Rav
argues against the view that the most sublime height to which a religious person can aspire is a
sense of spiritual tranquility:
This popular ideology contends that the religious experience is tranquil and neatly ordered,
tender, and delicate; it is an enchanted stream for embittered souls and still waters for
troubled spirits
And second, this ideology is intrinsically false and deceptive. That religious consciousness in
mans experience which is most profound and most elevated, which penetrates to the very
depths and ascends to the very heights, is not that simple and comfortable. On the contrary, it
is exceptionally complex, rigorous, and tortuous. Where you find its complexity, there you find
its greatness. The religious experience, from beginning to end, is antinomic and
antitheticReligion is not, at the outset, a refuge of grace and mercy for the despondent and
desperate, an enchanted stream for crushed spirits, but a raging, clamorous torrent of mans
consciousness with all its crises, pangs and torments
Perhaps the Rambam reads the lovers ups and downs as related to the tumultuous experience of
a complex religious life.
39
When we look at the writings of another towering figure of the twelfth century, R. Yehuda
Halevi, we find an approach to Shir Hashirim that appears in some senses closer to Rashis view.
R. Yehuda Halevi also understands the narrative as expressing the national past. HaLevi focuses,
however, not only on the formative period of Jewish existence, but rather on the specific
moments of exile and return to the Holy Land.
It is this very sin that has prevented us from achieving that which God promised us for the
second templethis means that the Divinity was prepared to settle in the Second temple as it
had previously provided that the Jewish people would all agree to return to Israel eagerly.
Instead, only some returned, while the majority-including the important leaders-remained in
Babylon. They preferred subservience in the Diaspora, so that they would not have to part
from their home and affairs.
Perhaps this is what Solomon meant when he said I am asleep but my heart is awake in that
he compared Diaspora Jewry to one who is asleep A voice my beloved knocks refers to
Gods beckoning call to return to IsraelWhen it later says I have removed my coat this
refers to the sluggishness of the Jewish people to return, just as one who is too lazy to don his
coat and join his friend outside My beloved sent his hand through the door latch refers to
Ezra and Nehemiah, and other prophets who enticed the people to return, until some finally
agreed to return
God in turn repaid them with what was hidden in their hearts, in all that all the holiness that
returned was in a diminished state, commensurate to their diminished state.
On further reflection, it is possible that R. Yehuda Halevi did not only associate Shir Hashirim
with the national history of displacement and return, but rather he too may have seen the role of
the individual in this history. In a wel-known passage in the Kuzari, the Jewish sage who
should perhaps be read as an expression of R. Yehuda Halevi himself is forced to admit to the
King of Khazar that his daily supplications to return to the Land of Israel are no more than the
chattering of birds:
Kuzari said: If so, then you must have a limited affection for your Torah. You have not made
Israel your goal, nor your place of living and dying. Yet you say in your prayers Have mercy
on Zion for it is our lifes homeI see that all your knee-bending and bowing toward Israel is
mere flattery or some insincere custom.
Rabbi said: .you have shamed me, King of Khazar.And so our recitations of such prayers
as bow down to the mount of His holiness, blessed are you who returns His Divine Presence
to Zion and the like are merely like the warble of the parrot and other birds who imitate
human voices; we do not think about what are we saying when we say these and other prayers.
It is as you say, Khazar King.
We might speculate that in HaLevis own personal reading of Shir HaShirim, he merged the
individual and national aspects of exile and redemption to and from the Holy Land. His
devastatingly beautiful poetry on Zion, as well as the traditions about his personal sacrifice to
make aliyah, line up quite well with the personalization of this motif.
40
Partially relying on R. Yehuda Halevis approach to the book as a whole but updated to reflect
the miraculous events of recent Jewish history, Rav Soloveichik sees in this passage both the
incredible promise of the founding of the State of Israel, and also the aching sense, felt less than a
decade later, of missed opportunities:
What was our reaction to the beckoning of the voice of the Beloved, to the munificence of His
loving kindness and miracles? Did we get out of our beds and immediately open the door, or
did we continue to rest like the Lover , and were we too lazy to get out of our beds? I have
washed my feet, how shall I soil them? Orthodox Jews should have hastened to perform so
great a mitzvah, to plunge with joy and enthusiasm into the very midst of this holy work: the
building and settling of the Land. However to our regret, we have not reacted that way.
When a miracle does not find its proper answering echo in the form of concrete deeds, an
exalted vision degenerates and dissipates
Let us be honest and speak openly and candidly. We are critical of certain well-known Israeli
leaders because of their attitudes to traditional values and religious observances. Our
complaints are validhoweverwe could have extended our influence in shaping the
spiritual image of the Yishuv if we had hastened to arouse ourselves from our sleep and
descend to open the door for our Beloved Who was knockingHad we established more
religious kibbutzim, had we built more houses for religious immigrants, had we created an
elaborate and extended system of schools
The Rav does not merely associate the climax of the book with the Jewish national history of
exile and return. By emphasizing the issue of personal responsibility, he locates the story in the
present and on a personal key. In other words, there are elements here of the three approaches
that we have outlined.
The triumph of the founding of the State of Israel is something that everyone in our generation,
regardless of age, has experienced personally. And so is the brunt of the Ravs critique that we
have squandered the full realization of this opportunity at the very moment of its actualization.
At the end, it is the Ravs compelling interpretation of contemporary events in light of the
promise and tragedy of Shir Hashirims description of the dods knocking, that still remains
seared on the consciousness of our community, over fifty years on.
Yeshiva University can take pride in the hundreds of alumni who have personalized the epic
story of national redemption and uprooted their families to be part of what will hopefully
constitute the final return to the Land of Israel. At the same time, we must remember that this is
only the first response to the Divine knocking. One hopes that even at this late date it is still
possible to answer the Ravs call and bring about real change in Israeli society, to engage all
elements of Israeli society and bring the States people and leadership into the encompassing
and loving embrace of God.
41
Israel: Motherland
and Mother
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner
Rosh Beit Midrash, Zichron Dov Yeshiva University
Torah Mitzion Beit Midrash of Toronto
And Zion said: God has abandoned me, and God has forgotten me.
Yeshayah 49:14
' '
:
You shall no longer be called Abandoned, and your land will no

longer be called Desolate, for you will be called My desire is in her.
Yeshayah 62:4
Israel as our beloved intimate

The Jew has known many reasons for his millennia-old longing for the Land of Israel; our thricedaily recitations of , Let our eyes see when You return mercifully
to Zion, have been fueled by motivations both religious and secular, personal and national. Focus
of the biblical universe, cradle of our nation, throne of King Davids theocentric empire, haven
from our foes, place at which our mitzvot are most practical and practicable, host of our most
palpable connection to the world of the spirit, terraced hills across which the plangent Divine
declaration, , Here I will dwell, for I have desired her,48 still echoes Eretz
Yisrael has been all of these for the genetic and spiritual heirs of Avraham and Sarah.
In the vision of Rav Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook and Rav Yissachar Techtel, though, the
Land of Israel plays a more active role. Earth and stone and river and sea are anthropomorphized
as limbs controlled by a humanesque consciousness, and the space formerly known as Canaan is
identified as a living being, an independent spiritual entity to whom we are bonded.
The Land of Israel is not an external thing, an external prize
acquired by the nation, a means toward the end of national
unification and reinforcement of the nations physical or even
spiritual survival. The Land of Israel is an independent entity,
bound to the nation in the bond of life
Rav Kook, Orot, Eretz Yisrael I
48
,
,

.

...
)"(
Tehillim 132:14
42
Seen in this light, Yeshayahs identification of Zion as a bride is part of a broader depiction of the Land
of Israel as a thinking, feeling, loving and beloved intimate being who longs for us to return home.
Anthropomorphic land
Description of land as a thinking, feeling entity did not originate with the Land of Israel; the
midrash places this concept at the start of the Torah, in the Divine creation of the third day,49
when God charged the land to create both and , fruit trees and fruitproducing trees, but it only produced the latter:
Why was [the land] cursed? Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi
Shalom said: She trespassed Gods command. G-d said, Let
the land produce vegetation, etc meaning that just as the fruit
is edible, so the tree should be edible, and she did not do this.
Midrash, Bereishit Rabbah (Vilna) 5:9
' ' ...

" '
,
:
The concept of territorial consciousness does not end with Creation, either, and it is not limited
to wicked rebellion; the sages also envisioned stones desiring to serve the righteous Yaakov. The
Torah50 records an overnight condensing of Yaakovs protective stones from the plural to the
singular, and regarding this change the sages explained:
It is written, And he took from the stones of the site, and it is
written, And he took the stone! Rabbi Yitzchak explained:
This teaches that all of the stones were gathered to one place,
and each one said, This tzaddik will rest his head on me. We
learned: All of them became absorbed into one.51
Talmud, Chullin 91b
,
: !
,

. : ;
:
Many more classic sources ascribe consciousness to a range of inanimate objects, from the sun
and moon to the plant kingdom. Certainly, at least some of these texts are meant to provide
moral instruction rather than to describe ex-cerebrum thought processes. Nonetheless, the
identity of Israel as a person, as a thinking and feeling entity, and particularly as a mother to the
Jewish people, adds depth of meaning to our exile, and intensifies the imperative for our return.
The meaning of Motherland

In itself, envisioning our birthplace as Motherland is not unique to the Jewish people; numerous
nations describe their homelands in maternal terms, depicting these spaces as environments
which passively provide nourishment, security and familiar comfort. As Professor Rosemary
Marangoly George wrote, Home is a place to escape to and a place to escape from. Its
importance lies in the fact that it is not equally available to all. Home is the desired place that is
fought for and established as the exclusive domain of a few.52 Our concept of Israel as Mother
49
Bereishit 1:11-12
Bereishit 28:11, 18
51
See also Midrash, Bereishit Rabbah 68:11 and Rashi to Bereishit 28:11 for some variation
52
Rosemary M. George, The Politics of Home: Postcolonial Relocations and Twentieth-Century Fiction, pg. 9
50
43
transcends this role, though; we envision the Land of Israel as an active matriarch, actively
protecting us and summoning us home.
The Torah portrays mothers as dynamic protectors, intervening and risking their own wellbeing on behalf of their young. From Sarah declaring that Yishmael would not inherit with my
son, with Yitzchak,53 to Rivkah arranging Yaakovs blessing and accepting his curse upon
herself,54 to Rachel pleading with God on behalf of her descendants,55 to Batsheva orchestrating
her son Shlomos ascendancy to the throne and then arranging the downfall of his challenger
Adoniyahu,56 the Jewish mother is more than nurturer. The mother is a lioness, acting to
ensure the safety and success of her offspring.
Along the same lines, the Land of Israel is seen as an active Mother for the Jewish people,
evicting unworthy tenants and invoking her own merit on behalf of her longed-for children.
Rav Yissachar Techtel saw this message in the Divine promise57 to remember Avraham,
Yitzchak, Yaakov and The Land:
I have learned this from the Torah of our master Moshe
himself. It is written, And I will remember My covenant with
Yaakov, and also My covenant with Yitzchak, and also My
covenant with Avraham I will remember, and the land I will
remember. Rashi there wrote, Why are they listed in
reverse? As if to say: Yaakov the youngest is worthy of this, and
if he is not worthy then Yitzchak is with him, and if he is not
worthy then Avraham is with him. Based on this, one may add
that even if all of them are unworthy, meaning that the merit of
our ancestors has ended, still, The land I will remember, for
the merit of the Land of Israel itself will save them from
trouble She will protect us, to free us whenever we are placed
in trouble, Heaven forbid.
Em Habanim Sameicha, First Prologue

...

...

. ",

Like Queen Esther approaching Achashverosh and offering herself on behalf of her people, the
Land of Israel approaches HaShem and offers her own merit on our behalf.
Returning to our mother

This personification of Israel as mother and protector should add a dimension to our longing for
aliyah, inflaming our souls and inspiring our national return to Israel with the greatest urgency.
Our impulse to return is not only a selfish desire to live in the land of our ancestors, or to use the
land and its products for our rituals. We are not only walking in the Biblical land and laying claim
53
Bereishit 21:10
Bereishit 27
55
Yirmiyah 31:14
56
Melachim I 1-2
57
Vayyikra 26:42
54
44
to the once and future home of the Beit haMikdash, rather, we are returning to our mother, to a
being who longs to have her children restored.
A midrash highlights the intensity of this longing:
Yirmiyah said: When I ascended to Yerushalayim, I raised my
eyes and saw a woman sitting atop a mountain, wearing black
clothing and with her hair undone, crying out, seeking one who
would console her. I cried out as well, and sought one who
would comfort me. I drew close to her and spoke with her, and
told her, If you are a woman, speak with me. If you are a
spirit, leave me. She replied, Do you not recognize me? I am
the one who had seven sons whose father left to go overseas.
While I was yet crying for him, it was prophesied to me, The
house has collapsed upon your seven sons and killed them. I
dont know for whom to cry, and for whom to release my hair!
I replied and told her, You are no greater than my mother,
Zion, who has been turned into grazing for the wild animals of
the field. To which she replied and said to me, I am your
mother, Zion.
Midrash, Psikta Rabti 26

,
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
,

,
,

,
,

Rav Kook understood the Land of Israel as a partner of the Jewish people, and this partner
suffers our exile as a bereaved mother mourns for her children. Yeshayah envisioned the day
when the Land of Israel would be like a bride returned to her spouse. Rav Yissachar Techtel
portrayed the emotions of that reunion by describing the reunion of a mother reunited with her
husband and children in the Ghetto, concluding,58 So I imagine will be the joy of our mother,
the Land of Israel, at the moment when all of us will return to her.
May HaShem enable us to bring that day to reality, and to see the fulfillment of Dovid
haMelechs words:
He establishes the barren woman in the house as
a joyous mother of children; Praise God!
Tehillim 113:9
58
Rabbi Yissachar Techtel, , Second Prologue

45
Yeshiva Universitys Center for the Jewish Future, in conjunction with the Bernard Revel
Graduate School of Jewish Studies presents:
A Morning of Jewish Scholarship

Bridging Academic
with the Faculty of the Bernard Revel Graduate School
Sunday, April 25, 2010
11:30 am
10:30 am
9:30 am
Yeshiva University, Furst Hall 500 West 185th St. New York, NY
Jewish Scholarship
and Torah Learning
Dr. David Berger Ruth & I. Lewis Gordon Professor of Jewish History and Dean
Halakhah, Hashkafah, and the Academic Study of Judaism
Dr. Debra Kaplan Dr. Pinkhos Churgin Memorial Chair Assistant Professor of Jewish History
Women, Marriage and Property: From the Rishonim to Early Modern

Frankfurt
Dr. Ronnie Perelis Chief Rabbi Dr. Isaac Abraham and Jelena (Rachel) Alcalay Assistant
Professor of Sephardic Studies
These Indians are Jews: Lost Tribes, Secret Jews and Brave New
Worlds
Dr. Mordechai Cohen Professor of Bible and Associate Dean
New Perspective on the Rambam: His Contribution to Parshanut haMiqra

Dr. Jonathan Dauber Assistant Professor of Jewish Mysticism
Controversies in Early Kabbalah: On the Writing of the First

Kabbalistic Texts
For more information, please e-mail YUYomIyun@yu.edu.
The Arbesfeld Yom Rishon program presents
Women in Tanach and Talmud
Yom Iyun Sunday, May 2, 2010
Yeshiva University, Furst Hall 500 West 185th St. New York, NY
9:15am
Registration
9:30am
Professor
Smadar
Rosensweig
The Interface of
Pshat, Chazal, &
Parshanut: The Model
of Benot Zelaphchad
10:30am
11:30am
12:30pm
Avigayil and David: The Role

of That Narrative in Sefer
Shemuel
Love, Honor and Obey?

Marital Relations and
Relationships in the Talmud
Halakhic Responses to the

Changing Role of Women in
Society
Rabbi Hayyim Angel
Rabbi Shalom Carmy
Halakha and Rape: Three 20

Century Perspectives on One
Rambam
Rabbi Mark Dratch
Rabbi Shmuel Hain

th
Family Redeemed and

Marriage Sanctified: An
Overview of Seder Nashim
Rabbi Daniel Feldman
Dr. Aaron Koller
Mrs. Nechama Price
Mrs. Shoshana
Schechter
Bound by Time? Women and

Sefirat HaOmer
Strong or Weak? Women in
Tanach
Rabbinic Readings of a
Radical Book: Esther in Hazal
Reflections on the Mirrors of

Mitzrayim: Looking Forward to
Make Change
Rabbi Yosef Blau
Rabbi Benjamin Blech

If Brit Milah is the Sign of
our Covenant with G-d, What
About Women?
Mrs. Yael Leibowitz
Polarity In Tanach: How David

And Goliath Shed Light On Our
Understanding Of Megillat Ruth
Rabbi Menachem
Leibtag
The Women in Tanach Who

Have No Name
$10 Admission Free Admission for YU Students Mincha & conclusion at 1:30pm
A project of Yeshiva Universitys Center for the Jewish Future and the Office of Student Affairs. Co-sponsored by YSU, SOY and TAC. For dedication and
sponsorship opportunities, or for more information, please visit www.kollelyomrishon.org or e-mail YUYomIyun@yu.edu.
Aliyah
The Israel Experience... for a Lifetime

Nefesh BNefesh provides support and guidance
to help ensure a successful transition to your new life in Israel.
Aliyah Flights Financial Assistance Employment Resources
Expedited Government Processing Aliyah Guidance
Applications and information is available at:
www.nbn.org.il or 1-866-4-ALIYAH
In cooperation with:
Ministry of
Immigrant
Absorption
In cooperation with:
Rabbi David Aaron, Jed H. Abraham, Professor Abraham S.
Abraham, Rabbi Dov Ber Abramowitz, Ms. Malka Adatto, Rabbi Elchanan Adler, Rabbi Aharon Adler, Rabbi Yosef Adler, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, Judy
Alkoby, Rabbi Mordechai Alon, Rabbi Avraham Eliezer Alperstein, Rabbi Nisson Lippa Alpert, Rabbi William Altshul, Zohar Amar, HaRav Shlomo Amar,
Joshua Amaru, Claudia Esther Amzallag, Rabbi Elisha Ancselovits, Rabbi Hayyim Angel, Rabbi Howard Apfel, Shira Apfel, Dr. Maryln Applebaum, Rabbi
Yosef Leib Arnest, Rabbi Binyomin Aronowitz, Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster, Abigail Atlas, Dr. Harvey Babich, Dean Karen Bacon, Mrs. Miriam Bak, Rabbi Hanan
Balk, Dalia Barenboim, Rabbi Natan Bar-Haim, Rabbi Shalom Baum, Rabbi Mordechai Becher, Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh, Rabbi Shmuel Belkin, Rabbi Eliyahu
Ben-Chaim, Diana Benmergui, Rabbi David Berger, Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman, Rabbi Michael Bernstein, Dr. Moshe Bernstein, Rabbi Azarya Berzon,
Rabbi Abraham Besdin, Mrs. Rachel Besser, Rabbi Ezra Bick, Rabbi Jack Bieler, Amanda Bier, Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun, Rabbi Elchanan Bin Nun, Rabbi Aaron
Bina, Rabbi Josh Blass, Rabbi Yitzchak Blau, Rabbi Yosef Blau, Dr. Rivkah Blau, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich, Rabbi Moshe Bleich,
Gerald J. Blidstein, Rabbi Akiva Block, Rabbi Dr. Jon Bloomberg, Dr. Norman Blumenthal, Rabbi Bodner, Rabbi Yehuda Dovid Borenstein, Rabbi Yitzchok
Noach Borenstein, Dr. Abba Borowich, Rabbi Reuven Brand, Ms. Miryam Brand, Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Rabbi Asher Brander, Dean Zelda Braun, Rabbi
Yitzchak Breitowitz, Edward Breuer, Rabbi Alan Brill, Rabbi Abba Bronspeigel, Dr. Erica Brown, Rabbi Michael Broyde, Rabbi Ephraim A. Buckwold,
Rabbi Ahron Dovid Burack, Esther Burns, Rabbi Menachem Burshtien, Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Rabbi Yosef Carmel, Rabbi Shalom Carmy,
Rabbi Strauchler Chaim, Rabbi Zevulun Charlop, Rabbi Leon Charney, Isaac Chavel, Dr. Scott Chudnoff, Nechama Citrin, Eli Clark, Aaron Cohen,
Rabbi Alfred Cohen, Rabbi Tanchum Cohen, Rabbi Mordechai Cohen, Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen, Stuart A. Cohen, Mrs. Suzanne Cohen, Rabbi Dovid
Cohen, Ariella Cohen, Michal Cohen, Mrs. Shulamith Cohn, Ronald Cranford, Rabbi Avigdor Cyperstein, Rabbi Yaacov Darmoni, Rabbi Avishai David,
Rabbi Edward Davis, Jennifer Deluty, Chief Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, Prof. Jacob Dienstag, Chanie Dinerman, Rabbi Herbert Dobrinsky, Rabbi Solomon
Drillman, Rabbi Steve Dworken, Rabbi Ally Ehrman, Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn, Rabbi Chaim Eisen, Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein, Rabbi Benny Eisner, Rabbi
Eliach, Dr. G.E. Elinson, Rav haRoshi Mordechai Eliyahu, Rabbi Yaakov Elman, Sarah Epstein, Tamar Epstein, Dr. Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Yitzchak
Etshalom, Jennifer Fathy, Jessica Feig, Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum, Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum, Rav Reuven Feinstein, Dr. Carl Feit, Rabbi Yaakov Feit,
Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman, Dr. Louis Feldman, Rabbi Jonathan Feldman, Dr. Adam Ferziger, Rabbi Chaim Feuerman, Professor Steven Fine, Rabbi Dr.
Yoel Finkelman, Eitan Fiorino, Meira Fireman, Bernard J. Firestone, Esther Fischer, Rabbi Chonoch Henoch Fishman, Rabbi Tzvi Flaum, Ms. Elana
Flaumenhaft, Rabbi Josh Flug, Rabbi David Fohrman, Rabbi Netanel Frankenthal, Rabbi Ezra Frazer, Esther Frederick, Rabbi Avidan Freedman, Rabbi
Barry Freundel, Frida Fridman, Rabbi Yosef Friedenson, Michelle Friedman, Rabbi Binny Friedman, Rabbi Meir Fulda, Tova Gavrilova, Dr. Sheldon
Gelman, Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbi Yitzchak Genack, Rabbi Shmuel Gerstenfeld, Rabbi Gershon Gewirtz, Rabbi Jonathan Ginsberg, Rabbi
Beinish Ginsburg, Ms. Leslie Ginsparg, Rabbi Ozer Glickman, Mrs. Shayna Goldberg, Michelle Goldberg, Rabbi Shraga Goldenhersh, Mrs. Yael
Goldfischer, Joshua L. Golding, Dr. Dan Goldschlag, Rabbi Noah Goldstein, Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein, Adeena Goldstein, Ariella Goldstein, Rabbi
Dovid Goldwasser, Pearl Chana Goldwasser, Rabbi Meir Goldwicht, Ms. Anne Gordon, Rabbi Moshe Gordon, Rabbi Moshe Gorelick, Rabbi Yeruchim
Gorelik, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, Atara Graubard Segal, Dr. Richard V. Grazi, Rabbi Nota Greenblatt, Dr. Wallace Greene, Yonit Gross, Rabbi Zvi
Grumet, Dr. Naomi Grunhaus, Yael Grunseid, Rabbi Yehoshua Grunstein, Dr. Jeffrey S. Gurock, Rabbi Yaakov Haber, Rabbi Shmuel Hain, Rabbi
Kenneth Hain, Rabbi Yrachmael Hamberger, Rabbi Daniel Hartstein, Rabbi Daniel Hartstein, M.A. Hastings, David Hazony, Rabbi Nathaniel
Helfgot, Rabbi Chaim Heller, Marvin Heller, David Hellman, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, Rabbi William Herskovitz, Rabbi David Hirsch, Rabbi Robert
Hirt, Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg, Malcom Hoenlein, Rabbi Josh Hoffman, Sarah Ariella Hollander, Dr. Shalom Holtz, Rabbi Jesse Horn, Carmy
Horowitz, Rabbi David Horwitz, Dr. Arthur Hyman, Rabbi Chaim Ilson, Rabbi Shimon Isaacson, Rabbi David Israel, Rabbi Chaim Jachter, Rabbi Ari
Jacobson, Rabbi Yaacov Jaffe, Julian (Yoel) Jakobovitz, President Richard Joel, Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Menachem Kagan, Mrs. Rivka Kahan, Rabbi
Aharon Kahn, Rabbi Moshe Kahn, Rabbi Yair Kahn, Rabbi Yosef Kalinsky, Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky, Rabbi Shmuel Kamentsky, Rabbi Yisroel
Kaminetsky, Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogal, Dena Kapetansky, Feige Kaplan, Lawrence Kaplan, Prof. Lawrence Kaplan, ,Rabbi Michael Katz, Dr. Jacob
Katz, Rabbi Yaacov Moshe Katz, Shaina Katz, Adina Katzman, Rachel Katz-Sidlow, Sharon Kaufman, Menachem Kellner, Rabbi Benjamin Kelsen,
Dr. Aaron Kirschenbaum , Rabbi Shmuel Klammer, Dr. Zanvel Klein, Mrs. Dena Knoll, Rabbi Jeffrey B. Kobrin, Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg, Rabbi
Yishai Koenigsberg, Rebbetzin Leah Kohn, Rabbi Yonatan Kolatch, William Kolbrener, Professor Aaron Koller, Milton Konvitz, Chana Kosofsky,
Rabbi Ira Kosowsky, Rabbi Shlomo Nosson Kotler, Rabbi Dr. Doniel Kramer, Rabbi Daniel Kraus, Mrs. Rachel Kraus, Haim Kreisel, Rabbi Elly
Krimsky, Rabbi Paysach Krohn, Rabbi Dr. John Krug, Rabbi Moshe Krupka, Malkie Krupka, Rabbi Yaacov Lach, Chanie Ladaew, Rachaely Laker,
Rosh HaYeshiva Norman Lamm, Professor Dov Landau, Rabbi Doneal Lander, Dr. Sidney Langer, Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, Rabbi Israel Meir
Lau, Mrs. Yael Leibowitz, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Dr. Shnayer Leiman, Dr. Harry Leiman, Rebbetzin Abby Lerner, Rabbi Moshe Hakohen Lessin,
Rabbi Lev, Rabbi Yonah Levant, Ms. Elisheva Levi, Rabbi Aaron Levine, Rabbi Yosef Dov Halevi Levine, Dr. Michelle J. Levine, Rabbi Dr. Zalman
Levine, Rabbi Yosie Levine, Rabbi Aaron Levitt, Jacob Lewin, Jed Lewinsohn, Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, Rabbi
Meir Lichtenstein, Rabbi Moshe Lichtman, Rabbi Zevulun Lieberman, Emily J. Liebling, Diane Liebman, Rabbi Dovid Lifshitz, Nikki Lipman,
John F. Loike, Rabbi Chaim Loike, Dr. John D. Loike, Dana Lotan, Ms. Adina Luber, Adina Maik, Cantor Joseph Malovany, Rabbi Mordechai
Marcus, Rabbi Chaim Marcus, Rabbi Shmuel Marcus, Rabbi Ari Marcus, Rabbi Moshe Zevulun Margolies, Rebecca Marmor, Rabbi Shmuel
Maybruch, Mrs. Sally Mayer, Michael P. McQuillan, Golda Meir, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, Rabbi Baruch Pesach Mendelson, Rabbi Ami Merzel,
Miriam Merzel, Rabbi Dovid Miller, Rabbi Michael Miller, Talia Miller, Rabbi Adam Mintz, Rabbi Jonathan Mishkin, Eliza Moskowitz, Rabbi
Dovid Nachbar, Mois Navon, HaRav Avigdor Nebenzahl, Rabbi Yaakov B. Neuburger, Rebbetzin Peshi Neuburger, Mrs. C.B. Neugroschl, Mrs. Pnina Neuwirth, Rabbi Menachem Nissel, Helen
Nissim, Dr. Rona Novick, Rabbi Shmuel Areyeh Olishevsky, Rabbi Uri Orlian, Dr. Mitchell Orlian, Rabbi Eli Ozarowski, Zemirah Ozarowski, Rabbi Chaim Packer, Rabbi Shraga Feivel Paretzky, Rabbi Yehuda Parnes, Dr. Moses Pava, Marina Pekar, Dr.
David Pelcovitz, Rabbi Marc Penner, Gil S. Perl, Rabbi Shlomo Polachek, Rabbi Tuli Polak, Rabbi Moshe Ahron Poleyeff, Jennifer Polin, Rabbi Elazar Meir Preil, Mrs. Zlata Press, Dr. Rebecca Press Schwartz, Leyna Pressman, Mrs. Nechama Price,
The Marcos and Adina Katz
YUTorah.org
A Project of Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future
Daily Shiur Daf Yomi Parshat

HaShavua Halacha History
Machshava and much more!
Over 34,000 shiurim and articles and growing every day.

All materials available for download completely free.
Subscribe to a podcast or e-mail subscription of your
favorite speaker or series. Theres something for everyone
on the largest web site for Jewish learning online.

Yeshiva University - Yom Ha'Atzmaut To-Go - Iyar 5770

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yeshiva University - Yom Ha'Atzmaut To-Go - Iyar 5770

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY YOM HAATZMAUT TO-GO IYAR 5770

RICHARD M JOEL, President, Yeshiva University

The Religious Significance of Israel

Maintaining a Connection to the Land of

Establishing Yom Haatzamut as a Yom Tov

The Roots of the Disputes over Yom HaAtzmaut

The National and Personal Calling of Shir Hashirim

Israel: Motherland and Mother

Our Dependence Upon

Rabbi Yosef Blau

Purchasing Land in Israel

shelter, one finds proper settlement. It is possible for

Providing Financial Support to Causes in the Land of

See Tzitz Eliezer 6:32.

Performance of Mitzvot in the Diaspora

Ramban also follows Rashi's approach and provides an additional explanation:

Hashkafic Responses to the State of Israel

Shev Val Taaseh (no response)

What Is So Special About Yom Haatzmaut?

Establishing a New Yom Tov Today

A Yom Tov for all of Klal Yisrael?

Hashkafic Challenges to Yom Haatzmaut and the State

R.Yaakov Moshe Bergman, HaMedinah HaYehudit, pp.27-31.

The Roots of the

-" ' "

Kibutz Galuyot - Ingathering of Exiles

Birkot Kriat Shema

Between freedom and Atzmiut

And he said behold, the Jewish nation is greater and

43-39 ' ' ) "( ,''

The repentance process of Am Yisrael

Teshuva is a return to the basics, to the

The National and

I am black, but attractive, daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of

Rashi: I am black in my actions, and attractive in the actions of my

The Voice of My Beloved Knocks

See also Hilkhot Teshuva 10:6.

You shall no longer be called Abandoned, and your land will no

Israel as our beloved intimate

' ' ...

The meaning of Motherland

Returning to our mother

Rabbi Yissachar Techtel, , Second Prologue

A Morning of Jewish Scholarship

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Halakhah, Hashkafah, and the Academic Study of Judaism

Women, Marriage and Property: From the Rishonim to Early Modern

New Perspective on the Rambam: His Contribution to Parshanut haMiqra

Controversies in Early Kabbalah: On the Writing of the First

The Arbesfeld Yom Rishon program presents

Women in Tanach and Talmud

Yom Iyun Sunday, May 2, 2010

Avigayil and David: The Role

Love, Honor and Obey?

Halakhic Responses to the

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

Rabbi Shalom Carmy

Halakha and Rape: Three 20

Rabbi Mark Dratch

Rabbi Shmuel Hain

Family Redeemed and

Rabbi Daniel Feldman