I was recently in the Monsey area and while I was hoping to see a bear on Shabbos rummaging through the garbage cans, I only got to actually see a deer eating someone's flowers from their front garden. A couple of days later my relative sent me a video of a bear wandering around the gardens on his street, so I "just" missed it..

I like how Uman comes up in totally unrelated situations.

We have decided to change the name of our city to Eilatus, so maybe they will treat us as a Greek island and not shut us down

I've been to Eilat. If what happens there is "the will of the tzaddik" I'm really living my day to day life wrong.. I think I'm moving to Eilat

The psak of Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef is really nothing now, as from a halachic perspective everybody knows Eilat has the status of Chutz Laaretz, even though for many things it is considered similar to Eretz Yisrael (such as shmitta, such as truma mand maaser).

So what did Rav Yosef say?

According to Kikar, Rav Yitzchak Yosef criticized the rabbinic organizations that commonly make their conferences in Eilat. He said that because it is chutz laaretz, the only allowance for traveling to Eilat would be some direct benefit of "zikui harabim" in Eilat that requires one to be in Eilat. For example, Rav Yosef said, he himself went to Eilat, but that was to give a shiur on kashrut, as part of a kashrut conference that took place there. When there are local rabbinic conferences, nothing to do with Eilat, they shouldn't go to Eilat for the conference.

My question is, he justifies his trip saying he gave a shiur there. But why did his shiur have to be in Eilat? What did it have to do with Eilat? It was part of a rabbinic conference that could have been held anywhere else in the country. And if it was ok simply because he gave a shiur, at these other rabbinic conferences that he is referring to that he is saying are not justified in going to Eilat, do they not have any shiurim? And if they don't, why say it is assur to go to Eilat - why not say to make sure to give a shiur at the conference while in Eilat? How does this work exactly?

This is interesting. It seems that the Likud is putting forth efforts to include exceptions to the minimarket law. The Likud would like to exclude the city of Eilat from the limitations of the minimarket law, meaning to allow businesses in Eilat to operate on Shabbos. As well, they would exclude quick stop shops in gas stations.

Likud made efforts to vote on the exceptions, but canceled the vote when they realized they could not get a majority - Yesh Atid agreed to support some of them, but Labor and Meretz did not. As well. there is internal debate on UTJ and Shas on the matter.  The Likud was willing to grant the exception to the limited area of the area of the hotels in Eilat, but it did not matter because the Gerrer Rebbe told MK Litzman to not agree to any exceptions, even just the hotel area.
source: Walla News

I agree that Eilat should not be excluded. Eilat is dependent on tourism business, but many cities would reap similar benefits and will be hurt by not allowing the stores to open. If Shabbos is Shabbos, and business is not being allowed on a national level, why should one city be any different from the other?

That being said, I can see a loophole being found for Eilat to allow businesses there to operate on Shabbos, should they so desire. Many rabbis hold and have held, Rabbi Elyashiv included, that Eilat does not have the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael. If Eilat is not halachically part of the Holy Land, perhaps it is not an affront to the Jewish character of the State to allow them to operate on Shabbos. Maybe that can be used as a loophole. It might ot be a good idea to have such an exception, but I can see it being possible.

The government has approved a new duty free status in Eilat, temporarily.

The airport in Eilat, Uvda, is meant to be replaced next year by a new international airport being built in Timna.

For the meantime, until the new airport is completed, the government has approved Yisrael Katz's plan to declare the Eilat airport as one that is free from any duties on flights. This is meant to encourage tourism to Israel and specifically to Eilat. The airport services internal Israeli flights, as well as flights from Europe and other areas.

This exemption from duties will eventually apply to the new airport in Timna when it opens.

As well, Israelis will be able to benefit from the area and purchase items in the duty free region in the ports there, similar to the way Israelis can buy duty free products in Ben Gurion Airport. This is meant to encourage Israelis to vacation in Eilat rather than travel abroad.
source: Ynet

It is a great idea, and if it encourages more tourism and brings more money into Israel, that would be great.

Regarding duty free for Israelis, I am sure it wont cause more Israelis to vacation in Eilat over travel abroad. Israeli's who travel abroad for cheaper vacations in Eastern Europe won't spend more money to vacation in Eilat just because they can save a small amount of money on whiskey and cigarettes. I do expect Israelis to figure out a method of benefiting from the duty free status in the Eilat ports without actually bothering to spend too much time in Eilat. I should note, this does not apply to all Israelis. Plenty of Israelis do vacation in Eilat, and hopefully those numbers will also increase. I just do not think the duty free will be what causes Israelis who dont prefer Eilat to suddenly prefer it for their vacation spot.

The issue of Eilat being part of Eretz Yisrael or not, from a halachic perspective, is an old one and has been discussed many times before.

The relevance is really for kohanim, for whom leaving Eretz Yisrael could involve a prohibition of impurity, and for people spending a holiday in Eilat who needs to know how many days of holiday to observe when in Eilat.

The issue is complicated, and truthfully for most people it is practically irrelevant - especially because most people travel abroad - anybody who travels abroad and is not concerned about the impurity of stepping on the ground in New York, London, Paris or anywhere else - shouldn't have a problem in Eilat. The question of 1 or days of holiday observance is relevant.

I would like to see any rav who paskens that Eilat is not part of Eretz Yisrael add a comment to his psak. Instead of just saying its not eretz yisrael, he should add that anybody who travels abroad to other cities should have no problem traveling to Eilat.

Rav Dov Lior recently said that he recommends kohanim not travel to Eilat, because of the question and uncertainty as to its status. The Tzitz Eliezer holds Eilat was conquered by Shlomo Hamelech and is part of Eretz Yisrael, but his opinion is not part of the majority opinion on the matter. Rav Lior adds that the Rambam allows one to travel outside of Eretz Yisrael for the purpose of commerce, and being that Eilat is a port city, it is allowed to travel to it - as the entire city is considered part of the commerce of the port. On the other hand, there is no positive commandment of settling in Eilat, as while one could travel there, it still is not part of Eretz Yisrael. So, Israelites can travel there with no concern, but kohanim should be stringent unless it is necessary.

I always wondered what Rav Moshe Hadaya, the Chief Rabbi of Eilat, would have to say about the discussion but never heard him comment on it (though I am sure he has had a halachic opinion all along)... it seems that Rav Lior's recent comments have caused Rav Hadaya to speak up...

Rav Hadaya said that his uncle, Rav Ovadia Hadaya, a member from the days of the foundation fo the State of the religious council of the Rabbanut and a member of the Beit Din Hagadol, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, the Chief Rabbis of Israel - Rav Herzog and Rav Uziel, all have clearly said that once Eilat was captured by the IDF it became part of Eretz Yisrael in every regard. He would add that if we were to announce that Eilat is not a part of Eretz Yisrael, the Egyptians would demand that we should return Eilat to them.

Rav Hadaya also points to Rav Ovadia Yosef for this discussion. He says he does not understand those who make statements just to stand out. Rav Ovadia Yosef traveled to Eilat 30 years ago and Rav Ovadia asked him - asked Rav Hadaya - whether he observes one or two days of holiday. Rav Hadaya responded that he observes one day just like everywhere in Israel. Rav Ovadia's response, according to the testimony of Rav Hadaya, was to turn to those around and say "did you hear what the rav said? I will not talk about this issue."

Rav Hadaya also compares it to some other cities that technically should have the same status, as per the gemara. Lod and Bnei Braq should really be considered chutz laaretz, but nobody would dare suggest that Lod or Bnei Braq be treated like chutz laaretz - so what do they want from Eilat?
source: Srugim and full interview in Erev Erev

I feel vindicated, in a sense, because when recently learnign a connected sugya in the gemara, the topic of discussion naturally turned to this issue, and my opinion expressed (non-definitively) then matches very closely to what Rav Hadaya just said...

When Shas and UTJ were left out of the government, many looked (and still look) at it as an opportunity to accomplish things that were not possible in previous governments in which they were partners. That has so far manifested itself in the public discourse in the form of where money will be directed, and where it won't be, issues with advancing the equality of the IDF draft, connecting core curriculum in education systems with size of budget grants, and perhaps even issues such as civil marriage and the operation of public transportation on Shabbos in secular areas.

One opportunity has arisen that I think was overlooked previously, until it was just raised by a deputy mayor.

The deputy mayor of Eilat, Yehuda Mordy, has sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that with Shas not included in the government coalition, the time is ripe for the construction of a casino in Eilat. Mordy wrote that they now have a window of opportunity, as in the past every time a similar initiative was raised Shas was responsible for rejecting it.

Mordy says that building a casino will bring financial prosperity to the city. It will create jobs, the city will be able to lower property taxes for the residents, it will prevent crime (NOTE: I never before heard this "benefit" ascribed to casinos) as the increased revenues will allow them to add police to the police force, the best doctors and teachers will be attracted to move to Eilat. Mordy does qualify it by saying that such a casino should only be open for tourists but locals should be prohibited from entering.

Mordy also says this would allow the government to cancel the intended voiding of the VAT exemption currently held by Eilat. According to Mordy, the casino would bring in 5 times the revenue than the new VAT would bring in, and the government could cancel its plan with this alternate revenue.

Will Sheldon Adelson soon have a new business opportunity in Israel?

The Shas representative in Eilat, Moshe Alemkais, though I am a bit surprised to hear that the haredi Shas party has a community down there, says that the opposition to a casino was never limited to just Shas but was cross-party opposition. The hotels might prosper from a casino, but the city itself will suffer from increased crime and prostitution. When the gambling boats were in operation off the coast of Eilat, many families suffered due to the gambling. To be fair, Alemkais does not discount it out of hand, but says a casino should not be in Eilat proper, but perhaps it would be ok in a closed complex in a place like Ovda (a spot in the desert about 60km north of Eilat), as long as it is not easily accessible.
(source: Erev Erev)

It seems people like to associate things with the haredim. Even the haredim do this, and regarding the casino issue Mordy is doing this. Did Shas oppose it? clearly they did. Were they the only ones opposed to a casino opening in Eilat? Probably not. Cities around the world deal with the debate of opening a casino, and there are very real concerns that affect everybody and have nothing to do with whether a person is haredi or not, or if there is a haredi community present in any given city or not. Plenty of non-haredi people oppose the opening of casinos, yet Mordy in Eilat makes it appear as if it is solely a haredi issue.

Another example of this, from the other end, is the law proposal floated by Minister of Health Yael German last week to make the default status of organ donation to be one where everyone is by default a donor and one who does not want to be must state so explicitly. In the Mishpacha newspaper this past week, when reporting on this issue, called it an anti-haredi proposal. As if the only reason to oppose it is for being haredi, and the only reason German suggested it is in order to get the haredi organs. Reading the general media one could have easily seen that plenty of non-haredim are also opposed to German's proposal. Many consider it immoral, many don't want to donate, and the issue has nothing to do with haredim, even if haredim are among those opposed to the idea. Just the fact that haredim are also opposed to it and would also be negatively affected by it does not make the proposal specifically anti-haredi.

Not everything is always about the haredim. There are good reasons for non-haredim to oppose things that sometimes might even coincide with the haredi position on matters. Haredim would do well to note that and not always see themselves as the target and the victim. As well, those trying to get things done should not always blame the haredim for being the opponents - even when haredim are opposed to something sometimes the opposition is supported and justified in non-haredi terms as well. Both would be more successful if they were not so narrow-minded.

There is a long-standing halachic debate whether Eilat is considered a part of Eretz Yisrael or not. According to Rav Aviner it is, and he lists a number of reasons to support his decision, while according to Rav Elyashiv it is not. I think the most common psak is that it is not halachically Eretz Yisrael, and this has ramifications regarding travel to Eilat from within Eretz Yisrael's halachic borders, and with regard to 2nd day of yom tov (though some who say it is not eretz yisrael still say to only keep one day of yom tov in Eilat).

This issue also has ramifications regarding divorce.

A divorced couple in Netanya went to a beis din to discuss this exact issue. The ex-wife, who is remarried, wanted to move to Eilat with her new husband and her three children. She said that her ex-husband does not pay his child-support payments regularly, and the job offer she received in Eilat with a higher salary would help her pay her bills. The ex-husband counter-argued that a) Eilat is outside of Eretz Yisrael and b) Eilat is a city with questionable moral standards and many problems with immodesty and is therefore inappropriate for her to take their children to live there.

While acknowledging that Eilat is far away and it would be difficult for the father to go to visit his kids, they concluded that Eilat is a part of Eretz Yisrael. At the same time, one cannot ignore the reputation Eilat has among the people. However, one can find similar issues in many places around Israel, like Tel Aviv and Netanya, and especially all along the coastal region of Israel, including Netanya, where the mother actually lives.

The dayanim concluded that just like Netanya has problems with beaches and immodesty, yet the mother finds it possible to live there and raise her kids properly in a religious community to be Torah-observant, so too in Eilat as well she is able to claim that she is moving to a Torah-observant community and raise her children there.

In the end the decision was to not let her move to Eilat because of the difficulty it would create for the father to visit his kids. Despite Eilat being, according to these dayanim, part of Eretz Yisrael.
(source: Bechadrei)

I wonder if they would have prevented her from moving to Kiryat Shmona or Metulla for the same reason. It seems reasonable to not allow a parent to move the children too far away to be reasonable for the other parent to visit, but the ex-husband should be pressured to fulfill his financial obligations towards child support payments. If she is considering moving to Eilat because she cannot afford to raise her children, the lack of child-support payments must be pretty serious.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu announced today that a train line will be erected to Eilat. Netanyahu said travel time to Eilat will be 2 hours (I assume from Tel Aviv, but he did not say). The line would be used as a passenger route and also as a cargo route for transferring cargo to Europe from Asia.

This plan was raised by Ariel Sharon many years ago. It has never gotten off the ground in any way beyond lip service. I hope Netanyahu gets this project going as it could really make a big difference in the development of the South.

For those of you who enjoy vacationing in Eilat, this might, or might not, be for you. For those who wish you could but don't because of the tzniyus issues, this is definitely for you.

Who knew that there was just a Gay Pride Parade in the city of Eilat? Raise your hands if you knew it was about to happen.

The city of Eilat is thought of as an Israeli version of Las Vegas - what happens in Eilat stays in Eilat. It is thought of as being ultra-liberal in lifestyle (I don't think it is like that in its politics) - pretty much anything goes.

Today in the newspaper there was an article about the Gay Pride Parade that took place in Eilat on Friday. The article was on Page 19 of the newspaper. OK, no big deal - after all Eilat is a pretty boring seaside resort vacation city. No big deal - not very exciting news.

Yet, the Gay Pride Parade of Eilat was met with violence. A group of protestors, local residents of Eilat, went out to protest against the parade. It turned violent as the protestors began throwing stones and eggs. A couple paraders were injured and needed medical attention.

And still the article only hit about 150 words on Page 19 of Yisrael Ha'Yom. I did a quick search to see if I could find any article on Haaretz or Ynet websites - I could not find one at all on Haaretz and found one way down at the bottom of the news updates of Ynetnews. Granted, I only did a quick search - maybe a more thourough search would result in more scathing headlining articles, but even a quick search should bring up an article on the front page.

Why is it that when the religious, specifically Haredi, protest against the Gay Pride Parades, it makes page 1, it is discussed for days on end, threats of violence, assumptions of violence, etc. are all played up and the whole thing is made into a lot of noise. One time a couple of years ago a haredi man violently protested, stabbing a parader, and it was talked about in the news for days. The next year the news media went on discussing whether it would be repeated. To no end.

Yet here we had, on Friday, a Gay Pride Parade that was protested, with violence, by secular (traditional perhaps) residents. And you can hardly find a word about it in the media - and to find even a bit you have to look hard.

Makes you wonder what the media outrage was really about the other times....

Last week I received an email alert about a psak from Rav Elyashiv. The psak was regarding the status of Eilat in regards to how many days of yom tov would one need to observe in Eilat (it also referred to Antalya, Turkey, a popular vacation spot for Israelis, but that is not relevant for my post).
The question is based on the fact that Eilat is not halachically considered part of Eretz Yisrael and does not have kedushat haaretz, the various agricultural laws of the Land of Israel do not apply to Eilat.
Rav Elyashiv paskened that Eilat is not part of Eretz Yisrael and it has a Jewish community. Therefore, just like in other places in the diaspora, an Israeli found in Eilat for the holiday must observe the second day of the holiday as they do in the diaspora.

The Chief Rabbi of Eilat, Rabbi Hecht, argues the point and says they keep one day of holiday just like in Israel.

I am not sure what the logic was behind Rabbi Hechts position, as the article did not elaborate.

I suspect that Rabbi Hecht is simply stating the facts. Israelis generally keep one day of yom tov even in America, except the most haredi of them. In Eilat for sure the majority of Israelis are only keeping one day for the holiday. It is not really a halachic position, rather a statement of facts.. I am not sure if that is the case or if he is of the opinion that Israelis should only observe one day of yom tov. The article was unclear.

Sometimes we need our enemies to remind us of who we are and what we need to be doing. It was said about the holocaust (and many other tragic events in our history) that our enemy did not allow us to assimilate. No matter how hard we tried, they always remembered and reminded us that we are Jews and cannot avoid it.

Sometimes we get so involved in the minutiae that we forget the big picture, which is often just as important.

As a friend of mine said to me today, "If there was a suicide bombing there, it is clear that it is part of Erets Yisrael."

Our enemies recognize that Eilat is part of Eretz Yisrael, yet we are arguing whether it is or is not. It seems to have been very prescient that this argument about the status of Eilat just occurred and almost immediately was followed by a sharp reminder by our enemies.

Maybe, perhaps, though this pains me to suggest, Eilat suffered today's suicide attack, after hardly ever having been affected by terror attacks, precisely because of our haste to deny it status as part of Israel. We want to throw it out, so Hashem, with the aid of the terorists, threw it back at us and said this is just as much Israel as Jerusalem, Sderot, Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere else..