I hereby instruct you that if God forbid I should be abducted or fall captive in the hands of Arab terror organizations that you should not conduct negotiations for my release....

---- Moshe Feiglin (Likud)

Feiglin wrote this in a letter to DM Ehud Barak. He went on to discuss Gilad Shalit's situation and Jonathan Pollard's, adding that in the past 25 years Israel has not successfully returned captive Israeli soldiers via negotiations....

As an aside, I am pretty sure Barak will happily respond positively to Feiglin's demand. :-)

As I said, they are crazy..

The Bet Shemesh branch of the Eidah community suffered a serious blow on Shabbos-Yom Tov when their leader and rav, Rav Rosenberger, collapsed during the hakafot. It seems he had a serious stroke and was in critical condition for a while (it seems his situation has stabilized).

The MDA team came to resuscitate him and take him to the hospital for care, and according to this report, his students surrounded the ambulance arguing about which hospital they would let MDA take him to for care. It seems that some students were against his being treated in Hadassah, the preferred hospital of the MDA team, because of the recent tension between the extremists and Hadassah.

Sanity prevailed when Mrs. Rosenberger asked MDA which hospital is best suited to treat his problem. They said Hadassah and she then insisted that that is where he would be treated.

I guess they felt they know better than even the Gaava"d of the Eidah who was also hospitalized last week and chose Hadassah, despite the recent tensions, because of it being the most appropriate for his needs.

That was only the beginning. After getting all that worked out, they still fought with the ambulance team regarding who would accompany Rav Rosenberger to the hospital. MDA rules say only one person, a family member, can accompany the ill in the ambulance. An extra student jumped in and fought with the MDA driver. Eventually they got rid of him and continued on their way, after calling the police, and after the driver himself got injured from a dorr being slammed into him when evicting the student.

All this fighting while their rav is unconscious and in critical condition after collapsing in front of them, causing delays in his receiving treatment. They are lucky they didn't kill him in the process by delaying his receiving the care he needed!

In an article on Ynet published before Sukkot (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3783727,00.html), Louis Gordon announced that he will be reviving an ancient practice – taking the lulav (really the four biblically mandated species; the use of the term “lulav” is a common synecdochic allusion to the entire group) on Shabbat.

This is indeed an exciting decision, as I know Louis to be an observant Jew, and observant Jews have, by and large, refrained from taking the lulav on Shabbat for close to two millennia.

Would I be in Louis’s position, I would be as equally excited as he to be able to fulfill this special mitzvah in its proper time. Unfortunately, I am unable to, and it seems that Louis, in his eagerness to restore the mitzvah of lulav to its past glory, has misunderstood the words of those who guarded our tradition during a critical time in our history, as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud.

Louis seems to misunderstand the initial reason why use of the lulav was proscribed on Shabbat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai (a resident of the land of Israel) instituted, following the destruction of the Second Temple, that certain mitzvot, lulav among them, not be observed on the Shabbat. His concern was that one who is not knowledgeable in the required practice may carry a ritual object (in this case a lulav, but similar enactments were made for a shofar and a megillat Esther) in the public domain, which would be a torah-level desecration of the Shabbat. While a lulav is “muktzeh” nowadays on Shabbat, this is due to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (which rendered a lulav useless on Shabbat), and is not, as Louis mistakenly understands, the reason for the decree.

Louis then delves into the relevant text in Talmud Sukka, which deals with taking the lulav on Shabbat. As Louis notes, the Talmud records that the Jews of the Diaspora (Babylonia) did not take the lulav on Shabbat, even on the first day of the holiday (when taking the lulav is biblically madated), since there was a doubt as to whether or not the first day of the holiday was observed on the correct day. Since this doubt did not exist for the communities in the land of Israel, they did take the lulav on the first day of the holiday, even if it coincided with Shabbat.

At this point, Louis feels that the Talmud (which was edited in Babylon) abruptly backtracks, “suddenly changes its position and surprisingly declares” that the Jews of the land of Israel should not take a lulav on the first day of the holiday if it coincides with Shabbat. He uses this as a springboard to describe “an atmosphere of competition and rivalry” between the Jews of the Diaspora and those of the land of Israel, as a result of which the Jews in the Diaspora imposed a prohibition on the Jews in Israel against taking the lulav on the Shabbat. As Louis describes it, once the Jewish community in the land of Israel had sufficiently declined, the Jews of the Diaspora were free to impose their own Halachic weltanschauung. He would have us believe that Jews in Israel took the lulav on the first day of the holiday, even if it fell on Shabbat, for two and a half centuries after the destruction of the Temple, until compelled to stop by the Babylonian Jewish community.

However, this view is not consistent with a reading of the Talmud.

After the Talmud describes the different practices of Diaspora Jewry and those in Israel in regard to lulav, it continues with a separate, but related, topic, and then discusses the custom of waving a willow branch, which was instituted as a commemoration of a similar practice performed in the Temple during the Sukkot holiday. The discussion concludes that just as a willow was not waved in the Diaspora, the communities in Israel refrained from doing so as well. This seems to be in direct contrast to the practice of taking the lulav, where the communities in the Diaspora and the land of Israel had different practices. The Talmud admits that a mistake had been made with regard to lulav, and concludes that the communities of the land of Israel did indeed refrain from taking a lulav, even on the first day of the holiday.

Several observations can be made:

First, the sudden backtracking of the Talmud identified by Louis does not exist. It is neither sudden nor surprising. As noted, this amendment comes after the Talmud had concluded its discussion of the lulav, and was only made in light of the conclusion of the discussion of the waving of the willow. Furthermore, this type of amendment is not surprising. There are innumerable instances throughout the Talmud where the conclusion of one discussion leads to the realization that an position arrived at earlier was erroneous. Keeping true to form, it identifies and corrects the discrepancy.

Second, once the mistake has been corrected, it is clear that the Jews of Israel did not take the lulav on Shabbat. Rather, as noted above, they ceased this practice following the destruction of the Second Temple, at the behest of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived in Israel. Thus, the practice in the land of Israel since the time of the destruction of the Second Temple seems to have been to refrain from taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkot if it coincides with Shabbat.

Finally, there is no imposition of any worldviews. The Jews of Babylon did not dictate that Jews in Israel should not take their lulavim on the first day of the holiday if it falls on Shabbat. Rather, it is clear from the language of the Talmud they merely described the existing reality.

Significantly, on this last point, Rashi (who is recognized as the premier contributor to Biblical and Talmudic exegesis, and whose comments are generally assumed to reflect the most straightforward understanding of a text) explains that the reason that the Jews of the land of Israel changed their practice was to prevent the breakdown of the Jewish people into separate groups – indeed to promote Jewish unity. This is consistent with the tone throughout the entire corpus of the Talmud, which describes the open lines of communication between the Jews of Babylonia and those living in the land of Israel, and in fact the respect and reverence shown by the former toward the latter.

As the first day of the Sukkot holiday has passed, the above is for the time being moot, at least in terms of practical observance. The first day of the holiday will not occur on Shabbat for another eleven years. I look forward to that day, and to joining Louis on his way to taking his lulav in the Temple in Jerusalem, which should be rebuilt speedily in our days.

Yahoo had the following Reuters picture of the "Zebonkey" in Gaza (the donkey painted like a zebra)

The article below really needs nothing added. It shows how crazy some of these people are..

The article is from the Yediot Acharonot newspaper. It reports of an incident in Meah She'arim. Meah She'arim is a very popular place for people to go during Sukkos at night, as all the hassidic courts and yeshivas in the neighborhood hold nightly Simchas Beis HaShoeva parties unlike anywhere else.

It has gotten so crowded with the throngs of people going to partake in the festivities that in recent years the Toldos Aharon and Toldos Avraham Yitzchak courts - probably the greatest attraction in the area of them all - have arranged separate sidewalks for the men and women - so as to avoid mixed congregating, to avoid men and women bumping up into each other in the crowds, to avoid possibly "less than tzniyusdike" women being seen by men, etc.

The street is split in two, men walk on one side, and women walk on the other. Guards are posted along the route, and occasionally a scuffle occurs as the guards try to enforce the separation while a couple insists on walking together, or someone mistakenly crosses the line and the guards try to force the separation.

The article below describes an incident in which a woman, haredi but not the Meah She'arim type of haredi, with her young child (male) ended up mistakenly on the mens side of the road. She was approached by a hassidic guy who screamed at her for being on the wrong side. She responded that it was a mistake and that she was leaving to go to the womens side.

The hassidic guy grabbed her kid from the stroller and ran. She started screaming and chased him. She says none of the locals helped her out, but other people saw what was happening and blocked this guys path. She caught up to him, and he threw the baby back at her. She caught the kid, but his head smacked into her face and caused her to bleed, but she didn't drop the kid.

The police have opened an investigation, but have yet to find the guy. They probably never will, as she probably couldn't identify him very well, the locals probably have not helped out at all and cooperated in giving him up, and the police won't look too hard.

Yoelish Krausz responded on behalf of the locals saying that it was not a kidnapping - the guy simply took the kid and ran to the womens section where he promptly gave the kid back.

These guys are just messed up. Amazing that we honor and respect them and somehow consider them more authentic and reliable. We trust their hechsher as being the most reliable. We run to their parties because the way they celebrate seems more authentic to us and more similar to the way it always was...

They are just crazy.

It is strange that the rav - who is the gadol hador - is regularly portrayed in the media as an extreme person, who only recently we heard about him criticism from the media and leftists that he fans the flames of the shabbos fights in Jerusalem. And suddenly, when the rav says something that is in line with the worldview of the left, and speaks against "starting up with the nations" suddenly his words are treated as the "holy of holies". Peres goes to visit him in the sukka and the media spin goes into gear pointing fingers at the Jews, and not against the people of the Islamic Movement who heated up and sparked the flames on Har Habayit....Would they do the same if Rav Elyashiv would come out and say what the halacha is about what should be done to those who are mechallel shabbos according to halacha? Would we see the same headlines, with the same level of adoration, if Rav Elyashiv would say what his opinion is regarding the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem?

---- Itamar Ben-Gvir, on the adoring headlines Rav Elyashiv received regarding his statement earlier today that Jews are not allowed up on Har Habayit

The recent flare-ups of Arab violence on Temple Mount, and all over East Jerusalem have brought the argument of control of Temple Mount (and of East Jerusalem) to the table again.

With Jews, religious Jews really, already being severely limited in their access to Temple Mount, and the Arabs now complaining about the little access already given to the religious Jews, Israeli authority is being questioned.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that there must be equality on Temple Mount, and Jews must be given equal access and allowed to pray on Temple Mount. The loophole is that they leave it to the discretion of the police. The police then say that the Arabs threaten violence, and for the purpose of maintaining quiet and keeping everyone safe, they have to limit the Jewish access.

Now, even with the police limitations, the Arabs are expressing themselves violently anyway. So what's the point of the Supreme Court, and of the police restrictions, if the Arabs are not going to accept anything less than a total ban on jews, and act violently until they get it? The police are in a bind right now. If they give in to the Arabs even further, they will have relinquished whatever semblance of control they have left. If they don't the Arabs will test the police with violence, the police will be forced to quell it, and Israel will end up with more control of Har Habayis than it actually wants.

Yehuda Glick, of the Temple Institute and director of an organization called "Organization for Human Rights on Temple Mount", has sent a letter to the police in which he demands the police either give full equal access to everyone, Arabs and Jews, or to shut the gates and not allow anyone up there. It makes no sense that the victims of violence are the ones who are being discriminated against. Glick says that if the full equality is not implemented by Thursday (today), he will turn to the courts to enforce it as per its previous rulings.

----------------

UPDATE: As promised, Glick petitioned the Supreme Court today about the lack of equal rights and the lack of freedom of worship on Temple Mount. Justice Yoram Danziger has asked the State to respond by 5pm today (time passed - I don't have update yet as to whether r not they responded) as to why Har Habayit is closed to Jews yet open to Muslims...

In Gaza, nothing is as it seems... not even the zebra..

A zoo in Gaza lost its zebra, as they starved to death when the animal feeders refused to show up after the Operation Cast Lead in Gaza was complete. They tried to smuggle in a couple new zebra, but the operators of the tunnels were charging exorbitant amounts of money - $15,000 per zebra smuggled in, so the zookeepers found an alternate solution.

They took a donkey and painted it like a zebra. Now the kids in Gaza have an exciting zoo again.

It's really a painted donkey," admitted the zoo's director Mahmud Berghat when asked about the creature.

After explaining that the zoo used hair dye on the unsuspecting donkey, Mr Berghat said: "We cut its hair short and then painted the stripes."

Despite the confused four-legged beast hardly being able to fool zoologists, the "zebra" has been a hit with the thousands of Gaza-bound school children who have never seen such an exotic animal.

"But don't tell anyone," Mr Berghat said. "The children love him."

Yesterday, the Israeli Air Force Unit 669 Search and Rescue team had to rescue a hiker who got injured and stuck in Wadi Kelt. Another hiker caught the rescue on video, and here is the really cool footage...

Israel ran what turned out to be a very successful PR campaign over the course of the summer. The campaign was due to the serious water shortfall, and convinced people to conserve water.

Israel is now being sued, for 850000NIS, by the larger grass companies claiming that the campaigns about Israel drying up seriously harmed their business.

They claim that Israel portrayed, in its campaign, images that were far worse than reality, and protrayed what people are allowed to do as far as watering their lawns, as far less than what the law actually allowed.

So, because Israel portrayed an image of not being allowed to water lawns, people stayed away from laying new gardens of grass, thus harming their business.

I can't see the courts awarding these companies any damages in this case. There was a national need to conserve water at serious levels. They should be sued by Israel for encouraging people to lay lawns and water grass in a country that has had such serious water shortages over the past 10 years (really always, but it has been worse the past 10 years or so)

The Indians warn us what will happen to our land if we do not fight for it

Not all the Jews are smart...The Israeli police damage the freedom of worship of the Muslims and restrict prayers to men over the age of 50. Even God doesn't place such limitations. Also, the rule of occupation obligates them to allow freedom of worship. We don't need favors, what we need is that you and your friends will fulfill your obligations to us as citizens and as human beings. [Franco] should be sent to a course in democracy and ethics of equality.

---- MK Ahmed Tibi

yet it is ok, nay - necessary, according to Tibi, for them to restrict Jews from praying....

The Arabs are ungrateful... The police allowed the mass numbers of Muslim worshipers who came to temple Mount to celebrate the Ramadan, and everything passed amazingly smoothly. now, during the holidays of the month of Tishrei they riot.

---- Police Chief Aharon Franco

Yesterday evening a 3 yr old kid got into his parents van, and somehow knocked the gear shift into neutral. The parking lot had a strong slope, and the car rolled backwards gathering speed and somehow maneuvered and smashed right into the side of my parked car.

Somehow, perhaps it was a miracle, nobody was injured. The "driver" managed to not run over any of the dozens of kids playing in the lot. The "driver" himself was not injured or hurt despite the force of the crash - the crash was so hard that it blew out the whole back window from the drivers car, it shoved my car over and lifted it up partly onto the sidewalk, and it caused my car to smash into the car parked next to it. The damage to my car was minimal - just some denting, but nothing serious.

Today I just spoke to my friend and found out he was in an accident yesterday. he was driving with his family, local city driving, and someone ran a red light and smashed into his car. The car was totaled but everybody was ok (after being checked in the hospital), thank God.
He told me that if not for the seatbelts, they would have had some very serious injuries. His wife would have been seriously injured, but her seatbelt saved her.

So, please everyone. There are lots of cars on the road. Even if you are a cautious and safe driver, other people might not be. Somebody might be tired but driving. Someone might be in a rush and not careful.

Drive safely, but especially be careful to make sure everyone is wearing seatbelts.

And after all the stories I have heard over the past day of people who's kids knocked the gear shift into neutral and caused some sort of accident, I would recommend the car manufactures install some sort of safety catch on the gear shift so it would not be so easy to knock it into neutral.

Mishpacha newspaper reported about a businessman with extensive holdings and dealings who went to Rav Elyashiv, and other gedolim, to receive a bracha for his business.

The businessman was urged to support the Torah community, and he agreed to do so, committing half of the profits of his business to supporting Torah in Eretz Yisrael. In exchange for his supporting the Torah community, he would want them to daven for his success, which Rav Elyashiv said they would do.

He then asked a shailoh, if it would be permissible for him to do business with Iran, via a third party.

Rav Elyashiv paskened that it is assur. He said that it is helping our enemy, and that is assur. As well, Rav Elyashiv added that he should not think the Iranians will be looking out for his success. Eventually they will find out that a Jew is behind the middleman, and they will only participate as long as it is convenient, but once they discover their business partner is Jewish, they will look for any way to cause his downfall.

The fellow later asked that Rav Elyashiv promise that his business would succeed, in the zechus of his commitment to supporting Torah. Rav Elyashiv said that he could not make such a promise or guarantee, all he could promise is that they would daven for his behalf to the best of their abilities.

I like the idea that Rav Elyashiv refused to make a promise for something that is not really in his control. But I do find it strange that we see the tzedaka funds, specifically the fund of the Vaad HaRabbonim that is associated with Rav Elyashiv, frequently advertises that they promise success to the people who donate to them.

Strange.