Monday, April 28, 2008

Dor HaMidbar Then and Now

The period of time that Am Yisrael spent in the desert was parallel to the time of Yenikah (suckling) in the upper realms. The manifestation of this on earth was that there was a high level of intimate contact between Hashem and Am Yisrael. When there was sin, punishment was many time in the form of open miracles and a departure from the natural order.

In our day, at the end of the period preceding Yemot HaMoshiach (Katnut Beit), it is not proper to expect this level of direct intervention, for we are at a more advanced stage in human history.

As a result, when studying the lessons from Dor HaMidbar to apply to our life today, we should not just say "and then Hashem smites them!" or anything else simplistic. That does not mean write Hashem out of the lesson, chas v'shalom. It means care must be taken with this analysis.


  1. This concept of being "oved Hashem" without directly mentioning His name has already started Purim time as G-D's name is not mentioned even once, also notice how a few years later Ezra (8, 22) got into trouble for mentioning Hashem's name.

    Back to your last post which I don't think I grasped totally.

    impure intentions that are successful, are only relevent for real mitvahs, such as the Mapeilim who wanted to be M'kaeim Yishuv Ha'aretz, for wrong intentions as you pointed out (not to be punished)

    another example Nadav V'Avihu who brought a mitvah but weren't allowed to.

    but for a group of jews to declare a democratic state, is as far as I understand not a inherintly a good deed (Mitzvah)
    [I'm not taking away the significants of 20th of the Omer which the Gaon said was "Nihirin" chibur Yisod B'tiferes)& I heard that the Talmidei HaGra got together for a gathering on this day & on what would be in the future Yom Yerushalayim (Koach Iyur)this despite the hakpada not to hold gatherings on the days of Sefira]

    still I don't see proclaiming a secular state as an example of a mitzvah.(can't find a precedence for this)
    On the other hand to bring Karbanot Tzibor is a real Mitzvah, (R'Kalisher already says that by bringing Karbonos will lead to the Geulah Sheleima. and I have no reason to assume that Hashem doesn't want this now. unless you assuming that any person who would want to bring a Karban today can't be certain it's for 100% pure reason, but I see no reason to go that way, meaning you can accuse anyone doing any mitvah at any time of this.

    Thanks for your blog which I truly appreciate. I never participate in other blogs, & I'm only corresponding here, cause I realise you have quite a deep understanding in the sefer kol Hator, which I'd love to understand & follow.

  2. Having a state is a mitzvah on a certain level because it means having Jewish sovereignty on Eretz Yisrael, which is Kiddush Hashem, and I would say per the Ramban, part of the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz. It is a logical prerequisite. In our days, when the Geulah comes step by step, having sovereignty preceeds the arrival of Moshiach, and on a certain level is his "chair" that we daven to Hashem to protect in the Boneh Yerushalayim.

    The 20th of the Omer is on a list of quite a few impressive matters in Jewish teaching that point to the same thing. Nonetheless, even if it were a different year and a different day, the state is a requirement.

    But why did they set up the state? Some did it to run away from the goyim alone. Some did it to run away from Torah (by creating a new Jew who need not keep Torah).

    The GR"A said on Shir HaShirim that the 3 oaths davka mean not to take Har HaBayit by force. Right now, offering the Korban would have to be by force.

  3. Why can't the "Chair" mean the actual things that the Talmidei HaGra did, (in fact they touched upon all aspects that a State should do, from setting up security personel to Hasbara) of course, you can argue that without a state it won't work for too long, but I'm not convinced that the declaration of the state excelerated things, rather I think that the pioneering hard work that was done 150 years prior brought the state, and would have gone as speedily without this declaration

    Furthemore, I don't recall a source that Yehoshua or Nechemia actually declared a state.
    although in a sense they had a State

    Now I understand that there's really no argument here since I also maintain that having a Jewish police deptmnt, & and a Jewish army etc, are all real Mitvos and a Kidush Hashem, & I don't see anything wrong in declaring a State, (if it's purpose would not have been to declare that we are just another nation as all nations)and although the Geula comes step by step (Beruchos Ch. 1 , and Yuma Ch. 3 Yerushalmi) I can't help but suspect that this declaration may have been a step backwards, especially since now the only obstacle for bringing Karbanos is this very State in discussion.

  4. Of course the Talmidim of the GR"A had a monumental impact on what we have today. It was really the beginning steps.

    The reality of world politics is that political vacuums don't last for long. If the Zionists had not declared a state, someone else will. This was not the case in the times of Yehoshua, but was moreso in the times of Ezra: Yehudah was part of the Persian Empire.

    The declaration of the state was necessary, and was one of the Steps. Of that, I am certain. Could it have been better? Yes, but that was dependent on our zechuyot.