"Lo Meis Ad Echad."

.וַיָּמָת כֹּל מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא מֵת אֶחָד.I

and all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but of the livestock of the children of Israel not one died.

ז. וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה לֹא מֵת מִמִּקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֶחָד

7. And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not until one of the livestock of Israel died

The term, "ad echad," is a little ambiguous.

 כח. וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם וַיְכַסּוּ אֶת הָרֶכֶב וְאֶת הַפָּרָשִׁים לְכֹל חֵיל פַּרְעֹה הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם בַּיָּם לֹא נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶם עַד אֶחָד: 

28: And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, the entire force of Pharaoh coming after them into the sea; not even one of them survived.

 The ibn Ezra brings our verse as a proof that just as here, "ad echad," means every single animal died,  so too, "ad echad," means every single Egyptian died (and not like chazal, who say pharaoh remained alive).( He brings additional support for this from the pasuk in tehillim, "וַיְכַסּוּ-מַיִם צָרֵיהֶם;    אֶחָד מֵהֶם, לֹא נוֹתָר. And the waters covered their adversaries; there was not one of them left," which clearly states that  no one  stayed alive, as further proof.

The Kehillas Yitzchak notes a difference between verses 6 and 7. In the first pasuk, the Torah says not one animal died from, "bnei yisrael." In the next pasuk, when in regard from pharaohs point of view it uses the term, "yisrael."

The Midrash in parshas Vayikra tells us about  a Jewish woman named Shlomis Bas Divri, who due to being overly flirty, was force to bear a child from an Egyptian father. Her name stems from the word, "dever," for she brought plague upon her son. Simply this means that she brought him into the world as the son of an Egyptain, and he pronounced the name of Hashem with a curse, and so she watched him be stoned.

The Ramban notes that before Matan Torah, Judaism was paternally hereditary. Therefore Ben Shlomis was not technically Jewish. After Matan Torah, as is the halachah today, a man born to a Jewish mother but gentile father  is  considered Jewish. 

So in verse 6, all the livestock of bnei yisrael was spared. The cattle of Ben Shlomis, who was not a ben yisrael,  did die. But to Pharaoh, in verse 7, he was still living among the Jews, and therefore he considered him to be Jewish. All but one cattle of the, "Jews" survived. Since at least a piece of the, "Jews," were killed, Pharaoh did not feel pressure to release them from bondage. 

This also sheds light on the meaning of, "she brought a plague upon her son." For if his father had been Jewish, he would have been spared from the plague of dever.

Have a Good Shabbos.

                

Everybody wants Mashiach?

A couple shabbasim ago , my rav spoke beautifully about the Rokeach and the term "Vayigash"; and at the end he made a comment about the events in Bet Shemesh. He said that while all the other Jewish (even Charedi) organizations did condemn the actions of the group of chareidim, we still couldn't all get together with one unanimous response," They are not us."

Not only is there a diversity among the responses, which has been discussed by Rabbi Natan Slifkin and Rabbi Harry Maryles (probably many others as well, but they are two of the main bloggers who i follow) , but there is also a sufficient lack in attempts toward achdus,  by secular chilonim and even by other ultra-orthodox Rabbonim. I posted an angry response to the most recent link, however, it has not yet been posted.

In it, i pretty much described the lack of achdus calling the chareidim, "animals," promotes. If we can call Jews who are slightly less observant in some areas (middos) of their Judaism, "animals;" then they have the right to call someone who , in their eyes, is lacking in areas of tznius, "an animal;" and therefore exempt themselves from all chiyuvim of, "achdus." Sadly, there seems to be no hope in re-establishing achdus in klal yisrael. It is arguable that the chiloni-chareidi civil war was/is inevitable. Unfortunately, it seems as if it is going to divide the other parts of Judaism also. I'm scared it is going to divide the so widely used term, "orthodox."

The only solution is really Mashiach. Which brings me to a topic that i have often wondered about. Traditionally, there are two forms of the coming of Mashiach. The first is where klal yisroel is, "zoche," and the alternative is where we hit rock bottom and will be lost if not for our last hope. Generally, the coming of the former Mashiach is described as prestigious and supernatural, while the coming of the latter is accompanied with a can of worms around his neck, poor, riding on a donkey, and through natural means. We dont seem to be headed in the, "zoche," direction...

Ignoring all the arguements about the specifics (techiyas hameisim and malchemes gog u' magog, and what "y'mos mashiach" will be like) , are the kids in MBC right? does everybody want mashiach? whether the former or the latter form of the coming of mashiach, the majority of people i know would respond to the coming of mashiach with a comment similar to: "oh, you. we didn't think you'd make it..." Many of my rebbeim often mention that many people are too comfortable with their lifestyles to be willing to leave to Eretz Yisrael along with mashiach.

Then there are the individual problems with both comings (lol tht sounds funny :p).

If he comes supernaturally, then i guess everyone will be willing to follow him, regardless of what "sect," of judaism he is in. The only problem is that modern rationalists and scientists may be skeptic about his, "osos  u' mofsim." Also, many people will be scared of another fake messiah. I kind of always expected my response to be something like YEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHWOOOOOOHOOOOOYEEEAAAHHAAHAHAHAHWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!W00000000000000000000000000000TYEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! but i dont know how realistic that is. at max, I will probably be like, "whoa, this guy is legit. :O!"

We seem to be at an opportune time for a Mashiach to come who will naturally be mikarev all of klal yisrael and then everyone else too. I used to wonder that it would be extremely difficult for such a thing to happen. Anyone with slightly lower standards than the far right would be called an apikorus by them. Anyone who would demand that a chareidi lifestyle is obligatory would be called a lunatic and radical by those on the left. And then there would be people like me, who would say that its impossible for mashiach to be on either side, because it wouldnt work out. To me, the only answer to the daati-chiloni-chareidi / ultra-orthodox vs. modern orthodox war is mashiach. I used to doubt the ability of mashiach due to the lack of achdus. I now realize that mashiach is the answer  to the lack of achdus. I still don't know how things are going to turn out, but I'm hoping for the best.

Equal?

The following is a quote from R' Sherer at the Agudah : "The first bill of rights for the frumme yid is Anochi Hashem Elokecha! …There is no freedom of speech and freedom to write in our constitution of Anokhi Hashem Elokecha! …Let it be said very clearly: Total subservience to Torah."


 Now, i did not fully understand what point he was trying to make here. However, one of my friends claimed that he had a good point. He said that, "everyone nowadays tries to reconcile the Torah with modern society (whether it be modern science or America's version of "ethics." R Sherer is saying that its not true." 
He was saying that no matter how much you try, The Torah's views on equal rights are not that of modern society;  in ideology, they are radically different. Throughout the Torah (Bichsav and Baal Peh), it becomes that apparent that there were sharp differences between men and women.Many, Many "feminist" rights do go against halacha, and there is nothing you can do about it.
I argued, that that doesn't matter, for practically, you can ignore the differences. As for a way that Torah values and equality values can both be kept- I tried to argue that in the time of the gemara, where men were the prevalent gender seen on the street, there were restrictions on women. And so now, when women are equally prevalent in the world, there should be restrictions on men( as in men cant wear extremely tight clothing, or women cant go to men's concerts the same way a man cant go to women's concerts.)That way, men and women are technically equal, and you're still being politically correct.
To me, equality doesnt mean being the same. The majority of men are radically different than the majority of women  mentally and biologically. (you could even say the same thing abot races). "Same," means mutually superior over each other. Men are superior to women in some areas (although there are exceptional women who are better than men at some of these things; and vice versa) and women are equally superior to men. Now, my friend argued that it is known that men have stronger desires than women, so allowing women to be "free," could be dangerous; and that is the reason there are restrictions placed on men having connections with women. However, Rashi in Bava Metzia in the seventh perek, daf 84a d"h: ki ish k'gvuraso" does say that women have greater desires then men. Now this may seem contradictory, but i think the gemara in b"m was talking about two specific women.The same way some of my friends talk about people like Selena Gomez and others, girls talk about people like Taylor Lautner, so one could argue that restrictions against men are equally applicable.He argued that America's version of equal is equal, and not just mutually superior. Like I said, as long as its politically correct, and it within the confines of halacha, I dont care and we should do what must be done. IY"H i will post more on this, perhaps in regard to the changing of the siddur.

Now, the main problem with the existence of things like Footsteps is not the fact that they exist, but the fact that people who are leaving their far-right homes have nowhere else to go. There is no moderate home where they can flee to where they will feel unpressured to keep Judaism, but wont mind being in an environment that is still run by mainstream Jews. There should be a place where they can talk to other, discuss Jewish philosophy, get a decent education, without automatically being served non-kosher and dating secular people. ALSO, THEY NEED JUSTIFICATIONS for the reasons they were brought up the way they were. The justifications may not be so justified, but there are relatively explainable reasons why the far-right chooses to nurture its young the way it does. There should be a place for a bais-yaakov girl who wakes up in a hotel room to flee to, without having to feel outcast, but also without having to completely change her lifestyle. I am not aware of such an organization. Then there is the problem of the straw on the camel's back. Almost all the stories (on, "un-pious," which i am not going to post a link to because i highly suggest NOT going there) of people going off the derech start out with, "i was your typical Jewish high school student with questions." but that never makes anyone go off the derech. Its appears to almost always be some sort of sex episode. In this sense, i sort of agree with Chareidim, for realizing that sexuality is the yetzer hara's strongest power, and they attempt to keep their children from being exposed to it as strongly as they can. However, this doesn't always help, and it also creates a lot of abuse, which is just as assur as being ba'al a penuyah. The getting married earlier should help, but when a girl isnt married at 23 and all her friends have 2 kids, and she desperately dates some more modern guy, who then gets offended that she keeps shomer negiah, but then they end up touching, and she gets all these weird feelings, it doesn't turn out too well. For the majority of kids at this stage, mussar doesn't usually do much. And I cant bring myself to say that there is no solution, for that would mean there is a un-passable nisayon out there, which is pretty much kefira, or at least not very encouraging. So there are organizations that get the girls to go to mikvahs, which does get rid of the niddah problem, but that just makes them think its muttar, which its not. The possibility of these organizations doing a  quick full jewish marriage with a "kesuba" and two "eidim" and with birth control heterim (i don't know if you actually could get one here i don't know how they work, but its better then the alternative)etc is appealing. This would pretty much just make them muttar sex partners... However,even if giving a "get" would only take a short period of time, there would still be plenty of "partner" swapping, which is a worse issur than premarital sex. The main problem with this is that it would attract plenty of kids who would otherwise control themselves ( i cant say that i myself wouldnt [have] attemp[ed] this) , and it would completely destroy the sense of kedusha of Jewish Marriage. But to suggest there is no solution shows a lack of emunah; and if we cannot prevent kids from getting themselves into these situations, there should at least be somewhere they can go if they feel bad about it afterwards, and an orthodox version of "footsteps" does not exist.    i just came across this: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/increase-in-otd-children-are-made-to-feel-like-second-class-citizens