Based on a lecture by Rabbi Elisha Wolfson, with a note by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman

Rabbi Elisha Wolfson standing by part of the bedrock on the Southern Side of the Temple Mount

Part A: The Reaction to Amalek and the Damage to Hashem’s Throne

Reconciling Contradictory Sources

The Torah portion of Ki Teitzei concludes with a human command: “Remember what Amalek did to you… you shall blot out the memory of Amalek” (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Conversely, the Book of Exodus states: “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek” (Exodus 17:14). The Midrash resolves this shift to severe Divine phrasing by explaining that Hashem Himself intervenes because Amalek “stretched out his hand against the Throne.”

The Temple as Hashem’s Throne and Amalekite Identity

Chronologically, the historical nation of Amalek did not destroy Jerusalem. However, the Midrash links Amalek to the verse “At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Hashem” (Jeremiah 3:17), establishing the Temple’s site as the Throne of Glory. Consequently, any enemy or force that opposes the rebuilding of the Temple—such as Haman and his sons during the Second Temple period—derives its spiritual root from Amalek. Hashem’s Name and Throne remain conceptually incomplete as long as His presence does not rest in Zion.

Rambam

Part B: The Order of the Three Commandments According to Chazal and Rambam (Maimonides)

The Halakhic Sequence

Tractate Sanhedrin (20b) and Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1-2) rule that upon entering the Land of Israel, the Jewish nation was commanded to fulfill three obligations in a specific sequential order:

1. Appointing a king.

2. Eradicating the seed of Amalek.

3. Building the Chosen House (the Temple).

Biblical Sources

Rambam derives the priority of kingship over waging war against Amalek from King Shaul’s (Saul’s) instruction (“Hashem sent me to anoint you king… now go and strike Amalek”). He derives the priority of wiping out Amalek over building the Temple from King David’s era (“When the king dwelt in his house, and Hashem had given him rest from all his enemies around… the king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar…'”).

The Concept of a Halakhic Barrier

Various halakhic authorities—most notably Rabbi David of Karlin (She’eilat David), addressing the early proposals by Rabbi Yechiel of Paris and Rabbi Kalischer to renew sacrifices—understood this sequence as a strict prerequisite. They held that rebuilding the Temple or renewing service cannot occur before a monarchy is established and Amalek is entirely destroyed.

Part C: Refuting the Delaying Approach (Rabbi Wolfson’s Arguments)

Prioritization vs. Immediate Obligation

As emphasized by Sefer HaChinuch (Commandment 603), the duty to erase Amalek falls upon every individual and the community whenever practically possible. The sequence stated by Chazal defines a priority framework applicable only when all three opportunities are simultaneously available; it is not a binding prerequisite that excuses neglecting a commandment when its execution is feasible.

Biblical and Historical Evidence

• First Temple: Built by King Solomon even though the seed of Amalek had not been fully eradicated (as Agag’s descendants persisted).

• Second Temple: Rebuilt by the returning exiles without a reigning king and amidst fierce opposition from local adversaries (“the enemies of Judah and Benjamin”). The prophet Haggai even admonished the people for delaying the reconstruction (“Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this House lies in ruins?”).

Distinction Between the Tabernacle Era and Post-Destruction

The Talmudic sequence applied when the Tabernacle was actively standing and the sacrificial service, Menorah, and incense continued uninterrupted—where the only remaining step was establishing the permanent “Chosen House.” Today, with the Temple destroyed and numerous positive commandments suspended, the practical ability to construct the Temple creates an independent, immediate obligation unconditioned on earlier historical stages.

Note by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman (author of several articles that have the “Haskama” of several prominent Rabbanim)

Based on an article by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, there are two distinct commandments regarding the Sanctuary:

• “And let them make Me a sanctuary” (Exodus 25:8): A commandment initiated in the wilderness.

• Establishing a permanent location for the “Chosen House”: Conditions fulfilled during the reign of King David.

When rebuilding the Temple today, we fulfill the foundational command of “and let them make Me a sanctuary,” which does not depend on a rigid sequence like appointing a king or destroying Amalek.

Because King David already established the permanent geographic location for the Chosen House, contemporary efforts need not wait at all for a king or the complete defeat of Amalek to comply with what the Rambam wrote in (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1-2).

Rabbi Wolfson Refutes Rabbi Barak Shragai

A Picture of Rabbi Wolfson pointing out the bedrock. (The picture linked to a video)

Rabbi Wolfson pointing at the bedrock

• The Theory Being Challenged: Rabbi Barak Shragai published a book (Noyo Shel Olam), reviving a 30-year-old theory by researcher Tuvia Sagiv. This theory claims the Temple was located on the southern side of the Temple Mount rather than at the traditional location of the Dome of the Rock, and that its ruins lie over 10 meters below ground level .

• The Refutation: Rabbi Wolfson points out an immediate physical contradiction: visible natural bedrock (Sela Em) on the surface at that location .

• Conclusion: Because the natural bedrock is visibly exposed on the current ground surface, the Temple could not have existed 10 meters underneath it. Rabbi Wolfson asserts that the theory contradicts Jewish tradition, common logic, and observable physical reality . He concludes that this southern area served as the ascending pathway up to the Temple and the Holy of Holies, ending with a prayer for the rebuild of the Temple

Further suggested reading:

A Critique of Architect, Tuvia Sagiv’s Temple Mount Theory

Quote from the Metsuda translation of Eshter, chapter 8 as translated by The Metsudah Five Megillot, Lakewood, N.J., 2001

Rabbi Elisha Wolfson

Summary by Gemini AI

Here is the structured summary and direct refutation of R’ Barak Sharagai’s theory presented in this video:

Overview of R’ Barak Sharagai’s Theory

Rabbi Wolfson addresses R’ Barak Sharagai’s 800-page book (Noyov Shel Olam). Sharagai claims that the Holy Temple was not located at the Dome of the Rock (the Foundation Stone / Even HaShetiya), but rather hidden deep underground in the southern area of the Temple Mount.

Key Arguments by R’ Sharagai & Rabbi Wolfson’s Refutations

1. “Stone” (Even) vs. “Rock” (Sela)

• R’ Sharagai’s Argument: The Mishna and Sages refer to the Even HaShetiya as an “even” (movable stone), whereas the Dome of the Rock is a “sela” (bedrock/cliff). Therefore, the traditional location must be wrong.

• R’ Wolfson’s Refutation:

  • Midrashic sources explicitly refer to the Foundation Stone using terms like Shen Sela (a crag of rock).

  • Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer explains that Jacob took a stone, which G-d sunken into the depths as the foundation of the world (Even HaShetiya).

  • Even if the physical stone was originally separate, referring to its historical location as Even HaShetiya is linguistically standard and does not disprove the site.

2. The Temple Location on the Mountain Peak

• R’ Sharagai’s Argument: The Mishna/Talmud states the Temple was not built on the absolute peak of the mountain, pointing to verses/texts about descending slightly from Ein Etam.

• R’ Wolfson’s Refutation:

  • Ezekiel explicitly states, “Upon the top of the mountain… its whole border round about shall be most holy”.

  • Topographically, Jerusalem is surrounded by higher peaks to the north and northwest. Relative to the broader ridge, the Temple is on a slope, but on the Temple Mount itself, the Sanctuary sits at the elevated top, stepping down eastward as detailed in the Mishna.

3. Rabbinic & Historical Testimonies

• Sharagai’s Argument: Certain medieval travelers (e.g., Rabbi Meshullam of Volterra, Kaftor VaFerach) and Islamic/Christian records placed aspects like the Red Heifer burning or the Southern Wall in ways that R’ Sharagai interprets as putting the Temple in the south. He further claims Jewish tradition was broken for ~500 years.

• R’ Wolfson’s Refutation:

  • Those exact medieval commentators explicitly identified the Dome of the Rock as the Holy of Holies in their writings. Sharagai selectively quotes them while ignoring their direct statements.

  • Prominent Halakhic authorities throughout history—including the Radbaz, the Shelah HaKadosh, the Chida, the Chatam Sofer, and Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank—unanimously affirmed that the site under the Dome of the Rock is the exact location of the Holy of Holies without interruption.

4. The Infrared Imaging Claim

• R’ Sharagai’s Argument: Infrared aerial photos allegedly show underground structural outlines of the Temple in the southern section.

• R’ Wolfson’s Refutation:

  • Infrared measurements are affected by minor surface factors (water pipes, trees, flower beds, heat variance).

  • The outlines Sharagai highlights correspond directly to visible surface features (garden plots and paths between trees), not hidden subterranean Temple walls.

  • Natural bedrock is clearly visible near the surface in the southern plaza, disproving Sharagai’s claim that the ground level there is 10–15 meters above the actual bedrock.

Conclusion

Rabbi Wolfson concludes that Sharagai’s theory relies on weak, far-fetched interpretations and ignores explicit rabbinic tradition, Halakha, historical records, and basic topography. The traditional identification of the Dome of the Rock as the site of the Holy of Holies remains solid and unquestioned.

Comment by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman: Most of the arguments by R’ Barak Sharagai have been refuted in depth in the articles on this web site refuting Tuvia Sagiv’s Temple Mount viewpoint. I myself do not have clarity if the HaShetiya was a stone that could or could not be moved. But this has no impact on the theory that R’ Barak Sharagai is trying to prove.

• Caphtor Vapherach and the Theory of the Architect Tuvia Sagiv and a little about Asher Kaufman’s Views about the Temple Mount
• A Rejection of the Proofs That Caphtor Vapherach Supported the Southern Theory of the Temple’s Location on Mount Moriah
• Why Did Caphtor Vapherach Not Explicitly Mention the “Dome of the Rock” in contrast to the Disciple of Ramban who lived in the same generation or Rabbi Binyamin of Tudela (a contemporary of Rambam) Who Did Explicitly Mention the Dome of the Rock?
• A Critique of Architect, Tuvia Sagiv’s Temple Mount Theory

A treatise analyzing whether the archaeological discovery on Mount Eival by Professor Adam Zertal can be used to establish practical Halacha regarding the construction of an altar (specifically the requirement of Avanim Shelemot / “complete stones”).

Key Summary Highlights

Halachic Definition of “Complete Stones” (Avanim Shelemot) & Modern Solutions:

1. • Majority View (Rambam, Rashi, Consensus): “Complete stones” must be naturally smooth and unblemished (free from nicks or defects that would catch a fingernail check).
   • Minority View: Stones need not be smooth, but must strictly be untouched by metal tools.
   • Halachic/Technological Solutions: Rather than relying on unhewn rough stones based on archaeological finds, three solutions satisfy all views:
     • Solution A: An inner core of natural pearls (halachically considered stones) wrapped in heat/acid-resistant protective materials.
     • Solution B: Cutting stones smoother than a slaughtering blade using indirect abrasive water-jet streams (gerama).
     • Solution C: Utilizing synthetic sapphire created via high-temperature plasma gas, avoiding the status of kiln-baked bricks (Levinim).
2. Can Archaeology Decide Halacha?:
   • Archaeology is cited only when proofs are incontrovertible (e.g., the Beit Yosef & Rashba citing ancient Tefillin found at Ezekiel’s Tomb matching Rashi/Rambam’s order).
   • Artifacts from crisis periods (e.g., Bar Kokhba caves) or non-ideal states (e.g., the single-line Tzitz in Rome noted by Kesef Mishneh) cannot override prescribed Rabbinic standards or normative law.
3. Core Halachic Arguments Disproving the Eival Discovery as Joshua’s Altar:
   • Immediate Dismantling: The Mishnah (Sotah 7:5), Tosefta, Talmud (Sotah 36a), and an overwhelming majority of Rishonim (Rashi, Bartenura, Meiri, Tashbetz, Chizkuni, Radak, Rabbeinu Bachayei) dictate that Joshua built the altar on Mount Eival for a single day, after which it was dismantled and its stones permanently re-erected in Gilgal.
   • Cardinal Alignment Failure: Talmudic law (Yerushalmi Eruvin 5:1, Zevachim 62b) mandates that an altar’s four walls must align precisely with true North, South, East, and West. The Eival structure is oriented diagonally off-axis.
   • Missing Structural Elements: An altar requires four corner horns (Karanot), a foundation base (Yesod), a broad southern ramp (Kevesh), and a perfect mathematical square shape (Ribo’a) (Sukkah 49a, Rambam Beit HaBechirah 2:17). The Eival structure is rectangular (9 meters by 7.5 meters), lacks horns and a foundation, and has an impractically narrow ledge (~1m wide) instead of a functional sacrificial ramp.
   • National Encampment Status: The ceremony occurred “Before Hashem” (Deut 27:7), denoting full national encampment status where all public altar requirements applied.
4. Archaeological, Faunal & Chronological Contradictions:
   • Non-Sacrificial Species (28% Wild Game): 20%–28% of the bones found at Mount Eival belonged to Yachmur (fallow deer/antelope). Jewish offerings are restricted strictly to 5 domestic species (cattle, sheep, goats, turtledoves, pigeons; Rambam Maasei Korbanot 1:1). The Chafetz Chaim notes that wild pure animals are permitted only on Gentile/Noahide altars.
   • Chronological Mismatch: Excavated pottery and Egyptian scarabs (from the reign of Ramesses II) date the site to ~1200–1130 BCE—placing it decades to centuries after Joshua’s entry into Canaan under traditional Biblical chronology.
   • Pre-existing Structure: Beneath the rectangular structure lies an older circular stone layer (~1240 BCE). Joshua would not have erected a holy altar upon an existing pagan or profane foundation.

Author: Shlomo Moshe Scheinman (See vilnagaon.org and 60ribo.org for various “Haskamot” {Endorsements} from prominent Orthodox rabbis for some of my other articles.)

For those that wish to read the 27 page article on this topic press on the link: The Altar Found on Mount Eival

During the 1990 Chief Rabbinate election cycle (specifically culminating in the February 1993 elections), both Rabbi Shlomo Goren (former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi) and Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli (leading Religious Zionist posek, member of the Chief Rabbinate Council, and co-Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav) voiced strong, distinct objections regarding how the process was being conducted.

While both revered the Chief Rabbinate as a vital national-halakhic institution, they argued that the 1990s elections had become deeply compromised by political manipulation, ethical erosion, and legislative overreach.

Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli

1. Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s Objections

Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s critique focused primarily on state political interference, legislative manipulation, and the loss of rabbinic autonomy:

• Legislative Intervention & Term Limits: Political parties in the Knesset repeatedly attempted to alter the Chief Rabbinate Law—manipulating age limits and term lengths—in ways designed to force out sitting Chief Rabbis (Rabbi Avraham Shapira and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu) or clear paths for preferred political candidates. Rabbi Yisraeli viewed state legislation used to engineer rabbinic outcomes as an inappropriate subjugation of Torah leadership to political expediency.

• Politicization of the Electing Assembly (Guf Bocher): He objected to how political parties (such as Shas and the Mafdal/NRP) turned the selection of the electing body into a political spoils system, where political appointees and local mayors held disproportionate sway over genuine Halakhic stature.

• Undermining Institutional Dignity: Rabbi Yisraeli warned that reducing the election of Israel’s highest rabbinic authorities to coalition deal-making would destroy public confidence and further alienate both the Haredi and broader Israeli public from the official rabbinate.

2. Rabbi Shlomo Goren’s Objections

Rabbi Shlomo Goren’s critique focused on procedural flaws in the electoral committee, candidate vetting, and public PR campaigns:

• Flaws in Electoral Mechanics & Governance: Rabbi Goren analyzed the flaws in the Rabbinate’s electoral system (later publishing his detailed halakhic critique, “Vadat HaBechirot LaRabbanut HaRashit”). He argued that the rules governing election committees were structured in a way that permitted backroom party deals and conflicts of interest rather than objective rabbinic evaluation.

• Demands for Ethical & Character Vetting: Prior to the 1993 vote, when various public controversies and allegations surfaced regarding candidates (most notably surrounding Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau), Rabbi Goren publicly insisted that the election be halted or delayed until formal investigations were conducted. He argued that a Chief Rabbi must maintain an impeccable moral standing beyond reproach.

• Objection to Media & PR Campaigns: He expressed disgust at the emergence of modern political PR methods, media smear tactics, and commercial marketing within a rabbinic election, viewing them as entirely incompatible with the sacred nature of Torah leadership.

Summary of Shared Concerns

Both figures—despite their differing perspectives on other halakhic and communal matters—agreed on a core baseline:

Here is the Gemini AI translation of Ayelet Hashachar commentary to Genesis 19:37 by Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman

Genesis 19 Verse 37. He is the father of Moab unto this day.

It requires examination what it comes to say [by] “unto this day.” And perhaps, since we hold established in Kiddushin (67b) that among the nations one follows after the male, there could have been a reality where only daughters were born from them, and then this nation would not be Moabites since they married members of another nation. And [thus] it comes to teach us that he is the father of Moab unto this day (and even though the main practical distinction in “following after the male” is after their conversion). And see Ibn Ezra.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

And in the introduction to Igros Moshe (Part 8), it is brought that HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of righteous memory, related that when he was in Lyuban, one of the householders fell ill and took to his bed with a strange kind of illness, and his tongue swelled in his mouth, etc. According to him, a week prior, on the Sabbath of Parshas Vayeira, he had raised a difficulty: How did the daughters of Lot merit that the Messiah should descend from them, even though they were not ashamed of the disgraceful act [Giliuy Arayot / incest] they committed and publicized that their children were from their father, and he spoke about them in a degrading manner?

That night, two very old women appeared in his dream with their heads and faces covered, and said they were the daughters of Lot. They added and said to him that they heard his claim and came from the World of Truth to answer him. They claimed that they could have said that since they were from the family of Abraham and were saved by a miracle from Sodom, people would not have attributed an act of physical relations [Znut] to them. They could have attributed any miraculous act to themselves, such that they could have said they conceived from the Divine Presence, as it were, and established a new religion—Christianity. Instead, they called their sons Ammon and Moab to publicize that when a woman conceives, the offspring always has a father of flesh and blood. In this merit, they merited that the true Messiah would emerge from them.

They also said he committed a great sin when he spoke about them in a degrading manner, and since he spoke of them with disparagement, he would be punished measure for measure like the Spies. Our Rabbi [Rav Moshe Feinstein] saw this as a true matter, since the explanation seemed true to him (and indeed, from where did the daughters of Lot arrive at such feelings? Were they influenced by Abraham?).

And behold, Rashi wrote: “This one [the elder] who was not modest publicized that he was from her father.” And this implies that she was claimed [punished] for the publicizing that it was from her father.

And behold, that which Rashi wrote—that the younger one called him in a clean language and received a reward in the days of Moses, as it is said, “Do not distress them at all,” whereas with Moab he did not warn except that he should not wage war with them but allowed him to distress them—his intention is not that her offspring are punished for what she called by this name, but rather that the younger one received a reward for her modesty, and the elder one lacked the merit to receive a reward.

Editor’s comment: To answer a certain objection I will quote from the Soncino translation of Talmud, Nazir 23a

Rabbah b. Bar Hana, quoting R. Johanan, said:¹⁶  The verse, For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just do walk in them,’ but transgressors do stumble therein,¹⁷  may be illustrated by the following example. Two men roast their paschal lambs.¹⁸  One eats it with the intention of fulfilling the precept¹⁹  and the other eats it with the inten tion of having an ordinary meal. To the one who eats it to fulfil the precept [applies]. ‘And the just do walk in them,’ but to the one who eats it to have an ordinary meal [applies], ‘but transgressors do stumble therein’. Resh Lakish remarked to him: Do you call such a man wicked? Granted that he has not fulfilled the precept in the best possible manner, he has at least carried out the passover rite. Rather should it be illustrated by two men, each of whom had his wife and his sister staying with him. One chances upon his wife and the other chances upon his sister. To the one who chances upon his wife [applies], ‘And the just do walk in them’, and to the one who chances upon his sister [applies], ‘but transgressors do stumble therein’.

But are the cases comparable? We speak [in the verse] of one path, whereas here [in the example given] there are two paths.²⁰  Rather is it illustrated by Lot when his two daughters were with him.²¹  To these [the daughters], whose intention it was to do right,²²  [applies], ‘the just do walk in them’, whereas to him [Lot] whose intention it was to commit the transgression [applies], ‘but transgressors do stumble therein’.

Rabbi Moshe Zuriel of blessed memory

In our current war, nearly fifty Israelis have already been killed, and more than a thousand have been wounded. In addition to this, more than a million citizens have been sitting for several weeks in bomb shelters, a nerve-wracking stay. Most of them are without a livelihood. A large portion of the residents of the North have fled their homes and scattered to all parts of the country, exiles and wanderers. Is it not out of wisdom to examine our actions, as the words of the Gemara say: “If a person sees sufferings coming upon him, he should examine his deeds”?

And they further said that the punishments of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are “measure for measure.” And this is not only to correct the past, but also to correct the future so that we do not repeat our foolishness, so that we do not continue on our insane path.

We will begin with the words of the commentary Ohr HaChaim on the Torah, on the verses:

“But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those whom you let remain of them shall be as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein you dwell. And it shall come to pass [says Hashem] that as I thought to do unto them, I will do unto you!” (Numbers 33:55-56).

Ohr HaChaim comments:

“Meaning, not only will they hold onto a part of the land that you did not merit [to possess], but also a part that you [already] merited and settled in, and they will harass you over the part that you dwell in, saying: ‘Arise! Leave it!'” Until here are his words .

And see the end of the Ramban’s commentary on this verse; his language is extremely sharp, and even overly so. And when we return to examine the words of the verse, we see that Ohr HaChaim added nothing as homiletics or his own thoughts. Things are closely attached to the plain meaning of the text (Peshat). Meaning, this is written explicitly in the Torah.

We are permitted to leave in the Land only those gentiles who fulfill the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, and accept the rule of Jews in their land.

Therefore, when our enemies from Lebanon fire rockets over the entire expanses of the Galilee, and cause that region of the country to be desolated of its inhabitants, is there no room to reflect that this is a punishment for our public because we remained silent at the expulsion of ten thousand Jews from their homes and their estate in Gush Katif, less than a year ago? After all, is this not similar to the Qassam shelling on the settlements of the area, without an appropriate response by the IDF, who practiced “restraint”? Indeed, the two situations are wonderfully similar. [This comment was published this week by the Bostoner Rebbe, Shlita]. For it is not enough that we did not expel our enemies from our land, but we expelled our brothers, and handed over parts of our land to our enemies. A thing that is in complete contradiction—the absolute opposite—of what the Torah commanded!

And it is impossible to defend oneself with a worn-out excuse: “What would it have availed if we had protested?” For in a similar situation, in Russia in the year 1990, ten thousand demonstrators held a sit-in strike in the Kremlin Square in Moscow, and did not move from there despite the tanks (the military force) that trampled and ran over and killed about twelve demonstrators. In the end, they overthrew the tyrannical regime. Because they stood their ground even though some of them were killed by the authorities. They were consistent in their outlook.

So it is here with us, when our tyrant (Sharon) fired ministers, and fired the Chief of Staff and also the head of the Shin Bet to force the acceptance of his opinion, and frightened members of his faction with threats—and we will not elaborate further on such despicable acts—the general public (meaning those who are not wearers of knitted yarmulkes) did not react, did not demonstrate…

…in front of the halls of the High Court of Justice (Bagatz), they did not grumble about it early and late on television and in the general press. They did not persist in a vigorous protest. Had they done so, perhaps they would have stopped the evil hand. (See Obadiah 1:11: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth, and foreigners entered his gates, etc., you too were like one of them!”).

But why should we complain about the past? What was, was. But to our regret, among the primary leaders of the Disengagement back then was PM Olmert. Also recently, just a few days before the outbreak of the current war, he declared in his audacity that “the Realignment (Hitkansut) is a finished fact and cannot be reversed.” Also his confidant, Minister Sheetrit, declares this week that we must quickly end our military operations in Lebanon in order to execute the Realignment. Meaning, these individuals “forgot nothing, and learned nothing.” They continue in their full heresy to despise this precious mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel.

Perhaps one can understand why they do not want to “conquer” the Land of Israel from the hands of the gentiles as commanded by the Torah, since they deny entirely the holiness of the Torah and its authority. But in a practical way and without connection to religion, at this time when the withdrawal from Gush Katif has proven that we placed a sword in the hand of our enemies to strike Sderot and Ashkelon (and who knows what else in the future?), do they not understand that the “Realignment” will bring only destruction and desolation upon Netanya and Ra’anana and more?

Why are about a million Jews in the Galilee suffering? This is a result of the weakness of mind of our prime ministers for the past six years. First, they withdrew from Lebanon (which Sharon at the time agreed to PM Barak doing so as a tactical step!). Afterwards, they remained silent in the face of the buildup of terrorist forces in southern Lebanon, even when from time to time they fired upon us. And at this time of trouble, do they still keep a criminal plan of “Realignment” in the drawer?

Therefore, it is upon all of us to make our voice heard, each person to his fellow, each person to his neighbor, each person to his staff of workers and to any interlocutor, to clarify and explain and declare, that such ways of thinking of Olmert and his colleagues are evil and corrupt, foolish and ruinous. And who knows how many troubles are destined to come because of their corruption? Until there is a public uproar, until the entire nation from one end of the land to its other end makes its word heard: “Thus far to the forces of destruction!”

“Who is wise? One who foresees the future.” We must learn from the wounds of the present. Perhaps we will gain wisdom thereby to be saved from what is destined to come.

Comment by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman: In an article that I wrote about the Heter Mechira, Rabbi Zuriel in his haskama seemed to have accepted the Chazon Ish (Shviit #24) definition of Ger Toshav. See there for details.

As a follow up to this article, see: Video: Refusing Orders by Menachem Gottlieb & Why David Believed that Uriah Was A Rebel Against the Kingdom?

Hamas Terrorists

Quote from https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/429706:
Captivity survivor Rom Braslavski spoke for the first time about the terror group’s attempts to convince him to convert to Islam in captivity, and his decision to draw closer to Judaism.”All day they talked to you about Muhammad, the Quran, ‘Come join us. You’re wrong and we’re right,'” Braslavski recounted in an interview with Channel 14. “They tried to convince me to convert to Islam many times.”

“At least 60% of the Jewish hostages converted to Islam in captivity. They said it was just a game. And I admit that I also considered it. But I told myself, ‘G-d in heaven is looking at you and knows everything. I will not play this game.’ I decided not only would I not convert to Islam, but I would touch on their sensitive issues.”

Describing his journey drawing closer to Judaism, he shared, “Before October 7, I wasn’t a person of faith. I didn’t keep Shabbat. I grew up in Neve Yaakov, which is a very haredi neighborhood, but I went against the current. My family is still like that to this day. On October 7, I fully returned to religion.”

According to accepted halachic rules, Rom Braslavski was right and the 60% were wrong.

To understand the reasons behind this statement, see the post: On the Issue of Kiddush Hashem – Accepting the Yishmaelite Religion is Like Accepting Idolatry
See also: Menachem Gottlieb’s Audio Shiur on Rambam, Islam, and Avoda Zara and Audios: On Rabbis Participating in Iftar / Ramadan Celebrations by Menachem Gottlieb

A picture of Rom according to Wikipedia

Picture by Lizzy Shaanan Pikiwiki Israel, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=183686325

Terms of use: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.