Major Extradition vs. Minor Extradition

 

Parshat Ki Teitzeh is upon us. This parshah is the last trove of essential mitzvos that we find before completing the Torah. One rather obscure prohibition that we find in this parshah (Devarim 23:16) is one that I have discussed at length throughout many a post:

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו

You may not return a [runaway] slave to the custody of his current master.

What does this mean?

The Gemara in Gittin 45a explains that this law is referring to a Canaani slave that is owned by a proper Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. Whereupon, the slave fled from his master and took refuge in Eretz Yisrael. The pasuk is telling us that the Jewish authorities are forbidden to return the slave to his rightful master outside of Eretz Yisrael. Instead, they force the master to release the slave and the slave is required to reimburse the master for his market value.

Rambam in Sefer Mitzvos Lavim 254 explains why the slave is freed:

כיון שבא להסתופף בארץ הטהורה הנבחרת לעם הנעלה.

Since he wanted to be added into the pure land that was chosen for the exalted nation.

Sefer Chinuch (568) explains it slightly differently:

שרצה האל לכבוד הארץ שהבורח לשם ינצל מעבדות, כדי שניתן אל לבנו כבוד המקום, ונקבע בלבבנו בהיותנו שם יראת ה’ יתעלה. וכל זה להועיל לעמו ולזכותם כי חפץ חסד הוא.

 

That HKBH desired, for the honor of the land, that one who flees to there shall be spared from servitude. This is so we will take heart the honor of the place (Eretz Yisrael) and establish fear of the High G-d in our hearts when we are there. And all this is to benefit his nation and to confer merit on us for HKBH desires kindness.

The pirush of Chumash Torah Temimah explains that nobody should be forced to reside outside of Eretz Yisrael since it is a place of impurity and idolatry. One who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is as if he has no G-d.

The astonishing thing is that this mitzva is referring to one who was not born Jewish and did not undergo a full conversion. He is only a quasi-Jew. He is not eligible to marry a Jewish woman. Yet, the Torah is expressly commanding to uphold his desire to live in Eretz Yisrael. Note – Upon being released, he is required to undergo a full conversion and keep all the mitzvos so, at the end of the day, we are indeed gaining a full-fledged Jew. Still, this status only comes after the mitzvah to release him takes effect, not before, and still he is protected.

We can deduce by kal v’chomer that this mitzva is no less applicable to any regular, full-fledged Jew. Certainly, all the reasons stated by the Rishonim apply even more to a natural born Jew.

If so, why did the Torah seem to single out a slave for this mitzvah?

One obvious answer is to show us how far the kavod of Eretz Yisrael extends. It extends not only to a regular Jew but even to a quasi-Jew. But a more practical answer is that it is already a capital crime to forcibly relocate (kidnap) a free Jew from point A to point B even if both points are in Eretz Yisrael. This is known as gonev nefesh m'Yisrael. The only type of person that “we” are authorized to transport is a person who is the rightful property of somebody else. This would be a Canaanite slave. But it definitely applies to all Jews in the strange cases where it could apply, such as criminal extradition.

In case you have doubts, just check out Midrash Rabbah Breishis 94 (Vayigash). Here is what it says:

At the time that Nevuchadnetzer came up to conquer Yehoyakim (King of Judah), he settled by the walls of Antioch. The Great Sanhedrin approached to meet him and they asked him, “Has the time come for this house (Temple) to be destroyed?”.

 

He answered, “Not yet, but King Yehoyakim rebelled against me. Hand him over to me and I will go [in peace].” This implied that if he didn’t get the king, things won’t be very peaceful.

 

They went and told King Yehoyakim that Nevuchadnetzer issued an arrest warrant for him (i.e., he should turn himself in for the sake of peace.) He told them, “Is this the right thing to do, to sacrifice one soul for the sake of another? Does the Torah not say ‘One may not reintern a slave back to his master’?” They responded, “Didn’t your own grandfather do the same to Sheva ben Bichri?” (Sheva ben Bichri was a wanted murderer whose crimes were known to all - YH.)

What do we see from this?

Yehoyakim was not only a full-fledged Jew but he was a Davidic King, no less. A King! And he argued that this mitzva concerning a Canaani slave applies to his case. And he would have been correct if not for the proviso that he had the status of Sheva ben Bichri. Clearly, this law is not limited to a slave.

This explanation of the mitzvah is the mainstream one. It is spelled out in the Gemara in Gittin and endorsed by Rambam, Chinuch, and SMa”G. It is also codified in Rambam (Avadim 8:6, 9, and 10) and in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 267:84,85. Shulchan Aruch goes out of its way to tell us that this law applies even in today’s times. Almost nobody entertains any other explanation of this pasuk, except...Rashi.

Rashi in Chumash likewise references the gemara in Gittin but, surprisingly, this is only his second ‘backup’ pshat. His first is to reference Targum Unkelos who wrote something a little bit different. Unkelos wrote: Do not hand over a non-Jewish slave of a non-Jewish master to that master after he ran to you for refuge.

This pshat looks to mirror the opening of the gemara in Gittin. The gemara opens with a story about a slave who ran from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael and, although it isn’t said openly, the indication is that it is talking about a non-Jewish slave belonging to an idolatrous non-Jewish owner. This runaway slave is willing to swear off idolatry.

The gemara initially wants to say that such a person who swore off idolatry is permitted to remain in Israel even if he does not become Jewish. With this in mind we can say that this pasuk does not really care about location. Even if the slave ran away to a Jew in chutz l’aretz but he does not want to be forced to serve foreign gods, we are prohibited to return him to a master who will force him into idolatry. Obviously, this assumes that the local authorities do not intervene on behalf of the owner.

The gemara in Gittin subsequently rejects this explanation of Lo Tasgir and settles on the mainstream one that I mentioned earlier and that Rashi mentions last. (Rashi is a bit of a puzzle, but I suppose he has a lot of respect for Targum Unkelos who, in fact, predates the gemara.) The gemara’s first assumption (Unkelos) doesn’t make it into Shulchan Aruch, but it may still have Halachic validity. So, let’s not totally forget about it just yet.

Let’s get down to business.

The State of Israel identifies itself as the “Jewish Homeland”. As such, it is reasonable to expect that its laws should at least be modeled after traditional Jewish law.

Although the secular leftist Israeli judiciary is trying it’s hardest to divest the country of any semblance of Jewish identity, there are some areas where it just cannot be avoided. For one thing, the Jewish calendar is officially recognized as a valid dating system here in Israel. Likewise, the state recognizes the seventh day – “Saturday/Shabbat” – as the official off-day for the nation and acknowledges that it cannot legally compel those who observe Shabbos to violate it. The same applies to all Jewish holidays.

Another thing is that all matters of family and marital status – marriage, divorce, conversion, and mamzerut – are delegated to the Rabbinate. This goes so far, that the state itself will not allow for a genetic DNA test to be used to determine a case of questionable paternity that can lead to a status of mamzer unless the Rabbinate approves of it. I wrote about this at length (HERE and HERE).

More or less everything else – default monetary disputes and damages, criminal law, default inheritance, and real estate - is all governed by secular Western ideals. Sadly, this also includes extradition. The leftist Israeli law allows a full-fledged card carrying natural born Jew to be extradited away from Eretz Yisrael at the request of some other country. This is even if the accused is a full Israeli citizen. This was pivotal in the Malka Leifer episode. It is a disgrace. I have been lamenting about this for years.

So, let’s imagine that Israeli law would treat extradition like family law. Just like the court will not order a genetic test without the approval of the Rabbanut, let’s imagine that the court will not approve any extradition without the approval of the Rabbanut, as well. If this were so, I think it’s a safe bet that there is no chance that any Beis Din would approve of extradition – and mesira - for Mrs. Leifer.

A very recent incident enlightened me that there may be a second type of extradition. One that does not involve criminality or mesira. A type of a case where there can be justification to transport another human being who is not a slave from one place to another. What kind of a case?

A parental custody dispute of a minor.

A parent cannot set his small child free and send the child a bill for his market value. What if a couple had a family in chutz l”aretz and then split up. Then one side abducts a minor child and runs to Eretz Yisrael. Does Lo Tasgir apply here or not?

What if one parent is Jewish and one parent is not?

This can get very sticky. Let’s check out the story.

I saw this in a newsletter about interesting court cases (secular court). The story is in Hebrew. If you read Hebrew you can see it HERE (or use the page translation feature).

The title reads:

District Court Upholds: 6-Year-old boy abducted to Israel will be returned to his father

 

The story is about a tourist from Italy who came to Israel and got into a relationship with an Israeli woman. This “hookup” resulted in a baby boy. Evidently, the pair stayed together.

Initially they lived in Israel. After Oct. 7, they moved to Italy. They moved back to Israel in early 2024 and moved back to Italy later in 2024. Finally, in Jan. 2026, the couple split and the mother came to Israel with the now 6-year-old boy. As you may guess, the father filed kidnapping charges and demanded to forcibly send the boy back to Italy.

The mother claimed that the father is violent and attacked her on “Xmas Eve”. The father denies it. The Israeli court ruled that the mother failed to substantiate her claim of violence and that the abduction without the father’s consent or a hearing in Italy constitutes kidnapping by international law. The child must be sent back. The mother appealed in the District (Appellate) Court and was denied.

Based on standard international law and The Hague convention, the Israeli court was complying with the rules. There are no surprises here. But let’s play along with our fantasy that the Rabbanut must approve of all calls for extradition. How would they rule on this?

Of course, the first thing is to determine whether or not the child is Jewish. The story indicates that the couple celebrates Xmas. This implies that at least the Italian father is not Jewish. The mother may be Jewish, but if she is, she is very far from observance. But that shouldn’t make a difference.

Let’s examine a hypothetical case where both parents are Jewish. Yet, the father lives in Italy and the mother wants to live in Israel and she kidnapped the child to the Land of Israel. Is it the same Lo Tasgir? I noted above that a father is not a master. He cannot “free” his child.

Of course, we would need to know the standard Halachos about child custody when two estranged parents live in one country. Both live in Israel or both do not. The basic rule is that up to the age of six, all children are granted to the mother. From the age of six on, many poskim maintain that the boys should be housed by the father because a father has an obligation to teach his sons Torah.

Well and good. But now, we are discussing a father living in diaspora and a mother in Israel. If the father is an observant Jew, do his rights to custody still apply? Does the father’s obligation to teach Torah override the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael? After all, we know the rule that one should not leave Eretz Yisrael except to learn Torah so, Torah learning overrides living in Israel. Or would we say there is a din of Lo Tasgir and the child must stay here and we would compel the father either to come to Israel or to relinquish custody?

Tzarich iyun gadol.

Then comes a situation where the Jewish father has no connection to learning or teaching Torah. How does this play into a standard domestic custody battle in one country? And in an multi-national one like this case, where even the father is Jewish but not observant, would we say that since this child isn’t about to be taught Torah no matter which parent he stays by, that the father can still assert his rights to take the boy out of Israel?

Teiku.

Now comes what looks to be the likely scenario here where the father is certainly not Jewish but the mother is. Hence, the child is Jewish. What would the Rabbanut do?

On the face of things, there is definitely a form of Lo Tasgir that can apply here. But still, a father is a father and the Rabbanut may not want to contest international law and the Hague Convention even at the expense of losing a Jewish Neshama.

And what if both parents are not Jewish?

This would seem to be a no-brainer. Let’s just send this Italian goy back to Italy - and the mother, too. But, wait!

According to Rashi, we have two explanations of Lo Tasgir. The second one concurs with most of the other Rishonim and the poskim that we are dealing with an Eved Canaani who wants to be free and to embrace Judaism. This certainly does not apply to a non-Jew.

But his first explanation, based on Targum Unkelos, tells us something surprising. Even if the slave is totally not Jewish, we should still offer him sanctuary to keep him away from idolatry. Perhaps, it may be contingent on his embracing Judaism, so it will not be applicable to a clueless non-Jewish six year old, but maybe it isn’t contingent.

And so, if the Rabbanut is unconcerned about defying international law and wants to follow the Halacha precisely, would it rule to block the extradition?

What would Unkelos say?

All I know is that Unkelos did not start off Jewish himself – and that he lived in Italy.

Sinas Chinam VII – Kalman the Konsumer

 

Author's Note - If you haven't done so, please see the previous post on this series: Sins of the Cross. It is helpful to also see these earlier posts:

Thinking Like a Jew

Double Standards – Part 2: Having Been There

I am gratified to see that my Sins of the Cross post actually inspired some comments. It seems like somebody featured my post on Facebook and Instagram and it got a ton of exposure. More than usual for my posts. I am aching to know the source Instagram post so I can see how it was presented. I will be grateful if someone could send me the link.

In any case, so far, I got four comments. All anonymous and not one of them is friendly. The first one was written by a Jewish person and the last by a non-Jewish person. I can’t determine the second or third. Aside from being antagonistic, all of them display the consumerist mindset that I am constantly battling.

What is a consumer?

I defined it in my book and again in some posts, such as this one (HERE). In short, it’s an uneducated person who has no clue how uneducated he or she is because they lack the education to know otherwise.

When it comes to Judaism, a consumer is somebody who thinks he knows what HKBH expects from us based on his or her personal sense of morality and/or what he was told by his parents and teachers in grade school and what he read in the Jewish Press, without ever making the effort to actually read and study what HKBH is telling us from the source.

I cannot blame the non-Jewish fourth commenter, but this is how [s]he preaches to me: 

 

If ANYTHING, it's your attacks on Nicole and her sisters that is bringing disrespect to your religion and to Y-H-W-H.

I hate to break it, but there is only one way to show respect to Y-H-W-H. This is to obey what He tells us to do and not do. (Shmuel I 15:22). Nicole is not very obedient. Y-H-W-H does not want to see sinas chinam, motzi shem rah, lashon hara, makkah re’ehu b’seter, malshinus, mesira, extradition to golus, gonev ish u’mecharo, gezel, nekama, netira, eid echad b’ish, chukos hagoyim, mitkabed b’kalon chaveiro, and above all, chillul Hashem.

It doesn’t matter who “started it”.

I can accuse Nicole of all of these because she is doing them proudly in public and announcing them to the world. Again and again. No reservations and not a drop of remorse. This is the exact definition of a chillul Hashem in Rambam Yesodei Torah 5:10.

רק אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה.

I posted succinct responses to all the commenters to convey that I read the messages and do not ignore or avoid them. But not everyone is brave enough to anonymously berate me online. Every so often somebody needs to contact me offline to put me in my place. People such as Reb Yid back in 2018. He bashed me relentlessly and I managed a few meek responses. That was a very relevant post, it is worth looking at (HERE).

After my Sins of the Cross post, I was contacted by a different Reb Yid. This fellow is actually a very opinionated blogger. My take on his blog is that it is aimed at showcasing everything wrong with Chareidi society and is out to make it look as dark as possible. I will not identify it. 

We had a previous email correspondence back in 2023. He made some very grandiose claims about some unknown “facts” in the Leifer episode. When I demanded he substantiate his claims, he abstained.

He recently contacted me again. This time, I asked him some probing questions to help me understand what type of person I am dealing with. These were questions such as how old he is, is he married, does he have a yeshiva education, does he have a personal connection to this episode (he indicated that he has inside knowledge), and, was he ever abused (like Reb Yid was). 

He did not answer any of them.

Like Reb Yid, he is a bona fide consumer as I defined it, and subscribes to the same lynch-mob herd mentality that I have been fighting throughout this fiasco. He believes that:

• An alleged molester is always a molester. He/she is totally and eternally irredeemable, is not considered Jewish, and has no rights. 

• Conversely, an alleged victim is always a victim, is immune from criticism, is exempt from being Jewish to their last day, and has unlimited rights.

• He shares the universal presumption of guilt that I am fighting against

• It is imperative to see to it that any miscreant is punished (to the extreme).

• שאר ירקות

In short, he does not know how to Think Like a Jew. 

I told him that I would like to respond to him in the blog and does he consent? 

He did not respond to this, either. So, I will not identify his email name or his blog, and I will not reprint his emails in whole, but I feel the need to respond to some of his misconceptions online. I will refer to him as Kalman.

In general, he writes the same apologetic “victims are always right[eous]” and “molesters are always demonic” glop that I got from Reb Yid and some others (like the four commenters). There are only two remarks that I want to respond to. Here is what Kalman writes to me:

Why do you keep defending a רשע?

Like so many others, Kalman has Mrs. Leifer pegged as a רשע and asks me why I keep defending her.

I want to answer him on three levels.

Level 1 – I never defended her 

This sounds strange because most people have very one-dimensional vision. If I defend any part of this episode, it is looked as if I am condoning and defending the actions that she is accused of. I have never done that in all of ten years.

I am defending the rights of an accused person as our Torah instructs us to do. I elaborated on this in my keynote blog post in June 2016. I clearly explained what the instructions of the Torah are. Nobody has ever discredited these instructions. They only refuse to acknowledge them. I do acknowledge them.

Level 2 – I suffer from a compulsion to defend people who are being prosecuted

In one of the introductory chapters of my book, I claimed that I am wearing three uniforms. One is that of a teacher and educator of Torah ideals. The second is one of a preacher of ethics. The third is the one of a defense attorney, to defend the Chareidi world and even some individuals from malicious “prosecution”. Defending the accused is in my bones.

In my Reb Yid post in 2018 I made the following remark:

As far as I am concerned, any Jew who is being prosecuted is worth protecting. Especially when it does not harm the accusers.

This is irrespective of whether they do or do not qualify as a רשע.

And why?

For one thing, the Torah that I follow says things like ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג and ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. I don’t think it is in Kalman’s version.

Secondly, this is the type of treatment I would hope to get if, for whatever reason, I would find myself in such a predicament.

Later on in that post, I listed three reasons to explain “why I have a sense of compassion for Mrs. Leifer”. They were: (1) The fact that allegations haven’t been proven. I believe this to be the case even today (see HERE). (2) The strong likelihood that Mrs. Leifer is also a victim of abuse. (3) As much as anybody knows, she may well have abandoned her alleged wayward ways and done תשובה.

To these, I will add a fourth consideration which I have mentioned in more recent posts: (4) It is very likely she is suffering from an untreated personality disorder which can be treated.

I concluded that segment of the post by stating:

None of this compassion hurts the “victims” in any way unless they choose to be hurt by it. This would be a very selfish choice. It is a shame that Reb Yid is not capable of this kind of compassion.

To this, I now need to add Kalman.

Level 3 – Will the real rasha please stand up?

The first two levels are not meant to dispute the contention that Mrs. Leifer is a bona fide rasha. It is meant to display my perspective regardless. But now we need to question the very premise.

To start with, I need to reference my post Thinking Like a Jew which is the Halachic digest that served as a preamble to this entire episode. This is the “moral compass”. I don’t believe consumers such as Kalman have one.

One entry in that post is the definition of “Giluy arayos” – se%ual immorality. I noted that, by definition, all giluy arayos must involve a male of some species or another. Two females cannot engage in giluy arayos. Although there is an implied prohibition of “maaseh Eretz Mitzrayim” for two women to “get it on”, the Torah does not list it as an act of giluy arayos. (Rambam Issurei Biah 21:8).

So, after this, all the complaints against Mrs. Leifer boil down to “coercive control”. Nothing more. Controlling another more vulnerable person is not a virtuous attribute. I get that. But, in and of itself, without any genuine sins, it’s hard to justify the designation of rasha on this alone.

So, let’s take inventory.

Is Mrs. Leifer mechallel Shabbos?

No such claim. Can’t say the same for some of the Sapper sisters.

Did she do avodah zarah?

Again, no such claim.

Eat non-kosher?

No such claim. And how do Dassi and Elly score on that?

Giluy arayos?

As stated, no. 

Sh'fichas damim - Did she murder anybody?

The Sapper sisters and any other possible victims are all alive and well and living the lives of their choice.

Did she shame anyone publicly like Nicole and her sisters have been doing?

She hasn't said or written a word.

Did she steal anybody’s money or bring frivolous lawsuits like the Sapper sisters did?

No.

Did she mahser anybody to non-Jewish authorities like Nicole did?

No.

Did she actively extradite a Jew from Eretz Yisrael like Nicole and her sisters?

No.

Did she cause anyone to be kidnapped from her family as did Nicole?

No.

Does she go about spreading motzeh shem rah and lashon hara and malshinus about another Jew like Nicole is constantly doing?

No.

Did she carry out nekama and netira like Nicole is doing?

No.

Did she voluntarily testify against another Jew in a non-Jewish court like Nicole did?

No.

Did she do anything to perpetuate any chillul Hashem like Nicole is doing?

Not at all (see Rambam Yesodei Torah 5:10-11).

So, Kalman, please tell me. Who is the rasha around here?

Why, oh why, Kalman, do you keep defending a rasha?

We now come to the second remark from Kalman’s email that I need to respond to. Here is what he wrote:

You talk about כל הכועס ? How dare you? 

She has every single right to be “cross”

Okay, Greta. How dare I what?? How dare I quote a passage from Chazal (Nedarim 22a)???

This guy claims to be Jewish. He did not object when I quoted a passage from Shakespeare three posts ago. But now, when I quote a Chazal in Nedarim, it’s “How dare you?”. Does he believe in Chazal? Does he believe in the Oral Torah? 

I have my doubts.

This brings back fond memories about another consumerist muckraker blogger who calls himself Jewish. His name is Yerachmiel Lopin. I wrote about it in this 2016 post. Here’s what he wrote to me:

As always, you find every possible reason to believe she is not a risk to others, and every halachic angle to argue against prosecuting her… 

This was my open response:

Get this? This person calls himself a frum Jew, yet he criticizes me for finding “every Halachic angle to argue against prosecuting…”. Note that he does not invalidate or dispute the Halachic angles. They may be perfectly valid but I am at fault for finding them!! They weren’t very hard to find, by the way. He probably could have done it himself – if he wanted to. 

Back to Kalman. Of course, by "How dare you?" he may just mean that I am not qualified to quote Chazal. On this he has a point. I confess. I am not worthy. I am not worthy.

In the introductory book chapter that I mentioned above, I wrote that I am playing the role of an educator, preacher, and defense attorney. Do I have the qualifications for any of these?

Absolutely not. Even then, I wrote that I am not worthy. But I also wrote that somebody needs to fill these roles, and as long as I don’t see anyone else doing it, it’s up to me. The same applies now.

 במקום שאין אנשים, השתדל להיות איש.

He further contends that: she has every single right to be cross.

Really?

I might concede that she has grounds to be cross, but a right?

Where do our rights come from? The US Constitution? Can’t be. She is Australian, not American. There is no Bill of Rights in Australia. But even if she were American, I don’t think she has such rights. This is because we need to talk about G-d-given rights. And G-d-given rights come from G-d.

So, what rights does G-d give us? Let’s check His rulebook.

In Vayikra 19:17,18 He writes:

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך...לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני השם.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך – Do not hate your brother in your heart

It is forbidden to bear a grudge

לא תקום – It is forbidden to seek vengeance. No right to seek vengeance!

ולא תטר – It is forbidden to be cross. No right to be cross!

Who is this prohibition directed to? Is it to somebody who just won the Powerball? Someone who just gave birth to twins? Someone who was just handed the keys to their newly built 5-bedroom house? Someone who just married off their last daughter?

Obviously, it is directed to somebody who got a raw deal. Someone who had it hard and was taken advantage of. It is directed to somebody who has grounds to be cross and to seek vengeance. 

Unlike the consumerist pretenders like Kalman, G-d says she has no right to be cross.

The pasuk continues:

ואהבת לרעיך כמוך – Love your fellow as you love yourself.

One is commanded to learn how to love themselves. This is the only way one can learn to love somebody else. 

אני השם – I am G-d. 

All your trials and tribulations, all your successes and failures, all of your joys and tragedies, come only from Me. They do not come from anyone else. Only from Me. 

Do not blame anyone else. Do not bear a grudge. Do not seek vengeance. Do not be cross. 

How dare you??

You are aiming at the wrong target. You are barking up the wrong tree. It wasn’t them. It was Me – G-d. And I did it because I care for you. More than you care for yourself. I did it because I want you to flourish and become great. 

But you need to follow Me, says G-d, not oppose Me.

Kalman and Nicole and her sisters believe that once one is a victim, they are a victim for life. And that they are now exempt from the entire Torah. For life. They can follow the herd of mindless consumers instead of following G-d.

My father, LOYT, taught me otherwise. He taught me that the minute the oppression ends, one is no longer a victim. And there is no escaping G-d. 

My father was all of 15 years old when he was liberated from Ebensee labor camp. This is after Auschwitz and after Mauthausen. His first act was to put on a tattered shel yad of tefillin before he even approached the food line (there was no shel rosh).

I once asked him why he chose to remain a mitzvah observant Jew even when so many others did not. He told me that it never entered his mind not to.   

The Nazis killed his parents and almost all his extended family (B”H, his two sisters survived and also stayed religious). But he just moved on. He did not bear a grudge. He did not seek vengeance and he was never cross. We are not referring to his peers and brethren but to the seed of Amalek. And, even so. He just went on with his life and rebuilt and didn’t spend a minute worrying about his oppressors. 

This was 81 years and about 70 great-grandchildren ago. He loves himself (and us) more than he hates them, and it’s paid off. To this very day, ad meah v’esrim, he is still up and around. He counts what he has, not what he doesn’t. Because this is what HKBH commanded us.

And as for Nicole and her sisters and the consumerist bloggers – one cannot have a dialog with them. They are so bent on what they believe.

How dare they?

Dor Holech V'Dor Ba - Repost of 2014 Pnei HaDor

Netanyahu: Arrest Law will not be reinstated | Israel National News

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a closed-door discussion that the law freezing arrests of yeshiva draft evaders failed to achieve its goal and will not be renewed in the next government. “Whoever does not study Torah will enlist - or go to prison," he said.

It's hard to believe that 12 years have passed since 2014 when I made my Pnei HaDor post. Like they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Of course, October 7 happened in the interim and lots of people woke up to Who really runs the show. Nevertheless, the Kochi V'Otzem Yadi faction is also still alive and kicking and trying to convince us that we need to have more Koach and Otzem Yad and less Ameilus B'Torah to keep us in business.

Chazal tell us otherwise.

And this circus is being run by the exact same three stooges ringleaders. Lapid, Bennet, and Netanyahu - לב"נ (plus the usual supporting cast - Lieberman, Gantz, Eisenkot and many more.)

They are twelve years older and grayer but not a drop wiser. 

The civil war against the Bnei Hayeshivos has become uglier. Real honest to goodness Torah learners are being arrested for helping the nation in the best possible way. Okay, okay, one guy wasn't learning Torah. He was sitting shiva and one is not allowed to learn Torah during shiva. Just a technicality, I guess.

The above linked article looks strange. Netanyahu is quoted as saying: 

'Those who do not study Torah will enlist - or go to prison.'

The implication is that those who do study Torah will not enlist or go to prison. But that isn't what's going on. Notice they are called Yeshiva draft evaders in the first line of the article. They are not called Chareidi draft evaders.

In order to illustrate where we were 12 years ago and how nothing has changed, I want to repost my award-winning 2014 post, The Pnei Hador have told the nation/They won't stand for segregation... 

Let's see where we'll be in another 12 years. Here it is:

The Pnei Hador have told the nation/They won't stand for segregation... 

We may think that the three most influential leaders of the State of Israel, the “Pnei Hador” (shown below carrying the whole world on their shoulders) are not looking out for our best interests.

Pnei Hador (from left): Curly Bennet, Larry Lapid, Moe Netanyahu

Our musical spokesman, Asher V’Chaim, knows otherwise.

Who is Asher V’Chaim?

Well, nobody really knows. He has not gone public with his true identity. So he calls himself Asher V’Chaim.

Why?

Because in some earlier statement, Yair Lapid used the names “Asher V’Chaim” as a reference to the paradigm chareidi man in the street beis-midrash. (Like we say “John Doe” or “Tom, Dick, and Harry”). So this fellow calls himself "Asher V’Chaim" to be representative of the paradigm chareidi a la Yair Lapid.

He seems to be a young fellow but he is also well acquainted with 1960s antiwar songs. I am duly impressed because I am indeed a child of the 60s and a true red-white-and-blue American and I had never heard the original Tom Paxton anti-Vietnam song that he is parodying. Incidentally, Tom Paxton in his much later years put out a sequel to this song with regard to the second Iraq war.

The Paxton songs are definitely the perfect choice for a source song because they express the exact same sentiment as the new chareidi parody:

The government is enacting compulsory laws to satisfy its own agenda and is justifying it as saving the “victims” from… themselves.

The protesters didn’t buy it then and we don’t buy it now.

In any event, this song is going viral in Chareidi circles here in E”Y. You may not consider 3,800+ hits viral, but considering the fact that it had only 650 hits a mere 2 days ago and the limited market it addresses, it’s pretty active.

For convenience, the lyrics for this parody are readily available on the YouTube post. Unfortunately, they are in Hebrew and the English speaker may not readily grasp the full meaning. So, as one of my many public services, I am presenting a linear translation of the lyrics. The translation is meant to preserve the Hebrew flavor so it may not be conversational English.  I also apologize that I was unable to poeticize it with rhymes and a steady meter (though I tried). 

So, here is the song. (If the clip does not appear in the blog email, it can be accessed HERE.)

 

And here are the lyrics.

“In just a short time will arrive the order
that will clarify the situation
that “equality of burden” is already here.
No non-compliance will be forgiven
and to the prisons they will be driven
to be an avreich (kollel fellow) here will be hazardous.”

Yair, Bennet and also Bibi
they are concerned about you, my dear one
[although] they are destroying for you the sanctuary.
“To the army that is like none other
we will conscript you, my brother
and there, we will give you a new education.”

“If your name will be left out
to what can you hope to amount?
One who hampers the development will adversely affect the product.
You have not acquired higher education
you do not comprehend economics
the most that you will ever be fit for is…to be Minister of Finance.”

Yair, Bennet and also Bibi
they are concerned about you, my dear one
[although] they are destroying for you the sanctuary.
“To the army that is like none other
we will conscript you, my brother
and there, we will arrange for you a new education.”

“You are amazed and ask with urgency
if this “burden” is in truth necessary.
Why do we currently need obligatory enlistment?
Arise from your delusions, and awaken
they have built careers around this “equality” slogan
Why ruin an effective battle-cry?”

Yair, Bennet and also Bibi
they are concerned about you, my dear one
[although] they are destroying for you the sanctuary.
“To the army that is like none other
your enlistment is imperative
so that we can give you a new education.”

“If you will shout throughout the kingdom
‘Where are the emperor’s clothes?’
Just look at how silly you are.
If the army would hire and train
only the amount of soldiers that it really needs,
how would this country manage to produce any shesh-besh (backgammon) champions?”

Yair, Bennet and also Bibi
they are concerned about you, my dear one
[although] they are destroying for you the sanctuary.
“To the army that is like none other
we will conscript you, my brother
and we will hand you down a new education.”

“Many have already stood against you
[to challenge] your ‘goodly tents’ (of learning and praying)
to uproot Torah learning from the Jews.
They all failed in their endeavors
and did not accomplish their missions
yet we will [succeed to] actualize a first-of-its-kind law!”

Yair, Bennet and also Bibi
they are concerned about you, my dear one
[although] they are destroying for the third time the sanctuary.
“To the army that is like none other
we will conscript you, my brother
and, we will transform you to a new chiloni (secularist).”

“and, we will transform you to a new chiloni (secularist).”

And so... 

The Pnei Hador have told the nation/they won’t stand for segregation…

…and they will fix our education.

פרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים – אבל לב"נ ביקש לעקור את הכל.