The subject tonight is going to be a continuation to last week's subject, not the same detailed subject, but but generally in the same topic. The topic we spoke about last week was about giving back territories according to הלכה, according to תורה. I said this week we will discuss not specifically giving back territories, but concerning the status of the State of Israel. People say that they like to hear controversial subjects, so that's one of the reasons I chose this subject. And as you understand, I will be giving over the opinions, the השקפה of the רבי, the השקפה of ליובאוויטש, which is the השקפה, the right השקפה, the השקפה of תורה concerning what is our approach, our outlook concerning ארץ ישראל. But not concerning ארץ ישראל given by השם and there's nothing to talk about, but concerning the status of the way ארץ ישראל is now. And anybody who has questions or objections to certain things will be able to discuss this after we have finished, and then we'll have questions and answers. As we all know, there are two opposite extremes concerning the approach of what's the status of ארץ ישראל or we'll refer to it actually as the State, the State of Israel as it is now. On one hand, we have those people who claim that the fact that we have ארץ ישראל in our hands now is considered an אתחלתא דגאולה. It's the beginning of the גאולה, the beginning of the redemption. We know that for thousands of years we are waiting for the גאולה, we're waiting for the redemption, waiting for משיח, and this is already the beginning, אתחלתא דגאולה. It's the beginning of the גאולה. We already have ארץ ישראל in our hands. When משיח will come, when the גאולה will come, that means we will get ארץ ישראל back, cuz basically what does the גלות mean? גלות means we were chased out of our land, and strangers took over the land, and גאולה means that we will come back to our land. So now that we have ארץ ישראל back in Jewish hands, so some say this is אתחלתא דגאולה, this is the beginning of the גאולה. So much so that some people say הלל on יום העצמאות, the day that they signed the declaration of independence, claiming that this is a special יום טוב and this is the beginning of the גאולה. Some people say הלל with a ברכה, some people say הלל without a ברכה. That's one extreme. The other extreme is the view of נטורי קרתא, סאטמאר, that having ארץ ישראל in Jewish hands is a disaster. It's the biggest tragedy that ever happened to כלל ישראל, and they claim that משיח cannot come as long as ארץ ישראל is in hands of the Jews, and they claim that ארץ ישראל is not allowed to be in the hands of the Jews till משיח will come. And therefore they are for giving back territories, therefore everything It's all forbidden. The government in ארץ ישראל is against the השקפה of תורה. Not talking about the specific laws that the government makes which is against the תורה, which everyone agrees to, but the general the עצם, the essential existence of a government in ארץ ישראל they claim is against the תורה, and we're not allowed to have it. So here we have two extremes. There is another opinion, which doesn't even count in our discussion, because this is a תורה discussion, that is those people who בכלל aren't interested in the גאולה and aren't interested in משיח, the many, many non-religious Jews who they To them, the State of Israel is the most important thing, but not with any connection to the גאולה, cuz they Some of them maybe don't even believe in משיח, they don't even believe in the גאולה, they don't care, and they they don't say הלל, they To them, it's nothing. It's just something special that we Jews have a country, have a land. And they look at it as ככל הגוים בית ישראל, that the יידן have to be like all other nations in the world and we have to have our own homeland, but that's it, there's nothing to do with any religious matter. They say this is probably a true story, but they say that they once asked one of the people from the government asked the פוניבז'ער רב years, years ago, רב כהנמן. He received a lot of money from the government, and they once complained to him that they how come he doesn't celebrate יום העצמאות? So he said, \"You know what I do? You want me to be a greater patriot than בן גוריון himself? בן גוריון doesn't say הלל on יום העצמאות either. I don't either.\" Because to him this whole idea of גאולה and and הלל and these things don't make a difference. So we're not dealing with that because that has that's out of the תורה the framework of תורה. That is just people who don't believe in the תורה and therefore they don't care about גאולה. Who are the ones that came up with saying אתחלתא דגאולה, that ארץ ישראל, the State of Israel is the beginning people who are religious Jews, and they call themselves religious Zionists, and therefore they they're religious, and they believe in משיח, and they believe in the תורה, and they believe in the גאולה, and they claim that this is an אתחלתא דגאולה, this is the beginning of the גאולה. And like I said, there is the other extreme, those people who claim that this is the greatest disaster and we're not allowed to have this, etc., etc. Now, what is the רבי's השקפה on this whole matter? Just like we know that בכלל in תורה, the middle is always the right path. We have the רמב\"ם who says that the שביל הזהב, the golden path, is the middle path. Not always is it true, not always can we take the middle path. Sometimes there are extreme things in תורה. But in this case, it happens to be that when we understand the רבי's השקפה, many people will be surprised. And when I say many people, it'll be from both sides. I could tell you that the סאטמאר side and the נטורי קרתא side will be very surprised to hear the רבי's השקפה, because they will because they claim that ליובאוויטש are Zionists, and therefore the State of Israel, etc., etc. They'll be pleasantly surprised to their side to hear that it's the way it's not so פשוט. And the same thing, people from the other side will also be surprised, because other people say that ליובאוויטש is, you know, against Zionism, and it's against the State of Israel, and it's against that, and it's against this and the other kinds, because the רבי's שיטה was actually a שיטה in the middle. And let me explain in detail what the רבי's שיטה is and what it's based on.

The רבי said like this: After the war, after the Holocaust, השם had great רחמנות, great pity, on כלל ישראל, and He found them a place of refuge. There were so many people, so many refugees who needed a place to be, and needed a Jewish place, so השם made it that the יידן should find, should have, a homeland, a place where they could live peacefully, could live as Jews, without having the trouble of the גוים and having all kinds of other צרות that they had in other countries, in other, especially in the time of the Holocaust. So the אייבערשטער had רחמנות on כלל ישראל, and He gave them the בעלבאטישקייט, He gave them the control over ארץ ישראל. The control that He gave them over ארץ ישראל is a control so they should be able to have a place where they should be able to exist properly. But in no way is this a beginning of the גאולה. And we'll see in a moment why. It's not in any way a beginning of the גאולה. He did say that at that time, there was an opportunity for יידן to bring משיח. Because if the יידן would have utilized properly their entering into ארץ ישראל, and they would utilize properly the fact that they are able to live like יידן, come to a place, have their own place with their own control, with their own government, and utilize it in the proper way, that was an עת רצון, a time that משיח could have come. But that wasn't the only time. There were times before when יידן had in different countries, had also their own government, more or less. There was a time when they had the ועד ארבע ארצות and that was in a few different countries in Europe, and the יידן were given the right by the government of the country to have run it like almost like their own government. And also then, had the יידן utilized that time, and the משיח could have come. And here too, had they utilized the time of being, having their own country, and having their own place, this could have brought משיח. Unfortunately, the times before it didn't come about, and this time, אודאי it didn't come about. Because as soon as it started, instead of making the government run the country על פי תורה, what they did was they made it into a secular country, and automatically, this lost the they lost later on. Right in the beginning, even when they signed the Declaration of Independence, there was a whole fight of whether בכלל to mention השם's name. Most of them said, \"Let's forget about God, He doesn't belong here.\" They finally fought for it and fought for it, and they mentioned it by hint. They hinted to השם, בעזרת צור ישראל. They wouldn't even write השם, or ק-ל. בעזרת צור ישראל, with the help of צור ישראל. What's צור ישראל? It is a כינוי, it is a nickname to השם. But the reason they wrote it that way so it shouldn't be clear that it's השם. So right from the beginning, it went on the wrong track as far as אידישקייט is concerned. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is our land, and I'll explain it later more in detail, and we have a place where we could live peacefully. Now, why do we say it's not the גאולה? If we know that גלות means that the יידן were chased out of their land, and now when we have our land back, And automatically, this sounds like a גאולה, or at least it's the אתחלתא דגאולה, the beginning of the גאולה. But one thing we know that in order for something to change, something that was caused by certain things, in order for the effect to change, you have to have the cause to change. We know clearly the reason for the גלות we say in דאווענען is מפני חטאינו גלינו מארצנו. Because of our sins, we were chased out of our land, and in order to change that, we have to change the cause. We have to change מפני חטאינו, and as long as it is not in a form of תשובה, as long as the חטאינו, the sins still exist, then this cannot be a change in the גלינו מארצנו. And therefore, even people who live in ארץ ישראל are also living in גלות. Because גלות is not only a physical thing, whether we live in this part of the world or we live in another part of the world. There were many יידן who lived in different countries and lived peacefully, and had were very rich, and have control over many things, and they were still in גלות. So it's not the same thing people in ארץ ישראל. You could live in ארץ ישראל and be in גלות. גלות is a level, a status. So you could be in the land of ארץ ישראל, and at the same time, you are still in גלות. The country is called the land of our forefathers, of ארץ ישראל, but and outside, some people call it the גולה. This is called ארץ and that's the גולה, which is the place of גלות. But גלות is not measured by the country. It's measured by the level, and if the מפני חטאינו would change, then you could say it's the beginning of the גאולה. But as long as that didn't change at all, as a matter of fact, before the Holocaust, there was much more פרומע יידן, there was much less מפני חטאינו, and certainly there was no גאולה then. So the fact that we have ארץ ישראל is just a place that השם gave us that helped many יידן. It's a מקום פליטה, a place of refuge for many many יידן, hundreds of יידן, thousands, millions of יידן, and the fact that it's ארץ ישראל helps out. ארץ ישראל has a קדושה, and because of the קדושה, it helps the יידן who want to live the way you're supposed to, it helps them to live more. So השם did them a favor, not only by giving them a place where they could live, a place of refuge, but he gave it to them in ארץ ישראל. He did them a bigger favor, it should be in ארץ ישראל. So there's a lot of greatness here, but not as far as the גאולה. In other words, as long as we don't have the fulfillment of what it says in הלכה is the ענין of גאולה in הלכה, and I will explain why I'm stressing that, then we know that this is not גאולה. It's a lot of great, good things, but it's not גאולה. In order to change from what happened before, let's say before 1948 or to say before the Balfour Declaration, what changed from before to after did not make a change in the degrees of גלות. It made a change in, we would call it גאולה פרטית. There is, in fact, an expression גאולה which means when a person is redeemed from his צרות, a ענין of גאולה, but that's not the גאולה that we're talking about here, גאולת כלל ישראל. So the change did not place, not take place. The fact that we have ארץ ישראל in our hands, let me explain it, the fact that we have ארץ ישראל in our hands that we control it, that, in truth, made no change whatsoever. Now I'll explain why. ארץ ישראל is ours the whole time. ארץ ישראל is ours from the beginning, from when השם promised אברהם אבינו by the ברית בין הבתרים he will give us ארץ ישראל. It says in the מדרש that השם chose the יידן as the chosen nation, השם chose ארץ ישראל as the chosen land, and he decided, let me give the chosen land to the chosen people. And he gave ארץ ישראל to אברהם אבינו. Not only did he promise him he will give him ארץ ישראל, he actually gave it to him. The פסוק says, לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת. To your children I gave this land. One place it says אתן, I will give, but there is a פסוק which is I gave. And it's not just a פסוק in חומש, it's a הלכה. In הלכה, we find that ארץ ישראל, when the יידן entered ארץ ישראל, it was already theirs from before. In many הלכות, just to use an example of one הלכה, it says that a firstborn takes a double portion as a ירושה, as an inheritance, but only from things which are already available, not things that will come in later. And ארץ ישראל, the גמרא says מוחזקת היא, that was given from before. When the יידן entered ארץ ישראל, it was theirs from before. So the אייבערשטער, השם gave ארץ ישראל to אברהם אבינו. Then it became more revealed when יהושע conquered ארץ ישראל. From the moment יהושע conquered ארץ ישראל, ארץ ישראל is ours, no matter who who seems to take control of ארץ ישראל. It doesn't change it didn't change. Even while we're in גלות, we say מפני חטאינו גלינו מארצנו, It's still our land. It's not like other countries when you have one nation conquered the land from the other nation, and what happened? It changed ownership. In הלכה, there is a concept called כיבוש. When you conquer a country, that conquering actually changes ownership in הלכה. If a מלך, a king, conquers a land, על פי הלכה it belongs to his. Certainly, that's the way the world behaves, that one king conquered a land from another king. But by ארץ ישראל, it's not like that. Physically, it was like that. It was by the אידן for a certain amount of years, then נבוכדנאצר took it away from them, and the אידן came back, and the Romans. But that's all superficially. We're talking about the truth of תורה. In תורה, even though they took it away, it still remained ours. That's the פשט in רש\"י, an interesting רש\"י. רש\"י in the beginning of חומש says that the גוים will come to complain to the אידן that you conquered the land of the seven nations, and you took it away from the גוים, לסטים אתם, you're robbers. So the question that's asked: the גוים are the ones to complain to us that we're robbers because we conquered a country? Every single nation did that! Why are they complaining to us? We're the only ones who did it? As a matter of fact, in our case, it's the best, because originally ארץ ישראל, it says, fell in the part of שם. When נח divided the world to his children, שם, חם, and יפת, the part of ארץ ישראל belonged to שם. When the כנענים conquered it, the כנענים come from חם, so they took it away. So when the אידן, who come from שם, conquered it back, we took it back as rightful owners. Why are they complaining? And בכלל, how could they complain when we know there is such a thing as כיבוש, and the גוים all behave that way, and to us they have טענות? The פשט is like this: when by the גוים a country, a מלך, a king conquered a country, he actually took it away from the first one, and he had a right to it. That's the way it was. By ארץ ישראל, the moment we took it, no one could take it away from us. Even if a גוי will take it away, it still remains ours essentially. So like this, every nation potentially potentially has an ownership over every country in the world. We, by conquering ארץ ישראל, took away any potential right that any nation in the world might have over ארץ ישראל. That's why they say לסטים אתם, you're robbers. We can't do such a thing! We can't You took it away, and that's it, it's not the גוים's anymore. And no גוי in the world could take away ארץ ישראל from the אידן. Now physically they took it away, but that's only superficially. But ארץ ישראל is ours. Just like from אברהם אבינו's time, when it wasn't ours physically, השם said נתתי, I gave it, and it's yours, and על פי הלכה it was his. And therefore, when it came to the מערת המכפלה, to buy the מערת המכפלה, he said to to the people there, to the בני חת, I'm ready to buy it, but if you won't sell it to me, I'll take it anyways, because it's mine. גר ותושב אנכי עמכם. I physically didn't own it. He did own it, but it wasn't shown. So after ארץ ישראל was taken away by the גוים, it is still ours. We just not are in it. We didn't have control over it, but that's a superficial thing. That's a חיצוניות'דיקע thing. And therefore, when ארץ ישראל came back to our hands, there was no major change in the halachic standard of status of ארץ ישראל. There was a physical change, because now we can control it, we can do what we want, and we could keep the מצות of ארץ ישראל, אידן could live there, that's fine. But concerning the concept of גאולה, which is a change in the status of ארץ ישראל, that didn't start. That didn't change, because ארץ ישראל belonged to the אידן throughout all of history, always, and still does. So by having some people sign a Declaration of Independence, and then having it, taking it, getting it physically, that didn't change the הלכה'דיק תורה standard of ארץ ישראל, and ממילא is not in any way a step to the גאולה, it's not אתחלתא דגאולה.

And the truth is like this: whenever we come to decide any status or any anything in the world that we want to decide, we have to look into הלכה. What does the הלכה say? When we want to know what is the status of גאולה, when is there a גאולה, or when is there אתחלתא דגאולה, the only way to decide is הלכה, in הלכה. And I'm stressing הלכה: we can't decide through a מדרש, we can't decide through a גמרא, we can only decide through הלכה. No one is allowed to פסק'ן a דין from the גמרא, even though all the דינים come from the גמרא, but there are פוסקים who פסק'ן, we have to פסק'ן from the שולחן ערוך. And if somebody is going to say, I disregard a שולחן ערוך, I'll go straight to the גמרא. Where did the שולחן ערוך take it from? From the גמרא! I'll go straight to the גמרא. This person, his פסק דין is worthless. Similar to what the גמרא says, a very strange statement: התנאים מבלי עולם. The תנאים, those that learn משניות, destroy the world. What's wrong with learning משניות. So רש״י says, those that פסקן a דין from the משנה. You open a משנה, משניות, and you פסקן the דין. Because then came the גמרא on the משניות, and explained the משניות, and you can't פסקן from a משנה. In the time of the גמרא, they weren't taught to פסקן from a משנה. The גמרא says that the ones that פסקן from a משנה are מבלי עולם. Same thing with us, we can't even פסקן from the גמרא now. We have to פסקן from הלכה. Now, if other things we could find a פסק דין in הלכה, certainly when we're talking about such a major, major issue as what גאולה is, and what אתחלתא דגאולה is, we certainly have to פסקן from הלכה. And we can't bring in מדרשים or גמרות or things like that. Now, when it comes to הלכה and the דין of ארץ ישראל, or what is גאולה, there is only one פוסק. And since he's the only פוסק in הלכה in the דינים of גאולה, we have to follow what he says, and he is the פוסק, and nothing could change. And that is the רמב״ם. Now, other things that we have other פוסקים that came later, so now we can't פסקן from the רמב״ם either. We can't פסקן הלכות שבת from the רמב״ם because we have to have what other פוסקים said. But in this thing, in the הלכות משיח or הלכות גאולה, there are no other פוסקים. So the רמב״ם is the פוסק. And not only that, whenever the רמב״ם פסקן something, that's a כלל in הלכה, whenever the רמב״ם פסקן something, and the commentaries don't argue, that is a proof that they agree. Now, when we talk about the commentaries of the רמב״ם, we're talking about the ראב״ד, who usually is משיג, has many, many disagreements with the רמב״ם. We're talking about the כסף משנה, who is the בית יוסף, the שולחן ערוך, the one that wrote the שולחן ערוך. It means the מגיד משנה, it means the לחם משנה. I mean, we're talking about all these great פוסקים that obviously agree with the רמב״ם. And the רמב״ם in הלכות מלכים, the last two פרקים of הלכות מלכים, which he also called the way it's printed in certain prints הלכות משיח, the רמב״ם writes exactly the order of the גאולה. And as long as that order is not fulfilled, then there is no גאולה. You could have 10 things, and a lot is a 100 things, and you could bring ראיות from גמרות, as long as the רמב״ם, it doesn't fit to the רמב״ם, that's not גאולה. Now let's read what the רמב״ם says. This is in פרק י״א, הלכה ד׳: ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד, there will be a king from בית דוד, הוגה בתורה, who studies תורה, הוגה doesn't mean just study, works hard in learning תורה, ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו, and learns and does מצות like דוד המלך, כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה, תורה שבכתב, the written תורה and the oral תורה, ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה, who will force all the יידן to follow the ways of תורה and to strengthen the cracks of תורה, וילחם מלחמות ה׳, and he will fight the wars of ה׳, הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח, at that time there is a חזקה, we could assume he's משיח, but we're not sure yet. In other words, the גאולה did not start yet. Even if this happens, the גאולה did not start yet. ואם עשה והצליח, and if he did this and he was מצליח and he succeeded, ובנה מקדש במקומו, and he built the בית המקדש, and he's the only one that's going to build it, וקבץ נדחי ישראל, and he gathered all the יידן, הרי זה משיח בודאי, then he's משיח. And what is the real גאולה? The גאולה is the קיבוץ גלויות. גאולה means when all the גלות people from all over will come. That cannot happen until after the building of the בית המקדש through this human being, this person משיח. There are proofs from ירושלמי, different places. There's a long letter, it's actually a קונטרס from the רבי רש״ב, where he discusses this, and he brings all kinds of proof, which is not even I don't think anybody even argues, that first will come בנין בית המקדש, the building of the בית המקדש, and then will come קיבוץ גלויות. תחיית המתים, that's עולם הבא, that's a different argument altogether. In this, there is a רמב״ם which made certain תימנים mad, we'll get to that in a second. So the רמב״ם here says clearly that first will be בנין בית המקדש, then קיבוץ גלויות. And therefore, any time there is any קיבוץ before the building of בית המקדש is not part of the גאולה. In other words, very simply, the fact that you had 4 million or how many million of יידן coming to ארץ ישראל, that is not קיבוץ גלויות. That is a great thing, a great נס that the אויבערשטער did. The אויבערשטער had pity on כלל ישראל that he gave us ארץ ישראל, that we are able to control it. But this is not גאולה. The fact that we have so many יידן in ארץ ישראל, we need a government. There is no question about it, we need a government. I mean, you can't The פרקי אבות says, אלמלא מוראה של מלכות איש את רעהו חיים בלעו. You have to have a government, you have to have a whole סדר מסודר, everything has to work properly. So you have to have a government. And it's in ארץ ישראל because, and it so happens to be a holy land, it is a holy land, and the אויבערשטער was good to us that he gave us this government, this possibility of living together in this holy land, but it's not קיבוץ גלויות, because there is no בית המקדש, and there is no משיח here that is doing all this till the building בית המקדש, and then to have קיבוץ גלויות. And therefore, till this happen, happens, there is no אתחלתא דגאולה. If, I'll translate it again: אם יעמוד מלך, I'll read it in English carefully: when a king will get up from the house of דוד, who studies תורה and does מצוות like דוד his father, according to the written תורה and the oral תורה, he will force all the יידן to follow the ways of תורה and to strengthen its cracks, he will fight wars for השם, at that point he is בחזקת משיח. He is assumed to be משיח. If he did this and succeeded, and then he built the בית המקדש, and then he gathered the גליות, the people from exile, then he is משיח ודאי, then we know it's גאולה. Anything before that is not אתחלתא דגאולה, because קיבוץ גליות must come after בנין בית המקדש. Now, the fact that we have ארץ ישראל and we control ארץ ישראל, in truth, even though like I said before this is a very, very great thing, ברוך השם that we have this, but even if you look at this from a different angle, this cannot be considered in any way a form or shape a form or shape of גאולה. Because גאולה means, as the רמב״ם says, to the least, that we will not have any שיעבוד מלכיות. That means we will not be under the control of the גוים. There is a big argument in גמרא if משיח will come there will be a change in the world, all kinds of miracles. And שמואל says אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכיות בלבד. There will be no difference between now and the time of משיח, but the שיעבוד מלכיות, we will not be under the jurisdiction of the גוים. This is not fulfilled now, either. Even this simple thing is not fulfilled. Because if we, whatever we do, we are able to be pressured by Washington, or by London, or by Moscow, and we have to listen to what they say, this is not called independent enough to be considered a form of גאולה in any form or shape. Another thing here: the fact that we have a democratic government is not גאולה, cannot be גאולה. By משיח it says here: יכוף כל ישראל, he will force. There is no such thing as democracy in יידישקייט. There is a democracy whether you should paint the building red or green, fine. But there is no democracy generally to say you could do what you want, and you choose. In theory, you know what could happen in ארץ ישראל? If you will have a majority of Arabs voting, they'll vote out the whole Jewish government, and it will become an Arab government. It's not that בעצם we took over ארץ ישראל in the form that ארץ ישראל is now ours, in our hands, like in the time of גאולה, or a beginning of גאולה. In theory, if for some reason יידן decide not to vote, or they don't want to vote, or whatever it is, and the Arabs go to vote, and you make some more citizens of Arabs, they outvote us and we have an Arab government, and ארץ ישראל is not by the יידן. The concept of a democracy already in הלכה is not is not in any way a מלכות of גאולה. That's still in גלות, we are still in גלות. And we see the way things are going בכלל that גאולה means that we will not care about what the גוים will say. The contrary, we will have the גאון יעקב, we will be the superpower, supreme power in the world. If we have to be always to please the גוים, and the government runs after the other גוים and say, that's far, far from being אתחלתא דגאולה, from being in any form גאולה. So what is it? It's ארץ ישראל, it's ארץ הקודש, it's the holy land, and we are happy and we had a זכות that השם gave us this holy land, and that we are able to control it, but this is not גאולה. Even if the government would be run according to the תורה, even if the government would make a government according to the, על פי הלכה, it's still not גאולה, unless all the יידן become פרום, and it starts, what the רמב״ם says starts coming, then it's a גאולה. The only thing is, there are some people who bring other מדרשים or מפרשים from where they prove that it is אתחלתא דגאולה. And again we're talking about religious people. The non-religious don't bring any מפרשים, they don't care about it, but the religious people. For instance, there is a ירושלמי where the ירושלמי says that גאולתן של ישראל will be קימעא קימעא. The גאולה of the יידן will come slowly. It won't come like, change, slowly this will happen, that will happen. There is a גמרא in כתובות I believe where it says that when you will have trees giving fruit in ארץ ישראל, good fruit, אין לך קץ מגולה מזה, there is no greater greater גאולה than that. So here we have a clear גמרא, what's גאולה, if ארץ ישראל gives fruit. Now, ברוך השם they have a lot of fruit, and the נגב they irrigate the נגב, and it starts growing, so they say this is the beginning of גאולה. This is not not הלכה. This is a good גמרא, and it's a מדרש, and it's תורה, and we know אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים, every word of גמרא is holy. But when it comes to פסקן a דין, it's only from הלכה. We can't פסקן a דין from a גמרא in הלכות שבת. In הלכות שבת we can't say, \"Well, there's an opinion in גמרא, בית שמאי says so and so, so I'll do like בית שמאי.\" If they פסקנד the הלכה like בית הלל, בית שמאי במקום בית הלל אינה משנה, it doesn't count. It's תורה, and if I learn in גמרא the statement of בית שמאי, I must make a ברכה, ברכת התורה like I make for every word of תורה. It's the words of השם. But it's not הלכה. And we can't follow that in הלכה. In הלכה, we have the רמב״ם. And that's it. So the רמב״ם knew of the גמרא in the ירושלמי, the רמב״ם knew the גמרא in כתובות, the רמב״ם knew everything, but this is the way he פסקנד, and he's the פוסק when it comes to הלכות משיח. And therefore, we can't bring ראיות from this מדרשים. There's a person who gave out a ספר called התקופה הגדולה. התקופה הגדולה, the great תקופה, a great period that this is, time we live in. And he brings all kinds of מדרשים, and all kinds of things to show how this all is the beginning of גאולה. And when the רבי spoke about it at a פארברענגען, he spoke about that ספר, and he said, \"מדרשים, I can bring you 50 מדרשים in the other way and I could bring this. We can't פסקן שאלות with מדרשים. We have an הלכה, and that's it, and this is what גאולה is, and nothing more than that.\" And that's how we have to פסקן. And according to הלכה, all these ענינים are not. They bring a רמב״ן, and this is just סתם, just to show that some of them even twist certain things. And when I saw that רמב״ן, I was very, very surprised when I saw it quoted. The רמב״ן says that all the nations will get together and they will decide to give ארץ ישראל to the יידן. That's how it's going to come. And that's going to be the גאולה. And they quote it, and it sounds very interesting. And they say this is what happened, and this is the גאולה. So I wasn't lazy—I can't even tell you now where it is, because I didn't look at it for many years—I wasn't lazy, I went and looked up the רמב״ן, because it sounded strange to me. Yes, the רמב״ן says that. But a line before that, the רמב״ן says first משיח will come. I saw it. משיח will come, and then the nations will get together and decide to give ארץ ישראל to the יידן. משיח hasn't come yet. So that's why when it comes to looking at it, it has nothing to do with Zionism or not Zionism. We're talking here about one concept of אתחלתא דגאולה, we're not talking about the general idea, which is a different subject altogether. But the idea of having ארץ ישראל in our hands as being the beginning of the גאולה, there was no change. The fact that we have it is nothing new. I mean it's new physically, but it was ours always. Nothing changed. We have it, we're able to control it, ברוך השם, thank God, and we're not allowed to give away any little bit because it's in our hands and it's לא תחנם and it's פיקוח נפש, and all the things we spoke about last week, to give it away is the worst עבירה, it's one of the three עבירות, יהרג ואל יעבור, to give away. But to connect this to גאולה, that this is the beginning of גאולה, it's not. This is concerning this extreme.

Now there is the other extreme, and we'll talk about the other extreme. They claim that you're not allowed to בכלל be in control of ארץ ישראל. And what's their סברא? Their סברא is because there is a גמרא that says that when the יידן went into גלות, the אויבערשטער made them swear, made כלל ישראל swear three שבועות, three oaths they took. One oath the יידן took is שלא ימרדו בגוים, they shouldn't revolt against the nations. The second one is שלא ידחקו את הקץ, they shouldn't push for משיח, which we have to understand what the פשט is, it doesn't mean to דאווען for משיח, but שלא ידחקו את הקץ means to do things like קבלה and things that people try to do with all kinds of things to bring משיח. And the third thing is שלא יעלו בחומה. שלא יעלו בחומה means they shouldn't go with an army to fight to take ארץ ישראל back. השם made them swear, made the יידן swear that we shouldn't take ארץ ישראל back till השם will tell us. So they claim that as long as that didn't happen, השם didn't tell us, we have promised, we swore that we will not take ארץ ישראל back. The גמרא, and the גמרא quotes a פסוק, straight and through the נביא, we find פסוקים in the נביא, it's the גמרא in כתובות, פסוקים in the נביא, where the גמרא learns out from these פסוקים that through the נביאים the יידן swore, called גימל שבועות, they swore these three שבועות, that not entering, that we will not go with an army to take over ארץ ישראל. Now the question is this, is that an הלכה? That's number one. This is a גמרא, and the גמרא says it. Is this brought down להלכה? Is this הלכה? There are many, many ספרים that write this is not a הלכה. There's no such הלכה! This in the גמרא, which many things in the גמרא that we have, well we can't פסקנען from there. Second of all, we have to know whether this falls into that category, what took place if it falls in that category. Number one, it was given by the גוים, the UN decided, that's number one. And number two, what happened later when the Arabs attacked us, then it was a מצוה to fight, it's a מלחמת מצוה! Self-defense, it's a מלחמת מצוה! So that's not called going against the שבועה, taking away. And what happened later in '67 when we got ירושלים and all other places, that wasn't because we went, we decided to go and conquer more more land. It was self-defense. Makes no difference who started the war, we started, they started, it was a self-defense. And פארקערט, when it's self-defense and we got these places, it was given to us by השם, because we didn't go for it, and if it fell into our lap, השם gave it to us. And השם gave it to us with miracles. Concerning ירושלים it's even more than that, concerning ירושלים we all know that they had no plans of conquering ירושלים. They didn't even make a plan, a strategy of how to fight in ירושלים. Why were there so many casualties, more in ירושלים than more than other places? Because ירושלים they didn't even plan, they didn't want to conquer it. They were forced into it. The war went such a way that they had no choice, had to fight. And the last minute they had to sit down and make a plan, a strategy, and that's why it didn't really work. And like, and it worked, ברוך השם we got it, but it was not planned out. So when we got ירושלים, it was ממש given to us into our hands by השם. So that's called that we went to conquer it? Except the fact that it's not something that's brought down in הלכה that we're not allowed to. I don't know where they get their ideas that the whole ספר that because of this שבועה it's יהרג ואל יעבור. We know there are three עבירות that you have to give up your life for. And they claim this is another עבירה you have to give up your life for: not to conquer ארץ ישראל by war you have to give up your life for. But in truth, there is no הלכה of ולא יעלו בחומה and it's not accepted, and therefore we're allowed to. Then there are more things that come along with all this. According to their opinion, they claim we're not allowed to go to vote. Why? Because the whole government they claim is based on a השקפה which is against תורה, to have a government, a Jewish government in ארץ ישראל against the תורה. And therefore when you vote, you're giving a hand, a חיזוק to this government. And we know that the רבי used to come out every time they had elections, earlier years especially, send a telegram to ארץ ישראל, \"Go and vote, everyone has a חוב קדוש, a holy חוב to vote!\" Why? Because if another Jewish vote, another, פרומער vote I mean, another פרומער vote, it'll be better for אידישקייט. See, being a participant in the actual government, in the cabinet, is טאקע a שאלה. Not in the כנסת, because the כנסת is not the one that controls, but being a participant in the government... So for many years אגודה wasn't in the government, פועלי אגודה wasn't in the government, and even מזרחי went out of the government for these שאלות. Because to be a participant in the controlling body, you have a responsibility for everything that they do. But being in the כנסת and voting and trying to get in the best people that'll be best for אידישקייט, then there is no question. The truth is in their opinion I myself don't really understand, and I have a lot of time discussions with them, the משולחים come, I try to start up with them. These guys come from from נטורי קרתא, they ask. So first thing I ask him, \"Collecting money, but doesn't the government give money?\" \"Well, we don't take money from the government.\" But I asked him, \"I heard that from the city government, from the federal government you don't take, but from the city you do take.\" \"Well, that's different.\" \"Well, why is it different?\" No one had an answer. The same thing with election, with the vote. They don't go to vote for prime minister or they don't go for the federal, but when it comes to the cities, they do vote. I can't understand why. And בכלל according to their opinion that you can't be part, participate in anything that they do because it's all forbidden, you can't take money from them because it's all טריפה money, you can't live in ארץ ישראל בכלל! How can you use their money בכלל? How could you pay with the שקלים? How could you use their water? How could you use their electricity? How could you use anything? So the only way is to move out of ארץ ישראל! No one says that. There is something that's not clear. But the truth is, the way we understand it, that there is nothing wrong. The fact that they're doing the wrong things, everyone agrees anything that's against the תורה is wrong. But and we have to try to strengthen it, to make it should work according to the תורה, and therefore we should go to vote, and we should do everything to put up more people, more פרומע people that'll be able to vote, be able to to do the right things. So that's concerning this side. But to say that we shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't vote, and it's all forbidden, and therefore we should give back territories, that's a השקפה which is, like I said, the other extreme which way the רבי explained that there is no יסוד for this. There are other questions that come up concerning ארץ ישראל, is there a מצוה nowadays of ישוב ארץ ישראל? We know that one of the מצוות is the מצוה of inhabiting or living in ארץ ישראל, and that's a big discussion. Now, בפשטות, most פוסקים hold that there is. There is one opinion that says not. There is a תוספות where רב חיים כהן, one of the בעלי התוספות says that nowadays better not to live in ארץ ישראל. Why? He says because there are so many מצוות it's hard to be careful with: תרומות and מעשרות and שמיטה, and sometimes who knows if you can do it, it's harder, it's easier to stumble, easier to be נכשל. Now, that's a דעת יחיד. Most opinions hold that there is a מצוה. Only thing is, some hold that it's not a מצוה on the individual, it's a מצוה on the ציבור. It's a general מצוה on כלל ישראל, which is more on the בית דין. But there is no מצוה on the individual. Many hold there is a מצוה of ישוב ארץ ישראל. But that has nothing to do with the state belonging to us or not belonging to us. That's a מצוה that was there 100 years ago, 500 years ago. There is a מצוה of ישוב ארץ ישראל. That's true. So, as a general picture of everything that we're saying here, it comes out like this: that ארץ ישראל is ours, without a question, and ארץ ישראל is an ארץ הקודש, without a question. Did any change in the status of ארץ ישראל take place in 1948 in הלכה, in תורה? No. ארץ ישראל was ours before and ארץ ישראל is still ours. We have it, ברוך השם, that we have ארץ ישראל, that we're able to control it. The אייבערשטער gave it to us, but there's no change in status. Is it any form of גאולה? No, the רמב\"ם says what גאולה is. Anything before that is not גאולה. And the fact that so many אידן come from all over, as long as it's before the בנין בית המקדש, it's not אתחלתא דגאולה, it's not the beginning of גאולה. On the other hand, is there anything negative, חס ושלום? Like they say, you're not allowed to have this government. If the אייבערשטער gave it to us with ניסים, then we have to control it. The fact that they're not doing it, doing many things in the right way, that's a problem, so we got to fight it, we got to do what we can. The פרומע parties and פרומע אידן have to go out and fight and see what they could do to make more שמירת שבת, and against ניתוחי מתים, and against all the problems, giving back שטחים, all the problems, the פרומע problems we have to do. But it doesn't mean that ארץ ישראל lost its קדושה, or things like not going to the כותל המערבי. The סאטמארער said that people shouldn't go to the כותל המערבי. Why, the כותל המערבי lost its קדושה? The fact that it was conquered through the Zionists, and he came up with an idea that השם doesn't perform miracles through רשעים, he says, and these people were רשעים and השם doesn't perform miracles through רשעים, which doesn't say anywhere. He brought proof from this place, from that place. השם doesn't perform miracles through רשעים. Why not? So, I remember when it was the story of Entebbe and the רבי came out the great proclamation that we have to thank השם for the ניסים he did, the ניסים. So, they came out against him, they said, \"What kind of ניסים? How could there be ניסים? They came through the Zionists, through רשעים. How could there be ניסים?\" So, the רבי at a פארברענגען spoke about it and he said like this, \"I want to pose a question, and I want all the רבנים in the world to answer this הלכה'דיקע question, a clear הלכה question. If one of the people who are in the plane, who were in the plane and were saved from Entebbe, if he happens to come back to Entebbe at a later time, will you פסקן is he obligated to make the ברכה?\" There is a ברכה when a person is saved, you have to make a ברכה: ברוך שעשה לי נס במקום הזה, thanks to השם for making a miracle in this place. \"Will you פסקן that he has to make a ברכה or not?\" And as if the רבי said, \"I dare you to פסקן that they don't have to make a ברכה.\" Then he said, \"I have another question to ask. Will the אייבערשטער, is there anything wrong in going to a non-פרום doctor, a non-פרום doctor? Now, you won't, how you could say, 'Well, there's no ניסים there.' But when a doctor heals, it's also from השם, just like a נס. We believe a doctor is a שליח. השם doesn't make a רשע a שליח. So, if a non-פרום doctor, person who is bad, even a גוי, so you can't go to him because you don't think השם will make him into the שליח to bring you the cure? It's נארישקייטן. So why can't השם make a miracle through these people?\" And the truth is, these people, they call them רשעים. What kind of רשעים? People who are מוסר נפש, people who give up their life for other אידן. I remember by the Six-Day War the רבי told somebody privately in יחידות that when there is a soldier standing in Sharm El Sheikh at fighting, holding his rifle, holding his machine gun, the words he used was גילוי אלקות למטה מעשרה טפחים. That was גילוי אלקות. That was the greatest godly revelation. A איד is standing there protecting other אידן, going on מסירות נפש, giving up his life. And you call them רשעים? People who are giving up their life for others? Remember by the Yom Kippur War, the רבי spoke even more. The רבי said that it happened on יום כיפור. יום כיפור, when the אייבערשטער forgives everybody, so יום כיפור are all צדיקים. What do we need more than a ייד going on מסירת נפש, and the אויבערשטער, what, doesn't do ניסים through them? The fact that it was utilized maybe later for no good, like they claimed, how could it be that the כותל המערבי, having the כותל המערבי is good? Look what the ציוניסטן did. Because of that, they came out and they said כוחי ועוצם ידי, we did it all, and certain strength came to the people who are not religious, that gave them more כח. So how could you say this was something good? Came from השם with all kinds of miracles, but look what was the outcome. Certain things gave כח to people who are not פרום and it showed that you don't have to be פרום. So how could it be from השם? So they claim it came from the סטרא אחרא, that this saving of the יידן came from the סטרא אחרא, from the קליפה, from the evil forces of the world. So, remember the רבי once said, first of all, the סטרא אחרא doesn't save three million יידן, I mean you just can't say such נארישקייטן. And second of all, where does it say that it can't be good if we see later there was a result that wasn't so good? We find in מדרש that what made the יידן make an עגל? Because by מתן תורה השם came down, it says with the מעשה מרכבה, with the whole מרכבה, with the chariot, and the מרכבה, it says in תנ\"ך, there are four faces, one face is פני שור, the face of an ox. And the יידן liked it, and because of that they made an עגל. So you'll say השם made a mistake? He shouldn't have come down with the מעשה מרכבה, and it wasn't good obviously because look what came out of it. Does that prove if something, that something no good comes out, it's proved that this is no good? We find the גמרא that the גמרא says that how can we have הנאה, have benefit from the sun and the moon when people worship the sun? If people worship the sun, it's an עבודה זרה, and you're not allowed to have benefit from עבודה זרה. So the גמרא says that השם says, וכי בשביל שוטים הללו אאבד את עולמי? Because of these fools who worship the sun, I should destroy my world? It's their problem. I do what I have to do, and if they don't utilize it in the right way, that's their problem. Same thing here. השם made miracles and gave us ארץ ישראל, and gave us the כותל המערבי, and gave us all that, and we have to have it. איי, some people טאקע used it for negative things, good, so we have to fight that. We have to see that it shouldn't happen. But it doesn't negate the whole ענין of the אויבערשטער giving it to us.

Now, all this after we understand what the קדושה of ארץ ישראל is, that's even more. We all know that ארץ ישראל is a place, a physical place in the world where the שכינה rests. כותל המערבי, the מדרש says, לא זזה שכינה מכותל זה, the שכינה never moved from the כותל המערבי. But בכלל, ארץ ישראל is ארץ אשר עיני השם אלקיך בה, it's a land where the eyes of השם are there תמיד, constantly, מראשית השנה ועד אחרית, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. The אויבערשטער's eyes are there. What does that mean? The אויבערשטער's eyes are all over. השם is משגיח, looks all over the world. But all over we don't feel it, and there we're able to feel it. So being in ארץ ישראל, the קדושה, the שכינה is there. There's just a מחלוקת in the פוסקים, I think between the רמב\"ן and what way the שכינה rests in ארץ ישראל. It says, how the שכינה, which is a spiritual thing, should rest in a physical place, doesn't look like it mixes. How could גשמיות and רוחניות mix? So it says two פשט, two opinions. One opinion is it's similar to the physical brain that contains שכל. The physical brain is also a physical thing, but it is a כלי for שכל. Then there is another opinion that is similar to the fingers that write a דבר שכל, that write an intellectual thing. When you write an intellectual thing, the שכל goes through your fingers. Now the fingers are not a כלי, not a vessel for שכל, but nevertheless it goes through. So some say ארץ ישראל is a physical place which is a כלי for the קדושה. Some say it's not a כלי, but nevertheless the שכינה is there, like the fingers where the שכל is. But whichever way we look at it, ארץ ישראל is the place of the שכינה. So therefore, if we're able to be there, and able to control it, and be in our hands, it's the greatest thing we could imagine. But again, not to confuse it with the ענין of גאולה and the ענין of coming of משיח. Coming of משיח has its own order, and when that's going to happen, then we'll know משיח is here. Till then, משיח is not here yet, the גאולה is not here, it's not even אתחלתא דגאולה. It's a great, a great נס. We have to thank השם for it without a question, but to connect it to גאולה, that not. So we have to look at both ways, and like I said in the beginning, this is the middle path. It's not like those that say this is גאולה, it's not like those other extremists that say לא יעלו בחומה, you're not allowed to have it, you have to give it back. But it's the middle. It's not גאולה, but it's a place where השם gave us and we have to keep it, and appreciate it, and utilize it, and this will make that the coming of משיח will be very soon. Yes. You said earlier, 1948, the United Nations declared that ארץ ישראל belongs to the Jews, everybody knows that. But you also said that at that time, if they would have made it, they could have made it על פי הלכה, על פי תורה, if the government, called the government, called that called government, they would have brought, would have brought It was an עת, it was an עת רצון to bring a גאולה. Let me finish. But the question is, then it would have been what is known as a theocracy. It wouldn't have been a theocracy, according to according to הלכה, according to הלכה and and and תורה. So the question is, it's like putting the cart before the before the horse. If if משיח has to come before the, before the גאולה, משיח has to come first before the, before the גאולה. But here, it was an עת רצון, and you had a, had an opportunity to make a theocracy, to make a government על פי תורה, so the then would would that have brought משיח? That would have brought משיח. That itself would not be the גאולה. Like I said before, you would have a פרומע government in ארץ ישראל, it's still not a גאולה. But that was an עת רצון that that would have brought משיח, and then it would have been the גאולה, right. So the question is, how would that have come about? How would you make a a a a תורה government without without without without having משיח? משיח is the מלך המשיח. Why not? Why not? What's Why can't the government now make that שבת you can't work, and שבת and and all the Why can't they do it? They just don't want to, but they can. A פרומער איד. Not a מלך. Not a מלך. Well, that doesn't matter. He would be someone who runs the government. You would have a democratic government, which is not מלך המשיח. You have a democratic government and it would be according to תורה, and this was an עת רצון that משיח should come. No, no. No, it's not democracy in אידישקייט. I'm saying you would have a government, you could vote who's going to be the the head, and you vote the people in, but the laws of the government would be תורה. It would be not a land of Jews, but a Jewish land. That's all. Why is it why is it that the רמב״ם, the רמב״ם, the רמב״ם, he's the only פוסק, he's all the only all the other great גאונים, whatever, they're the only ones that that that don't, let me finish, that don't have a don't have a, don't have a difference of opinion about משיח, about גאולה? Okay, good question. The question is not only about this. The difference between the ספר of the רמב״ם. The question is why, I mentioned before that the רמב״ם is the only פוסק that פסקנס what the גאולה is. There are so many other פוסקים, no one פסקנס. Why not? The answer is we know the difference between the רמב״ם and other ספרים, other פוסקים is, for instance, the שולחן ערוך, they all פסקנד only concerning דינים which apply בזמן הזה, which apply now. הלכות which apply with the בית המקדש in the time of משיח, they did not פסקן. They did not go into, that wasn't their ספר. So therefore you don't have the הלכות of קרבנות and the הלכות of all the ענינים, חטאות and בנין בית המקדש, all these things we don't find. The only פוסק that פסקנד these הלכות is the רמב״ם. He took upon himself to פסקן these הלכות. And therefore the הלכה of משיח, which is part of that, they also didn't פסקן. But the truth is that the כסף משנה, for instance, who is the בית יוסף of the שולחן ערוך, on his in his commentary on the רמב״ם, he does, sometimes argue, sometimes agree, and like I said before, in a place where he doesn't argue, he obviously agrees. He didn't make a ספר to פסקן these הלכות, but here where he doesn't argue, he agrees. But as a ספר, the רמב״ם was the only פוסק that took upon himself to פסקן הלכות that are נוגע to after the coming of משיח or the beginning of משיח, and then later on in בנין בית המקדש. Yes. We spoke that last week. That's last week's topic. I'm not going... Yes, who First comes בנין בית המקדש. Okay. תנשׂ״א, which is just six years ago, the רבי spoke a lot about משיח. The רבי said then that a lot of אידן went out of Russia then, when it started when the Russian communist regime fell and then a lot of אידן went to ארץ ישראל, so the רבי did refer to it with the concept of קיבוץ גלויות. So let me explain that. There is this concept of טועמיה חיים זכו. That means that before the גאולה, we will get a taste of certain things that will be when משיח will come. Just like it says in שולחן ערוך that ערב שבת you have to taste from the food of שבת, and many of the women know that that they make the קוגל for שבת, and by the time שבת comes around, it's all eaten up because they taste it a little bit too much before שבת. So the coming of משיח is considered like שבת, and therefore we will get the taste of ענינים after משיח that will already have started then. In other words, this is not the beginning of the fulfillment of קיבוץ גלויות. It is something that we taste of what is going to be later. So this is not in any form or shape the beginning of the גאולה. But השם did certain things, the ניסים He did. The ניסים that השם did in the Six-Day War ובכלל in the Independence War, all these times were, we could say, a taste of what's going to happen when the גאולה will come. But this is not גאולה yet. The גאולה has to go through this formality. So when the רבי spoke then, the רבי spoke of another thing then. He says when there was this the the summit, I think between Bush and and and Gorbachev or whoever, and they spoke about destroying certain certain atomic missiles or things like that, and changing the energy into using for for certain working in the fields, I don't remember what it was, so the רבי said here we see what the פסוק says and משיח will come, וכתו חרבותם לאתים, that they will destroy the swords and לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב, there won't be, and they'll change it, it says, into plows. Here we see it fulfilled. So the רבי didn't say this is the beginning of the גאולה. This is a taste to show as a סימן that משיח is coming soon. Certain things happen as a סימן, as a taste of what will happen later. There are a lot of things which are סימנים of משיח, that yeah. למשל, there's a whole סוגיא in גמרא of סימנים, signs that will take place before משיח will come, and I can tell you many of them are being fulfilled right now. But definitely, they're not the beginning of the גאולה. For instance, one of them is חוצפא יסגא. Oh, yeah, a lot of חוצפא. That's a סימן משיח is coming soon. No one is going to say that חוצפא יסגא is the beginning of the גאולה. It's a סימן for the גאולה. It says בת קמה באמה וכלה בחמותה, a daughter is going to fight against, revolt against her mother, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law, it's going to be a whole thing which it is. It says there will be inflation before משיח will come. These are all סימנים. But these סימנים are not התחלת הגאולה. They're the complete opposite of גאולה, but it's nevertheless a סימן. One of the סימנים is that there will be certain things happening which are from the same concept, the ענינים as it will be later on, they will happen before the גאולה, but you can't say that this is the גאולה. In simple words, as long as we are we don't have what the רמב״ם says, משיח is not here, and as long as we're not independent that בכלל we can't we don't need the גוים at all, we're not under anybody, it's not גאולה at all. But the main thing is the הלכה. Yes. You know that in a Chabad house in Israel, they say the תפילה לשלום המדינה, and they say שתהא ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו. And they wrote to they asked the Rebbe, and the Rebbe said that they could continue to say it. To be honest, the first time I hear it. A Chabad shul. Maybe some places say it for for whatever reason they have, but that's not that's definitely not the Lubavitcher philosophy. Definitely not. It's a Chabad shul where the rav is Lubavitch. Maybe someone asked a שאלה, should he quit his job because of this, and he said no let continue, say it? And they said why do they say it for? Pressure. Oh, so maybe he asked a שאלה under the pressure, so if I don't do it, I'll lose people. Maybe because I lose people, people won't put on תפילין, people won't דאווען, so there's a שאלה what to do. Maybe the the רב in that specific case פסקנט. Let's say someone ask a שאלה: \"We don't feel we don't want we don't want to say that, but if we don't say it, then some people leave.\" If they leave, let's say there's a person who will leave and he'll not he won't be here, he'll he'll go to the Conservative, he'll go to Reform. So we lose a guy from יידישקייט. So are we, because of that, supposed to change? So maybe this guy asked a שאלה, and the רב פסקנט, \"In your case, to do that.\" But definitely, we're See, what I'm talking here, what I spoke about last week and talking about now, it's all the general concept, philosophy. Then every philosophy has to be geared, in every specific case there's a שאלה to ask, like in הלכות כשרות, you have to ask a שאלה in this case, is this פיקוח נפש, is it not, what's the דין here? A lot of דינים, a lot of things involved. The general philosophy is is this. Then, in certain cases, maybe they said better to do this than to do something else. But it's definitely against the philosophy of Lubavitch to say ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו. They say שתהא. That this should be the ראשית גאולתנו? Oh, בכלל there should be? That the medina should be. That the מדינה should be? No, they said שתהא. I don't know how they Maybe they change a few more words. That בכלל In other So does that mean that they're saying that the establishment of the State of Israel should become the ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו? That it should become. You say בכלל, like we're saying in מי שברך that it should be, אבער... is a good thing to say. We always say, we דאווען so much for משיח should come, but that this should turn into it? Yes. When it comes to, when it comes to escaping the Holocaust, no one knows, and people are trying to say the רבנים said not to go, that has nothing to do with the State of Israel, but they weren't against the State of Israel. What was is they were afraid, and certain things materialized, that the way it's going to be will turn אידן away from, from אידישקייט. The philosophy, see, I really did not want to get into the concept of Zionism per se, but you touched upon it. The philosophy was that we need a land where we will be, and that will keep אידן together, and that will free us from keeping מצוות. ככל הגוים בית ישראל, like all the גוים, like all the nations we will be, and they claim that when you're, even today you hear it from some people, but today Zionists בכלל they don't even know themselves what the philosophy is, but they claim that in ארץ ישראל