web analytics
October 23, 2016 / 21 Tishri, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘part’

The Parsha Experiment – Ha’azinu-V’Zot Habracha: The Inspiring Conclusion To The Torah – Part 2

Thursday, October 13th, 2016

 In this week’s video, we close the entire Torah, and we ask ourselves, what lessons can we learn today? How can we be inspired by the Torah’s messages, and fulfill our destiny as a people?


This video is from Immanuel Shalev.


Link to last weekhttps://www.alephbeta.org/course/lecture/vayeilech-2016-5776

Want More?

Join our growing community: https://goo.gl/xv0UbG

Help us grow and support what we do: https://goo.gl/NRLN3d  Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Aleph.Beta.Academy Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/Alephbeta123


For more on the end of Torah: https://goo.gl/TBJMWq and https://goo.gl/99T348

Immanuel Shalev

The Influence of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in America (Part II)

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

Editor’s Note: This column contains excerpts from Dr. Levines “Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch and America – an Historical View,” which appeared in The World of Hirschian Teachings, An Anthology on the Hirsch Chumash and the Hashkafa of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer Foundation, Feldheim, 2008, 199- 210).

Last month we outlined how Rabbi Dr. Bernard Drachman (1861-1945), who was one of foremost spokesmen for Orthodoxy in America during his lifetime, was influenced by the writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. This month we discuss two other rabbinical personalities who were influenced by Rav Hirsch.


Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz (1886-1948)

The name of Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz is inextricably linked to Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and Torah Umesorah. Mr. Mendlowitz, as he insisted upon being called, was a pioneer educator who played a key role in laying the foundations of yeshiva education in America. He came from a chassidic background and studied in Hungarian yeshivas. Some may not realize that he was deeply influenced by the philosophy of Rav Hirsch.

Early in his life Reb Shraga Feivel decided he would devote himself to strengthening Orthodoxy in the face of the onslaughts of those who would undermine Torah Judaism.

For the impending battle, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch became the model. Rav Hirsch’s success in arresting the rush to Reform in Germany served as an example of what one man could do. His ability to speak the language of modern man – the product of the Enlightenment and the scientific worldview – while remaining entirely rooted in classic Jewish sources and thought was something Reb Shraga Feivel explicitly sought to emulate.

Rabbi Hirsch had not been intimidated by 19th-century thought or the rapid advance of science in his day, and neither would Reb Shraga Feivel shy away from the challenges of the 20th century. Having identified Rav Hirsch as one of the exemplars of what he hoped to achieve in life, Reb Shraga Feivel pored over his vast corpus of writings.[i]

On one occasion, while he was attending the shiurim of Rabbi Simcha Bunim Schreiber, a grandson of the Chasam Sofer and the author of Shevet Sofer,

Reb Shraga Feivel found himself the object of criticism when he was seen studying Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch’s works. Because Rabbi Hirsch wrote in German vernacular, his works still occasioned suspicion within the deeply conservative Hungarian yeshiva world of the day. Reb Shraga Feivel was summoned to appear before the yeshiva administration. At his “trial” he enlisted the assistance of an old Jew living in Pressburg, who testified that thirty years earlier, when his first wife’s mental disability forced him to seek permission from one hundred rabbis to take a second wife, the Divrei Chaim of Sanz had advised him to travel to Frankfurt-am-Main to obtain the signature for Rabbi Hirsch, telling him, “What I am to Galicia, he is to Germany.”[ii]

Reb Shraga Feivel often utilized ideas from RSRH in his classes.

He was alive to every facet of genuine Torah expression. “Some souls,” he used to say, “drink from Tanya. Others from the Ramchal. Still others from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. I drink from all of them, though at any given time, I might drink from one in particular.” He had the genius to draw from every strand of authentic Jewish thought, to place those various strands in relation to one another, and to see each of them as simply another path to knowledge and service of the Divine…


Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer (1882 – 1980)

Rav Breuer was, of course, a foremost proponent of Hirschian ideology. He influenced thousands through his many years of leadership of Khal Adath Jeshurun, his classes, speeches and writings, and his bringing the Torah of Rav Hirsch to English-speaking Jews by having the writings of RSRH translated into English. He built a model kehilla, which others would do well to emulate. Anyone who came in close contact with members of KAJ could not help but be impressed by how the beautiful legacy of Rav Hirsch was steadfastly preserved and practiced.

One area in which Rav Breuer excelled was his insistence on consistency in all aspects of life. For him there was no dichotomy between religious observance and “mundane” activity. Let me illustrate this with an example.

The commentary of RSRH on the Chumash is more that just an explanation of the Torah. It is filled with gems that explain what Torah Judaism really is or, at least, should be. On verse 19:2 of Vayikra, “Speak to the entire community of the Children of Israel and say to them: Be holy, for I, God, your God, am holy,” Rav Hirsch writes:

Self-mastery is the highest art a man can practice. Self-mastery does not mean neglecting, stunting, killing, or destroying any of one’s powers or faculties. In and of themselves, the powers and faculties – from the most spiritual to the most sensual – that have been given to man are neither good nor bad. They all have been given to us for exalted purposes – that we may use them to do God’s Will on earth. The Torah sets for each of them a positive purpose and negative limits. In the service of that purpose and within those limits, all is holy and good. But where a person strays from that purpose and exceeds those limits, coarseness and evil begin.

As in any other art, virtuosity in this, the highest moral art can be attained only through practice – training one’s moral willpower to master the inclinations of the heart. But this training is not to be undertaken in the realm of the expressly forbidden, where any slip would result in wrongdoing. Rather, moral resolve must be tested and strengthened in the realm of the permitted. By learning to overcome inclinations that are permitted but related to the forbidden, one gains the power of self-mastery and thus makes all his powers and faculties subservient to the fulfillment of God’s Will. Each person, according to his own unique qualities, should work on his inner self; and he should train quietly, in a manner known only to himself.

That is just one example of how relevant Rav Hirsch’s writings are to our times. We live in an age of great emphasis on externalities at the expense of commitment to the quiet, private practice of Judaism. Our society is obsessed with packaging at the expense of substance, and, sadly, some have been duped into thinking that this is also true when it comes to their Yiddishkeit. Rav Breuer elucidated this when he wrote:

Genuine chassidic Jewishness strives for chassiduth which in itself is a lofty achievement on the ethical ladder which the Yehudi must attempt to climb. This is demonstrated for us by R. Pinchas ben Yair (Avodah Zarah 20b): Our highest duty is Torah and its study; this leads to carefulness which in turn leads to active striving; to guiltlessness; to purity; to holiness; to modesty; to the fear of sin; and finally, to chassiduth. Accordingly, a chassid is a Jew who gives himself in limitless love to the Divine Will and its realization and to whom the welfare of his fellowmen constitutes the highest source of satisfaction [see Hirsch, Chorev, Ch. 14]. Thus, in the Talmudic era, the title “chassid” was a mark of highest distinction and this is what it should be today.

The so-called chassid who confines his Avodah to prayer does not deserve this title if this “Avodah of the heart” does not call him to the Avodah of life where he must practice and apply the precepts of chassidus.

He does not deserve the title if he is particular regarding the kashruth of his food but fails to apply the precepts of conscientiousness and honesty to his business dealings.

He does not deserve this title if his social life is not permeated by love and the deep interest in the welfare of his fellow men; if he does not shun quarreling, envy, or even abominable lashon hara; if he does not earnestly strive to acquire those midoth for which Rav Hirsch (in his Chorev) calls so eloquently.

Certainly the mere exhibition of a certain type of clothing or the type of beard worn or even the adornment of long sideburns do not entitle the bearer to the title of honor – chassid. These may be marks of distinction but they must be earned to be deserved.[iii]

Rav Breuer lived his life as a true chassid, setting an example for thousands to follow. His uncompromising approach to yashrus in all his activities, whether sacred or chol, is something every Jew should strive to emulate.


[i] Reb Shraga Feivel, the Architect of Torah in America by Yonoson Rosenblum, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 2001, page 38.

[ii] Reb Shraga Feivel, the Architect of Torah in America by Yonoson Rosenblum, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 2001, pages 34 – 35.

[iii] Rav Breuer, His Life and His Legacy by David Kranzler, Feldheim, 1998

Dr. Yitzchok Levine

Q & A: HaGomel And Air Travel (Part XII)

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

Question: I am very appreciative and, if I might add, flattered that you answer and publish many of my questions. Due to your superior knowledge, I am always confident when I send in a question that I will receive a proper response. I wonder if you could address whether one should say Birkat HaGomel after flying even though flying is statistically safer than driving. Also, do women say HaGomel as well or only men?


Summary of our response up to this point: The Talmud (Berachot 54b) states that there are four people who must say HaGomel, with the Rivash and Rav Gershon disputing whether this list is exclusive or not. Rabbi Tuvia Goldstein maintains that modern-day air travel cannot be compared to the types of danger listed in the Gemara, and thus one need not say HaGomel after flying. Rav Moshe Feinstein, however, argues that flying is inherently dangerous since only the airplane separates the passengers from death. If the airplane suddenly stops functioning, the passengers will almost certainly die.

We cited HaRav Yaakov Simcha Cohen who compares HaGomel to Dayan Ha’Emet. Just like we don’t say Amen in response to Dayan Ha’Emet (since we don’t wish to hear more bad news, explains HaRav Henkin), we don’t say Amen to HaGomel. Rather, we say “Mi shegemalcha…” We also noted Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s view that when reciting this blessing a person should not say “kol tuv – every good,” implying that he has received all his benefit. We noted the view of the Ktav Sofer that when reciting the blessing a person should have in mind two things: 1) that Hashem delivered him from danger and 2) that he experienced pain and suffering since suffering in this world is itself a good.

The Shulchan Aruch states that a person can discharge another’s obligation to say HaGomel. In fact, both the Aruch Hashulchan and the Mishnah Berurah argue that it is better for a husband to say HaGomel for his wife than for her to say it herself.

* * * * *

The Gaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt”l (Igrot Moshe, vol. 8 Orach Chayim 14), discusses the obligation of women to say HaGomel. He maintains that in theory there should be no difference between men and women regarding saying HaGomel. (He cites the Mechaber, Orach Chayim 219 that we cited earlier and the Magen Avraham sk 1.)

However, our sages instituted that HaGomel should be said before a minyan upon getting an aliyah to the Torah. (The same is true of the berachah of Baruch Shepatrani that a father says upon the bar mitzvah of his son.) Thus, women don’t say HaGomel because we don’t give them aliyos.

(This responsum was the last Rav Feinstein wrote, at least partially. A note advises that part of it was delivered orally.)

He adds that we do not do as the Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 219:3) states – that the woman should say HaGomel before a minyan or before 10 women and one man – since a minyan of 10 women is meaningless. She can just say it before one person, a man or a woman. If she is married, she can say it before her husband.

The Gaon Rabbi Moshe Stern, the Debrecener Rav, zt”l (Ba’er Moshe, vol. 8:120) was once asked about the practice of gathering a minyan in the house of a yoledet (a woman who gave birth) for her to say HaGomel.

He answered that presumably this practice started because the woman was too weak to go to shul. He writes, though, that this practice is no longer the prevailing minhag. He also argues that the minyan does not gather so as to allow the woman to go out to the market place. The first time she should go out, he writes, is for a dvar mitzvah, such as going to shul to respond to Barchu or Kedushah or to say “Amen, yehei shmei rabbah…,” thus giving praise to Hashem who helped her successfully give birth in a good hour and in good health.

Rav Stern writes that there is a dispute among later authorities as to whether a woman says HaGomel in the women’s section of shul with the men responding Amen. Therefore, some have the custom to gather a minyan at the woman’s home for Maariv so that she can say HaGomel in an adjacent room. He writes that doing so is not our practice and a woman does not say HaGomel at all.

He explains that at least in the instance of a yoledet there are numerous reasons why she need not say HaGomel. For example, it is the nature of the world that women give birth and therefore it is impossible to say, “…hagomel l’chayavim – …who bestows kindness upon the culpable” for she is fulfilling Hashem’s commandment. Rav Stern writes that “we’ve never heard” of a man saying HaGomel on behalf of his wife. (He cites the Mishnah Berurah who clearly maintains that a husband can say HaGomel on her behalf, but it seems that he dismisses this view, as does Rav Feinstein.)

Rav Stern offers what he considers to be a practical approach that satisfies all views; he advises that it be publicized. The woman should go to shul, he writes, and when her husband is called to the Torah for an aliyah, he should concentrate when he says, “Barechu et Hashem ha’mevorach – Blessed is Hashem, the blessed one,” and have in mind to give thanks to Hashem for his wife giving birth b’sh’ah tova u’mutzlachat. His wife should then respond Amen. He notes that the same should be done when a woman recovers from a serious illness.

(To be continued)

Rabbi Yaakov Klass

CAIR’s Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of “War on Islam”

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

{Originally posted to the IPT website}

It might be one of the few things on which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: President Obama was wrong Friday when he vetoed the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.”

The bill, which passed the U.S. House Sept. 9 after passing the Senate May 17, would allow Americans victimized by foreign terrorist attacks to sue countries responsible. Specifically, 9/11 victims could sue Saudi Arabia, which generated 15 of the 19 hijackers who struck the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers fought back.

But in an interview with the Arabic-language Al Sharq Al Awsat, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad cast the legislation as an anti-Muslim attack.

The bill “is a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam,” an Investigative Project on Terrorism translation of Awad’s remarks said. “… so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world.”

He compared the bill to campaigns against mosque construction in the United States and said it is pushed by the same ideology that “supports the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that those who voted for the resolution in the Congress are those waging war on Islam and they always vote for wars and conflicts, and are exploiting the families of the victims in this crisis.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., co-sponsored and advocated for the bill, which enjoyed bipartisan support. In a statement, he pledged to make this President Obama’s first veto to be over-ridden by Congress.

More importantly, Awad’s description that the bill’s supporters “are those waging war on Islam” is especially dangerous and reckless. That message, that the West is at war against Islam, is considered the most effective at radicalizing Muslims.

CAIR officials used to repeatedly invoke that message, but seemed to have backed away from it in recent years. Awad’s revival was directed at an Arabic-speaking audience.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, who served as co-chairman of a congressional 9/11 inquiry, has long advocated for the release of 28 pages of his committee’s report focusing on the hijackers’ connections to Saudi government officials. Those pages were released in July. In a New York Times oped earlier this month, Graham said they raise more questions and advocated for the release of more investigative material still deemed classified.

His motivation for this campaign, and for supporting JASTA, had nothing to do with Muslims, he explained.

“It can mean justice for the families that have suffered so grievously. It can also mean improving our national security, which has been compromised by the extreme form of Islam that has been promoted by Saudi Arabia,” Graham wrote.

President Obama claims he vetoed the bill out of concern for unintended consequences, that it might open the door to similar litigation against U.S. military and government officials in other countries and “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both Trump and Clinton said they would sign the bill if elected president, CNN reported.

Steve Emerson

Q & A: Elul – A Time To Repent (Part III)

Thursday, September 22nd, 2016

Question: Where does the name Elul come from? Also, how can Elul be both the last month of the year and the prequel to the holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) that occur in the following month, Tishrei, the first month of the new year? Finally, can you please discuss the religious practices of Elul?

M. Goldman
Miami Beach, FL


Summary of our response up to this point: Elul is really the sixth month of the year, as the Torah counts the new year from Nissan when the Jewish nation was freed from slavery and able to serve G-d exclusively. The Gemara explains that Rosh Hashanah is when we are judged for the coming year; that’s why Tishrei is also considered the beginning of the year (Rosh Hashanah 7a). Rosh Hashanah is mentioned as the time for being judged and blowing the shofar (Numbers 29:1).

* * * * *

The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 581:1) states the following in the name of Acharonim: “It is the custom in our countries that from Rosh Chodesh Elul through Yom Kippur, we say LeDavid Hashem Ori (Psalm 27) every day at the conclusion of the morning and evening tefillah, and then we recite Kaddish. We, however, are accustomed to say it until Shemini Atzeret, which includes the day of Shemini Atzeret as well.”

The Mishnah Berurah continues: “On days when we say Mussaf [such as Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, or Yom Tov], we say it at the conclusion of Shacharit, before Ein Kamocha. In the evening, we say it at the conclusion of Minchah [or Maariv according to Nussach Ashkenaz]. In places where it is recited after [Mussaf] on Rosh Chodesh, it is proper to first say Barechi Nafshi [Psalm 104]. In places where it is said after Shacharit, it is proper to first say Shir Shel Yom.”

We find almost identical language in Matteh Ephraim (by R. Ephraim Zalman Margolies of Brod), Orach Chayim 581:6, where we find the commentary Elef Hamagen (by Rav Meshulam Finkelstein of Warsaw), who notes, as we stated, that some say LeDavid Hashem Ori after Maariv and not after Minchah.

It would seem that those who say LeDavid Hashem Ori after Maariv would start saying it the eve of Rosh Chodesh Elul while those who say it after Minchah would only start saying it the following day. However, Likutei Maharich, who cites Matteh Ephraim (see also Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 128:2), seems to imply that either way, we only start saying it the morning of Rosh Chodesh Elul. He writes that “we say it in the morning and in the evening.” Indeed, that is our custom. Both those who say LeDavid Hashem Ori after Minchah and those who say it after Maariv only begin saying it the morning of Rosh Chodesh Elul.

Most agree that we continue saying this psalm through Shemini Atzeret.

In Otzar Erchei HaYahadut (by Rabbi Joseph Grossman, p. 246), the source for saying LeDavid Hashem Ori at this time of year is explained. Rabbi Grossman cites Midrash Shocher Tov, which states that the word “ori – my light ” in this psalm refers to Rosh Hashanah. (In Elef Hamagen ad loc. R. Finkelstein cites R. Israel Hapstein, the Koznitzer Maggid, who explains that out of fear of Hashem’s judgment, darkness descends upon man. Then, Hashem in His great mercy, shows light to man from afar.) Midrash Shocher Tov states further that “veyish’i – and my salvation” refers to Yom Kippur; “ki yitzpeneini besukko – He will conceal me in His tent” alludes to Sukkot; and “mimi i’ra – whom shall I fear” alludes to Hoshana Rabba, which is understood to include Shemini Atzeret as well.

As to why we say LeDavid Hashem Ori for the whole month of Elul, Rabbi Grossman cites Minhagei Yeshurun (13a), which notes that the word “lulei” (lit. “that I would”) in the penultimate verse in the psalm contains the letters alef, lamed, vav, and lamed, which are the letters of “Elul.” This explanation also accounts for why we recite this psalm only starting on the second day of Rosh Chodesh Elul, since the first day of Rosh Chodesh is actually the last day of the previous month, Av.

We find another custom relevant to the month of Elul, as cited by Ba’er Heitev (Orach Chayim 581:10): “When a person writes a letter to his friend [in Elul], he should mention at the beginning that he wishes a year full of goodness for him.”

Today we expand upon this practice during the entire month: When we meet and greet people, we wish them either a “ketiva vechatima tova – May you be written and inscribed for good,” or the variant, “Leshana tova tikatevu vetechatemu,” which means the same.

Likutei Maharich (ad loc.) notes that the Ba’er Heitev is essentially quoting the Maharil, and an allusion to this custom might be found in Parashat Yitro (Exodus 18:7): “Vayetze Moshe likrat chotno vayishtachu vayishak lo vayish’alu ish lere’ehu leshalom vayavo’u ha’ohela – Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and bowed and kissed him, and each inquired about the other’s well-being, and then they came into the tent.” The words “vayish’alu ish lere’ehu leshalom” begin with the letters vav, alef, lamed, and lamed, which form the word Elul, meaning that during the month of Elul, we inquire about each other’s well-being.

Likutei Maharich points out that some start their letters with this greeting (as seen in the introduction to Avodat Hagershuni as well as in Matteh Ephraim) while others sign off with these words as a salutation.

(To be continued)

Rabbi Yaakov Klass

The Bombings, Part II: De Blasio, Obama, And Cuomo: A Study In Contrasts

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016

The reactions of New York mayor Bill de Blasio, New York governor Andrew Cuomo, and President Obama are also revealing. The president and the mayor, as true progressives, strove mightily to avoid using the “terror“ word – no doubt fearing that someone might, Heaven forbid, make a Muslim connection.

The identity and background of the arrested suspect show just how off the mark their approach was. To his credit, Gov. Cuomo told it like it was right out of the box.

“A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism,” the governor said soon after the news broke of the Manhattan attack.

And while Mr. Cuomo initially hesitated to speculate on a foreign connection, once the identity of the suspect was made known, he was quick to say that “today’s information suggests it may be foreign related.”

(In retrospect, how could it have been otherwise? After all, it was immediately known that explosives were placed in a pressure cooker with shrapnel and that there had been an earlier bombing in New Jersey.)

But Mayor de Blasio was not having any of that, and instead refused to acknowledge what everyone knew to be the case: that terrorism was in play. He said:


Here is what we know: it was intentional, it was a violent act, it was certainly a criminal act, it was a bombing – that’s what we know…. To understand there were any specific motivations, political motivations, and connection to an organization – that’s what we don’t know.


But nobody asked him to ascribe specific motivations. Surely he had a duty to assure New Yorkers that he had some handle on the scope of the dangers they faced. And to what would he ascribe the explosions – run of the mill vandalism? Yet it wasn’t until Monday, after the identity of a prime suspect went viral, that the mayor first broached the notion that the bombings may indeed have been terrorist acts.

As for the progressive-in-chief, 72 hours after the Saturday bombings President Obama had yet to utter the word “terrorist” in reference to them – despite the Islamist allegiance of the alleged perpetrator.

Indeed, as if to underscore his refusal to accept, even now, any overarching Muslim connection, the president, who arrived in New York on Sunday for the annual UN General Assembly, declined to accord any special significance to the bombings by passing without stopping at the site of the Chelsea bombing.

At least we can say kudos to Gov. Cuomo.

Editorial Board

Congressmen: Judea and Samaria are Not the ‘West Bank’ But Part of Israel

Friday, September 16th, 2016

{Originally posted to the JNS.org website}


US Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) spoke to an Israeli delegation this week about congressional support of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

“I want to say to all the people of Samaria that they are beloved by the American people, and we believe that Judea and Samaria are not the ‘West Bank’ but part of the state of Israel,” Franks told the Samarian Regional Council delegation on Capitol Hill.

The council’s chief Yossi Dagan visited Washington D.C. to meet with more than a dozen Republican and Democrat legislators to discuss the US support of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.

“There are people in the US Congress who, no matter what, will continue to work on behalf of Judea and Samaria, who will continue to do whatever they can to fight on behalf of Israel and ensure that you will never feel alone in this world,” Franks said in the meeting that included Texas congressman Louie Gohmert, who echoed that sentiment.

Dagan urged Congress to pressure the Obama administration to stop demanding that Israel freeze Jewish building in Judea and Samaria.

“The pressure the American government is putting on the Israeli government to strangle settlement and block construction creates a situation where our children are forced to learn in caravans rather than normal buildings, like other children around the world,” Dagan said.

Halting construction prevents children in Judea and Samaria from living close to their parents due to lack of housing, he explained.

“The international pressure has also prevented Israel from expanding the water infrastructure in Samaria as needed, which at the end of the day means both Israeli and Arab residents were left without water for much of this past summer,” Dagan added.

JNS News Service

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/congressmen-judea-and-samaria-are-not-the-west-bank-but-part-of-israel/2016/09/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: