Hi,

How many times have people cited the Rashi on the reason the Torah begins with Breisheit instead of Yetziat Metzraim where we we forged into a people, as an answer to the nations who call us thiefs because we took the land from the 7 nations of Canaan. To tell them that Hashem takes from who he wants and gives to who he wants can be used by the nations today who can say that the reason the ishmaelim are getting land is exactly for the same reasons or they would not have a chance if hashem didnt allow it.

I think a better answer to the nations then Rashis would have been to turn on them and point out their hypocrisy of focusing on Israel rather then returning land that they themselves usurped from other peoples.

This kind of Rashi can be used both ways and it really is a problem.

So that means you need to put more energy in to understand the Rashi. As it says, If the Torah is empty it is your emptiness.

I see a serious problem with your reasoning and an even worse problem with the reasoning that you suggest they use!

"the reason the ishmaelim are getting land is exactly for the same reasons or they would not have a chance if hashem didnt allow it."

You cite the reason rashi gives as "G-d takes from whome he wants and G-d gives to whome he wants".

If Rashi means what you suggest he means, then by that logic, anything that happens or that you do is what G-d wants, because G-d obviously allowed it to happen, then you have there a justification for anything.

G-d the landlord clearly threw the caananite 'tenants' out of his land, and he gave it to us to rent. In a sense he took the land from the caananites and gave it to us. We say he gave it to us - not because we took it and he didn't stop us, but hecause he did give it to us - he promised it to us.

Jsut because one nation loses land and another takes it, is not a basis for reasoning that G-d took it from that nation and gave it to the other.

G-d told us that he gave it to us. That is how we know. He who tries to take it from us is a thief.

On what basis would they call us a thief? that we took land from the palestinians?
As you know this is propaganda. 'Mandatory palestine' was in the hands of the british.
All occupants, jews muslims and christians, were palestinian. The area to become israel was not heavily populated, and according to a census actually had about 90k jews, and 50k muslims and 50k christians. Running up to 1948 , Jews and Arabs immigrated. arabs far more than jews, infact, jewish immigration was limited whilst arabs were allowed to swarm in.
I don't see anybody stealing land. Until 1948 when the Arabs declared war on the legal jeish state, and tried to steal our land!
ACtually, a muslim admitted to me in discussion, that when they say the Jews stole the land, they just as easily say that the British stole the land. When they fail to prove that we stole ti from the palestinains, they get to what they really mean, which is that it belongs to the ottoman empire.
All land that once had a muslim ruler, is muslim land.
Well, if they allow us to use equivalent reasoning, that land was under King david and King Saul, under jewish leadership.
So who is the thief?

It doesn't matter what the nations think. Coincidentally, christianity being biblically based, should agree to this claim. Regarding muslims, it seems hard to believe, but even islam provides many reasons for muslims to accept our claim http://tinyurl.com/9aa32
Aethists would have an objection, but an illegitimate objection. They would simply scoff at the idea that G-d promised us the land. And they would criticise the concept of doign something because G-d commands it.
Israel's right to exist could potentially be fought on religious, ethical, or legal grounds.
Or a combination.
The gerat argumetn is simply that israel exists thus it has a right to exist. Just like any other coutnry.
But the argument that we are thieves. Now that is even more ridiculous!

Thank you for a very lucid response. I did some further study and discovered a vort in Nachalot Yaakov that explains my incorrect approach as well. That basically this message is only for Israel not to get into debates with the nations amim, but to strengthen themselves when the Amim do come around and call us thiefs that we dont feel one tinge of guilt as of course so many of the chilonim are full of and hence this disengagement horror, that we are in the land, that it is our yerushah and we believe Hashems dvar and not lose faith in Hashems promise regarding the land and let them bray whatever they want.

Kol Hakavod Lecah

Firstly I'd like to mention that Rashi wrote his explenation on Torah with ruach hakodes. although Rashi states that it was writen for a "ben chumash lemikra" it is very exact and precise. One can learn a tremendous amount just by learning rashi properly and delving into each one and drawing out the depth that is in it.
this particlular Rashi is has so much that can be learned from it when one studies it thoroughly. one can also begin to appriciate the amazing depth that Rashi can contain (the Shelah states that rashi contains "inyanim muflaim", wonderous matters.)
i recently had the oportunity to teach Parshas bereishis. when i was preparing this Rashi i found an explanation that gives so much insight into Rashi in general (the precisnes of each word and how much there is to delve into when learning rashi) that i taught an entire class onthis Rashi alone. here is the condensed version.


אמר רבי יצחק לא היה צריך להתחיל את התורה אלא מהחדש יזה לכם חהיא מצוה רושומה שנצטוו ישראל Declared Rabbi Yitzchak: the Torah ought not to have begun from any verse other than, “This month (Nissan) shall be the head month to you,” which is the fist mitzvah that the Jewish people were commanded. – this is the first mitzvah that the yidden get as b’nei Yisroel.


ומה טעם פתח בבראשית, משום "כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים" What is the reason, then, that the Torah opens with bereishis – the account of creation? Because – “He related to His people the power of His works in order to give them the inheritance of the nations.” - this means that the entire Torah up until hachodesh hazeh lachem is only to answer this particular argument.

, חאם יאמרו אמות העולם לישראל לסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים For should the peoples of the world say to Israel, “you are robbers, for you took by conquest the lands of the seven nations” –
Now here is where it gets interesting. How can the nations of the world call us “robbers”. The land of Eretz Yisroel was actually given to Shem by Noach. It was Cham that took the land away from Shem. And more importantly, since when was conquest a sin. No where in Torah do we see someone punished for conquering another land. There must be something more to their arguments that Rashi even addresses the arguments of “umos Haolam”.
From Rashi’s answer we can glean the argument that he is answering. The arguemt is: The nature of land is that it can be conquered and the owner of the land then changes. It seems that this was the way all land was until the Jews came along and once they got to Eretz Yisroel and conquered it, it can never be “conquered back”. There where periods in time where there where no jews living in Eretz Yisroel and yet it is always considered Eretz Yisroel.
When the Goyim complain that we “stole the land from them they are saying that we took it out of the general rules of the world. We did something to it and it is no longer up for grabs.
(to ilanavraham who thinks that Eretz Yisroel should not worry about what the other nations saythis Rashi is not so much addressed to the “umos Haolam” as he is addressing the steriotipical “jewish Guilt”. Somehow we always feel like we don’t deserve anything and we are somhowe imposing on someone else. This Rashi is addressing those jewish that thing there is some credence to the argument of the nations of the world.)

the answer is
אומרים להםת כל הארץ של הקדוש ברוך הוא היאת Say to them, all the land belongs to Hakodosh Boruch Hu – this is not only referring to the land of eretz yisroel. You are complaining that the Jews somehow changed the rules of land, well Hashem created it all.

הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר העיניוHe created it and gave it to whom it was straight in His eyes – and even though it appears to you that all the land was created equal, it wasn’t. Hashem created the land of eretz yisroel different from the begingin. And when he created it he gave it to whom was straight in his eyes – b’nei Yisroel.Rashi’s main point is that Eretz Yisroel was never like the lands of the world b/c Hashem created it differently, it has different properties. Just like there is a nation that is different and runs on different rules – B’nei yisroel, there is a land that is also different that was never up for grabs.
So how did it come about that other nations of the worlds “conquered” it? So Rashi continues.

, ברצונו נתנה לה with His will he gave it to them – It was Hashems will that the umos haolem live in eretz yisroel for some time. Why? It’s similar to the concept of a baby learning the entire Torah before he is born. Why does a baby need to learn the entire torah before he is born? B/c Torah is something devine and we would not be able to learn it on our own without devine assistance. Why then does he have to forget it all? B/c something that is attained with ones own hard work is much stronger and has an everlasting effect. Through this system the Baby gets the benefits of both.
The same is with Eretz Yisroel. Hashem wanted it to belong to us so he gave it to us. But Hashem also wanted us to work for it b/c once we worked for it the connection with the land is complete.
This was the purpose of ther ever being someone else in the land until Yehoshua came. But once yehoshuah came to the land

והרצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו and with his will he took it from them and gave it to us – although this process started in the times of Yehoshuah this will be completed with the complete revelation of the Geulah when we will also receive the land of the Kaini, knizi and kadmoni B’karov Mamosh!

I hope this was clear if anyone does not undertand it, I am happy to try clarify.

how do you know rashi wrote that particular verse with ruach hakodesh? he usually quotes midrash. sometimes he chooses one midrash over another but why is often unclear. Besdie the problem of not knowing why he chooses one midrash over another. THere is the problem when it's not clear that he is quoting a midrash.

A horrendous case of rashi not making himself clear that he was quoting from midrash, was this
Gen 25:6 Rashi says regarding the word concubines (peelagshim=concubines) "Here the word concubines is written in short form - for there was only one concubine"

Usually words are written in short form to hint something. Let us set aside his explanation - which I find very very problematic.

THe fact is that in our Torahs, the word peelagshim is written in its full form. This clearly and reasonably, worried some great minds, and misled them. Could Rashi's Torah have had a scribal error ?!!
My chumash here Sapirstein edition with a commentary on Rashi, and other chumashim specialising in Rashi, comment that Rashi's torah must have been different. (we must trust out text, G-d forbid that should be the one in error!)

Thankfully, they are wrong to conclude that Rashi's text had peelagshim written in short form.

look in this article by Rabbi Gil Student
http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
(search for the word concubine on tha page for the relevant section of Rabbi Student's article)

Rashi was just quoting a midrash.
Baraishit Rabbah 61:4

It was not literal. It just means that the word peelagshim can be interpreted as if it were written in short form.

I personally have had problems with Rashi. In contrast, I find the RAMBAN's logic very clear when he is speculating and when he is deriving.
I actually find the RAMBAN more consistently logical than the RAMBAM. RAMBAM sometimes says some strange controverisal things that msot other big rabbis disagree with and the rambam gives no source , like 'prophecy is always through an angel'.

See here http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n057.shtml
do edit..find..ibn ezra (for the relevant point on that page. the ibn ezra was quite critical).
the people posting there say that Rashi's gemara commentary is widely accepted as authoritative. But his commentary on the chumash has had some criticism.


I know i'm hitting some nerves here. Rashi's so popular. Dont' think that I wouldn't study Rashi. I would still turn to Rashi when studying chumash. But I would turn to the RAMBAN first, and see how he derives and speculates, since he is clear, and he may also mention Rashi and deal with any lack of clarity there. I would eventually turn to Rashi, but it is far more of a struggle, since I must look at what the midrash says, then look to see how Rashi differs, what element is speculation.
Suppose it differs, suppose I find no source.
I would never ever assume that Rashi had ruach hakodesh when writing a particular verse. I wouldn't do that for any rabbi. That would put his commentary above anybody that disgreed with him. I think that is wrong.
Similarly, if the Arizal were to differ with Rashi, I wouldn't necessarily choose the Arizal over Rashi. I don't care if the rabbi is a great kabbalist that can fly aroudn in the sky , and furthermore does not mean that his commentary is correct and so does not mean that anybody that says the opposite is wrong.

I'm aware of the *well known* Torah saying (don't know the source) that all commentaries are right. Well, sometimes opinions can be held simultaneously. Other times they really do differ. For example, either Keturah was Hagar, or she wasn't.
It seems obvious to me that if somebody writes with ruach hakodesh, and somebody differs with him, then the latter is wrong. Makes it even more dangerosu to assume that one rabbi had ruach hakodeshw when he wrote XYZ. A greater burden of proof is required.

As a side note. for what ruach hakodesh is one might be interested to bookmark this-
google "ruach hakodesh" "with an eye on eternity"

This chapter mentions ruach hakodesh
http://ohr.edu/misc/eterni-7.htm

you get a translation of the Ramchal's AWESOME "Essay on fundamentals". The translatinon is called "With an eye on eternity"
It discusses Ruach HaKodesh - though doesn't mention Rashi or any rabbi that had it.

It's very likely that rashi did have ruach hakodesh at times (there is strong evidence that the rebbe had it too - at times. But I wouldn't say that he had it all the time, not with every word he wrote in his letters.

Since gedolim of the previous generation have had it, liek the rebbe and baba sali, i'd say there's a 99% chance that rashi had it. but with all that he wrote? I wuldn't make assumptions like that. recall that his chumash commentary has received some criticism - not just praise. Even his gemara commetnary which is probably the most highly regarded commentary to date, still has issues. A commentary on that can point to posible ommisions in the gemara text that rashi was using. an example is a verse around sanhedrin 56b.

in all fairness, that is only one rashi, and the sapirstein chumash is clearly in error there.
The sapirstein edition is usually good. I have on good authority that the Gutnick edition has an excellent commentary on rashi, I think i'll use that in addition to sapirstein next time I look at rashi. may save me some frustration. supercommentaries on rashi are a must though. to make it clear what rashi's sources are, whether he is deriving or speculating. or where it's believed he has to be writing with ruach hakodesh

I heard the the R. Yitzchok quoted by Rashi on 1:1 is none other than his father!

Rashi = Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki or son of Yitzchok.

For those who are interested, there are many "sichos" (talks) of the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this Rashi. You can find them in any Chabad House or online.

Many of the issues raised above are discussed in the sichos.