"Seculars Want Temple', as Fast of Av Begins Saturday Night
7 Av 5768, 08 August 08 01:15
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) The fast of Tisha B'Av, the "saddest" day in the Jewish calendar, begins on Saturday night as the Sabbath ends, and ends Sunday evening at sundown. Its name literally means "the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av," the date of some of the gravest tragedies to have befallen the Jewish People. Most notably, both Holy Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed on Tisha B'Av, but the list of calamities includes also the following:
- G-d decreed, following the Sin of the Spies as recounted in Numbers 13-14, that the Children of Israel would not be allowed to enter the Land of Israel until the entire generation had died out.
- The fall of Beitar, the last fortress to hold out during the Bar Kochba revolt in the year 135 C.E., fell to the Romans, marking the last milestone in the beginning of our current Exile.
- A year later, the Temple area was plowed under.
- The Jews of Spain were expelled by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in 1492.
- World War I erupted in 1914.
- The Jews of Gush Katif spent their last legal day in their homes in 2005, and were expelled three days later.
"Secular Jews for the Temple"
The centerpiece of Tisha B'Av mourning is the destruction of the Holy Temple (Beit HaMikdash). Among the many groups that have sprouted over the past several years promoting awareness of the Beit HaMikdash is one named "Secular Jews for the Temple." Ahuvyah Tabenkin of left-wing Kibbutz Ein Harod said, "It's true that we don't exactly represent a majority of secular Kibbutz members... but the pioneers have always been a minority: the Zionists were a minority among the Jews, those who came to the Land were a minority among the Zionists, those who worked the land were also a minority, and now we are a minority as well. But I hope that soon we will be the leaders."
Tabenkin has nationalist, political and historical reasons why the Temple and the Temple Mount are important. Asked if he has religious considerations as well, Tabenkin told Arutz-7's Ariel Kahane, "Well, the word 'religious' can be the subject of long discussions. Look, the Gerrer Rebbe once said, 'When the Haskalah [Enlightenment] came to the world, with science, physics, etc., we [the religious] left it for the secular Jews; when Zionism came to the world, we gave that too to the secular; and now we have also left the Repentance Movement for the secular.' Accordingly, it looks like we [the secular] will also have to build the Beit HaMikdash."
Asked whether he calls for the actual construction of the Temple, he said, "There are many religious authorities, including Maimonides, who say that the Temple must be rebuilt, and so I think it should be done... As a first step, we must show that we control the Temple Mount... I call upon all of Israel to come to the Mount on [Tisha B'Av] and show that it belongs to the Jewish nation."
Prominent rabbis permit the ascent to parts of the Temple Mount after certain Halakhic precautions have been taken.
Tisha B'Av Laws
The Sages enacted Yom Kippur-like restrictions on Tisha B'Av, including no eating, drinking, washing, or marital relations. Leather shoes are not worn, and even Torah study - a major source of Jewish joy - is restricted to topics connected with the Destruction of the Temples, Tisha B'Av, and the like.
Though the afternoon before Tisha B'Av is generally marked by mourning-like practices, this is not true this year, when the eve of Tisha B'av is on the Sabbath. The afternoon Third Meal is larger than usual, as it will be the last meal for over 24 hours, and the usual Sabbath songs are sung. However, one must not eat after sundown on Sabbath, even though the Sabbath has not yet ended.
When three stars have appeared, the "short Havdalah" is recited ["Blessed is He Who separates between Sabbath and weekdays"], and Tisha B'Av officially begins; leather shoes are removed and unlaundered weekday clothes are worn. The evening prayer service is followed by one of the Havdalah blessings, that of "light," and Eichah (Book of Lamentations) is read aloud.
The other Havdalah blessings are recited on Sunday evening before eating; the blessing on spices is not recited at all this week. Those who feel they must eat on Tisha B'Av for health reasons should consult an Orthodox rabbi.
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
from USA today
By Jonah Goldberg
Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.
(Illustration by Suzy Parker, USA TODAY)
There is, however, a third possibility. Obama is a postmodernist.
An explosive fad in the 1980s, postmodernism was and is an enormous intellectual hustle in which left-wing intellectuals take crowbars and pick axes to anything having to do with the civilizational Mount Rushmore of Dead White European Males.
"PoMos" hold that there is no such thing as capital-T "Truth." There are only lower-case "truths." Our traditional understandings of right and wrong, true and false, are really just ways for those Pernicious Pale Patriarchs to keep the Coalition of the Oppressed in their place. In the PoMo's telling, reality is "socially constructed." And so the PoMos seek to tear down everything that "privileges" the powerful over the powerless and to replace it with new truths more to their liking.
Hence the deep dishonesty of postmodernism. It claims to liberate society from fixed meanings and rigid categories, but it is invariably used to impose new ones, usually in the form of political correctness. We've all seen how adept the PC brigades are celebrating free speech, when it's for speech they like.
Words as power, facts as myths
Obama gives every indication of having evolved from this intellectual soup. As a student and, later, a law school instructor, Obama was sympathetic to Critical Race Theory, a wholly owned franchise of postmodernism. At Harvard, Obama revered Derrick Bell, a controversial black law professor who preferred personally defined literary truths over old-fashioned literal truth. Words are power, Bell and Co. argued, and your so-called facts are merely myths of the white power structure.
When Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for being all about empty rhetoric and no action, Obama mocked Clinton — "
Don't tell me words don't matter!" — sounding like a sorcerer offended by the suggestion that magic incantations are mere sounds.
One reason Obama seems arrogant is that he can never admit he was wrong, a common shortcoming of politicians. But Obama sometimes literally gets exasperated with people who think his words can mean anything other than what he thinks they should mean. Even when he says things he later regrets such as on, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement, he merely says that his rhetoric got overheated, but that he was still accurate. When Jeremiah Wright, his pastor and "spiritual adviser" of 20 years, was caught on videotape (recorded and sold by Wright himself) saying things that contradicted everything Obama ever said about being a post-racial, moderate candidate, Obama simply said that that's not the Jeremiah Wright he knows, as if his personal perspective settled the issue.
Would that I could have told my math teacher upon receiving a failing grade, "That's not the math I know."
On the troop surge, Obama's position has changed countless times, but he says it's unchanged. Worse, he has this grating habit of prefacing his new positions with something like "as I said at the time." But he didn't say "it" at the time, he said the opposite of "it." But saying that he said "it" is, to him, the same as having said "it."
We're told that Obama is "post-racial," but he invokes his own race whenever convenient (e.g., to suggest his opponents are racists, to win support of people who want to vote for him on account of his race). Indeed, the very idea that Obama is post-racial is postmodern claptrap, since only a black candidate can be post-racial, right? No one would say John McCain transcends race. If being post-racial is something only a (liberal) black politician can do, what is "post" about it? Post-racial is just another convenient term used to advance a left-wing agenda under the guise of some highfalutin buzzwords.
A theoretical reality
The Obama campaign has a postmodern feel to it because more than anything else, it seems to be about itself. Its relationship to reality is almost theoretical. Sure, the campaign has policy proposals, but they are props to advance the narrative of a grand movement existing in order to be a movement galvanized around the singular ideal of movement-ness. Obama's followers are, to borrow from David Hasselhoff
— another American hugely popular in Germany — hooked on a feeling. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Well, of course you are.
In Berlin two weeks ago, Obama's speech was justified solely by the fact that he was giving it. He offered no policy and — not being a president — really had no reason to be there other than to tell people, essentially, "now is the moment." He informed the throbbing masses, bathing in his charisma the way hippies wallowed in the mud at Woodstock, that the greatest threat facing the world is the possibility we might allow "new walls to divide us from one another." Nuclear war? Feh. No, walls, walls are the danger. Of course, these new walls aren't real. Some might even say they're just words.
But not Barack Obama.
Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review Online and author of Liberal Fascism, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
John 21:15-19
(15) “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.”
The Lord waited for dinner to be finished before He started a time of ministry to Peter. This is a good study in how our Lord ministered. We should first notice that He uses a series of questions. The primary question He uses is this: “lovest thou me more than these?” In the light of what we know about Peter’s history this is a very good question. How committed was Peter, or shall we say how fearful was he? Would he repeat this same stumble again? Surprise he actually did something very closely related read Gal2:11-12, here we read that Peter was afraid of a party called the circumcision; these were Jewish Christians that wanted to impose on Gentiles the Jewish practice of circumcising all males. This is probably one of the reasons that our Lord asked this question of Peter. Our Lord also used the more emphatic form of the word for love. We talk often of agapaō type love; this is the word that our Lord used for love. Peter answered with the word for love which we would translate “like” phileō, Yes! Lord you know I like phileō you. How committed are you to the Gospel of Christ? If you are committed Peter, will you feed my lambs, literally my little ones, my babies.
One question is not enough remember that Peter denied the Lord three times. This was done in a very short period of time, we are told it was done before the cock crowed, he would deny Him three times. The number of times that the Lord asked questions of Peter is very important.
So here is the second question, but abbreviated, Okay Peter lets try this again
(16) “He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
This time our Lord goes just a little closer to the heart of the question, Peter do you Love agapaō me? This time Peter again answers the question with sure he likes phileō the Lord. The Lord knows our hearts and He knew the heart of Peter. It is very interesting to watch how tenderly our Lord deals with Peter. Yes! Peter I want you to feed my sheep; I want you to be a pastor to my sheep, to those whom God has given unto me. Peter still was not convinced; personally I feel for Peter, he was convinced of his unworthiness. Our Lord was not quite finished with Peter. Even a third time was not going to be enough.
(17) “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
Now the Lord takes a little different approach to Peter, okay Peter I will travel down this road with you. Peter do you like phileō me? What broke Peter heart was not that the Lord used some kind of fancy psychology, but that He was able to look into the heart of Peter. This was into the very fear that Peter had to use the word agapaō love. Jesus was able to see into Peter so deeply that Peter knew he was known by Christ. Peter however, still used the word phileō for love, but he also I believe had gotten the message. We know that Peter was very fond of the Lord, but could not bring himself to use the much stronger word for love (agapaō). He was to demonstrate his commitment to Christ by being Pastor Peter. A commission to him was given to be the first pastor, but not as in the Roman Catholic concept. He was to shepherd the early flock. Then the Lord left Peter with something to keep in mind. This was probably the very thing that Peter feared the most. He had already denied the Lord and fulfilled the Lord’s prophecy about his denying the Lord three times. The Lord was not in the vicinity of where Peter was during the trial and yet He knew the heart of Peter better then Peter did.
(1 
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”
Here the Lord gives Peter a glimpse of what he was to experience in the future. History tells us that Peter was crucified upside down. I believe that Peter was very frightened of the prospect of giving his life in martyrdom. The lesson learned here is that even during the midst of persecution that the Holy Spirit would carry him through it. When Peter had the vitality of youth he could care for himself, old age would bring not only infirmity, but a cross as well. The following verse explained what the Lord meant, but from the viewpoint of the apostle John. Then these verses are looking at this from the viewpoint of the fulfilled prophecy that this made. Verse 18 was the prophecy and verse 19 is its fulfillment. Remember that the Apostle John outlived all the apostles and could view these events from his remembrances of the events. John could couple the words of Christ with their fulfillment. The final words here have major significant to the words that follow in verse 20. Peter was pointing at John and that makes these words very significant when the Lord told Peter to follow Him. A pastor’s main concern is to be a follower of Christ and to keep his eyes off of anything else.
(19) “This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”
Tit 1:5-14
(5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
(6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
(7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
( But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
(9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
(10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
(11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
(12) One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
(13) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
(14) Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
1Ti 3:1-7
(1) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Appendix A
There are several greek words that are used for the english word often translated “feed” in the New Testament. The word translated in I Peter 5:2 is “poimaino” and is translated feed, but means to tend or shepherd in the sence of being a benevolent rule. It is not to be taken in the sence of being forcible, but willingly and with love for the flock of God. This is the whole point that is made in Jn 21:16 where this same word is used for feed. Peter was told to lovingly, kindly and whole heartedly both love the church, then to tend to it.
This word is also used in Acts 20:28 where the Apostle Paul tells the elders at the church in Ephesus to tend (feed) to the church of God. This doctrinal point is so vital that you will find it several times in the New Testament. This includes the book of Revelation 7:17 where we see the Lamb of God tending to the church in heaven.
Other places that you will find this same word used for feed in the New Testament are:
Matt 2:6
Luke 17:7
Jn 21:16
I Cor 9:5
Jude 1:12
Revelation 2:27
Revelation 12:5
Revelation 19:15
Finally, I Peter 5:2 also uses this same word. The meaning is to do more then just perach or teach God’s Word. It means to tend to the church family that God has placed in your care. This is why Peter goes into this subject in so much detail, because it is essential that a pastor be a shepherd. How can he be a shepherd if he does not understand what a shepherd is?