Conference taveng::bagels

The following was written by Yoram Egosi, a student at Mercaz HaRav
Yeshiva, in Jerusalem.

Please feel free to distribute/publish, giving full credit to the
author.

                          THE TORAH AND THE LAND
                          ======================

                         Jewish Views on Jericho
                         _______________________

         (Based on a Hebrew article by Rabbi Menachem Liebman)

The first place to be conquered by the Jewish people upon their
entering the Land of Israel was Jericho.  This was during the days of
Joshua.

Three thousand years later, at the dawn of the Redemption, the first
place that our enemies are demanding as ransom is Jericho.

Our Rabbis have taught us ('Midrash Tanhumah') that Jericho is the
'lock' to the Land of Israel.  If it is conquered, then the whole land
is conquered.  For this reason our enemies of the time fortified the
city, making it impossible to conquer other than by miracle: a clear
divine statement of our irrevocable right to the land.  For this
reason as well our enemies of today see Jericho as a necessary 'first
step'.  With G-d's help this too will cause us to clarify our close
tie to the city as an integral part of our land.

Unfortunately, although all Jews have a tremendous love and dedication
for Israel, some seem to feel less of a connection to Jericho.  Jericho
often conjures up thoughts of Joshua's famous curse on all who would
settle the city.  In truth, our struggle over the land will come from
understanding our deep connection to it.

Joshua sent the spies to Jericho, telling them, "See the Land, and
Jericho!"  The Rabbis of the Mishnah explain ('Yalkut Shimoni')
"Jericho is included in 'the Land', then why was it mentioned on its
own?  To teach that it alone is as important as the whole of the Land
of Israel."

But what about the curse?  "Cursed be the man before the L-rd, who
rises up to build the city Jericho: he shall lay its foundation with
his firstborn, and with his youngest son shall he set up the gates of
it."  In fact the Rabbis (Sanhedrin 113) understood this to mean that
not only was settling Jericho forbidden, but that building a new city
and calling it Jericho was also forbidden.

"And the city shall be devoted, it, and all that is in it, to the
L-rd," (Joshua 6:17).  Joshua consecrated the city and everything in
it.  There are two reasons to be found among the early Rabbis for this
special consecration ('Yalkut Shimoni'): "Joshua said: Jericho was
conquered on the Sabbath; the Sabbath is holy and everything we
conquer on the Sabbath will be holy."  Another opinion cited in the
same text goes as follows:  "It is written, 'Of the first of your
dough you shall give to the Lord,' since we conquered Jericho first,
it became consecrated to the L-rd."

It is related in the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8) that many parts of the Temple
service could be heard in Jericho.  One of the pillars of the Jewish
commentary, the Ra'avad, writes in the name of his rabbi: "Everything
mentioned by the Mishnah as having been heard in Jericho was by
miracle.  Only in Jericho were they heard, not even in nearby areas.
This is because Jericho, since it was conquered first, somewhat
reflects Jerusalem.  Joshua therefore set Jericho aside to be holy,
like Jerusalem.  And the miracle of hearing the Temple service was so
that people in Jericho would feel some of Jerusalem's holiness."

The Bible itself testifies to Jericho's holiness: when Joshua was
told, "Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place on which thou
standest is holy. And Joshua did so."  Only in one other place do we
find this expression: the revelation at the burning bush.

Although it is clear that the so-called "curse of Jericho" is actually
an expression of its extreme holiness, nonetheless there is still the
legal issue of whether it is permissible to rebuild and settle the
city.

From the Bible and the Talmud it is obvious that there were Jews
living there: Judges 1:16, II Samuel 10:5, II Kings 2:5, II Chronicles
28:15, Nehemiah 3:2; and in the Talmud: Brachot 37, Sotah 48, Ta`anit
27, Pesachim 58.  In all these sources it is quite apparent that there
were Jews living in Jericho, the only question being "why?".

There are many explanations.  Not only does it seem to be as
permissible to settle Jericho as is to settle down-town Tel Aviv, but
is actually quite ironic that Jericho, the city so holy, consecrated,
is in danger of being abandoned.

Maimonides, in his legal code, the 'Mishnah Torah', makes no mention of
any restriction on living Jericho.  In his classic work on Jewish
belief, 'The Guide to the Perplexed', he explains the meaning behind
the original curse:  "Joshua forever excommunicated whoever would
rebuild the city to preserve it as a lasting testimony of the miracle
so that all those that would see the wall sunken in the ground would
see that it was not simply destroyed [at the hands of men]."  Rabbi
Yehosef Schwartz, a later commentator, in his 'Pri Ha'Aretz', writes:
"In my view, Joshua did not curse those that would build the houses
and buildings, but only the rebuilder of the wall, since the miracle
occurred with the wall.

Maimonides' explanation can in fact be understood better *because* of
the fact that both the of Jericho and its very name were to be
off-limits.  This would ensure that the city would be preserved as a
witness to the miracle: unique, with no risk of confusion, an
everlasting testimony to our miraculous entrance into the Land.

It was however in accordance with the Tosefta (Sanhedrin) that Rabbi
Auerbach, along with the renowned rabbinic authority, Rabbi Chaim
Berlin, ruled permissible the rebuilding and settling of of Jericho.
The Tosefta explains what is recorded in I Kings (16:34) about a
person who violated the curse of Joshua and was therefore punished.
It states : "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, he did not rebuild it, but
built another city calling it Jericho, for from the time that it was
rebuilt, it was permissible to settle there and, as it is written:
'The sons of the prophets who were living in Jericho approached
Elisha.'"  In other words, the violation mentioned in Kings was not
the rebuilding of Jericho, since it was already rebuilt by that that
time, but rather it must have been the building of another city and
calling it 'Jericho''.  From this, Rabbi Berlin inferred that since at
some time the city must have been rebuilt, Joshua's ban was lifted.

Most recently, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg ('Tzitz Eliezer' Vols X, XII)
also permitted the settling of Jericho.

In fact there are other possible reasons that might explain why
Jericho today can be settled much as any other part of the country.
The 'Yalkut Shimoni' says that at the time that the Land was to be
divided up among the tribes, Jericho was set aside to be allotted to
the one within whose borders the Temple would be built.  It would be a
substitute, an extension of that Tribe's territory.  Jericho's
holiness thereby became bound up with Jerusalem's.  Their sanctities
could only be realised together.  Joshua's curse came in part to
ensure that Jericho would remain untouched until the day the Temple
was built.

Another explanation, held by the Or Sameach, and cited by Rabbi Shimon
Pollock and Rabbi Waldenberg, is that Joshua's curse applied only to
an individual, not the community.  This can be understood in light of
Jericho's special role as the means by which the entire nation would
be granted the Temple site.  Since, therefore, Jericho was not to be
allotted to any one tribe but rather kept for the entire nation, it was
also not to be built by any one individual but rather by the community
as a whole.

Since it is very clear that today there is no prohibition to build and
settle Jericho, it also follows that there is actually a rather urgent
obligation to do so.  One that stems not only from its intrinsic
holiness as part of the Land which G-d chose for His people, but also
from its unique nature.

Jericho was chosen as the site where G-d first began the fulfillment
of His promise to His people.  It reflects the entire experience of
Israel's divine mission, set aside for the entire nation.  It is
beyond the possession of any one man, or any one generation.  It
belongs to all Jews as an evelasting testimony.


FOOTNOTE:
---------

Jericho was meant to be the site of the first Jewish village in modern
times.  Petah Tikvah, which actually became the first, was in fact the
name of the company set up to buy land in Jericho.  The
area-up-for-sale was purchased, in the end, by the Turkish Sultan, who
found it unseemly that the land would fall to the hands of Jews.

    
    
    Here it is, the day of the signing of the peace agreements between
    Israel and the Palestineans.
    I opened the Bagels conference this morning, ready to sink my teeth
    into some juicy articles and/or commentaries, and all I got was 
    1360.0.  %^(
    
    This circuitous, pseudo-academic article treats the reader
    like a small child who needs just a bit of convincing
    in order to understand that Jericho is the very essence
    of the Jewish people.   
    
    Mr./Ms. Kremer, I'm assuming you keyed in this 
    article as a means of expressing your dismay/anger/disgust (?)
    regarding the Gaza/Jericho First Plan. It would have been far more
    interesting if you had told us how YOU feel about the Peace
    Process instead of hiding behind Mr. Egosi's article.
    
    For those of you who don't have the patience to wade through
    the details of Mr. Egosi's article, I have taken the liberty of 
    providing a brief summary below.
    
    [ How ironic, by the way, that the subtitle of Mr. Egosi's article
      is "Jewish Views on Jericho".  He should have named
      it "My Views on Jericho" (his, not mine, that is). ]
    
    >>Unfortunately, although all Jews have a tremendous love and
    dedication
    >>for Israel, some seem to feel less of a connection to Jericho. 
    Jericho
    >>often conjures up thoughts of Joshua's famous curse on all who would
    >>settle the city.  In truth, our struggle over the land will come from
    >>understanding our deep connection to it.
    
     [Mr. Egosi goes on to explain that the curse is actually an
       "expression of its holiness".  OK, now that the author has debunked
       that myth, the reader is reconnected with Jericho, but wait . . .]
    
    >>Although it is clear that the so-called "curse of Jericho" is
    actually
    >>an expression of its extreme holiness, nonetheless there is still the
    >>legal issue of whether it is permissible to rebuild and settle the
    >>city.
    
      [You guessed it.  Mr. Egosi goes on to explain why rebuilding and
       settling Jericho is indeed legal. In closing, Mr. Egosi has the
       following to say.]
    
    >>Since it is very clear that today there is no prohibition to build
    and
    >>settle Jericho, it also follows that there is actually a rather
    urgent
    >>obligation to do so.  One that stems not only from its intrinsic
    >>holiness as part of the Land which G-d chose for His people, but also
    >>from its unique nature.
      
    >>Jericho was chosen as the site where G-d first began the fulfillment
    >>of His promise to His people.  It reflects the entire experience of
    >>Israel's divine mission, set aside for the entire nation.  It is
    >>beyond the possession of any one man, or any one generation.  It
    >>belongs to all Jews as an evelasting testimony.
    
    
    And now I'd like to put forth my own opinion, however brief.
    
    For those of you who feel that that "everlasting testimony" called 
    Jericho should be settled by Jews, you're more than welcome to
    go and settle there and leave the rest of us in Israel to get on 
    with the real issue at hand - peace.   
    
    Hag Sameach and Shalom,
    
    Janet Zipes
    
    
    P.S.  As a side note, I'd like to say that according to today's
    Jerusalem Post, "62% of Israeli Jews favor the 'Gaza/Jericho first'
    plan".
     
                            
    
    

    
    
    Small mistake.  I was actually referring to 1360.1
    
    Janet
    

RE: 1360.1

> Our Rabbis have taught us ('Midrash Tanhumah') that Jericho is the
> 'lock' to the Land of Israel.  If it is conquered, then the whole land
> is conquered.

  Why didn't this happen 45 years ago when King Abdulla of TransJordan
  conquered Jericho?  I think this midrash only applies to the generation
  of Yehoshua Ben Nun.

  Shana tova,
  -- Bill B.

   Yesterday, September 13th. 1993, the agreement on principles for the 
   solution of the conflict between the State of Israel and the PLO, the 
   agreement that we call "Gaza and Jericho first", was signed in 
   Washington. 
   
   As for many israelis, this agreement brings to me mixed feelings.
   
   I believe that the history since the 6 day war, shows us that it is 
   impossible to continue with the present situation: about 2 million 
   Palestinian arabs subject to the rule of Israel and looking forward to 
   get rid of this rule by all means. 
   
   Each time I listen to the news, and let me tell you that listening to 
   the news -every hour, every half an hour- became an addiction since I 
   settled here. Each time I listen to the news I pray a silent prayer: 
   let this news be routine, silly news - without any terrorist hit. 
   Every time we hear about another soldier shot, or a bus-driver stabbed 
   to death while trying to avoid a catastrophe to all the bus' 
   passengers - my heart misses a beat. And a profound feeling of  
   saddnes and mourning feel my heart. 
   
   And then I hear, as well, that a youth or a child, an arab youth or an 
   arab child were killed while confronting an Israeli patrol.
   
   Is there anywhere any consolation for the mother of the soldier, the 
   children of the bus-driver, the parents of the rebellious youths?
   
   It is very difficult for me to accept that some people has to live 
   under the rule of other people, without beeing able to express 
   themselves and influence the way the governement deals with them:  
   Israel should not rule over 2 million arabs against their will. 
   
   Thinking about this situation, I propossed myself 3 possible 
   solutions:
   					      
   1.	Israel should not rule over 2 million arabs against their will. 
        So let Israel rule them with their free will: give them full 
        citizenship, make them citizens with equal rights and able to 
        exercise their political rights, elect and be elected. 
   
   	This tipe of solution is not viable - if Israel is conceived as 
        the homeland for the Jewish people. The demographic evolution of 
        the arabs and Jews might bring, within a few decades, to a shift 
        in proportions between the two populations - and bring to the 
        de-facto anihilation of  the Jewish State.
   
   	So, what for is needed a Jewish State. The historical answer is: 
        Israel was established to avoid events like the expulsion of Jews 
        from England, from enlightened France, pogroms and persecutions 
        in the lands of the Rhine, of Poland, of Russia; the expulsion of 
        Spain and persecutions by the Inquisition in Latin America, the 
        false allegations about ritual sacrifices for Passover, the 
        Dreifuss case, the Cristal Nacht... Israel was established as the 
        safe haven for the Jewish folk, the place to gather the dispersed 
        in Russia, in Ethiopia, in the Maghreb. This would be suicidal.
   
   2.	Then, if it is not possible to live in harmony, let us repudiate 
        the unfaithful spouse. Get all arabs -  well, not all of them, 
        just those living in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, or perhaps some 
        of their breathen from the Galilee, gallantly ask them to ride in 
        busses and have them deported to the East... No, this is too 
        strong to say, and the associations my phrase brings are too 
        chilling to think. So, lets only convince them to travel abroad 
        to Jordan, Egipt, Lebanon, Syria. And if they are not easily 
        convinced, then lets "persuade" them, with some "stronger" 
        persuation...
   
   	Though I am only playing with words, those thoughts were proposed 
        by the ultra-rightist party of Moledet. 
   
   	And if this does not work, let all arabs throw the Jews to the 
        Sea...
   
   3.	The only viable solution I see today therefore, for the long 
        range, is a divorce. Lets get divorced in a civilized way. Since 
        it seems that Jews and Arabs cannot live together, lets build a 
        separation. Let us think of viable separations. That will not 
        make the arab villages as "autonomous" islands within the Jewish 
        state nor Jewish settlements surrounded by hostile arab 
        indigenous population. Perhaps there will be some arab villages 
        and / or jewish settlements that will have to be moved - so that 
        they will be within the continuous Jewish or arab regions. 
   
   It is obvious that for me this third proposal, very close to that 
   proposed by our present governement, is the only that makes some 
   sense. So why am I so unsecure? The day is full of promises, of words 
   that for years we have been waiting to hear and see implemented. But, 
   will it work? What will de the destiny of the Jewish setlers in Judea, 
   Samaria? - Even if I do not support them, can I lieave them to their 
   fate? And what will happen with those that reject the agreements, from 
   both sides? Will they be able to disrupt the process and involve us 
   again in a blood-bath? What will happen in 2 years time, when my son 
   will be called for his Military Service?
   
   I thought that when this day would come, besides the logical, rational 
   satisfaction, I would _feel_ full of rejoicing. But I feel unsecure. 
   As do feel most of the supporters of this agreement I met. As do feel 
   most of the oponents to this agreement I have talked to. 
   
   Yes, rationally I think that there is no stone, nor tell, nor Wadi, 
   that is worth a drop of my sons blood. Nor the hollyness of Jericho - 
   nor that of Rahab's tomb. For me the hollyness of human lifes is more 
   fundamental than that of stones. And perhaps we have to rely that 
   some day, in peace, the Lord's promise that this Land will be given to 
   Abraham's descendent will be fullfilled in the sharing of this land by 
   the two people. 
   
   And yet, renouncing to those lands conquered with the sacrifice of my 
   friends and neighbours, my brothers and brethen, makes my soul long 
   for them, and my heart ache. And I believe that, simetrically, many an 
   arab would also put his signature to these words. 
   
   Nobody is getting all its desires. We, jews, would like to see a 
   peacefull Israel stretching from the Sea to the Jordan, if not 
   further, without terror and war and disputes. The arabs would surely 
   want the undisputed arab rule over all those lands. But then, there is  
   reallity. And may be that this is the only REAL solution possible.
   
   Yes, Rabin is shaking the blood stained hands of the archi-terrorist 
   Arafat. Where Sadat's hands cleaner when the then Prime Minister Begin 
   hugged him and signed the Camp David Accords? Were the hands of the 
   Israeli leader and victorious general absolutely spotless?
   
   Let us rely on the Rock of Israel, on the wiseness of our leaders and 
   our understanding and support those accords - 'Oseh shalom bimromav, 
   hoo ya'aseh shalom aleynu, ve'al kol Ysrael, ve-imroo Amen (The one 
   that makes Peace in heaven, may he make Peace for us, and for all 
   Israel, Amen). 
   
   And yet, lets go to them with open eyes, taking every protection, 
   until trust is re-instated in the area. And until then, as well, let 
   me quote that foreign, that Latin proverb: "Si vis pacem, para 
   bellum..." (if you want Peace, be prepared for war). 
   
   And at the same time be hoping and working for the realization of 
   Isaiah's words: ...and they shall beat their swords into spades and 
   their spears into pruning-shears, no people shall rise its sword 
   against another, and they shall learn no more war..." (sorry folks - 
   this translation is mine).
   
   Full of hope, and sending my best new year wishes to all,
   
   Juan-Carlos Kiel

In SOAPBOX note 642.40, John Covert claims that Jews lived in the Jewish
Quarter of the Old City between 1948 and 1967.  This is contrary to my
understanding.  Comments?

    Thanks to Juan-Carlos for his heartfelt 1360.5.
    
    I'm in galut, in Massachusetts USA.  I share many of Juan-Carlos'
    sentiments.  
    
    On hearing all the news on the radio yesterday, I smiled, shed a tear
    of joy, then felt the happiness contract within me, thinking, "I hope
    they are doing the right thing."
    
    I can understand and empathize with even the most radical Jewish
    sentiments on both sides of this question.  
    
    I wish the Israeli leaders chazak v'chazak and Lord knows they really
    need it now.   May the Holy One guide their decisions to a just and
    lasting peace.
    
    Laura

    Mr. Covert is wrong.
    
    The Old City of Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967.
    There were no Jews left in Old Jerusalem from the War of Independence
    in '48.   Their houses were invaded by squatters and the synagogues and
    yeshivot (houses of learning) were either desecrated or destroyed.
    Some became rubbish-heaps, whilst others were turned into stables for
    donkeys.
    
    The Armistice agreement signed in 1950 (maybe have been '49) did say
    that Jews had the right to visit their holy-places (such as the Kotel
    and synagogues), but the Jordanians did not honour this agreement.
    
    Jonathan Wreschner

Re: .2

Janet-

The article on the significance of Jericho in Jewish tradition (.1) was
posted in USENET a few days before the signing of the agreement. I saw it
there and thought it might be of interest to the readers of BAGELS. I'm
sorry if it wasn't "juicy" enough for you. 

You criticize me for not stating my own opinion on the subject yet your 
personal opinion was summed up in only one naive and not very "juicy"
statement:
>    For those of you who feel that that "everlasting testimony" called 
>    Jericho should be settled by Jews, you're more than welcome to
>    go and settle there and leave the rest of us in Israel to get on 
>    with the real issue at hand - peace.   

You say that the issue at hand is "peace". I say it is the future of the
Jewish State. The question is not whether Jews who so desire will settle
in Jericho but rather will they be ALLOWED to settle in Jericho, or
Tekoa, or Bet-El, or Shilo, or Hebron, or Bet-Horon, or Ofra, or
Michmash, or Anatot or... And how about those Jews who already live there
and went to live there with the blessings of both Labor and Likud
governments. They build their homes and raised their families there and
now the Jewish State is forcing them to accept Arab rule or move out.

As for me, I'm disappointed in Prime Minister Rabin who could not
withstand the pressure of his left-wing companions and after less than
one year of negotiations, broke down and gave everything away.

I'm disgusted at the euphoria of many Israelis over this agreement. We
are paying a heavy price by reliquishing the Heartland of our country, a
land with strong emotional, historical and strategic importance to the
Jewish people. Our leaders shake the hands of the man responsible for the
cold-blooded murder of Jewish civilians and yet some Israelis find this a
cause for festive celebration. 

Juan-Carlos asks if Sadat's hands were any cleaner. I think they were.
Sadat wasn't responsible for the machine gunning of school children or
the murder of olympic athletes. He didn't send hit men to civilian
targets. Besides, Sadat was the sole representative of the Egyptian
people. There was noone else to sign an agreement with. 

Arafat on the other hand was on the verge of collapse. The original plan
was to sign with the Palestinian delegation.  There was no need to
legitimize Arafat. But Rabin/Peres did.

I wonder how many of the celebrating Israelis have read the PLO
agreement. How many realize that the current interim stage includes full
autonomy over the ENTIRE West Bank and Gaza strip with the exception of
Jerusalem and some Jewish settlements? How many realize that the
permanent status negotiations will include Jerusalem, the remaining
Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and statehood?  What happens if and
when both sides will not agree on these issues? Will we see a revival of
the initifada but this time with a strong, armed Palestinian police force
to back it up? Will the world allow Israel to rescind the "peace
agreement" merely because of the status of Jerusalem? Don't forget, even
now, hardly any country recognizes our sovereignity over the Holy City.

I am bewildered at the haste with which Rabin and Peres were willing to
sign away so much. They could not even wait for the PLO to convene the
PNC to officially invalidate the charter calling for the destruction of
Israel. Why the insistence on signing with the "Palestine Liberation
Organization"? 

I am troubled when I think of the future -- after the interim stage when
the autonomy turns into a Palestinian state including parts of Jerusalem,
when "Palestine" ceases to be "demilitarized" and Israel will no longer
be able to restrict the immigration of 6 million refugees to the West
Bank, when the Arabs of the Gallil feel they want to become part of the
Palestinian state, when the Moslem fundamentalists and PLO hard-liners
begin their underground struggle to liberate the rest of "Palestine" from
the hands of the infidels -- when my grand-children will have reached
military age.  What then?

I'm sorry if I'm not overcome by the joyous message of peace. If I were
convinced that there was no other alternative -- that our very survival
depended on the creation of a Palestinian state on Jewish land under the
leadership of Arafat -- I may have reluctantly accepted such an
agreement. But I don't believe that that was the choice. 

Today the die is cast, the agreement signed, there is no way to back out.
We already legitimized the PLO, gave Arafat the status of a head of
state, recognized the rights of the Palestinians to the heartland of
Eretz Israel, recognized the right of return for 300,000-400,000 refugees
of the 6-Day War, portrayed the 130,000 Jewish settlers as the enemies of
peace, and opened the issue of Jerusalem to negotiation.

At this point I can only hope that this agreement will bring the blessing
of peace to future generations that we all yearn for...
but somehow I just don't feel elated.

-Itzhak

Re: .4
>
>> Our Rabbis have taught us ('Midrash Tanhumah') that Jericho is the
>> 'lock' to the Land of Israel.  If it is conquered, then the whole land
>> is conquered.
>
>  Why didn't this happen 45 years ago when King Abdulla of TransJordan
>  conquered Jericho?  I think this midrash only applies to the generation
>  of Yehoshua Ben Nun.

  Jerusalem symbolizes the entire Land of Israel. In the Bible it is
  often used synonymously with Zion or Judea. Israel's national anthem
  ends with the line "... In the land of Zion and Jerusalem".
  
  In 1948 we lost Jerusalem (the "Old City") and so at least symbolically
  we lost the entire Land of Israel. 

You say "in 1948 we lost Jerusalem".

What was the status of Jerusalem in the UN partition plan?

/john

> You say "in 1948 we lost Jerusalem".

> What was the status of Jerusalem in the UN partition plan?

  Makes no difference -- we fought for it and lost.

    At the partition plan Jerusalem status should be under Intrenational
    supervision .
    The Jordaniens (as all the arab nations) didn't accpet that decision
    and started war when they had to leave areas intend to be "Arab" and 
    Shaped (generaly) the map we know now as Pre 67 Borders .
    But , it doesn't meter anymore .
    I think that if the Israeli pepole decide that Jerusalem won't be
    divided anymore , they have the right to do so in spite of the wishes
    of the UN or others .
    This is and was a part of the jewish land from King David until now .
    

This Monday, the 13th of December, is the scheduled date of the
implementation of the agreement to cede parts of Eretz Yisrael
to the Palestinians.  Yes, it's Chanuka, but interestingly
enough an appropriate reference can be found in the Book of
Esther (Purim):

   "And Haman cast a lot [and it fell on] the thirteenth day
    of the twelfth month, to plunder all their posessions"

(Don't you just love this stuff?).  In these difficult days,
we pray that just as Haman's plots were "turned upside-down" and 
sadness was turned to gladness, so the coming times will bring
better news.

    re: .14
    
    Sid - interesting indeed (even if the 12th month of Hebrew and
    Gregorian calendars aren't the same - the implication is interesting).
    
    The timing of this situation, during Hanukkah, makes one feel as though
    Antiochus Epiphanes is lurking in the shadows...
    
    May the Holy One of Israel, blessed be He, be the Savior and Shield of
    Israel.
    
    Steve

	I have placed a copy of the Cairo Agreement in Topic 196 of the
  SOFBAS::MIDEAST Notes Conference.  I'm still waiting to receive the annexes.

	I'll be adding to the topics as they come in.

		Danny