Kiddush HaShem & Kiddush HaShem

With ten tests of faith did G-d test Avraham Avinu... Although there are different opinions as to exactly what ends up on the list of ten, many m'forshim include Avraham's being thrown into the fiery furnace by Nimrod as one, and G-d's command to Avraham to go to "the Land that I will show you" as another. Rabbi YissocherFrandraises an interesting question. The fiery furnace is merely hinted at in the Torah's text (details culled from Midrashim), while Lech L'cha is celebrated with a sedra named for it, detailed text, and a prominence attached to it. Why the different treatment of these two tests?

Another question raised, concerns another one of the tests of Avraham's faith - namely, the Akeida. True, it is known as Akeidat Yitzchak, but it is viewed as a test of Avraham, and not necessarily as a test of Yitzchak. Why is this so?

Rabbi Frand attempts to answer both questions with the same answer. An answer, I might add, that has significant application in our everyday lives as Jews and as human beings.

The difference between the fiery furnace and a new life in Eretz Yisrael is that the former involves dying "by Kiddush HaShem" and the latter involves living a life that continually sanctifies G-d's Name.

The difference in the Akeida for Avraham and Yitzchak is the same. Yitzchak faced death in an act of Kiddush HaShem. Avraham would go on living. Even though Yitzchak was to make the ultimate sacrifice, that of Avraham was much harder.

Dying takes a moment. Living is for a lifetime. Giving up one's life (when required) is the fulfillment of "And you shall love G-d... with all your soul" - even if you have to surrender your soul. Living a life that sanctifies G-d's Name with every action - spectacular and mundane, is the fulfillment of "And you shall loveG-d...with all your heart... and all your might". The most a person ever gets is once chance for dying by Kiddush HaShem; the opportunities for living by Kiddush HaShem are countless.

Without diminishing the one form of Kiddush HaShem, we must realize the very special (if not a dramatic) challenge of sanctifying G-d's Name in our daily lives.

The One and Only Original

The Mishna in Pirkei Avot records 10 items that were created in the instant before the first Shabbat of B'reishit. Then it offers opinions as to what other items were created them. One of these "extra" items are the first pair of tongs.

Commentaries explain that since one needs a pair of tongs to hold a piece of metal over the fire in order to make a pair of tongs (as well as other things), then all tongs can be accounted for except the very first pair. How do you get those? Some say that they were created by G-d among the final items of creation.

Others refute this notion and say that the first tongs were made in some crude manner that allowed people to get around the problem of not having tongs, and then from that point on, the tongs were used to make more tongs and many other implements.

We might say that either G-d gave humankind the first pair of tongs or He gave people the insight, intellect, or whatever is necessary to be inventive, and we took over from that point.

One way or the other, there is something very special about the original pair of tongs.

So too is it with Avraham Avinu. He was the tongs from which all other tongs are made. Every Jew in history is a descendant - actual or at least spiritual - of Avraham Avinu... except for Avraham Avinu. Converts to Judaism are called Ben Avraham. We call G-d ELOKEI AVRAHAM, MAGEN AVRAHAM. This can work for every Jew exceptAvraham himself. He is the unique original.

Similar to the different ways of understanding the TZVAT B'TZVAT ASUYA, we can view Avraham in different ways. Did G-d have to "make" Avraham so that the future generations of Jews could then follow from him? Or could a mere human come to the realizations and beliefs of Avraham Avinu on his own?

From various sources, we actually find a combination. Avraham made certain personal discoveries of G-d, which was no small achievement in light of his family background and the unpopularity of his newfound beliefs. And then there is G-d's helping hand to the process. G-d appearing to Avraham would certainly tend to strengthenAvraham'scommitment and resolve.

It would be as if mankind had been left to invent the tongs but were also shown a model or diagram.

Concerning the tests of faith that Avraham endured... they will always be unique for the same reasons that Avraham is.

Any Jew that faces any kind of test of faith is armed with a Tradition that can see him through difficult times. It does not mean that things are easy all the time, but it must help.

A Jew who heeds the call to come on Aliya has a built in support system including fellow Jews who live here, as well as a rich history with Eretz Yisrael at its epicenter.

Avraham Avinu did not have any of that. He and Sara were alone. No Aliya Shali'ach. No interest free unlinked loans. Now help with housing.

We owe a lot to Avraham and Sara and the other Avot and Imahot. It sounds corny to say it, but we probably take too many things for granted. When commentaries say that the Avot did things so that we would be able to do them, it should be understood not just literally, but conceptually as well. We are who we are a a specialpeople, because we descend from very special ancestors.

The Gemara and many Midrashim refer to the Avot as the originators of the three daily davenings. The Midrash T'hilim quotes 55:18, which says: Evening and morning and (after)noon I will "converse" (with G-d)... and He will hear my voice. Rav Shmuel says: From here (we learn) that a person must pray three times a day, andwho established this? AVOT HA'OLAM TIKNUM, the Patriarchs set them. Avraham established Shacharit, as it says (in Vayeira, B'reishit 19:27): And Avraham arose early in the morning to the place (the word is HaMakom, one of the nicknames of G-d. Here it has its regular meaning of place, but the "hint" is there, nonetheless)where he had STOOD in the presence of G-d. And STANDING means PRAYER (Amida is even the name we give the main prayer of each davening, inappropriately called the Shmoneh Esrei, since the weekday Amida has 19 brachot, those of Shabbat and Chagim have 7 brachot, and the Musaf of Rosh HaShana has 9. Another name for the Amidais T'fila. In other words, STANDING means praying), as it says in T'hilim 106:30 - And Pinchas stood and prayed. (We would say "stood in prayer".) The association is made between Avraham Avinu, early morning, and prayer, i.e. SHACHARIT.

Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim 1:5) says that "it is good to say the portion of the AKEIDA (Binding of Isaac)...

The Mishna B'rura adds: specifically before KORBANOT (the portion about Temple sacrifices) [since it deals with the "ultimate" sacrifice, the complete dedication of the individual to G-d - PC]

He continues, that it is not sufficient to merely "say" these portions (he is referring the the portion of the Manna as well as the Akeida), but one should ponder their wonders [and be inspired by them - PC]

More from the Mishna B'rura... The reason for saying the Akeida daily is to remember the merit of the Avot and to help subdue the "evil inclination" as Yitzchak had done in "giving up his life" to G-d [prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice - PC]...

The Akeida is positioned in Shacharit, right after Birchot HaTorah and Birchot HaShachar, and before Korbanot. Not all Siddurim have Parshat Akeida. Many people skip it, some for lack of time, others because of custom. The Akeida is not a required part of the davening, but it is recommended as "good to say every day..."

In most Siddurim, the Akeida is introduced by a prayer to G-d that He remember us in a good light, by remembering the love of the patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, the covenants, the kindnesses, the promise that He made to Avraham on Mt. Moriah, and the Akeida of Yitzchak on the Altar, as it says in the Torah:

This introduction is optional, but it does serve to focus one's Kavana.

The portion of the Akeida consists of p'sukim 1-19 of B'reishit 22 (end of Parshat Vayeira). When we read the Akeida on the second day of Rosh HaShana, we finish with the chapter's remaining five p'sukim which gives use the genealogy of Rivka Imeinu. When recited daily, these 5 verses are not said.

After reading the Akeida, we have this "optional" concluding prayer to the:

Master of the World: May it be Your Will, HaShem, our G-d and G-d of our ancestors, that You will remember to our credit the "covenant of our fathers". Just as Avraham Avinu suppressed his compassion for his only son, and was willing to slaughter him in order to do Your bidding, so may Your compassion conquer Your "anger"against us, and may Your compassion be the most prominent of Your attributes. May You go beyond the strict line of Your law and treat us - HaShem, our G-d - with the qualities of Kindness and Mercy. And with Your great goodness, turn back from Your "anger" with Your people, Your City, Your Land, and Your heritage, andfulfill with us that which You promised via Your servant Moshe (i.e. in the Torah), as it says: (Vayikra 26:42): And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov, also My covenant with Yitzchak and also My covenant with Avraham, and I will remember the Land.

[SDT] From the opening verses of Vayera, we are taught that hospitality is greater than "welcoming the Divine Presence". This is so because Avraham asked G-d (so to speak) to wait for him while he ran to greet three approaching strangers. But how do we know that Avraham acted correctly in this case? Perhaps he was wrongtodo what he did.

An answer can be found in the fact that "the sun was removed from its envelope" (this is the explanation of the Torah's description of this episode being "in the heat of the day") in order to prevent travelers from being on the road, thereby "bothering" the convalescing Avraham. If being in G-d's presence would supersedehospitality,there would have been no need to make the day "extra hot".

[SDT] Avraham sat at the entrance to his tent to see if people would pass by, OVEIR VaSHAV. This can also be understood as OVEIR - a person who violates G-d's laws, VaSHAV - and repents his wrongdoing, was welcomed by Avraham and "converted".

ANOTHER LESSON FROM AVRAHAM AVINU...

Some sources teach that it is considered proper for the host to "break bread" for his guests, as we see Avraham said: "I will take the bread" and then "and you shall partake of the food..."

Although the host breaks bread for his guests, it is proper to let a guest lead the Birkat HaMazon (except for the Pesach Seder, when the Baal HaBayit should lead the benching, for he is the Seder leader and the benching is part of the Seder).

ANGEL ARITHMETIC

Three angels came to visit Avraham. Rashi tells us that one was to announce the impending birth of Yitzchak, one to destroy S'dom, and one to heal Avraham - because one angel does not perform two missions. After their visit with Avraham, two angels go to S'dom - one to destroy S'dom and one to save Lot. We are taught thattheangel that healed Avraham took on the mission to save Lot, accompanying the destroyer angel. Once an angel has performed his mission, he may undertake a new task. The question is, if angels can do different missions consecutively, why would not two be sufficient? And a better question is why weren't four angels senttoaccomplish the four tasks? Is their a shortage of angels, that one had to double up?

The answer to the first question might be that angels do one TYPE of mission - an angel that destroys does only that. Healing the ailing and saving someone are similar tasks that can be performed by the same angel. In other words, had G-d sent two angels to Abraham - one to heal him and one to tell Avraham and Sara aboutYitzchak- then after they had done so, one could then go on to destroy S'dom and the other to save Lot. Perhaps that would not be possible, for the abovementioned reason.

A possible answer to the second question is that originally there were only three missions - to announce to Sara, to heal Avraham, and to destroy S'dom. Whether Lot was to be spared the destruction of S'dom was not decided. Lot had some merit - he was Avraham's nephew and had learned some of his uncle's good traits, butthatby itself was insufficient to save him.

Lot was ultimately saved in the merit of one of his descendants - Ruth the Moabite, great-grandmother of King David, the Mother of Royalty. (It is remarkable that in G-d's eyes, one's merit can come from the past or the future.) And that future merit was not yet "confirmed". On what basis could Ruth be accepted into theJewishNation - the Torah forbids a Moabite from entering "the Congregation of HaShem"? If that prohibition of the Torah were to apply to Ruth, then she would never become Boaz's wife and the great-grandmother of David, and Lot would not have sufficient merit to be saved.

But - you say - the rule against Moabites applies to the males but not the females, so there's no problem with Ruth. Good point, except that what permitted the Sages to say that the rule applies only to the males? The key is the Torah's reason for excluding Moabites (and Ammonites), namely, that they refused us food anddrinkfollowing the Exodus. This cruel lack of human decency precludes their joining the People of Israel... ever. Was this inhospitable behavior a sin of all the Moabites, or just the men? The answer is that men would go out to encounter the approaching Israelites; women would modestly remain in their homes. Therefore,we faultonly the males of these two nations and we do allow their women to convert and marry Jews.

And where does the notion come from, that women take a modest, more passive role in these affairs - from Sara Imeinu. When the angels ask where she was, and Avraham said "in the tent", it was at that moment that Lot's merit became sufficient to be saved. It was at that moment that women of all nations "received" their modest,non-confrontationaldispositions from the Mother of All Nations.

At this point, the angel that had come to heal Avraham received a new mission, to save Lot. No angel was originally dispatched because Lot was not worthy of being saved at the time.

And The Two of Them Walked Together

Twice, this beautiful, poignant phrase is used in the Portion of the Akeida. When Avraham and Yitzchak arrive at the Place, they leave the donkey and the lads behind, take the "equipment" with them and walk on together. Rashi comments that Avraham knew who the intended sacrifice was, he knew he was going to offer Yitzchakasa korban, yet he walked on with the feeling of joy at doing G-d's bidding. Yitzchak, at this point, was unaware of what was intended, and he accompanied his father willingly.

Then Yitzchak asks his father about the the sacrifice itself, and the indication from the text is that Yitzchak understood what was to happen. And the Torah again tells us that they walked on together.

Avraham Avinu had rediscovered G-d on his own. His parents and whole environment were idolators. He had no help on his road towards belief, no Baalei T'shuva yeshiva to guide him, no support system. He came to belief of G-d on his own. And that belief was so powerful, that trust in HaShem was so strong, that he was preparedtosacrifice his son, despite the total illogic of the situation.

Yitzchak, on the other hand, was taught by his father to believe in G-d. Yitzchak was neither a baby nor a young child, as some pictures of the Akeida seem to convey. He was 37 years old and quite aware of what was happening. His confidence and trust, and belief was not the result of direct personal discovery; it was basedon the new, short, Chain of Tradition. Yitzchak's certainty that they were doing the proper thing was no less than Avraham's. And they walked on TOGETHER.

In a way, this is the key to the greatness of the episode of the Akeida. That an individual can rise to the great heights of belief in G-d is one thing. That he is so successful in transmitteing that system of beliefs to the next generation is truly remarkable.

That Moshe received the Torah from Sinai is one thing. That he successfully gave it over to Yehoshua is the crucial thing. One link is not a chain; it is a circle (or oval) of gold. But two links is already a chain.

Not everyone comes to Judaism, to Torah, to belief in G-d on their own. At least, not at the beginning. Most of us are introduced to Torah by our parents and teachers. Our commitment to the Torah must be not less strong that those who stood at Sinai and declared NAASEH V'NISHMA. The Baal T'shuva and his son, an FFB, willhavecome to Torah in different ways. Their success will be VAYEIL'CHU SH'NEIHEM YACHDAV.

CLARIFICATION (maybe)

Rashi presents two different scenarios for the beginning of the sedra. His first presentation is based upon the straight reading of the verses, as follows:

And G-d appeared to him... Avraham raised his eyes and saw three men standing before him, and he ran from the entrance of his tent to greet them and he bowed... And he said: My sirs, please do not pass by (without partaking of my hospitality)... Take some water...

This option deems the word ADONAI as first person singular possessive plural form of ADON, master - my masters. Rashi explains that right after using that plural word, Avraham switches to singular - he is addressing the elder among the three, when he says TA'AVOR (and not TAAVORU). Then he switches back to plural by sayingV'RACHATZU(and you plural shall wash your feet)...

Rashi then adds a DAVAR ACHEIR, a second way of understanding the verses. The word in question is sacred, according to this second view, and it was G-d to Whom Avraham was speaking when he said "please do not leave Your servant". Rashi points out that the Torah records that Avraham first ran to greet the strangers and THENaskedG-d to stay, but that in reality, Avraham first spoke to G-d and then ran to greet the travelers. This difficulty in sequence is dismissed by Rashi as a not- uncommon device in the text.

Each possibility finds backing in different Midrashic sources.

There is an interesting halachic ramification of this dispute - does a Sofer sanctify this word as a Name of HaShem or not? Most sources and halachic authorities consider this to be a Holy Name... without doubt. This, notwithstanding the two different presentations of Rashi. An individual Sofer is entitled to treat thewordas a "maybe", and his preparation to write it would therefore be "conditional".

Perhaps the title of this piece is a misnomer. Okay, it wasn't a clarification exactly, but hopefully it makes you think. If so, good enough.

G'MATRIYA based on L'ORA SHEL TORAH by R. Yaakov Auerbach z"l

Rabbi Auerbach z"l found some interesting number-matches with different terms for the place of the Akeida - Har HaMoriah. At the end of the Akeida portion, the place is called HAR HASHEM. That equals 5+200 (205) + 26 (for G-d's name) = 231. This matches the G'matriya for Y'FEI NOF (from T'hilim 48:2), a descriptive nicknameforYerushalayim (which is "synonymous" with the Temple Mount. 10+80+5 (95) + 50+6+80 (136) = 231.

When Yaakov had his dream of the Ladder, he proclaimed that G-d was in that place, which was the Temple Mount. He said "there is HASHEM BAMAKOM HAZEH. 26 + 2+40+100+6+40 (188) + 5+7+5 (17) = 231.

Avraham's name for the place was HASHEM YIREH = 26 + 10+200+1+5 = 242.

YERUSHALAYIM = 10+200+6+300+30+*+40 = 586. The square root (yes, I mean it; I'm not kidding) of 586 is 24.2 (to the nearest tenth).

A nickname for the Beit HaMikdash, from Yeshayahu 29:1, is ARIEL.It equals 1+200+10+1+30 = 242.

* The word Yerushalayim appears in the Tanach over 650 times. It has a YUD between the LAMED and MEM only 4 or 5 times. All the rest are YUD-RESH-VAV-SHIN-LAMED-MEM.

THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW

R. Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson #12 - Powers of the Beth Din (of non-ordained judges - part 4)

Continuing the jurisdiction of a Beth Din consisting of non-ordained judges, we come to the following situation.

Reuven has been losing money in the stock market and his mother-in-law taunts him, saying he will never pick a winner. In synagogue Reuven sits next to Shimon, a highly successful stock investor. Shimon does not talk while davening but Reuven keeps on pestering Shimon for tips during Musaf, so Shimon tells Reuven to callhim after Shabbat. Even before saying havdala, Reuven calls Shimon, but Shimon is still in shul; he holds Rabbeinu Tam’s times as stated in Torah Tidbits. After he arrives home and makes havdala, Shimon calls Reuven and tells him to buy Consolidated Shmootz. Reuven can’t wait until Monday morning — at 9.01 AM he callshis stock broker telling him to buy 100 shares of Consolidated Shmootz that is selling for $50 a share. A few days later Reuven sees on his computer that Consolidated Shmootz went up to $60 a share. If he sells now he will be vindicated in his mother-in-law’s eyes and will make a few dollars. He calls his broker to sellthe stock. The broker apologizes but says he forgot to buy the stock for Reuven.

Naftali has a retail store in Mea Shearim. Asher, a Jerusalemite who just returned home from a trip to Japan, comes in and makes a substantial purchase, wanting to pay in Japanese yen. Naftali does not know if the large denomination yen is genuine or not. He takes the money to the foreign currency department of the bankon the corner and a clerk in that department tells Naftali that the money is genuine. Based on the bank clerk’s verification, Naftali sells the merchandise and accepts the yen for payment of the purchase price. Later that day when Naftali returns to the same bank to exchange the yen for shekels, the head of the foreigncurrency department tells him that the yen is counterfeit. The bank clerk who advised Naftali that the yen is genuine and/or the bank may be liable according to halacha under certain conditions.

The above two cases are examples of indirect cause of damage to Reuven and Naftali over which a Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction.

Moshe visits David’s home. David is very proud of his Picasso painting. Moshe may have had one cocktail too many, for he walks over to the Picasso painting and pokes a hole in it. David claims that the painting was worth $5,000,000 and now, with the hole having to be repaired, the painting will be worth only $2,000,000— a loss of $3,000,000. David claims that the hole makes the painting more interesting, because as he puts it, “Anybody can have a painting without holes, but now only Moshe has a Picasso painting with a hole. Therefore, if anything, Moshe owes David money.” A Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction to judge caseswhere one person has caused property damage to another person.

According to halacha, an animal can cause damage in one of three ways. An example of this is the ox that causes damage “with its horn,” “with its foot” or “with its tooth.” This famous ox is studied in all continents and in all times, whenever and wherever Jews live and study. The greatest intellectual and legal minds inJewish history from the beginning of time until today continue to write and give Torah discourses on the relationship of Reuven to Shimon if Reuven’s ox gores Shimon’s cow. If Reuven’s ox gores Shimon’s cow, a Beth Din of non-ordained judges has no jurisdiction to judge the case for damages caused to Shimon, since thedamage was caused “with its horn.” However, if Reuven’s ox went into Shimon’s vegetable garden and ate some of Shimon’s vegetables, a Beth Din may judge the amount of damage caused by the ox, or any other animal belonging to Reuven, because it is damage caused “with its tooth.” Or if Reuven’s dog ran into Shimon’s yardand knocked over Shimon’s expensive flowerpot, a Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction to judge this case because it is damage caused by Reuven’s dog “with its foot.”

In halacha, there is a difference between the damages paid by a robber who robs and a thief who steals. A robber confronts his victim, while a thief does not want to confront his victim.

Pinchas steals a watch from Aharon worth $150. According to Torah law, when Pinchas is apprehended, if he still has the watch in his possession he must return it plus a 100% penalty, or an additional $150. If Pinchas no longer has the watch, he must pay Aharon $300, the value of the watch ($150) plus a 100% penalty or anadditional $150. Only a Beth Din of ordained judges can enforce the aforesaid penalty. A Beth Din of non-ordained judges can only enforce payment of the return of the watch, or, if the watch is no longer in the possession of Pinchas, payment of $150 the value of the stolen watch. A Beth Din consisting of non-ordained judgescannot however order the payment of the $150 penalty by Pinchas.

Shlomo robs Yosef of his watch that is worth $100. Shlomo must return the watch if he possesses it or he must pay Yosef the sum of $100. There are no penalties involved in the case of a robber as there are in the case of a thief. A Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction to enforce the return of the watch or thepayment of $100, the value of the object robbed.

The reason why there is a penalty in the case of theft and not in the case of robbery is as follows: In the case of theft, the thief is not concerned that Hashem knows that he steals, as long as the victim does not know that he steals. The thief is more afraid of the victim than he is of Hashem. However, in the case ofrobbery, the robber is not afraid of Hashem nor of the victim The robber is not more afraid of the victim than he is of Hashem. That is why there are penalties against the thief but not against the robber. If the stolen object is a cow or sheep and it is sold or slaughtered, the penalty goes up to 400% and 300% respectively.In all of these cases, a Beth Din of non-ordained judges has jurisdiction only to collect the principal amount of that which was robbed or stolen, but not to enforce collection of penalties.

A Beth Din of non-ordained judges also has jurisdiction to judge cases of informers. For example, Serbian troops crossing from Serbia into Kosovo have nothing to eat when they enter a certain town. Charles has food but the Serbs do not know it. Levi informs them and they rob or steal the food. A Beth Din of non-ordainedjudges can judge the case of informers when Charles sues Levi to obtain the value of the food that the Serbs robbed or stole.

The last few cases where the non-ordained judges have jurisdiction will be set forth in the next lesson.

Meaning in Mitzvot - by Rabbi Asher Meir

Many of us find the halakha very meaningful as an encompassing way of life, but still find it hard to perceive meaning in the details of our everyday practices. In order to help remedy this, each week we will discuss one familiar halakhic practice and try to demonstrate its beauty and meaning. The columns are based on thework “Meaning in Mitzvot”, which is serialized on the Yeshiva Har Etzion's "Virtual Beit Midrash", www.vbm-torah.org.

In our haftara, the wife of a “student of the prophets” laments to Elisha that since she can not repay her debts, her creditors are about to enslave her sons.

According to Torah law, a debtor can’t be enslaved for his debts, or even be compelled to work to repay them. However, the halakha does recognize a shi'abud ha-guf, a “personal lien” for loans. And many Biblical passages suggest that the inherent subordination of borrower to lender can be considered a kind of slavery inminiature. The most explicit is Mishlei 22:7: “The rich man rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender”. (See also D'varim 15:6.)

This analogy betweem debt and slavery helps us understand the interest prohibition, as well as the release of debts in the shemitta year. Just as a Jewish slave may not be excessively subjugated, so a Jewish borrower may not be charged interest. These commandments are in consecutive passages in parshat Behar (Vayikra 25:35-42).And just as a Jewish slave is released in the seventh year of work, so a Jewish borrower is released at the end of the 7-year shemitta cycle. These commandments are in consecutive passages in parshat Re’eh (Devarim 15:1-18).

This particularly explains why the prohibition applies to the borrower, the seeming victim. Regarding servitude the Torah’s disapproval is focused especially on the slave himself. When a slave decides to stay with his master beyond the legally required period, the Torah requires that his ear be bored. (Shemot 21:6.) TheTalmud comments: “The ear that heard My voice on Mount Sinai, when I said ‘The children of Israel are slaves to Me’ - and not slaves to slaves, and then this [man] went and acquired a master for himself? Let [his ear] be bored.” (Kiddushin 22b. The source for “slaves to Me - and not slaves to slaves” is in the very passagewe cited in Behar.)

This approach can also explain why interest is permitted with a non-Jew (Devarim 23:21). If interest were considered a kind of stealing then there would be no leniency with regard to Gentiles, for we are certainly not allowed to rob or cheat them. However, the Torah does not discourage enslaving them - as we learn in thecontinuation of the same passage we cited in Behar. Even our servitude to non-Jews, while considered a great disgrace, is not subject to all the special restrictions between Jewish master and slave.

According to this approach, interest collected is not really like stolen property, since the payment is voluntary. Rather, it represents an unacceptable denigration of the debtor, and returning the interest is like asking forgiveness for the slight. This can explain why the lender’s obligation to return the interest is a personal one - it doesn’t create a lien on his property, and if the lender dies the heirs don’t have to return the interest. (SA YD 161:5 and 6.)

This approach also gives us a new insight into the heter iska. This legal contrivance, which is widely used to permit payment for credit, recasts a loan as a partnership investment - the lender is the silent partner, the borrower the active partner. The essence of partnership is equality - the opposite of the inequalitywhich is the essence of liability.

(Based on “Ein Ayah” on Sheviit chapter 10 and Breslav “Likutei Halakhot“ on laws of ribit.)

Rabbi Asher Meir is in the process of writing a monumental companion to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which beautifully presents the meanings in our mitzvot and halacha. Hopefully, Rabbi Meir - who have givien a series on Business Halacha - will be giving a weekly shiur at the Israel Center in the near future. Watch for announcements.

KOSHER KOLUMN - Repeat Notices

Because of reader comments and questions, we'd like to repeat to notices that have appeared recently in the Kosher Kolumn.

Quaker's CHEWY Granola Bars Variety Pack contains 5 different flavors, 4 of which are kosher under the supervision of the OU. The fifth flavor - S'MORES is made with marshmallow and has no Hashgacha. The Hebrew label on the outside of the box does not indicate a Hashgacha, but tells you that each individual bar inside hasthe kashrut information. The Hebrew label does NOT tell you that two of the 10 bars have no hashgacha. The Kashrut division of the Chief Rabbinate has been notified and they will hopefully help to remove this MICHSHOL (pitfall).

We continue to receive queries about the StarKist tuna that has the ISHUR of the Chief Rabbinate, has the prominent notice about BISHUL YISRAEL, but does NOT have an OU. StarKist is produced in several plants around the world. This latest tuna is from Thailand. Although this tuna does not have an OU, it is supervised tothe standards of the Chief Rabbinate, it is BISHUL YISRAEL (even by the stricter Beit Yosef standards). This is not a case of the OU removing its hashgacha for some reason; it simply is not under the OU's supervision.

Keep asking questions. Alert Kosher consumers help protect us all.

This week, the hard copy contained a side-by-side Ashkenaz and S'fard K'dusha for Shabbat Shacharit and Musaf. This is the text that accompanied it.

We've done this before - at least, in part - but we've had new requests, so here it is. Among Ashkenazi Jews, there are those who daven NUSACH ASHKENAZ and those who daven NUSACH S'FARD. (We're leaving NUSACH ARI out for now.) Many people daven one and find themselves in a shul that davens the other. According to most poskim,one should say K'DUSHA in the NUSACH of the minyan, not one's own NUSACH. This sheet (tear it neatly down the middle, put this half in your Siddur and put the other half back into your TT) is for those whose Siddur and Nusach is not that of the shul in which they daven.

Some people follow the ruling (custom, practice) of the GR"A and the ARUCH HASHULCHAN (and others) and say only the P'sukim of K'dusha - not the Chazan's part. The P'sukim are the same.

Even if you daven one NUSACH exclusively, seeing the other can be interesting.

FEEDBACK

Dear TT reader,

I often get feedback of all sorts from each issue of Torah Tidbits. Usually, it's a comment on typos and speling misteaks. Sometimes on a Dvar Tora or some other aspect of content. Some SDTs prompt readers to share additional points.

And then there are the times when I editorialize on some point elicits strong reactions from readers - on both sides of the coin. In the past it's been Aliya, smoking, Conservative and Reform, Yom HaAtzma'ut, army service, "the Peace Process", and various and sundry other topics that have received the strong reactions.

This time (Lech L'cha issue) it was the statements I made concerning the dismantling of Jewish settlements and the giving of parts of Eretz Yisrael into the hands of non-Jews - specifically into the hands of people who would prefer our destruction to the option of living with us in peace.

Specifically, it was my use of the terms "abomination" and "abhorrent" that prompted the strongest reactions. I plan to respond personally to each reader (or former reader, as some declared) personally. But I feel it important to "respond" in this more public way, too. For every email and phone call I received, there mustbe dozens more readers who also reacted strongly, both pro and con what I said and the way I said it.

I looked up abomination in the dictionary. It is something greatly disliked. I think that is a good description of my feelings on the topic. My choice of words was not meant to offend anyone. It was meant to convey a strong feeling for what is happening in Israel and what the Torah has to say on the topic. One caller suggestedthat "distasteful" would have been a better choice of words. Sorry, it doesn't come close.

But there is more than semantics involved here. You remember the old story about the Jewish fellows who were drafted into the Czar's army and asked the rabbi about whether they should eat the non-kosher meat they'd be served. Realizing the necessity to eat as best as possible to stay alive and well, the rabbi gave them"permission" to eat the non-kosher food. But he begged them not the suck the bones with pleasure.

To eat non-kosher or not to, is one issue. The attitude of the individual is another. We are sometimes forced to do things we don't want to, things we should not do. But to lose sight of the tragedy of the situation makes it all the worse.

Should we dismantle settlements and give land in Eretz Yisrael to the Arabs? There are some Jews who will so, NO. Others will say that we have to do it to save lives, to have peace. But there are some Jews who will say that the land really isn't ours, and the Arabs have a legitimate claim to the land, etc.

Big difference. A Jew who loves Torah and the People of Israel and Eretz Yisrael and comes to the painful conclusion that we must give up land in the interest of peace, has not forsaken Torah nor rejected its teachings. I believe that he came to the wrong conclusion. But that's not the same as the other attitude. There'smore, but not enough space to say it now.

Has Arafat EVER said in Arabic to his fellow Arabs that he wants to live in peace with the Jews in Israel? I highly doubt it. Will the Arabs EVER make peace with us without getting everything that they demand - including Jerusalem and "the right of return"? I doubt it. So why are we doing things that we shouldn't be doing,when they will not bring peace and safety?

One more point. None of this is a political issue. It is life and death and Torah. The Piku'ach Nefesh point is halachic and can be argued from both sides of the Land issue. PC