TT 454 HALACHIC TIMES for Jerusalem For the deadlines for Shma and Shacharit, the first times are according to the GR"A, the day being reckoned from sunrise to sunset. (The times in parentheses are according to the Magen Avraham, the day being reckoned from dawn to stars-out). Candle lighting - 4:33pm The Molad of Sh'vat was Wednesday afternoon. 3 days later is Shabbat afternoon, so Motza'ei Shabbat is the first opportunity for Kiddush L'vana (according to the opinion of the GR"A). 7-day people have their first op next Wednesday night. All this is weather-permitting, of course. Some opinions hold that during the rainy season, one should take the earlier 3-day opportunity, as opposed to summertime when one should wait until 7 days. Remember again, that the opinion of the GR"A is not that it's okay not to wait for 7 days (as is an existing opinion), but that one should say K.L. right after 3-days from the Molad and not wait for 7 days or Motza'ei Shabbat. Other opinions do express permission to say K.L. after 3 days, but prefer Mota"Sh and/or 7 days. There are quite a few variations of opinion as to the ideal timing for saying K.L. One should ask his own Rav for guidance in this matter. For those who do not live here, but really want to, let this also be CHIZUK and IDUD (encouragement) to proceed with increased vigor and tachlis towards Aliya. And for those fellow Jews who don't really see why the illegal Jewish settlements (as Rabbi Riskin often says) of Boro Park, Monsey, Teaneck, etc. and too many other etc. are not the ultimate venues for a complete Torah life, let these words reawaken in your hearts and souls the aspiration to truly be taken out of Egypt and become G-d's Nation. A too long introduction — I'm sorry. (But not really.) The point. (Or points.) If G-d took us out of Egypt only because of His promises to the Avot, and without letting us know what He was doing, and without any kind of notice and "warning", and without a commitment on our part towards Him, if that were true, then we're out of the loop (as they say) and there is no more to say. When we were poised at the shore of the Sea and called out to G-d for help, Moshe said, G-d will fight for us and we remain silent. Do not infer from this that we were not willing partners well aware of our commitments. We knew and we know. Therefore, says G-d to Moshe, say to the people of Israel... And He said to us that he will take us out of Egypt, give us the Torah, and bring us into the Land of Israel. That's the DEAL. If we betray G-d and abandon the Torah, we are punished and exiled. When we are in the Land and betray it, we are spit out. What about when we are in exile and have the ability to come back? Is it not a betrayal of G-d and the Land not to return to Eretz Yisrael and build her, physically, economically, and spiritually? When we were taken into captivity and we cried by the rivers of Bavel, and we remembered Zion — that was praiseworthy and to our credit. But when we can do more than cry, and we suffice with mournful tears for the destruction of Jerusalem, is that enough? When we cried out to G-d at the Sea, He asked Moshe why were doing that – tell them to MOVE IT! When we hear the wonderful prophecy of Redemption in Parshat Va'eira, we should not relate to it as a "once upon a time, a long time ago". No prophecy in Tanach is JUST a story – certainly not the Prophecy of Moshe Rabeinu. When G-d tells Moshe to tell the People that He is going to redeem us, and make us into His Nation, and give us the Torah and take us into Eretz Yisrael, it behooves us to get excited, to personalize and internalize the message... and to do something about it! Exile is certainly associated with the stricter side of G-d's treatment of his People. If the quality of mercy were dominant, perhaps we would acclimate too well to conditions and lose our yearning for redemption. (See what has happened in modern times when exile is apparently accompanied by G-d's Midat HaRachamim and people are quite comfortable and complacent.) In the opening pasuk of this week's sedra, we find the unusual combination of both names. It is ELOKIM Who speaks to Moshe, G-d Who has judged and treated the People strictly and harshly. However, His message to Moshe is "I am HASHEM". And His words of hope and promise to the People begin with the same declaration, "I Am HASHEM". In this context, we are told that G-d will take the People out of Egypt, save them, redeem them, take them unto Him, be our G-d and ultimately bring us into the Promised Land. These stages of redemption are summed up with the reiteration of the statement, "I Am HaShem". Furthermore, the name ELOKIM is paired with the harsh VA'Y'DABEIR and the name HaShem is accompanied by VAYOMER, the softer term for talking. It is as if G-d is saying to the down-hearted People: "until now you've experienced Me as ELOKIM, but rest assured that you will now see HASHEM - the G-d of Mercy - in full measure. The Egyptians on the other hand are being punished by the hand of G-d as ELOKIM. (see 5:15). The sedra begins with G-d speaking to Moshe Rabeinu and telling him of the promises He had made to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Also, G-d tells Moshe that He has heard and is responding to the cries of the People of Israel. In other words, G-d will be taking us out of Egypt not only because of promises He had made to the Avot, but because of His feelings for us. Moshe relates this prophecy to the People, who are too exhausted to listen. [SDT] G-d tells Moshe to go speak to Par'o (about letting the People go). Moshe "refuses", using the logical argument known as KAL VA CHOMER - if the People of Israel (my own People) didn't listen to me, how is Par'o going to listen to me. Seems logical, but the Torah has told us why the people didn't listen to Moshe - they were utterly exhausted from their unusually difficult labors. If so, it does not follow logically that Par'o would not listen to Moshe. Maybe he would listen, not being exhausted. On the other hand, Moshe's KAL VACHOMER is based on his statement - "I have a speech impediment". In trying to understand his failure to reach the people, Moshe finds fault in himself, not in the People. This is how a leader should behave. When a rabbi or teacher fails to communicate an idea to his charges, he should not conclude that the fault lies with them - they are dumb; they are not committed enough; etc. He should rather be critical of himself - I probably didn't explain things well; I wasn't patient enough; etc. This is one of the signs of humility that is such a desirable characteristic in a leader. This was one of the many qualities that made Moshe Rabeinu The Leader and Teacher par excellence. (Above Moshe's objections, so to speak,) G-d reiterates to Moshe and Aharon, that they are to tell the People as well as Par'o that the People will be leaving Egypt. [SDT] And you will know that I Am G-d. This kind of knowledge is beyond the grasp of the human mind. Only Bnei Yisrael, with their acceptance (learning and practice) of Torah and Mitzvot — in fulfillment of the previous phrase in the pasuk – And I will take you unto Me as a Nation – can possibly attain the level of knowing G-d that will fulfill the second part of the pasuk. (K'dushat Levi) [SDT] Although the purpose of this partial genealogy was to identify Aharon and Moshe, the Torah began with Reuven and Shimon before it gets to Levi. A reason offered for this in one of the sources is that since Yaakov Avinu spoke critically of these three sons, the Torah here lists only them, to teach us that they were important tribes despite their progenitors' "mistakes". [sdt] Why are we known as BNEI YISRAEL, and not one of the other Fathers or Mothers? YISRAEL is spelled YUD (Yitzchak & Yaakov), SIN (Sara), RESH (Rivka & Rachel), ALEF (Avraham), LAMED (Leah). Not a reason, but a nice way to look at our main name. BTW, ARAL S'FATAYIM has different explanations in commentaries. Literally, I have uncircumcised lips, it is variously interpreted as, "I have a speech defect", "I can hardly speak", and "I have no self-confidence when I speak". Rashi says that G-d did not repeat the command, nor did Moshe repeat his objection. It is the Torah that is putting us back where we left off before the genealogical data were presented. G-d tells him that Aharon will do the talking, that Par'o will refuse the repeated requests to free the People, and that He (G-d) will take His people out, and that it will be clear to Egypt (and everyone else) that it is indeed G-d Who is doing everything. Moshe and Aharon do as G-d instructs them; they are 80 and 83 years old respectively. [Observation] When the Torah is specific about ages, it usually is meant to give us an accurate way of constructing a timeline. Perhaps too, in this case, the Torah is pointing out something that we saw very often in the book of B'reishit - namely, the prominence of the younger brother over the older one. [SDT] How is it that Moshe Rabeinu is able to speak to the People of Israel throughout his "career" as leader, in light of the fact that he complained of being "speech impaired"? When Moshe spoke to the People of Israel, it was the Sh'china that spoke from his mouth. He had no trouble with his speech defect. He was, however, concerned when it came to speaking to Par'o. See 6:30. Rashi says that TANIN means NACHASH, snake or serpent. Not everyone see it that way. Keep reading. When G-d first had Moshe throw his staff down, it changed into a NACHASH, a snake. Here, with Par'o, it changed into a TANIN. Strong possibility is that we are talking about a crocodile, venerated and even worshipped by Egyptians. Many Pharaohs identified with the crocodile as the ruling animal of the Nile. Adds the Baal HaTurim, that the Tanin reverting to wood was a message to Par'o that just as the mighty crocodile turns to dry wood, so too will the mighty Par'o turn to dust and food for worms. [sdt] The Baal HaTurim points out that the pasuk says: G-d says to Moshe that when Par'o will ask for a sign, you (Moshe) shall tell to Aharon to take your staff and throw it (on the ground) in front of Par'o, it shall become a TANIN. It didn't say: and it will become a Tanin. He explains that the staff was thrown down and then he was to command it to become a Tanin. And that's what happened, to show Par'o the power of speech that G-d has given to Moshe. In other words, the staff did not change upon being thrown down. It changed by a spoken command. Par'o calls his wizards who are able to duplicate what Aharon does; however, Aharon's staff (note: not his TANIN) swallows those of the wizards. Nonetheless, Par'o refuses to listen to Moshe and Aharon, as G-d had said. G-d then instructs Moshe to go to the river (Nile) in the morning, where Par'o will be, and to bring the Staff with him. Moshe is to say to Par'o that G-d has sent me (Moshe) to tell you (Par'o) to release the People and you have refused until now. "With this will you know Who G-d is..." Moshe (actually Aharon) will be striking the water of the river, turning it to blood and killing the fish therein. G-d tells Moshe to tell Aharon to take the Staff and strike the waters of Egypt. Moshe and Aharon do as instructed and thewaters turn to blood, the fish die, and the Egyptians cannot drink the water. Par'o's wizards again duplicate what was done, causing Par'o to remain stubborn. Egyptians are forced to dig for water (and/or buy water from the Jews). This first plague lasts 7 days. G-d next instructs Moshe to go to Par'o (at his home) and warn him that if he does not let the People go, Egypt will be smitten by a plague of frogs. Aharon is to raise the Staff above the river, which he does, and the land is blanketed with frog(s). The wizards are again able to simulate this plague with their magical powers. Par'o calls to Moshe and Aharon to pray to G-d that the frogs be removed, promising that he will let the People go into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to G-d. Moshe asks Par'o when he wants the frogs to leave. (This is a strange question, to which Par'o gives a stranger answer). Par'o says "tomorrow", to which Moshe responds "so be it. And that will serve as proof of G-d's powers". [sdt] Why would Par'o ask for the plague to be withdrawn on the following day? He and his people were certainly suffering and would want to rid themselves of the frogs as soon as possible. Par'o (still refusing to see the plagues as Divine, and assuming that there was some natural explanation for what was happening) figured that Moshe came before him when he (Moshe) knew that the frogs would leave. Moshe would give the impression that he (in the name of the G-d of Israel) had power over the frogs. So Par'o tried to trick Moshe by asking the unexpected - do it tomorrow. Moshe's answer was that doing so would demonstrate that it was truly G-d's power that was being observed. G-d tells Moshe to tell Aharon to strike the dust of the earth (no warning to Par'o this time). The resultant plague of lice was not able to be matched by the wizards, who acknowledge G-d's might. Par'o remains stubborn. Par'o agrees on the condition that Moshe pray for the removal of the plague. Afterwards, Par'o again reneges. G-d next sends Moshe back to Par'o to repeat the demand for the People's release and to warn him of the consequence of his refusal this time, namely Dever. And so it happens that the livestock of the Egyptians all die, with not a single loss to the Jews. This Par'o checks on. Par'o remains stubborn. The sixth plague (boils) is brought upon Egypt without warning. Although his people are being seriously beaten, Par'o continues to resist (from this point on, with G-d's help). Moshe is next sent to warn about the seventh (and very powerful) plague. [sdt] In warning about HAIL, G-d says (through Moshe) that this time, I will send ALL my plagues... The Vilna Ga'on explains that G-d uses three main weapons, so to speak, to punish those who violate His commands - Fire, Water, and Wind. For example, to destroy the Generation of the Flood, G-d used Water. To disperse Dor HaP'laga, He used Wind, and to destroy S'dom, His main weapon was Fire. The plague of Blood, for example, used Water. Plague 6 was the burning Fire of Boils on the skin. The locust (next week's sedra) came on the Wind. But Hail consisted of the whole arsenal - the Hail itself was Water, it had Fire in it, and the Hail was accompanied by strong Wind (the Kolot mentioned in 9:23). Four Cups at the Seder The Maharal explains that the first three stages correspond to the stages of subjugation mentioned in Avram’s vision at the brit bein habetarim. There HaShem told Avram: “Know that your offspring will be strangers in a land not theirs; and they will subjugate and oppress them four hundred years”. (Bereshit 15:13). First HaShem took us out of the physical work, which was an oppression; then he rescued us from subjugation; finally he redeemed us from the status of strangers and made us into an independent nation. THE FOUR CUPS OF WINE The Maharal makes the following fascinating connection between the Midrashic and halakhic identities of the four cups. Fundamentally, four cups is a minimum. Only free people who have the means and the time for a relaxed feast can drink so many. But drinking more doesn’t contradict the image of freedom. Indeed,the Shulchan Arukh explicitly says that it is possible to add more cups (SA OC 473:3), though care is needed to avoid doubtful blessings. The one exception is that it is forbidden to add cups of wine between the third and fourth cups. (SA OC 479.) The Mishna Berura gives two explanations: because of drunkenness (which is especially a problem after we are finished eating), and because it may seem that we are adding more cups. (MB 479:5.) The Mishna Berura writes that the problem of inebriation is that it may prevent us from completing the seder, but the Maharal suggests another reason: drunkenness is in itself incongruous with freedom and dignity. The Maharal explains that this halakha is connected to the four stages of redemption. It is possible to “interrupt” between the first three stages. Although alleviation of our oppression is a stage towards freeing us from subjugation, relieving suffering also has its own independent importance. And although freeing slaves is a stage towards national independence, this elevation of dignity has its own significance. But it is forbidden to interrupt between the third and fourth stages. The national independence of the Jewish people, “I will redeem you”, has meaning only in context of our identity as HaShem’s nation as the recipients of His Torah: “And I will take you to me as a nation, and I will be to you as G-d” -when we accept the Torah. (Based on Gevurot HaShem chapter 60.) This also may seem like we are “adding more cups”. Once we have achieved political independence, the immediate next stage is spiritual redemption, living as HaShem’s nation according to His Torah. But if we are excessively absorbed in this stage, showing excessive devotion to administrative matters which are important but not part of our national mission, we are in danger of elevating these basically mundane concerns to independent “stages of redemption” thereby diminishing the unique status of our anticipated spiritual redemption. Rabbi Meir is in the process of writing a monumental companion to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which beautifully presents the meanings in our mitzvot and halacha. He is also directing the Jewish Business Response Forum at the Center for Business Ethics and Social Responsibility, Jerusalem College of Technology - Machon Lev. The forum aims to help business people run their firms according to Torah, by obtaining prompt, relevant responses to their questions. There is what seems to be a paradox application of Torah oaths. As shall be seen, there is a great difference between a defendant who denies only part of the plaintiff’s unproved claim and a defendant who denies the entire claim. The defendant who denies only part of the claim is in an inferior position to the defendant who denies the entire claim of the plaintiff. The defendant who denies part of the plaintiff’s claim and admits part must take a Torah oath as to the part that he denies, otherwise he will lose the case as to that part. Thus if Reuven the plaintiff claims that the defendant Shimon owes him $100 and Shimon admits owing $40 and denies owing the balance of $60, and assuming no witnesses are there to testify, then Shimon must take a Torah oath of denial as to the remaining $60. Should Shimon take such oath he will win the case as to the $60; should Shimon fail to take such oath, he will have to pay the remaining $60. If when Reuven sued Shimon for $100 Shimon denies that he owed anything, Shimon would win the case without having to take a Torah oath. In the absence of proof by the plaintiff, the defendant who denies a claim of the plaintiff in its entirety, his mere denial is sufficient for him to win the case. The plaintiff has merely a pleading alleging a claim, with no evidence to substantiate his claim. The difference is explained by the fact that one does not ordinarily have the audacity to deny the entire claim of the creditor to whom he owes money. On the other hand, his denial of part of the claim stems from his hope of being able in the near future to obtain the funds to be able to pay off the entire debt. Thus he admits that part of the claim corresponding to his ability to make partial payment to the plaintiff. The person who denies all of the claim does not have the pangs of conscience to the plaintiff since he owes him nothing, and thus his denial is genuine and he does not have to take an oath. There is also the view of held by the Rabbis that a person would not ordinarily institute a lawsuit against the defendant unless there was some substance to his pleas. Thus the Rabbis have instituted the hesseth oath for the defendant to take where the defendant denies the entire claim of the plaintiff. Where the defendant admits part of he plaintiff’s claim, this is the well known case of “modeh b’miktzath”. This applies to the situation where the plaintiff has no way of proving his claim, since he has no witnesses. (I have written on so many occasions, a person should not become a creditor unless he has witnesses to the transaction or obtains adequate writings or other ways of proving the debt.) Since the plaintiff has no way to prove his claim, the defendant can simply deny the existence of the liability. Or could admit that there was a liability at one time and that he repaid the obligation, or the object or money the plaintiff claims is in the hands of the defendant and belongs to the plaintiff is really the defendant’s, or any similar defense that the plaintiff cannot refute. The defendant has no options except to tell the truth. He must deny the entire claim or admit part of the claim. If he denies any liability, then the defendant will win the case and the complaint of the plaintiff will be dismissed. (As stated above the Rabbis instituted an oath known as the hesseth oath where the defendant denies the entire claim. However, we are now discussing only Torah oaths.) Assuming the defendant admits part of the claim . The admission must be specific to subject the defendant to a Torah oath of denial of the balance. For example, the plaintiff sues he defendant, claiming $100 for moneys loaned. The defendant denies the entire loan. Thereafter witnesses testify that he borrowed $40, but they do not now if he repaid the $40. The defendant does not take the oath of partial admission because the witnesses have not testified that he owes the money, merely that the loan took place. As a result of he foregoing the defendant will have to pay the plaintiff $40. This is not a case of partial admission since the admission does not come through his own (If two witnesses testify that he owes the $40, then their testimony would be tantamount to the defendant’s partial admission and the defendant would have to take the Torah oath as to the balance of $60 or lose the case regarding the $60.) Assume that the defendant admits part of the claim and there is one witness who testifies that he does not owe the balance to which the defendant denies liability. There are two views whether the defendant still has to take a Torah oath of denial. The preferable view is that the defendant does not have to take a Torah oath of denial regarding the balance denied by him. There is an opinion that the defendant need not take a Torah oath of denial even if the witness he produced is a relative of his who would ordinarily not be able to testify on his behalf. The result would be the same if the books and records of the plaintiff showed that the defendant does not owe the balance. If the Beth Din is in doubt whether the defendant should take a Torah oath or a hesseth oath, the proper procedure is for the defendant to take the less sever oath. The same would apply if Beth Din has a doubt whether the defendant has to take a hesseth oath or need not take any oath; the Beth Din shall resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant that he need not take an oath of denial. As was stated at the outset, the Rabbis of the Talmud attempted to eliminate the paradox referred to above by instituting the hesseth oath to be taken by a defendant who denies the entire claim of the plaintiff. This oath applies whether the plaintiff’s claim is regarding moneys due or an object due. The defendant takes the hesseth oath only if the plea of the plaintiff is pleaded with certainty. It need not be taken if the plaintiff pleads a plea of uncertainty, such as I believe the defendant owes me $100. I believe I loaned him money or I loaned him money and I think that he did not pay it back. IY"H, the next lesson will take up another Torah oath that the defendant has to take, and some differences between Torah judicial oaths and other judicial oaths. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Volume III, Chapter 87 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il As to the ParshaPix of Va'eira... First of all, apologies for the unusual number of typos in the TTriddles. Typos are not nice anywhere, but in TTriddles, they can impair solution capability. The above set of TTriddles has been corrected. [1] The key word in this TTriddle is “extra”, as opposed to “two”, which it does not say. The “extra father-in-law” is Moshe’s, as in YETER CHOTNO. The Ask the Rabbi project is a joint venture of the OU, Yerushalayim Network, Eretz Hemdah... and the Israel Center. The following is a Q&A from Eretz Hemdah... Question: Why are we prohibited from eating fish and meat together if fish is pareve? This statement in the above gemara assumes there is a halachically significant transfer of matter from one food to another when roasted together (see Rashi ad loc). Since we don’t normally subscribe to that assumption, some authorities say that the problem exists only when the meat and fish are cooked together, not when roasted (Taz, Yoreh Deah 116:2). There is also a question if gravy of one fell into the pot of the other and there is less than 1/60 of one of them, whether one can employ the halachic rule of bitul b’shishim (nullification of the minority substance). The gemara (Chulin 111b) seems to imply that fish may be cooked in a fleishig pot, while some argue (see Taz, Yoreh Deah 95:3). It would seem that one can be lenient in these and other related questions. This is because several major poskim point out that the danger Chazal referred to is no longer prevalent (see Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 173:1; Pitchei Tshuva, Yoreh Deah 116:3, in the name of Chatam Sofer; Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 116:10). It is perhaps for that reason that the Rambam doesn’t mention the prohibition of mixing fish and meat. While we will not permit that which was forbidden, this can explain our tendency toward leniency (see Chatam Sofer, ibid.) The prohibition applies, of course, not only to cooking, but also to eating fish and meat together (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 116:2). According to the Shulchan Aruch, we are required to wash our hands and mouth (ibid. 3). However, the Rama (ad loc) rules that it is sufficient to eat and drink something between the fish and meat and we need not wash the hands or mouth. We also change or clean cutlery and plates in between, although one could argue whether the letter of the law requires this. This “Ask the Rabbi” Q&A is part of this week’s Hemdat Yamim, the parasha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or www.eretzhemdah.org. If you would like to receive Hemdat Yamim by e-mail, on a weekly basis, please send an e-mail to lists@eretzhemdah.org with the message Join Hemdatya. Please leave the subject blank. A Not to shame transgressors who may wish to confess their sins during prayer (Sota 32b). RITE and REASON is available at local sfarim stores, both in the original Hebrew (Otzar Taamei Haminhagim) as well as the English translation. It makes a great gift even for yourself! Loving the people of Israel is the equivalent of loving G-d. When you love the parents, you also love their children. The Land of Israel is the same as the Divine Presence Itself. While being enormously impressed by the oceans power, the sea reminds us of Hashem’s rulership in that we see the boundary He set at the shore. The heavens reminds us of Hashem’s mastery over the heavenly bodies and the seemingly non-existing heavenly boundary (HaEin Sof) Thus we are reminded of Hashem’s encompassing and Omniscience over the entire universe. The many different wonders that have been described in the mitzva of tzitzit are endless. Each individual can see a new lesson. Recently, I read a viewpoint that sees the spiral winding of the fringes as reminiscent of the double-Helix DNA. I personally think often of the white strings as human seed and the Techelet as the soul. The word Tzitzit comes from the meaning – to sprout, to grow. This is one of the messages one must remember – through the performance of the mitzva of Tzitzit, one is sure to constantly shoot forth to higher and higher levels and closeness to Hashem. The word Tzitzit also means “looking”, not only at the fringes but also introspectively at ourselves. In the Commentaries. The white strings have been connected to the concept of “whitening” (cleansing) our transgressions, reminding us of the importance of (tshuva) repentance and correction. In every generation there is a “tikun”, a major spiritual challenge which is emphasized more and which is essential for materializing the potential of that period. Our generation specifically is challenged by “not going after your eyes” as we learned last week. Our generation has experienced technological advances and wealth as never before. The temptations of the modern age are beyond anything our ancestors knew. In this sense, the mitzva of Tziztit is truly a “tikun” for this generation. May Hashem have it so that all Jewish males merit the wonder of Tzitzit and merit to witness the prophecy of Zacharia 8, that the people of the nations will grab the garment corner of the Jew pleading to go with him saying “because we heard that Hashem is with you”. Connect to the internet. Go to the website – www.avantgo.com. If you already have an AvantGo account (it's free), log in. If not, click on SIGN ME UP. Follow the instructions for getting an account. When you have one, log in. On the right side of the page is the menu of your account. At the bottom of the list is CREATE CHANNEL. Click on it. That should bring you back to your menu of channels, which will now include Torah Tidbits. Next time you hotsync, the latest TT will (should) download into your Palm. Nothing else need be done after the above. This is a one-time channel creation; every hotsync will update TT and all your other channels. TT can also be downloaded from the website and read with TealDoc or other doc readers (But the AvantGo channel is nicer and easier.) Personal recommendations for other channels (find them at the AvantGo site): Beyond2000, Gallup Poll, Today in History, A daily dose of useless knowledge. Questions or comments: tt@ou.org By way of commentary, Rashi in our parsha cites the Midrash (Sh. R. 6) that poignantly describes Hashem’s response to Moshe’s plaints: “Alas for those that are gone… I really have reason to deplore the death of the Avot… Many times did I reveal myself to them by the name E-l Shad'dai, but not once did they ask me, ‘What is Your name?’” As to Moshe’s protestation, ‘Why have You done evil to this people?’, Rashi again invokes the Midrash that records the virtues all three Avot: Avraham bought Ma’arat Hamakhpelah, Yitzhak dug wells, and Ya’akov purchased a parcel of field. Yet, adds the Midrash, despite these personal sacrifices and the fact that the Avot did not witness the fulfillment of the covenants, “none of them criticised My dealings with them.” There are many among us who find it difficult to comprehend Hashem’s ways and to understand the agonies that oft overcome us. Yet if we recall the faith of the Avot and Chazal’s well known axiom that, “The Torah, Eretz Yisra’el and Olam Habah are acquired through suffering,” we may well take an example - and recompense. Sincerely yours, In NCSY, we stress that Judaism means involvement; Torah study and personal religious experience should be combined with positive action and reaching out to those in need. Towards this end, NCSY B’Yisrael mobilizes teens to see beyond themselves- by volunteering in social, communal and even environmental efforts. In short, NCSY B’Yisrael enables Israeli teens to strengthen themselves spiritually while reaching out to others, creating ever-widening circles of positive influence. NCSY B’Yisrael today is actively improving the youth culture in Israel and, by extension, Israeli society in general. NCSY’s new Gesharim program is up and running. We invite anyone who knows Russian olim in need of bar/bat mitzvah preparation to contact us. The program organizes fun-filled activities for youth and their families to introduce them to basic concepts in Judaism. For more information, please contact Sarah, 5667787. x245. HOMEWORK HELPERS WE'RE DOING IT! Tutoring and homework help available for all 4th-7th graders, on Mondays and Wednesdays, from 4:00- 6:00, at the Center.Call Sarah for more info: 5667787 (whether you are a kid, parent, or potential volunteer) We need more Homework Helpers. B"H the helpees are coming, but we need more volunteers if this program is to succeed. Call us. Next Tuesday night, January 30, we will continue our discussion on Jews and their drink with a presentation with an expert in the field of teen alcoholism. Our presenter will bring real life cases that he has dealt with in his career and solicit the skills and insights of the NESTOers to decide the best way to deal with these actual situations.This past Tuesday night our NESTO madrichim gathered at the Israel Center to discuss programs they would like to see implemented at NESTO and their role in planning the programs.A NESTO talent show is in the process of being formed. For more information call our office or anyone of the board members: Aviella Trapido, Jeremy Sultan, Yoel Kahn, and Michal Stillman. Rabbi Avi Silverman, director Last week's "A Closer Look" A Closer Look Q: Why did you come to Israel?
Q: What do you hope to bring toNESTO? Q: And finally, if you were a vegetable, which one would you be, and why? Okay, how's this! 3 days - 2 nights at the Dead Sea Treat yourself to a day off and join us for a TU B'SHVAT TIYUL OU/NCSY ISRAEL CENTER [The Va'eira Homepage]
|
