Halachic Times for Jerusalem Israel Summer Time -
a.k.a. Daylight Savings Time Both the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av mark
tragedies that befell the Jewish people during two significant periods of
our existence. In the early phase of nationhood,
during our sojourn in the Midbar, we have the two great sins of the Golden
Calf and the Spies. And during our tenure in Eretz Yisrael (both times),
these dates mark the destruction of Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash and the
exile of the people. The two aspects of each date are hardly unrelated. The
Sin of the Golden Calf represents turning away from G-d. The Sin of the
Spies represents a rejection of Eretz Yisrael. These same two national
behaviors echo throughout Jewish history and combine to “explain” many of
our troubles and tragedies. It was a combination of lack of faithfulness to
G-d and disdain for the Land and the mitzvot that preserve it that led to
the CHURBAN and GALUT. It will only be a return to G-d, a faith-fulness to
His Torah and Mitzvot and a love and proper treatment of Eretz Yisrael that
can bring about the complete GEULA, BIMHEIRA B'YAMEINU AMEN. In the beginning of this week’s sedra (the sedra’s being named Pinchas should answer one of the questions), G-d clearly answers both questions. Pinchas acted in jealous defense of My honor, and for this I give him the eternal covenant of peace, the Kehuna. It was his action that staid My hand from wiping out the people (as a result of the Baal Pe’or disaster). Pinchas’ action was so borderline, that G-d had to be the One to settle matters in the pandemonium that broke as a result of the killing of Zimri and Kosbi. Halachically, we can look at this as an act that is in a very, very narrow overlap of two areas of jurisdiction - namely, the area of judgment that G-d gave over to human beings and that area which He reserves for Himself. This is the way that Rambam puts it. In a situation where a Jew is engaged in sexual relations with a non-Jew IN PUBLIC (defined as in the presence of 10 or more Jews), then if a KANA’I (a Jew whose act is motivated by a deep passion to protect G-d’s honor) kills the man, then he is praiseworthy and zealous. Now the tricky details. [1] The KANA’I is deemed justified after the fact, only if the man and woman were currently engaged in the act. If he kills the man after he finishes, then that is an act of murder for which the KANA’I must stand trial. [2] If the KANA’I were to ask a halachic question, he would not be told that he may kill the man, even though we consider KANA’IM POGIM BO as Halacha from Moshe from Sinai. [3] If the man were to see the KANA’I coming to kill him and kill him first, that would be considered justified, as self-defense. These details seem to contradict the fact that we
consider the killing not only justified but even praiseworthy, It is so easy to misuse this very delicate concept,
and we must view Pinchas’ action as the exception, rather than the rule. [sdt] Most scribes write the VAV in the word SHALOM with a split. Peace that results from violence, even required violence, is defective. The Midrash says that 80 kohanim in the first Beit HaMikdash and 300 in the second Beit HaMikdash descended from Pinchas. He is given the covenant of SHALOM. The broken VAV renders it YUD-like, producing the G'matriya of this special version of the word Shalom as 380. Clarification... Aharon and his four sons were anointed as kohanim. They were not born kohanim, nor were they kohanim until being anointed. From that point, all their descendants are kohanim from birth. Pinchas was not born to a kohen, since he was born before Elazar was anointed. He was originally not included in the Kehuna of his grandfather, father, and uncles. Pinchas became a kohen in the unique way - by G-d's decree. In other words, there are three ways to be a kohen. Five people were anointed as kohanim by G-d's command. One was given the kehuna by G-d. All other kohanim that ever existed or ever will exist are kohanim because they were born to a kohen. [Added points: Some people born to a kohen are NOT kohanim. The son of a kohein and a woman that a kohein is not allowed to marry because of his kehuna, is not a kohen. If the father is a kohen, the son might or might not be a kohen. But the father of a kohen is always a kohen - except for Aharon, whose father Amram was not a kohen.] Next, G-d tells Moshe to go to war against Midyan in revenge for their seduction of Israel to the worship of Baal Peor. (The battle does not take place until next sedra, the rest of Pinchas is a digression of sorts.) [sdt] Moav was the partner of Midyan and should have
been included in this avenging war. Some explain that Moav was spared this
battle in the merit of Ruth. (Note that G-d can "give credit" not only for
past deeds but for that which is only in the future.) Some commentaries
explain that there was a significant difference between Moav and Midyan.
Moav was afraid of Israel. They feared that their land would be conquered by
them. That is why they wanted to fight against us. Midyan agreed to help
Moav because of their desire to destroy the Jewish People. They went as far
as using their women to seduce the Israelites to immorality and pagan
practices. G-d's command of revenge is directed at the latter type of enemy. In addition to this information, it is interesting to
note the "extra" material mentioned in this portion, as follows: Shimon: note the relatively small number. Members of
the tribe of Shimon were the main victims of the plague that followed the
Zimri (one of the leaders of Shimon) affair. Notice that the sons of Yosef are listed as Menashe and Ephraim - in that order. Also note the great increase in the population of Menashe, and the decrease in the population of Ephraim. The increase in Menashe is considered to be related to the fact that their tribe was given land on both sides of the Jordan. They were not the ones who asked to settle on the east side of the Jordan — that was Reuven and Gad. Menashe was sent along, so to speak, to keep an eye on the other two tribes. It would therefore be unfair to give them a smaller portion of Eretz Yisrael (west side of the Jordan). Their increase in population got them a "regular" share on the west side in addition to their territory on the east side of the river. Menashe: here we are introduced to the five daughters of Zelafchad. We will hear more from them shortly. Binyamin and Dan: Note that Binyamin's ten sons produced a smaller tribe than the one son of Dan. This is considered as a(nother) lesson that we cannot second-guess G-d. He has an agenda, we do what we have to do, but He "calls the shots". Asher: Note the rare inclusion of a daughter — Serach bat Asher. Great longevity is attributed to her, and she is considered the bridge between Yaakov and his sons on the one hand, and the new nation of Israel which emerged from Egyptian slavery. Serach was alive throughout the entire Egyptian experience, and then some. One more observation back at the beginning of the
Aliya. Reuven is called B'CHOR YISRAEL. This is noteworthy in light of the
fact that Reuven "lost" the status of first born to three younger brothers.
The Kehuna went to Levi, the kingship was destined to go the Yehuda, and the
double portion of the B'chor went to Yosef. Yet the Torah repeatedly calls
Reuven the B'chor of Yisrael. The Torah next details the family tree of Levi (whose Tribe does not receive land). Specific attention is paid to Amram's family — namely, his wife Yocheved (Levi's daughter), Moshe, Aharon and his sons, and Miriam. No one in this national census was in the previous census except for Kalev and Yehoshua. The daughters of Zelofchad (identified here as 6th generation from Yosef, an unusually long ancestry to record) approach Moshe, Elazar HaKohen, the leaders of the Tribes, and the People, and petition for property in the Land of Israel for themselves because their father had no sons. They emphasize that their father was not part of Korach's rebellion but died for his own sins (Tradition tells us that Zelafchad was the "wood-gatherer" who was executed for desecrating the Shabbat. Had he been part of Korach's rebellion, he would have been considered a MOREID B'MALCHUT, one who rebels against the king, and would have forfeited any claim to land.) Moshe appeals to G-d for a decision in their case. (Commentaries say that the details of the laws of inheritance momentarily escapes Moshe's memory, either as punishment for an inappro- priate comment he had made, or to give honor to these "lovers of the Land" - Zelafchad's daughters - by having the laws of inheritance presented "to them"... or both.) Clarification... This is one way to understand what happened with the presentation of the Laws of Inheritance. Do not think that before Tz’lafchad’s daughters approached Moshe, that only males were to inherit. And that when they made their claim, G-d changed or adjusted the rules to accommodate them. Not so. The Laws of Inheritance were a part of Torah from Sinai, as were all mitzvot. The presentation of these laws to the people was held in abeyance, so to speak, until this moment, so they would be in response to the plea of the daughters. This has similarities to the presentation of the mitzvot of Pesach Sheni. They were already there, but they were told to the people as a response to the plea of those who were TAMEI and did not want to miss out on the special mitzva of Korban Pesach. In both cases, Moshe honored the occasion (and the
people who came before him with the “requests”) by asking G-d, so to speak,
to clarify the issues. This is not the only way to see matters, but it
works. Furthermore, the laws of inheritance [400] are hereby set down as follows: A man's son(s) inherit from him. If there are no sons, his daughters inherit. (When a man has both sons and daughters, his sons inherit and are responsible to provide for the daughters, even if it means begging door-to-door.) A man without children is inherited by his father, then his brothers, and if there are no brothers, by the closest relatives along paternal lines on the family tree. The laws of inheritance are called by an unusual term
— CHUKAT MISHPAT. The term implies that there are aspects to the rules that
seem to make perfect sense, and there are other aspects that seem to defy
logic. Part CHOK, part MISHPAT. Take, for example, the case of a man who has
a son and a daughter. The son has a daughter and the daughter has 10 sons.
The man’s son and daughter (and their spouses) die, leaving their father
with 11 grand- children. Subsequently, the grandfather dies. He is survived
by a grand- daughter and 10 grandsons. By the Torah’s rules, the
granddaughter gets everything! She is the heir of the man’s son. Therefore
she inherits. Does not fit with our finite human logic. But those are key
words: finite and human. The Torah’s laws of inheritance are not only G-d’s,
but they are labeled CHUKAT mishpat. Having just been commanded to divide the Land according to the census and lottery (and being physically in the territory of the 2 tribes), Moshe might have thought that the decree against his entry to the Land was being rescinded. Therefore, his being told to view the Land and prepare to die comes as a poignant reminder that the decree banning him from Eretz Yisrael stands. "And Moshe spoke to G-d saying." This unique variation of the most common pasuk in the Torah (“And G-d spoke to Moshe saying” occurs 70 times in the Torah - Sh’mot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar - not counting the many variations on that pasuk), creates a dramatic and suspenseful mood as we wait to see what he is about to ask of G-d. Will he ask for his life? Will he ask to be permitted even a brief excursion into the beloved Land of Israel? Moshe Rabeinu asks that a suitable leader be appointed to take his place. The true leader of the People is concerned first and foremost with his charges. This is part of the great legacy of Moshe Rabeinu. G-d's response to Moshe's request is immediate.
Yehoshua is to be presented to the People as Moshe's successor and Moshe is
to transfer to him some of his "majesty". Elazar has already taken over from
Aharon, and it will be Yehoshua and Elazar who will bring the People into
the Land. Next the Torah speaks of the "Musaf Offerings" for Shabbat - two lambs [402]. Correspondingly, we daven Musaf on Shabbat. The Musaf of Rosh Chodesh [403] consists of two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs. In addition to these "Olot", a goat was to be offered as a communal "Sin Offering". Korbanot were accompanied by wine for libation (in varying amounts for the different animals) and fine flour & oil mixtures, known as MENACHOT. [SDT] Rashi notes that G-d told Moshe to command the
Children of Israel (all of them, not just Kohanim) to observe and preserve
the mitzva of the daily sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash. He explains that
not only did kohanim have a role in the offering of korbanot in the Beit
HaMikdash, but so did Leviyim, and so did Yisra’eilim. Kohanim had their
AVODA, the Leviyim were on the DUCHAN singing, and a repre- sentative of the
rest of the people stood in the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash and directed
the AVODA to take place. Without the members of the MA’AMAD, both in the
Mikdash and “back home” in the particular district responsible for the
particular week, the sacrificial service could not take place. Says Rashi,
we learn that from TZAV ET B’NEI YISRA’EL. Next comes Rosh HaShana, called here YOM T'RUA. Its Musaf has also been counted as a mitzva previously (Emor), but the mitzva of blowing Shofar is counted here [405]. Since Rosh HaShana is also Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, double musafim are brought. MITZVA WATCH Next comes Yom Kippur's Musaf. All the Chagim are presented here and previously in Emor (aside from other references). Notice that there is brief reference to the
requirement of fasting and the Shabbat-like prohibition of Melacha, and
slight reference to the special Yom kippur service (presented back in
Parshat Acharei). Here, in Parshat Pinchas, the main emphasis is on the
Musaf korbanot of the Holy days. Note that each day of Sukkot has an "identity", so to speak, of its own. There IS a third day of Sukkot in the Torah. In contrast, there is no mention of a third day of Pesach. On the other hand, the counting of the Omer gives Pesach what Sukkot has by virtue of the Musafim. These musaf passages for Chagim are the respective Maftirs of the Holidays. The sedra concludes with references to other korbanot in the Mikdash. And finally, a summary/divider pasuk - And Moshe told the people all that HaShem had commanded. Rashi explains that Matot begins with Moshe speaking to the people, so the pasuk at the end of Pinchas has to restate that Moshe has been transmitting G-d’s words all along, and not just from the portion of Nedarim at the beginning of Matot.. The last 6 p'sukim are reread for the Maftir. (6
p’sukim is the most for a regular maftir. Only one other sedra have a sixer
- Nitzavim.) The haftara consists of the opening words of the book of Yirmiyahu, where we read of G-d's first prophecies to him. Aside from the personal exchange between G-d and Yirmiyahu, we are told of his visions of an almond tree and of the "boiling pot". The almond tree, which blooms early in the year is a sign that G-d's judgment is to be fulfilled soon. The cauldron represents the enemy from the north (Bavel) who will come to destroy Jerusalem. This prophecy of the destruction of Yerushalayim, because of idolatry and turning away from G-d, sets the tone for the Three Week mourning period for Churban Beit HaMikdash and for the main part of the book of Yirmiyahu. The concluding pasuk of the haftara tell of the promise that G-d will punish those who rise against Israel, for Israel - despite its iniquities - is holy and special to HaShem. Upper-right are contradictory symbol of war (the
spear) and peace (the dove with olive branch). Pinchas' act of "violence"
was rewarded by the Covenant of Peace. It works this way, sometimes.
Pacifism does not necessarily lead to peace and forceful offensive action
can. The first lesson in this series started in TT 379, August 6, 1999. Thanks to the wonderful cooperation of Phil and Ita Rochel, these lessons have continued since then. I discussed with Phil the advisability of reprinting the first lesson, for those who read it and perhaps forgot it, and for those who did not read it. He agreed to the suggestion and the lesson follows: Many years ago when I was practicing law, a young Jewish lady law clerk in our office who was living with a Christian man came to ask me a question. Her boy friend's father died, she went to the funeral service held in a church and the minister who officiated began by reading, as she put it "a thing called the 23rd Psalm that begins with the Lord is my shepherd"'. Her question to me was, "Why don't Jews have such things as part or our religion?" This summer I have the privilege of lecturing in various summer programs for overseas students. In one lady's yeshivah, where the students were on the highest intellectual level, I gave a lecture on rights or privacy in Jewish law and announced that the next lecture would be on fraud in sales transactions and monopolies in Jewish law. After the lecture one of the ladies approached me and told me that when she was in graduate school of business she was writing a paper and wanted to compare fraud in sales in different legal systems. She had asked her local orthodox rabbi what the Jewish attitude was regarding the topic so that she could incorporate it into her research paper. His answer to her was, as she put it, "Judaism doesn't get involved in these areas." She told me she asked him "Why don't Jews have such things as part or our religion?" Yes, it was the very same question that I was asked by the young lady lawyer. If the lady lawyer who was totally uneducated in things Jewish asked that question, it was understandable. But for the graduate business student to ask this question as a result of a conversation that she had with her local orthodox rabbi, evidences a lack of education even amongst those who ostensibly should know better because of their education and position occupied by them. As a result of that after class conversation, I changed the topic of one of my lectures to be a recitation of the major topics of Jewish civil law. There are 427 chapters in Hoshen haMishpat, the part of the Shulhan Aruch dealing with Jewish civil law. I recited the major groupings of topics and spoke a few minutes about each. Almost every student, including several lawyers who were taking the course praised the fact that for the first time they knew that Jewish law does get involved in the everyday business dealings of people. Also business transactions don't always involve businessmen on both sides. When the housewife goes to the local market to purchase a bottle of milk, she is involved in a business transaction, a sale and purchase of merchandise. When a tenant pays rent to the landlord, when a person at an airport asks someone to look after her totebag while she goes to the restroom, when a person gets injured in a car collision, when a person takes out a mortgage from a bank, when a person borrows a book, when a person does renovations in his apartment, to name but a few of the business transactions that a person is involved in during a lifetime. And yes, Jewish law covers all of these topics and so many, many more. Ask an Orthodox Jew, "If one wants to be pious, which laws should he or she perform?" This indeed is a question posed in the Talmud. (Baba Kamma 30a) Most of us would answer "The laws taught in tractate Shabbat, or tractate Niddah, or tractate Chulin (dealing with kashruth) or tractate Avoth, or tractate Berachot". Indeed, the Talmud, amongst its three answers names the latter two tractates. But the Talmud, in its infinite, infallible wisdom quotes another opinion, that in order to be, pious one should fulfil the teachings of tractate Nezikin (Baba Kamma, Baba Metzia, and BabaBathra). This last answer makes one ponder. Can the teachings of Nezikin, the relationship between individuals in laws of torts, commercial law, real estate law, sales, wills, contracts loans and a myriad other matters in which we deal with our neighbors every day, be as important as the laws of Shabbat or Berachot or Niddah? The Talmud's answer seems to indicate that the answer is, yes. In fact the Talmud goes on to say that when a person reaches the Next World, the first question he or she will be asked is "Did you conduct your business transactions faithfully?" (Shabbat 31a) On Yom Kippur during the confessional we say that we seek forgiveness for the sins committed in our business dealings. Thus one of the six orders of the Mishna and Talmud is devoted to Nezikin; of the 14 books of Maimonides code of Jewish Law (Yad HaChazaka) over 3 are devoted to the laws of nezikin. In the Shulhan Aruch one of the four parts (three of ten volumes) Hoshen haMishpat deals with nezikin. With this as background, we shall attempt in future essays to familiarize the reader with some of the laws of nezikin, so that one can be a better Jew and answer Hashem in the Next World, "Yes we dealt faithfully in our business transactions." The major topics of Hoshen haMishpat are (in the sequence of Rabbi Yosef Karo, (1488-1575) the author of the Shulhan Aruch, who follows the sequence of Rabbi Yaakov Tur (1275-1340): Laws of: [1] judges; [2] evidence; [3] loans; [4] contracts; [5] pleadings; [61 collection of debts,- [7] collections from heirs,- [8] mortgages; [9] agency; [10] guarantees; [11] presumptions regarding ownership of personal property; [12] presumptions regarding ownership of real property;[13] interfering with one's neighbor's property; [14] joint ownership of real property; [15] partition of real property; [16] partnerships; [17]sales; [18] acquisition of personal property; [19] fraud in sales; [20] gifts of a healthy person; [21] gifts made in contemplation of death; [22] lost and found property; [23] inheritances; [24] unpaid bailees; [25] paid bailees; [26] lessors and lessees; [27] borrowers; [28] labor law; [29] theft; [30] robbery; [31] damage to property,. [32] informers; [33] damage caused by one's instrumentalities; [34] damages and injuries caused by a person's actions. Unlike the Talmud that first goes through three
tractates of nezikin with substantive laws of nezikin and only then goes on
to the procedural laws of tractate Sanhedrin, which is the order followed by
Maimonides, Rabbi Yosef Karo following the sequence of Rabbi Yaakov Tur,
commences with the laws of the courts. The foregoing is the first lesson that appeared in
this series of lessons. Danger During the Three Weeks The three weeks between the seventeenth of Tammuz and Tish’a b’Av, between the anniversary of the breach of the wall of Yerushalaim and the anniversary of the destruction of the Mikdash, are a period of mourning. But this time is also considered a period of special danger: “Caution is needed from the 17th of Tammuz until Tish’a b’Av not to walk alone from four hours to nine hours; and students should not be struck during these days.” (Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 551:18. The prohibition applies even to the normally permissible punishment, which is not a painful spanking but rather a light blow with a strap – Yoreh Deah 245.) The source for this halacha is a widespread Midrash
which explains that “ketev meriri”, a kind of dangerous wind or spirit
referred to in the song of Haazinu (Devarim 32:24), prevails especially from
the seventeenth of Tammuz until Tish’a b’Av. (Bamidbar Rabba and Tanchuma
Naso, on Bamid- bar 7:1; Eicha Rabba; and elsewhere.) One resolution of the problem is found in the Yalkut Shimoni on Haazinu, which explicitly states that there are two “ketev” spirits. One prevails from the first to the sixteenth of Tammuz, while the second, the one called “meriri”, prevails during the Three Weeks. But another possibility is to consider that it is precisely the “doubtful” prevalence which is dangerous. For examining the various sources regarding this spirit, we find that its distinguishing characteristic is doubt: [a] The Yalkut Shimoni states that this spirit is
found neither in sun nor in shadow, but rather “in the shadow next to
sunlight”. This idea connects with the mourning aspect of the three weeks. The mourning for the Mikdash does not begin from the anniversary of the destruction – on the contrary, that is when it ends. Rather, it coincides with the terrifying period of uncertainty when Yerushalaim was being attacked but before the destruction was completed. This characteristic of doubt and uncertainty is characteristic of all mourning. What indeed is mourning but a period “between sun and shadow”, between the time when are lives are brightened by a loved one and the time when we are finally reconciled to their passing. The three weeks, the time when we recall the terrible tragedies which constantly beset the Jewish people, carry with them the danger of doubt, of weakened faith. This weakness of faith is not only a spiritual danger but also a bodily one, since HaShem especially watches over those who place their wholehearted faith in Him. Of course our main goal is to strengthen our faith, to place our full trust in G-d as we learn in Tehillim. At the same time, we need to take precautions, alert to the fact that this time of year carries a special danger of the plague of doubt. The Tanchuma on Naso which also discusses the ketev states, “On the day the Mishkan was erected, all of the dangerous spirits were eliminated”. When the Temple will be speedily rebuilt, all our doubts will be erased and we will return to the full protection of the Almighty. Rabbi Meir has completed writing a monumental companion to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which beautifully presents the meanings in our mitzvot and halacha. It will hopefully be published in the near future. Rabbi Meir authors a popular weekly on-line Q&A
column, "The Jewish Ethicist", which gives Jewish guidance on everyday
ethical dilemmas in the workplace. The column is a joint project of the JCT
Center for Business Ethics, Jerusalem College of Technology - Machon Lev;
and Aish HaTorah. You can see the Jewish Ethicist, and submit your own Qs —
www.jewishethicist.com or www. aish.com Q I am a waiter in a catering hall, and I am often
unable to daven Mincha or Maariv before or after work, respectively. Should
I take off from my job to go to a local minyan. I am not sure if I will get
docked pay for going or if I will lose my job if I am caught or demand to
go? Tefilla b'tzibur (davening with a minyan) is very important (see Berachot 8a). Although there are indications that it is just a way to fulfill the mitzva of tefilla more fully (b'hidur), Rav Moshe Feinstein z.t.l. understood it as an independent obligation (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim II, 27). In any case, some parameters of the necessary sacrifice to make it to minyan are mentioned in the poskim. One must travel up to 18 minutes in order to attend a minyan (Shulchan Aruch, OC 90:16; Mishna Berura, ad loc.:52). If going to a minyan will cost one money (apparently, beyond small expenses like a few ounces of gas), he is not required to go. However, if it is just that he can gain money by missing minyan, he should attend minyan (Mishna Berura 90:29). If one has a set job, from which salary will be withheld for leaving for minyan, this is considered a monetary loss and is not required. However, a ben Torah who is in a good financial situation should consider whether making it to a minyan doesn't justify a small reduction in pay. Whenever one takes a job, he factors in "quality of life" considerations, besides salary. Among personal and religious factors, unique to shomrei mitzvot and b'nei Torah, should be the matter of tefilla b'tzibur. When one has responsibilities at work, he is required by halacha to take them very seriously. Berachot 16a poignantly illustrates how Chazal were prepared to lower certain religious obligations (of positive mitzvot) to avoid infringing upon the careful fulfillment of his responsibilities to his employer. Thus, sneaking out is not a halachic option. That same gemara mentions that if the employer is not bothered by the employee's normal fulfillment of tefillot and berachot, then he should daven and bentch normally. Therefore, you should bring up the matter politely
with your boss (without risking your job) and see whether something can be
worked out (e.g. you can offer to come in early). You can also investigate
whether you can find an early or late minyan, respectively, (certainly, if
within an 18 minute radius) to obviate the problem. I have no idea how I am better than a worm. I do not
know if I am even as good as one. I have high regard for the speech of the wise. But
even more for the silence of the fool.— Rabbi Gershon Hanokh of Radzin Reason: The reason for not reciting the bracha in the
positive is that our Sages concluded it would be better for a person not to
have been created, rather than to have been created (see Eruvin 13b). So his
intention should be: It would have been better that HaShem not have
fashioned me, but now that He did, I am grateful that He did not make me a
gentile. (BACH) The next day, another man came to ask R’ Yehudah for advice. “Rebbe”, he said, “if I buy this store, I will BE”H, be able to fix it up and earn a decent living.” This time, R’ Yehudah urged the man to go ahead. When the first man heard R’ Yehudah’s advice to the second, he grew furious and ran to him. “Rebbe”, he said, “yesterday I asked you about buying that same store, and you told me not to. Why did you tell the other man to buy it?” “It’s very simple”, said R’ Yehudah, “You wanted to take on the task of running a run-down store all by yourself, and I felt that it was too much for one person. The other man, on the other hand, stated, ‘with the help of HaShem’. With a partner like that, I felt that he had an excellent chance of making a go of it.” Maggid of Kuznitz would say: Last week, we started going through davening (and brachot) in order to point out some common mispronunciations (or other problems) with the goal of sharpening our davening (which is the main purpose of this column). Let’s do more. ASHER YATZAR: Watch out not to swallow an AYIN with a CHATAFPATACH, a tempting thing to do. V’LA-AMOD, LA’ASOT (last word). Not V’LAMOD and LASOT. Remember that a CHATAF PATACH is shorter than a full PATACH, but you still have to hear it. Also, u’VA-ra VO. The word baRA (created) is MILRA, accented on the last syllable. But when it has a conjunctive VAV before it, the VAV is pronounced U (as in FOOD) and the DAGESH drops out of the BET. Further-more, in the same phrase followed by BO, the DAGESH in the BET of BO drops out also, and the accent of ba-RA, now u’va-RA, migrates backwards and the word becomes MIL’EIL. u’VA- ra VO. And here’s a real shocker. Those who say at the end, right before the sign-off of the bracha, AFILU SHA’A ACHAT (we wouldn’t be able to survive and stand before You, even for one hour - probably, one moment). The word AFILU is not spelled the usual way ALEF-FEI-YUD-LAMED- VAV, but the YUD dropped out, the LAMED has a DAGESH CHAZAK, and the word is MILRA — a-fiLLLU (not a-FI-lu). Following the bracha for physical well-being, we say the bracha for spiritual wellbeing, ELOKAI, N’SHAMA: Important to pause after the word ELOKAI, G-d: the soul... (not ELOKAI NESHAMA) V’RATAHHH, Y’TZARTAHHH... there are six words that end in MAPIK-HEI, meaning the HEI should be sounded (aspirated, like the British herb, as opposed to the American herb). VEI-LO- KEI AVOTAI, and the G-d of my fathers. The ALEF of ELOKAI becomes completely silent and the VAV that precedes it becomes VEI. (In other words, not V’ELOKAI, rather VEI-LO-KAI.) [Ed. note: Only in a minority of cases, does a mispronunciation change the meaning of what we are saying. Mostly, the word is still the word. But our goal should fine-tuning and polishing our davening. BOREI MINEI V’SAMIM. How many times have most people heard Havdala without noticing that the word is V’SAMIM, not B’SAMIM. Does it make a difference. No. And yes. I suspect that some readers skip this column because it is too picayune. Others might skip it because their Hebrew is flawless, or close to it, they know all, or most, of these things, and they don’t usually mispronounce words when they daven. But, I hope there are some readers who have said B’SAMIM for years and are now trying to switch over to V’SAMIM. Hebrew is a beautiful language. Davening is a special use of that beautiful language. They both deserve our efforts towards improvement.] BIRCHOT HATORAH: Again, watch out not to swallow the AYINs with CHATAF PATACH. LA’ASOK (not LASOK), V’HA’AREV NA, (not V’HAREV). YO-D’EI (not YODEI and not even YOD-EI. It’s YO-D’EI. LISHMAHHH. Watch those MAPIKs BIRCHOT HASHACHAR: Here’s an interesting one. First bracha. la-SECH-vi (MIL’EIL), not la-sech-VI. [Ed. note: Checked several Siddurim. Many don’t indicate accents. Some do. Found la-SECH-vi a few times. Rinat Yisrael seems to disagree. They have la-sech-VI. Waiting for reader feedback to enlighten or further muddle the point.] The word after la-SECH-vi is MILRA, bi-NA. It’s easier to say it the Rinat Yisrael way (if it is correct) - la-sech-VI bi-NA (both words MILRA). But that doesn’t mean it’s right that way. We’ll await the final verdict. Part of the point of all this is to become move aware
and observant of what we daven. It takes us off automatic pilot and allows
us to concentrate. <mtc> Want to win a free Shabbat for two at Kibbutz Lavi?!*
We had an opportunity to say farewell and good luck to Josh and his family as they leave on SHLICHUT to Florida. The old board was thanked for their dedication and hard work that they put into this year, and we took the opportunity to welcome in the new board. So, welcome to Avital Elkins, Tamir Goldberg, Avi Mintz and Naomi Oded we hope that you have a successful, but, a mostly fun year ahead of you. The food as usual was delicious, so thanks go to Howie and family of the Israel Center Cafe. Amidst the festivities we could not ignore the terrible tragedies of the day, and we took time to recite Tehillim together as well as the Tefillah Leshalom Hamedina. Although senior NESTO is taking a break over the summer, all this means is that we will not be meeting on the regular Tuesday evening spot, we do however wish to run some trips and Peulot during the course of the summer - watch out for details. The following evening — same time, same place, same
menu — but this time for the Junior NESTO banquet. A little less formal this
time, the junior NESTO banquet was also an opportunity for the kids to
dazzle us with their unique talents. From Avrah's beautiful glass art- work
to Itamar and Baruch performing in a most original dance routine, we were
most definitely entertained. THE TRAVEL DESK The TRAVEL DESK of the Israel Center exists... to make registration and detail-receiving for Israel Center tiyulim more efficient and less head- achy for you. To help you - whether you live in Israel or are visiting - plan private tiyulim and make in-Israel travel arrangements Sarah will be happy to assist you on Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 9:00am to 1:00pm. Call Sarah at the Center, 566-7787 ext. 249. Note: When a tiyul says "Bring your own lunch", you
can do that... or this: Call the TRAVEL DESK or the TIYUL HOTLINE up to the
day before the TIYUL and order a box lunch from the Israel Center Cafe. 18
shekel will get you a delicious sandwich, a refreshing drink (specify
regular or diet) and a dessert. Your box lunch will be ready for you when
you board the bus. OU ISRAEL CENTER Seymour J. Abrams Orthodox
Union Jerusalem World Center [The
Pinchas Homepage]
|
