Our deepfelt condolences to the wife, children, and family of Chezi Goldberg HY"D who was murdered in the #19 bus bombing Halachic Times for Jerusalem
Israel Standard (Winter) Time Tzfat lights candles 30 minutes before sunset. Official candle lighting for Petach Tikva is 40 minutes before sunset, just like Jerusalem. Not everybody holds by that timing. Some communities calculate
Shabbat out at 33 minutes after sunset. Some use the angle of the
sun below the horizon to “end Shabbat” (8.5 deg). Also realize that Sfardim and
Ashkenazim often has differences in minhag. Sunset, on the other hand, is given for an elevation of 825m and, in parentheses, as if at sea level. There are different opinions as to which sunset time should be used for halachic purposes. We present both times. The deadlines for the SH'MA and the Shacharit Amida can be calculated in two ways. Either considering the day to be from sunrise to sunset or from dawn to stars out. The first way of reckoning is known as the opinion of the GR"A, and is the first time given in each case. The second method is known as the Magen Avraham, and is presented in parentheses. Aside from candle lighting and havdala, the times are presented as a range, from the current Thursday of the issue of Torah Tidbits until the coming Thursday, a span of 8 days. Days between the two Thursdays can be determined by interpolation (which means: a method by which to estimate a value of between two known values-this is something that people above a certain age might remember from high school trigonometry and logarithms, but younger people who went to school during the calculator era might not be familiar with). It is usually wise to "pad" the
times with a minute or two in the "play it safe" direction. E.g.
Plag Mincha. Better to finish Mincha a minute or two before the
given time. But, better to not light candles until a minute or two
after the given time. Last opportunity for Kiddush
L'vana in any given month is the midpoint between the molad of that
month and the molad of the following month. Since the calculations
are based on average time between moladot, we consider the midpoint
(called the NIGUD, opposition, full moon) to be 14 days, 18 hours
and 22 minutes after the molad. This month, it comes out to be
1:25am in the wee hours of Friday, Feb. 6th. So one can still say
K.L. on Thursday night until that time. Also remember, that this
time adjusts for location. This means that the last op for K.L. in
NY, for example, is 6:25pm on Thursday evening. And on the west
coast, the deadline is 3:25pm, which means that the last op for K.L.
in San Francisco, for example, is Wednesday night. And so it goes,
from place to place. The MN sustained the people for almost 40 years. That translates into over 12,000 manifestations of that daily (not on Shabbat, double on Friday) miracle. Over 12,000 times, the Jewish people collected MN and enjoyed G-d's gifts and wonders. And for the 3276 years since the cessation of the MN, the Jewish people (and all other people as well) have been sustained by G-d's gift of LECHEM MIN HAARETZ, bread from the ground. That's over a million days of miracle and wonder! More subtle than the MN, perhaps, but no less miraculous. And we can say that the test, as to whether we will follow His Torah or not, is still with us. The Torah tells us that some people went out on Shabbat to collect MN, and did not find it. G-d's reaction was to ask Moshe how long will the people refuse to keep His mitzvot and Torah. How different is it when a Jew works on Shabbat with the mistaken notion that it will increase his income? G-d set down rules for the MN, as He does for our daily food - the laws of kashrut, special laws for produce of Eretz Yisrtael, Birkat HaMazon... and much more. He was "disappointed" with the violations then, and "pleased" with the majority compliance then. Let's look at it this way: Rather
than Lechem Mishneh on Shabbat being a commemorative of the MN,
think of it as a reminder that the concept of the MN lives on all
these years later. The only thing that's changed is from where G-d
gives us our sustenance - from the Heavens to the Earth - both of
which are His. SDT The Midrash tells us that Yosef's bones had been hidden by the Egyptians in the Nile in order to prevent the Israelites from leaving the country. Yosef's coffin miraculously surfaced just at the right time, so that the People could take it with them when they left. We are taught that Yosef merited being taken out of Egypt for burial in Eretz Yisrael because he had arranged for his father's burial. Moshe, in turn, was accorded the highest honor - G-d Himself took care of Moshe's burial, in reward for the attention he paid to Yosef's remains. [FYI] The Gemara teaches us that a dead body itself - and certainly one who is defiled to a dead body - is allowed into the "Levite Camp", and is only banned from the Mikdash area. This we learn from the fact that Moshe took Yosef's bones "with him". This halacha has significance today concerning halachic permissibility of ascending Har HaBayit in those areas that are outside the Mikdash area. That part of Har HaBayit has the status of the Levite camp, and one may go there following immersion in a Mikve to rid oneself of "the defilement that comes from the body". (Defilement to a dead body cannot be removed without the Para Aduma potion.) - with certain restrictions. A person careful about Halacha should consult Rabbanim with Har HaBayit experience before going there. With (limited) permission today for Jews to go onto Har HaBayit, it is important for religious Jews who know how to go there "properly" to do so, in order to maintain a Jewish presence on that sacred area. G-d provided an escort for the People in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night. [P> 14:1 (14)] G-d tells Moshe of
His plan to lead the People in such a way that Par'o will pursue
them in the misguided hope of bringing them back to Egypt. SDT "And G-d did not allow them to go DERECH ERETZ P'LISHTIM. Literally, they did not take the straight route to the territory of the Philistines. One commentator suggests an interesting DRASH based on a play on words. G-d did not take the People out of Egypt in DERECH ERETZ, in the normal, natural way of things. Normally, bread comes from the
ground; for the People of Israel, G-d sent them bread from above.
Normally, water comes from above; for the People of Israel, G-d
provided water from below, from the miraculous Well that accompanied
them on their journeys, in the merit of Miriam. Not taking us out in
a natural manner, leaves us with no doubt that it was indeed G-d Who
took us out of Egypt. This is a crucial foundation stone of Judaism.
Not only did we get out of Mitzrayim, but it was G-d Who took us
out. Not only did He take us out, but the people knew it well. SDT It seems that Par'o actually
thought that he let the People go - that he expelled the People from
Egypt. That's even what it seems to say at the beginning of this
week's sedra (When Par'o sent the people out...). G-d arranged to
have Par'o run after them. Then the events make it crystal clear to
him - and to us - that G-d, and only G-d took us out of Egypt. SDT Our Sages teach us that there are times that prayer is called for, and other times when action is the order of the day. Sometimes we must use long prayers and petitions; sometimes a quick prayer not only suffices, but saying more can be counter-productive. G-d says: MA TITZ'AK EILAI, why call to me? MA is spelled MEM-HEI. MEM can represent the 40 days and 40 nights that Moshe was to spend in prayer on behalf of the People following the Sin of the Golden Calf. MEM represents long prayer. HEI can stand for the simple but eloquent 5-word prayer for Miriam's recovery from Tzora'at which she contracted in punishment for speaking disrespectfully of Moshe. And sometimes, neither short nor long prayer is appropriate. At this point of the Exodus, the order of the day was decisive action. Move it! There is another example later in the Torah of Moshe and Aharon springing into immediate action to stop a plague from killing the People. We must know when to say T'hilim and went to act, and when to do both. G-d tells Moshe to raise his hand over the Sea and split it, so the People will be able to pass through it on dry land. G-d informs Moshe that He will again harden Egypt's heart so that they will continue their pursuit. The Egyptians will finally know G-d's Might. The guardian angel (pillar of cloud) that was leading the People now was repositioned between the Jews and the pursuing Egyptian army, preventing contact. Moshe raises his hand above the Sea and G-d causes a powerful easterly wind to blow all night, followed by a parting of the waters. The People of Israel enter the Sea on dry land, between walls of water. Egypt boldly follows, but the arrogant attitude of the Egyptians abruptly changes to fear and panic as their chariots lose their wheels and bog down in the seabed. (This is in sharp contrast with the perfectly dry land that Israel found beneath its feet.) Egypt finally (too late) acknowledges G-d, not only now, but retroactively, as the One Who had fought for Israel in Egypt. SDT Why the strong wind blowing
all night? Could not G-d have split the Sea with the snap of a
finger? The answer is: Of course. But the night's preparation for
the miracles of the day serve several purposes. The Egyptians are
lulled into a false sense of security when something is happening
that they can explain. They don't want to accept that the G-d of
Israel is performing miracles for His people. No doubt, their
wizards explained the desert winds and the effects it can have.
Among the Jews, there are always individuals who would like not to
admit to G-d's awesome powers. They too will have their "excuse" in
the natural components of the miracle. Perhaps, most importantly,
this wind (and the like) allows us to relate to and better
appreciate, the miracles themselves. A snap of the finger brings
results too quickly for us to think about what is happening. A night
to ponder what was going on, further enhanced the appreciation of
the Children of Israel for what had happened, was happening, and was
to happen. [P> 15:1 (19)] Next comes the Song of the Sea. What makes the Song of the Sea so special is that it is a direct quote of the People of Israel that G-d put into His Torah verbatim. In other words, the rest of the Torah is written by G-d; we composed this part. It is an inspiring passage that has been incorporated into the daily davening. SDT It is written in Sefer HaChareidim that "he who says the Song of the Sea aloud and with joy, it is as if he was leaving Egypt at that moment - and his sins will be forgiven." In the merit of the Song of the Sea, G-d split the Sea for the People and forgave their transgressions. This 19-pasuk parsha is unique in the way it is written in a Sefer Torah. The column that contains the Shira is written wider than all the other columns in the Torah. It is a Tradition to start the column with 5 lines belonging to the previous parsha, beginning with the word HABA'IM. Then a line is skipped (this is very rare in the Torah) and then the first line of AZ YASHIR is written. The next line has one word, a blank space, a group of words (from 3-5 words), another blank space, and then a single word to end the line. The next line starts with a group of words (2-5 words), a space, and another group of words (3-5 words). The pattern of 1-space-group- space-1 followed by group-space- group is repeated for a total of 26 lines (13 pairs of lines). Then there is one more 1-space-group-space-1 line, and the final two lines of the parsha are complete line (as was the first). Then a line is skipped. Five more "regular" lines of Torah text finish off the column. The review: 5 lines + a skipped line top and bottom of the column total 12 lines. The Shira itself has three full lines, one at the beginning at two at the end, and 27 lines which alter- nate two and one blank spaces. 30 + 12 = 42 lines, as most Sifrei Torah have. The column with the Shira has the same number of lines as all the other Torah columns, but is wider, as mentioned earlier. The Song in Haazinu is also written in a different form from the rest of the Torah, but this column in B'shalach is more eye-catchingly unusual. [P> 15:20 (2)] Following the Shira portion is a 2-pasuk parsha describing Miriam's rallying of the women to join in the Shira in their own way. [S> 15:22 (5)] The People continue their journey and fail to find water for three days. When they do find some, they complain bitterly (pun intended) of the inability to drink it. G-d directs Moshe to perform a miracle by throwing a special piece of wood into the water whereby the water becomes sweet. SDT Aside from the literal
meaning of the text, this episode is considered an allusion to the
primacy of Torah in the life of a Jew. Both Torah and water sustain
life - spiritual and physical. In the same vein, "three days without
water" resulted in our reading the Torah on Monday and Thursday, so
that in our wandering in the spiritual desert of life, we will not
go 3 days without spiritual water. This is but one "use" of the
well-known analogy between Torah and water. This idea is not just a
matter of DRASH. The last pasuk of this parsha tells that if we will
harken to G-d's Voice and follow the Torah, keep the mitzvot... then
all the ills that befell Egypt will not be put upon us... [S> 16:4 (7)] G-d tells Moshe
about the MN (manna, mahn, i¨n) which He will soon provide for the
People. Moshe tells the People that they will soon see how G-d hears
and listens to their complaints. MN is not just the food that
sustains the people throughout their wandering, it is also a crucial
test of the faith that the people should have in G-d. The MN was to
fall daily except for Shabbat, and was not allowed to be left over
night (except for what fell on Friday). This facilitated a constant
strengthening of our faith in G-d - the need to "trust" him every
single day. Quail miraculously appear in the evening, and the people eat "meat". On the next morning, the MN - protected by a layer of dew above and below it - appears. The People are fascinated by it and when they question Moshe, he explains the rules & procedures set down by G-d. Nonetheless, there were people who left over MN from one day to the next, and this angered Moshe. And, despite being told that the MN will NOT fall on Shabbat, there were individuals who went out to search for it. [S> 16:28 (9)] G-d "takes note" of this display of lack of faith and "asks" how long we will continue to refuse to keep His commands. The parsha of the MN is our first real introduction to Shabbat. This is the meaning of the line in DAYEINU, had You given us the Shabbat and not brought us near Har Sinai, DAYEINU. Although Shabbat is an integral part of Revelation at Sinai, it actually preceded Matan Torah. Several customs and practices come from the Parsha of the MN. Our use of two Challot at each Shabbat meal (ideally, at Seuda Shlishit, too) is a commemoration of the MN which fell in double quantity on Friday, in honor of Shabbat. The covering of the challa is partially due to the layer of dew that covered and protected the MN. We learn the important lesson that Shabbat is honored by being prepared for. It is not just a corollary of the prohibitions of Shabbat that we prepare our food in advance, it is an essential feature of Shabbat and the role of the days of the week. The requirement of having three meals on Shabbat, Shalosh Seudot, is inspired by the pasuk that describes what Moshe said to the people about their first (and all subsequent) Shabbat. And Moshe said, eat it (the MN) today, for today is Shabbat to G-d, today you will not find it (MN) in the field. The three instances of TODAY in the pasuk with eating and Shabbat, inspired (shall we say) our Sages to require three meals on Shabbat. (It's more complicated than that, but we'll suffice with this explanation.) Included in the instructions about the MN is the command not to "leave our PLACE on the seventh day (to collect the MN)". This was not just a rule for that generation; it is a mitzva among the 613 - the mitzva of T'chum Shabbat [24, L321]. Briefly, the point of T'CHUM is not about how far we may walk on Shabbat. It is about how far AWAY FROM HOME we may go. This is obvious from the halachic details of T'CHUM. The weekdays are for going. Shabbat is for staying put (as defined by halacha) and being able to "relax" and ponder G-d's Creation and Mastery over all. A sample of the MN was stored as a remembrance for future generations. MITZVA WATCH Ramban holds that the whole topic of T’CHUM is Rabbinic; that the Torah does not have such a restriction, and that the pasuk in this week’s sedra from which Rambam learns T’CHUM, is talking about other Shabbat matters. It is important to realize that
the prohibition of T’CHUM, be it D’Oraita or D’Rabbanan, was not
meant to put a limit on physical exertion or the distance a person
may walk on Shabbat. A person who lives in a house in the boondocks
(or, as it is called in some circles, yenemsvelt) which is located
on a small plot of land with a fence around it, is restricted to a
distance of about a kilometrer outside his fence. Another person who
lives in a big city can walk from one end to the other - from Coney
Island to the Bronx and back again - miles and miles - and not have
a problem of T’CHUM at all. And even the first guy with the house
near no others can walk around and around his property all Shabbat
long. As long as he does not go outside his T’CHUM, he’s okay. (Not
really, because he has to figure out why he spends all Shabbat
walking in circles around his home.) The topics of T'CHUM and EIRUV
are complex. This treatment only touched on a few points. [P> 17:8 (6)] The final nine p'sukim (it is also the Torah reading of Purim morning) tell of the attack by Amalek on the fledgling nation of Israel. It is the arch-typical fight against those who would seek to destroy us. This battle repeats itself - differently - throughout Jewish History. [P> 17:14 (3)] G-d tells Moshe to
write down and tell Yehoshua that I (G-d) will wipe out the memory
of Amalek... This is not just Israel's battle, but G-d's as well. If the owner deliberately placed the object at the location where the finder spied it, it must not be picked up by the finder. Even with an identifying mark, the owner would be subjected to the expense and trouble of locating the finder identifying the marks and retrieving the object. Perhaps more importantly, if the object has no identifying marks, it most likely will be lost to the owner forever. The finder is therefore admonished not to pick up such objects. This lesson and the next offers guidelines to the finder: (1) when to pick up an object because it was or appears to have been deliberately left by the owner; (2) when to pick up the object with the intent to restore it to the owner; and (3) when to pick up the object to keep for himself or leave it rest. Caveat: Whenever the law stipulates that the finder may keep the object for himself, it is assumed that (1) the object was located in a place where found objects belong to the finder; (2) the object has no identifying characteristics to obligate the finder to announce his find so that the owner can reclaim the object; (3) or the object lacks one of the other criteria stated in lessons 219 and 220. According to (1) above, if the object was deliberately placed in a spot privately owned, the finder must not pick up the object since the owner of the object will come back to that location to retrieve it. What if the object was deliberately left such a long time ago that neither the current owner nor any of his forebears left the object there? Does the object belong to the finder or the current owner where the object was found? The halacha classifies found objects that are deliberately placed or appear that they have been placed into three categories with different results depending upon the amount of supervision in the area where the object is found: fully supervised, partially supervised, or unsupervised. Fully supervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in a fully supervised area. For example, Shimon finds a garment or an ax next to a fence or a building where men working in that building leave their belongings. Shimon must not pick up the object if he concludes that the owner deliberately placed the object at that location, whether he is positive of his conclusion or even if he possesses doubts about its certainty, or whether or not the object has an identifying mark. The appearance that the object was deliberately left in a fully supervised place is sufficient reason for Shimon not to pick up the object. In this situation, Shimon does not transgress the Torah commandment not to turn away from picking up lost objects because the object is not lost. If Shimon does pick up the object, he may not leave the area unless he returns the object from where he picked it up. If Shimon picks up the object and removes it, he should care for it as he would any found object. If it possesses an identifying mark, he should announce that he found the lost object. If it has no identifying mark, he should keep the object in his care (but not use it) until the true owner is identified. Partially supervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in a partially supervised location. Whether the finder is certain that the owner deliberately placed the object there or only thinks that he may have deliberately placed the object there. With an identifying mark, the finder must pick up the object and announce the find. Without an identifying mark, the finder must not pick up the object. If the finder does retrieve the object, he must keep it (but not use it) until he ascertains the owner's identity Unsupervised: Assume that Shimon spies an object in an unsupervised place. With no identifying mark, it belongs to the finder, Shimon, even if it appears that the owner deliberately placed the object with the intent to return and retrieve it. If it has an identifying mark, the finder must pick it up and make the appropriate announcements. Assume that Shimon finds an object in a rubbish heap. If this location is not ordinarily cleared away and if the object appears to be concealed, he must not pick up the object since it is presumed that the owner left the object for safekeeping. If the rubbish heap is ordinarily cleared away, Shimon may presume that the owner abandoned the object and he Shimon may keep it. If the community decided to clear the rubbish heap, Shimon should pick up the object and treat it as any other found object. If it has an identification mark, it should be announced. Even without an identification mark, the place where it was concealed may serve as the identification mark. For example, Reuven may come forward and state that he concealed a pistol without any identification mark at the southern end of the rubbish heap. That specific location, the southern end of the rubbish heap, together with the fact that Reuven knows that he concealed a pistol there, would be considered as an identification mark. While passing a rubbish heap, Shimon finds a covered vessel. If the rubbish heap is not regularly cleared away, he must not pick it up because the presumption is that it was deliberately placed there by its owner. However, if this rubbish heap is regularly cleared away, Shimon may keep the object, confident in the assumption that the owner realized the abandoned object would be lost when the heap was cleared away. Next week, part #2 of this series
will focus on the following topics: objects found in a wall, money
found in store or a bank, and fruit found alongside an orchard. Our prayers are almost always requests for mercy, as the gemara states (Berakhot 20b), that prayer is "mercy". The natural world has its laws of nature, and the Torah has established laws of punishment "measure for measure", but in our prayers we ask that these laws be circumvented: We ask HaShem to send rain even if the forecast wouldn't predict it, or to be lenient with us even if we really did transgress. Prayers for justice, on the other hand, are extremely rare. The gemara warns, "Anyone who asks the judgment of his fellow man, he is punished first!" (RH 15b.) Rav Nachman writes that such a prayer is usually "eaten up" by the side of evil. It generally does not stem from the uplifting, idealistic side of man that inspires our other prayers, but rather from the small-mindedness and vindictiveness that are the usual fare of the evil impulse. One who would pray for judgment needs extraordinary qualities. First of all, he must have unblemished righteousness; otherwise he will be punished first. Second of all, his request for judgment must itself stem from a recognition that ultimately such judgment is necessary in order for kindness to reign. We find for example, that the blessing asking for judgment on the "minim" could only be composed by Shmuel HaKatan who was known for his extreme self-effacement (see Sanhedrin 11a) and lack of vindictiveness (see Avot 4:19); furthermore, it was only introduced when it was clear that it was an absolute necessity to save the prayer service from malicious informers (Berakhot 28b). (Rav Nachman explains that such a necessity generally arises when mercy is distorted in order to protect and nurture wickedness and cruelty. Judaism reconciles itself to the need to be "cruel to be kind" only with difficulty, when the world considers it "kind to be cruel".) Rav Nachman states that when such an extraordinary individual does arise and confronts such an extraordinary situation, he has immense power to subdue evil and to awaken to repentance those who have been caught in its grip. In fact, it is this exact trait that gives a person the ability to reprove others in an inspirational way that affirms their basic goodness (as we explained last week). Rav Nachman calls this a "voice" or a "song" which awakens the dormant good in wrongdoers and gives them a beautiful fragrance that nullifies the stench of sin. Rav Nachman refers here, as he often does, to a "single, double, triple and quadruple song"; he explains that these four levels refer to different levels of Divine providence. The lowest level is completely according to natural law, without any Divine guidance (though of course the laws themselves are of Divine origin!); the highest level is completely according to Divine intervention, as the world will be guided in the time of the complete redemption. We can explain that someone who has the most profound understanding of HaShem's ways is able to perceive that sin ultimately is also part of HaShem's plan. What is considered against HaShem's will at a lower level of providence is actually part of His greater blueprint at a higher level. A normal person is not capable of such a perspective; if you tell him that evil is part of G-d's plan, then he will feel no distress in the face of wickedness, whether his own or of others. If he understands that evil is against G-d's will, then he considers the sinner banished from G-d. Only a few, such as Moshe, are able to encompass all these songs; these individuals are able to fight evil with all their might, yet reprove wrongdoers with a perfect faith that they are still servants of G-d, involved in advancing His plan. Rav Natan writes that one actual song that gives expression to this supernal song is the Song of the Sea. This song celebrates the judgment of Egypt. Normally this would be highly inappropriate; the Midrash states that the angels were forbidden to sing during the splitting of the sea (Yalkut Shimoni Beshalach). But Moshe, who led Israel in this song, had a perfect apprehension of how this judgment, with its awesome demonstration of HaShem's sovereignty and His election of Israel, was necessary for the establishment of G-d's kingdom among mankind. This song refers to natural phenomena; to G-d's judgment and retribution; and ultimately to the final redemption: "HaShem will reign for ever and ever". Thus it encompasses all of the four levels of song. We explained above that prayers for judgment are generally acceptable only for truly extraordinary individuals in truly extraordinary circumstances. Yet there is an exception: Rosh HaShana, the Day of Judgment. On this day, all of us pray for a favorable judgment: while we make pleas for leniency, ultimately we ask judgment to be done. Rav Natan explains that this special quality extends to all the New Years mentioned in the mishna, including Tu BiShvat, the New Year for trees. It seems that on these days all Israel merit a bit of the spiritual might which makes such a prayer acceptable. And on Shabbat Shira, all of us participate in the public recitation of the Song of the Sea; evidently on this day all Israel merit a dim apprehension of the "four levels of song". Since these two qualities are intimately connected, it is natural that Shabbat Shira and Tu BiShevat are always in close proximity. “Meaning in Mitzvot” is undergoing intensive editing, and BE"H and the help of loyal supporters, we hope to have the book out soon. If you would be interested in helping with publication, please contact Rabbi Meir about making a dedication or subscription (advance purchase): mail@asherandattara.com, fax 02-642-3141 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 While modeled on the Mishkan that had accompanied Israel in its wanderings in the desert and that settled with them in the Promised Land, there was a major spiritual difference between it and Solomon's Temple, a difference that reflected the significant change that had occurred through the realization of Israel's national destiny. The Mishkan of the desert had been constructed of materials from the vegetable and animal kingdoms. When Israel set up the Mishkan in its first home at Shilo in the Shomron, the walls were built of stone but the covering of the desert was retained. Now Solomon's Temple was constructed completely of stone, the inanimate. In the desert, since that was not the nation's destiny nor its religious purpose, Israel had the spiritual and religious energy to sanctify only the vegetable and animal king- doms and to release the holiness that was contained in them. By their settlement in Eretz Yisrael, they acquired additional levels of spirituality and holiness, through the sanctity that exists there. So at Shilo, they were able to incorporate stone in their Mishkan. However, they still were not of a stature to completely sanctify the inanimate world, so they had to retain the animal-vegetable world as the covering for their Tabernacle. Now with the establishment of Kingship and Jewish sovereignty the religious corpus was complete, so that the full spiritual and religious power of the Holy People and Kingdom of Priests appeared. Now even the inanimate world could be made holy and its forces sanctified; so Solomon's Beit HaMikdash is built completely of stone (Shem Mi Shmuel). Although David had prepared gold and silver for its construction, Solomon used his own wealth as Jewish worship has to be free from any taint. He did not want the nations of the world to say, "He built the house of his God with the wealth that David stole from the temples of our gods". Perhaps there was a criticism of David behind the disregard for the wealth he had gathered to build the Temple. David, when he fled before Saul, ate of the holy bread in the Mishkan at Nob, seeing the danger to his life from starvation as overriding the sanctity of the Lechem HaPanim. However, he accumulated wealth for the Temple during the drought, when that wealth could have been used to alleviate the danger of hunger from his nation (Yalkut Shimoni). In Tishrei, or as our text calls it, Yerech Eitanim, he came to consecrate that Temple in the presence of all Israel. "Rabbi Elazar said, because this is the month that the Patriarchs who are called 'Eitanim', strong ones or the foundations, were born. Rabbi Yishmael said, it is called Eitanim because in that month we have the power of mitzvot - Shofar, Yom Kippur, Succah, Lulav, and Beit HaShoeva" (Rosh Hashana 11a). Rabbbi Elazar saw the Avot as being the spiritual fathers of all Mankind, since they all have a recognition of Divinity and an acceptance of the Avot's dedication to justice and righteousness. Therefore the text uses 'Eitanim' as the Patriarchs who are called 'Eitanim', strong ones or the foundations, so that as it were, they were born in the same month as Mankind was created, which is Tishrei. Rabbi Yishmael insisted that the Avot were specific to Israel and so he linked their birth to Nissan, the month in which they became a nation. Our text uses Eitanim because of the power of the mitzvot. Rabbi Elazar sees the Temple as serving Mankind and Rabbi Yismael sees it as intrinsically for Israel. Solomon's prayer at the consecration combines Judaism's universalism with its particularism. In the midst of enumerating the needs of Israel for atonement, livelihood, health and political security [33-40; 44-63], the Jewish king prays, "Concerning the stranger, that is not of Your people... when they shall stand and pray towards this House, hear them in Heaven and do according to all that the stranger calls to You, so that all the peoples of Earth may know, as does Your People Israel, that this House is called by Your name" [41-43]. In our shlichot prayers we use the words of the prophet, to echo this universalism; " For My House is the House of Worship for all Nations" (Isaiah 56:7) This is the 24th installment in
Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” Q We had a minyan for Mincha without a mourner, and so we did not say Kaddish after Aleinu. We subsequently did some learning, after which I recited Kaddish D'rabbanan. Some people questioned whether this is the right thing since, Baruch Hashem, both of my parents are alive. Can/should one with living parents say Kaddish D'rabbanan (=KD)? A There is nothing per se about Kaddish that makes it appropriate only for mourners. Chazanim regularly say the Kaddeishim during the tefilla. The main issue has to do with the Kaddish following Aleinu at the end of the tefilla (and in a few places, during Shacharit). That was instituted to give mourners who are not able to be the chazan the opportunity to recite at least that Kaddish and thereby elevate the souls of their departed parents. Thus, poskim write that when one whose parents are alive says Kaddish, it may look as if a parent has died, and we refrain from this in order to "not open our mouth to the Satan". In contrast, KD was instituted based on the special impact that it has for the world, in general. The gemara (Sota 49a) mentions the saying of "Y'hei Shmei Rabba" after learning aggada (homiletic portions of the Torah) as one of two things that keep the world in existence. In theory and according to the great majority of classical sources (see Shut Chatam Sofer, IV 132; Pitchei Teshuva, YD 376:4) it need not be limited to mourners or those whose parents have died in the past. On the other hand, there is an opinion that only one who does not have parents says KD (Matei Efrayim, cited in Tzitz Eliezer VII, 49). Even though this opinion is rejected, it is hard to deny that the perception of most people is that it is said by mourners or those without parents. This perception of people causes a situation where it is understandable for a parent to be disturbed that their child is reciting KD. Some authorities (see Yabia Omer III, YD 26) say that under those circumstances, there is an element of "opening the mouth to the Satan". What happens if a parent objects to the saying of Kaddish when he need not do so? There is a major machloket among Rishonim in a case that a father tells his son not to recite Mourner's Kaddish for his mother (the father's wife, not divorcee). The Maharam (cited in Tashbetz 425) says that the father's objection, which has a logical basis, should be heeded, even though it is unfortunate, as it is important to say Kaddish for the mother. But the Rama (Yoreh Deah 376:4) says that we reject the father's objection and instruct the son to say Kaddish for his mother. Our case is different from the Rama's in both directions. On one hand, if the parents and others would be more knowledgeable as to the background of KD, there would be no reason to object. On the other hand, there is less of a requirement to say KD, certainly if we are speaking about after a learning session that is not part of davening. It is very common for group learning to end without KD (for better or for worse, and that is not our topic now) even if mourners are present. So why create a questionable situation when one can finish the learning without a Kaddish? We suggest the following approach, which is in line with that of Rav O. Yosef shlita (Yabia Omer, ibid.). The parent(s) have the prerogative to object to their son saying KD, but one need not ask their permission in advance. If one wants to ask his parents, he can say that it is permitted for a son with living parents to say Kaddish and hope they do not object. If someone without living parents is present, he should ideally be the one to say KD, but if no one is saying the KD at the beginning or end of davening, then it is fine for anyone to recite it (Rav Sh. Z. Orbach z.t.l. instructed a colleague of ours with parents to act this way.) In any case, your friends at the minyan have no reason to object. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of
Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You
can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email
weekly, by sending an email to info@eretzhemdah.org with the
message: Subscribe/English (forthe English version)orSubscribe/Hebrew(forthe
hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe
is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel "It is true," admitted R' Zundel.
"You see, Rebbe, I heard that there are Jews in this city who buy
bread from non-Jewish bakers. As I walk about, I stop by at the
different bakers and ask for permission to light my pipe. In the
process, I threw a small wood chip into the fire, and with that the
bread that is baked gains the status of bread baked by a Jew." However, though most people think
of this as war in the desert, outside and away from Eretz Yisrael,
in truth, it was a war ABOUT Eretz Yisrael. The war against Amalek is in every generation, and against... Amalek of the heart, that is, the evil inclination, and the spirit of Amalek - the adversary of Israel... This is Samael and his hosts, whose main power is in the gates of Jerusalem when its lands are desolate... The strength and rulership of Amalek's spirit is in the gates of Jerusalem, as mentioned above, but only when there is destruction and desolation near the gates and in the unwalled areas of Jerusalem... This delays the connection between the Jerusalem of below and Jerusalem of above... The war against the desolation is waged not only by setting up tents of Ya'akov and dwelling places of Israel in their respective places, but also by planting its land and fulfilling the commandments dependent on it (Kol HaTor, chapter 7) Thus, Amalek uprooted himself to
wage war against the Jewish people in the desert to keep them there,
that is, to prevent them from coming to Eretz Yisrael, settling the
land, and developing it. The unification of the Jewish people with
the land promised to their ancestors has the direct effect of
increasing holiness in the world, and eliminating evil. To survive,
Amalek had to stop that process in its tracks; he has continued to
do so over the generations until this very day. Like Amalek, their spiritual ancestor, Balak and Bilaam had understood that the Jewish people moving into Eretz Yisrael had the power to bring history and evil to their respective ends. Thus, for them, like Amalek, their survival depended upon keeping the Jewish people in exile. And thus now, after thousands of years of exile, during which Eretz Yisrael had remained desolate and almost uninhabitable, we have to ask the question, who's keeping us out now? As we witness the rebuilding and repopulating of the land of Tanach, we have to honestly ask ourselves, against whom is the real battle today, if not Amalek - on whatever front he is waging it? To return home to Eretz Yisrael
and to end her desolation - physical and spiritual - is to win the
war against Amalek. To fulfill the mitzvot dependent upon the Land
is to push the spirit of impurity from her borders, and eventually,
from the world itself. The war against Amalek first began in the
desert in Moshe Rabeinu's time. Let it end, once and for all, in
ours. TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by
Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah
Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah But like wayward children, Bnei Yisrael succumbed. Having witnessed momen- tous miracles at sea and having just tasted the miraculous sweet waters of Mara, Bnei Yisrael should have recog- nized that Hashem not only performs wondrous deeds on a cosmic scale but also provides for life's daily, mundane needs. It was not so, however. For when the people arrived hungry in the Wilder- ness of Sin, they again protested vehemently claiming that they had been better off in Egypt. So Hashem provided manna, which proved for eternity that not even forty years in a barren desert could hamper His infinite capacity to fend for His creatures. The manna was the first great
equalizer - for each received this "Food from Heaven" on a daily
basis in exactly the amount needed. Moreover, the double portion
received for Shabbat reinforced the notion that trust in Hashem does
not restrict livelihood. With such rich potential for moral
awakening we surely concur with Rabbi Akiva that manna is the very
same food that sustains the angels. And how, therefore, should we
view G-d's beneficience today? Question from Daniel of Ramat Beit Shemesh: "I have been trying to find out what source of light there was in the Beit Hamikdash. Was the light from the Menorah enough to light the Kodesh Hakodashim? Were there windows?" Answer: The grand portal of the Bayit was a colossal 40 Amot tall (roughly 20 meters). The Ulam, the entrance hall of the Bayit, was only 11 Amot deep and the entrance leading westward from the Ulam into the Heichal was 20 Amot tall. (Note Midot 3:7, 4:1, 4:7.) These enormous entrances allowed a sufficient amount of daylight and even morning sun to enter the Heichal. In addition, there were window-like openings built into the eastern wall of the Heichal high above the entrance which admitted some light (Midot 3:8). (Note the Shinui Nuscha'ot and the Tif'eret Yisrael 85,86. There are variant readings of the Mishna which omit the words "in the windows" altogether.) This outside light was augmented by the warm glow of the golden ceiling and walls. The seven oil lamps of the Menora illuminated the southwest corner and cast a soft mellow light. In the Heichal itself, there was plenty of light to enable to Kohanim to perform the Avoda, e.g. offer the Ketoret. In Bayit Sheini, two parallel thick curtains, extending from the ceiling to the floor, separated the Heichal from the Kodesh Hakodashim. The lower part of the southern end of the eastern curtain, which faced the Heichal, was looped backward on itself and held in place by gold clasps thus creating an opening. Similarly, the lower part of the northern end of the western curtain which faced the Kodesh Hakodashim, was looped back. On Yom Kippur, the Kohein Gadol would pass through the opening on the southern end of the eastern curtain and walk through the entire width of the Heichal between the two curtains. When he reached the gap between the edge of the western curtain and the northern wall, he turned left and entered Kodesh HaKodashim. However very little daylight (let alone light from the Menora) penetrated the heavy curtains. There is an interesting Gemara (Yerushalmi): "Until the Aron (the Ark of the Covenant) was removed (the Kohein Gadol) would enter and exit by the light of the Aron. When the Aron was removed (in Bayit Sheini, he) would 'feel his way' in when he entered and 'feel his way out' when he exited" (Y. Yoma 5:2). In the absence of the supernal light radiating from the Aron, it would have been very awkward for the Kohein Gadol of Bayit Sheini to "feel his way in" into Kodesh HaKodashim if there were no other source of illumination. He was carrying the Ketoret-laden Kaf (ladle) in one hand and a Machta (fire-pan) filled with glowing embers in the other. Another Gemara (Bavli, this time) reads: "Rami the son of Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: 'There was a small passage way, behind the place of the Mercy Seat (i.e. the Kodesh HaKodashim) which had a height of 8 Amot, (constructed) to 'consecrate' (Lehachshir) the Azara (that part of it which was located behind the extreme western wall of the Bayit) and make it permissible to eat Kodashei Kedoshim (sacrifices of a higher level of sanctity), and slaughter Kodashim Kalim (sacrifices of a lower level of sanctity) as it is written, '…and two for a Par Bar' (I Devrei Hayamim 26:18). Rabbah b' Rav Sheila asked, 'And what is Par Bar? …running towards (or facing toward) the outside'" (Zevachim 55b end). While there are difficulties in the text, nevertheless it is evident that the Gemara is referring to an aperture in the western wall of Kodesh HaKodashim, the eastern wall of the chamber to the west of it. (Three levels of small "cells", 38 in all, surrounded the Heichal and the Kodesh HaKodashim on the north, south and west.) In order to 'consecrate' that area of the Azara for eating of Kodashei Kedoshim and the slaughter of Kodashim Kalim, it would have been necessary to construct another aperture in the western wall of the chamber as well. This second aperture would overlook the Azara below (Note Rashi and Tosafot "Shnayim"). Theoretically if a man climbed a ladder and looked through both apertures (which were parallel), he could see into Kodesh HaKodashim and, if the angle was right, possibly even witness the Kohein Gadol performing the Avoda of Yom Kippur! (Note Rashi, bottom of Gittin 54b.) These openings were at least 6 Amot off the ground (The Bayit was built on top of a 6 Amot thick solid layer called the Otem. Midot 4:6) and probably were considerably higher. No doubt the outer aperture had screening of some kind to prevent birds from flying into the Bayit. Therefore subdued daylight was able to enter the Kodesh HaKodashim by means of these two apertures and the Kohein Gadol performed the Avoda without difficulty. The dim light would have been beautifully enhanced by the glow of the luminous gold covered walls of the Kodesh HaKodashim. Catriel Sugarman gives
illustrated lectures on the Beit HaMikdash and related topics. He
can be reached at(02) 652-7531 or acatriel@netvision.net.il In 15:8 we meet an old friend, NE-er-mu, a highly rare double MIL'EIL word. Last year when we presented this, we received learned responses that showed how it really isn't a double NASOG ACHOR, because the AYIN really shouldn't have a SEGOL, but rather a CHATAF-SEGOL, making the word really a two-syllable word and only regular MIL'EIL courtesy of regular NASOG ACHOR. But look at the word. The way it's written and voweled, we are looking at a rare Hebrew word that is accented, not on the last syllable, not on the next-to-the-last syllable, but on the third syllable from the end. That happens a lot in English, but very rarely in Hebrew. Now look at 15:10. Very long note on this word in EIM LAMASORET. Referring to the Egyptians, the Torah (and our davening, because we're in the SHIRA, as is the previous paragraph's NE-er-mu, and that makes this a davening example, not just a Torah reading one) tells us that they sank like lead in the water. TZA-L'LU KA-OFERET B'MAYIM... and then there is one more word - ADIRIM. Mighty. An adjective. What does it modify? An impressive list of sources say that it describes the water. MAYIM ADIRIM. Mighty water. And others say that ADIRIM is a noun and refers to the Egyptians. The problem then is where the greater pause goes in the phrase. The first opinion would have us read the phrase as TZA-L'LU KA-OFERET pause B'MAYIM ADIRIM. The second opinion would pause longer after B'MAYIM. TZA-L'LU KA-O- FERET B'MAYIM, pause ADIRIM. The TAAMIM don't really help resolve this dispute because the ZAKEIF-KATON on KA-OFERET and the TIPCHA under B'MAYIM are both second level (strong) pausers. R' Sharoni in Eim LaMasoret leans towards the first opinion because even though the ZAKEIF-KATON and the TIPCHA are in the same category of MAFSEIKIM, when pitted against each other, the ZAKEIF KATON is a stronger pauser. This puts MAYIM ADIRIM closer together. Still, he refuses to draw a conclusion for how to actually read it, because He "won't put his head between two great mountains" (translation of his words). Next we look at 15:11 - MI CHAMOCHA... MI KAMOCHA... It is fairly well known (and practiced?) that the first KAMOCHA (like You) is without the DAGESH in the first CHAF (and none in the second one either), but the second KAMOCHA keeps its DAGESH. The fact is that the in first MI CHAMOCHA, the words are joined with a MAKAF (upper-dash), which makes the two words almost like one. And the DAGESH would definitely drop from the KAF in that case. In the second MI KAMOCHA, the words are not joined and each has a TROP mark. Still, the DAGESH should have dropped from the KAF because the MERCHA-TIPCHA combination usually does that, with a YUD in the first word of a two-word phrase and a KAF (or BET, GIMEL, DALET, PEI, TAV) leading the second word. But this DAGESH doesn't drop. R' Sharoni "explains" it as a MASORET, a Tradition. But in a telephone conversation, he gave various theories to explain the CHAMO- CHA / KAMOCHA difference. To give one example, since the second MI finds itself at the end of a line in a Sefer Torah, there is a natural pause as the Torah reader shifts his eyes to the beginning of the next line, and that MIGHT have put the DAGESH back into KAMOCHA. Okay, here's another theory. Sometimes when a word appears twice in the same pasuk, they might have been given slightly different accents or pronunciations to make the whole pasuk sound better. There were other ideas, too. In the same pasuk (which also appears in several places in davening), there is an ALEF with a SH'VA NACH. NE?-DAR. Ashkenazim consider an ALEF with a SH'VA to be totally silent. But it can't really be silent because that's how we view an ALEF without any vowel. The SH'VA NACH under the ALEF is supposed to be heard/felt someway or other. (We did this a short while back and won't go into it again.) Let's finish this week's column with another word from the introduction to the SHIRA, that we also say in davening, that is less subtle than the other words just presented. But this one is important, because of the different meanings of the word and its mispronunciation. VA-YI-R'U HAAM ET HASHEM... And the nation feared HaShem... Look at the syllables of the word. VA then YI (or maybe even YIY) and then R'U. It is very easy to mix this word up with VA-YIR-U, And they saw. The first word (feared) has two YUDs, the second one making the CHIRIK under the first YUD into a major vowel, and telling us that the REISH that follows has a SH'VA NA under it. Therefore, the REISH joins the following syllable, which becomes R'U. The second word (saw), has only one YUD, voweled with a CHIRIK which is a T'NU'A K'TANA, a minor vowel. The REISH that follows has a SH'VA NACH which closes off the previous syllable, VA-YIR, which leaves the ALEF-SHRUK in its own syllable. VA-YIR-U. Remember that the words have different meanings, so it is important to pronounce each of them correctly. There are many occurrences of each word in Tanach. Again, the one right before AZ YASHIR is VA-YI-R'U. One more note on the previous words: Both have YUDs with DAGESH CHAZAK, so their first syllables are really VAY, with the YUD sound stretching into the second syllable. But this doesn't involve changing the meaning of the word, so the focus was on the REISH's SH'VA, what kind of SH'VA it is and to which syllable does it belong. Think of how lovingly and
patiently a really com- mitted stamp collector studies his stamps.
This is what this column tries to develop for davening and Torah
reading. OU ISRAEL CENTER [The
Parshat B'shalach Homepage]
|
