Shabbat Parshat VAYAQHEL-P'KUDEI -
HACHODESH-M'VORCHIM 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. The Shabbat we bench Rosh Chodesh
Nisan, which will be on TUE. Not only that, but the sedra itself
refers to the first of Nisan, and of course, so does the maftir. And
so does the haftara. Nisan is surely coming! Setting up the Calendar,
sanctifying the first of the month, is a prerequisite to bringing
Korban Pesach. If the Sanhedrin does not sancify Rosh Chodesh Nisan,
G-d forbid, then there is no Pesach fifteen days later. There is no
Yom Tov, no prohibition of chametz, no mitzva of matza and hagada.
And no Korban Pesach. There is also an INDIVIDUAL prereq- uisite for a Jew’s participation in Korban Pesach - namely, Brit Mila. An uncircumcised Jew may not eat Korban Pesach. If a baby boy has his brit postponed for health reasons, his father does not participate in Korban Pesach until after his son’s brit. So we can say that membership in KLAL YISRAEL has two kinds of prerequisites: National and Individual. The point is (it’s only a set of
first thoughts on the subject; treat it thusly): Observation Notice that when G-d speaks to Moshe, He instructs him concerning the Mishkan (236 p'sukim!) and then warns him that Shabbat is supreme. When Moshe gathers the people to instruct them, he puts the Shabbat warning up front. Interesting, no? Some commentaries say that with the change in “primary” emphasis on the Mikdash in the aftermath of the Golden Calf incident, there came a change in the messages of Shabbat and Mikdash which helps explain which is presented first, and when. SDT In the opening three-pasuk portion about Shabbat, there are 40 words - 39 plus the word HaShabbat. This can be taken as a symbolic reference to the 39 categories of prohibited Melacha, which define the nature of HASHABBAT. The Baal HaTurim says that the word LA'ASOT in the phrase, "These are the things that G-d commanded TO DO them", is spelled with a LAMED (30) and an anagram for TEISHA (9) - another remez to the Melachot of Shabbat. He adds that a VAV is "missing" from LA'ASOT, representing the six weekdays when Melachot are permitted. MITZVA WATCH Lighting a fire is one of the 39 AVOT MELACHA (categories of creative activities forbidden on Shabbat). As such, we already have the prohibition from Commandment #4 - ...Thou shall not do any manner of MELACHA... Why is the Torah singling out FIRE here? The question is two-fold: Why single it out and why command it again. Sefer haChinuch says that the prohibition here is directed to Sanhedrin, not the individual. [It is mitzva 114 according to the Chinuch, and Rambam’s LAV (prohibition) 322.] We have already been told that we may not kindle fire. The courts, says the Chinuch, may not carry out the capital punishment of burning (S'reifa) on Shabbat. Nor, by Biblical extension, may any capital punishment be carried out on Shabbat, nor may any punishment by the courts be carried be meted out on Shabbat. This allows Shabbat to be a day of respite and rest even for the convicted felon on “death row”. We can also look at the Shabbat reminder in a different way. You may not kindle fire in YOUR DWELLINGS, wherever they may be, but you may - nay, you must - kindle fire (and do certain other Melachot) in THE DWELLING, the Mikdash. (That is, when specifically commanded to do so by G-d.) This can explain the specific placement of the “repeat” of the prohibition of kindling fire. Some commentators say that the repetition of fire comes to emphasize that kindling a fire is a capital offense of no less strictness, despite the fact that on Yom Tov it is one of the few Melachot that is permitted (i.e. cook- ing with fire, lighting flame to flame). We might have gotten the impression that FIRE is not THAT major an offense, because of Yom Tov. Comes the Torah here to emphasize the prohibition for Shabbat. We are also taught that the singling out of one of the 39 categories of Melacha indicates that the categories have an identity of their own as far as Shabbat halacha goes. For example, planting, watering, fertilizing, grafting (the permitted kind), pruning are all forms of the AV MELACHA (category), planting. Picking a flower belongs to a different category, reaping. Without going into full details, let's just say that there are differences between the following two situations: [1] A person waters and prunes his rose bush on Shabbat; [2] A person waters his rose bush and picks one of the roses. Without the concept of differentiation among the 39 categories of Melacha, the two situations would be the same, namely, a person doing two forbidden acts on Shabbat. So this is another "lesson" from the LO T'VA'ARU statement. Tif'eret Y'honatan suggests a novel reason for singling out FIRE. Since we are prohibited from doing Melacha on Shabbat because G-d rested from Creation on the first Shabbat, and since fire was not "in the picture" until the first Motza'ei Shabbat, perhaps kindling of fire is not an equal member of the family of prohibited Melachot. Comes the pasuk here to set the record straight. Fire is not only one of the 39 categories, it is the flagship of the LAMED-TET MELACHOT. Notwithstanding all of the above, which equalizes FIRE with the other Melachot, there is an OPINION that the singling out of fire (and of carrying, elsewhere) gives it a different - and lesser - status than the other Melachot, namely, that kindling is not a capital offense. [P> 35:4 (26)] Aside from the first three p'sukim, the rest of the sedra deals with the building of the Mishkan. Parshat T'ruma gave us the command and instructions, Vayaqhel tells us of the carrying out of the instructions. One senses an impatient
excitement concerning the job at hand. Moshe speaks to the people
and tells them that which G-d has commanded. The different types of materials are named. It is made clear that donations are encouraged, but completely voluntary. Then each part of the Mishkan and its furnishings is mentioned in detail. After the people heard what Moshe had to say, they left the meeting (apparently enthused and anxious to get busy). One can speculate, based on the sequence we are presented with in the Torah, that there was a fair amount of guilt from the Golden Calf that was motivating the People. The phrase SHABBAT SHABBATON appears 6 times in the Torah. Twice it refers to Yom Kippur, once to the Shmita year. One other time it might be talking about Shabbat, but possibly about Yom Kippur. The first two times the phrase appears are in Ki Tisa and Vayakhel. Both times are in the context of building the Mikdash. One of the commentaries suggests that when one does “regular” work during his week, then Shabbat is Shabbat. But when we spend our six work-days in “holy-work”, such as building the Mikdash (but not just that), then our Shabbat is further elevated, and is described as Shabbat Shabbaton. Many people are moved to give generously in response to Moshe's appeal. Men and women all give (there are different interpretations as to what the wording in the pasuk indicates). In addition to donations, men, and more so women, donated their talents in weaving, dyeing, woodwork, metal- work, etc. Repeated reference is made to the hearts of the people being in what they were doing. This was a genuine positive response to G-d's and Moshe's call to build the Mishkan. The leaders of the Tribes supplied the precious stones for the shoulder-pieces of the Eifod and for the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and spices and oil for the Incense and the Anointing oil. SDT Rashi quotes R' Natan who
explain why the leaders of the tribes took the initiative on the
occasion of the dedication of the Mishkan. He says that they learned
their lesson from this original collection of materials. The leaders
decided to wait until the people finished giving, and then they
would give what was missing. It turned out that there was almost
nothing left to give because the people had given so generously. For
Chanukat HaMizbei'ach they went first. But for the initial T'RUMA
they were mildly rebuked by the Torah in an inconspicuous way - the
letter YUD was dropped from the word N'SI'IM (36:27). Leaders are
supposed to lead, they are supposed to initiate. Jewish leaders say
ACHARAI - after me! SDT (based on a D’var Torah heard a long time ago from Rabbi Menachem Rottenberg, then the executive director of Yeshiva of Central Queens) Look at the greatness of Bezalel (and his crew). They were able to "think thoughts", formulate ideas, make plans, "work with the gold, silver, and copper". And also, to work with stone and wood. And to do all the various jobs. Picture a committee of some organization with some project to carry out. The most valuable members of the committee are those able AND ready to perform anything that is necessary. Not those people who have the ideas but are not willing to work on their execution. The ones who will work with the gold, but who consider it beneath their dignity to perform lesser tasks. [S> 36:8 (6)] When G-d commanded Moshe about the Mishkan, He first commanded the making of the Aron, Shulchan, and Menora. Then, the roofing layers - the Mishkan, the Ohel, and the Orot. Only then were the wall boards and foundation sockets brought into the picture. In the carrying out of the commands, a more "practical" plan was followed. The structure and then the furnishings. But how can Moshe and Bezalel deviate from the commands of G-d? You can't just do whatever you want in this kind of thing. Commentaries say that Moshe and Bezalel requested and received per- mission from G-d to take the more human, practical approach. In this portion, the three layers of ceiling are presented. Note that the first layer was a beautiful, multicolored weave and the fasteners were gold. [P> 36:14 (6)] Over that came the more practical, less attractive, less complicated, weather-resistant Ohel of goat hair. This layer was not seen from inside the Mishkan, and might not have been seen from the outside either, according to the opinion that the Tachash and Red-dyed sheep skin covering (which was also attractive) was not just on top, but down the sides of the Mishkan as well. [S> 36:20 (19)] Next the Torah describes the construction of the wall-planks of the Mishkan from acacia wood. There were 48 planks - 20 each on the north and south walls, and 8 on the west wall. Each plank was covered with gold. (According to Rav Aryeh Kaplan z”l, the gold covering was extremely thin - he calculated it at 1/100 of an inch thick.) Each plank was inserted into two foundation sockets of silver. The Torah describes in detail the rods, bolts, rings that held the wall planks together. The Parochet to hang between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodoshim, the Masach for the front of the Mishkan, and the Masach for the front of the courtyard were similar in style and material to the first ceiling layer. With the structure completed, next came the Aron and the Shulchan. [P> 37:1 (9)] After many anonymous VAYA’AS, and he did... we come to an unusual wording for the ARON. VAYA’AS BEZALEL ET HA’ARON... Rashi says: Because of his dedication to the construction of the Mishkan more so than others, he is honored by associating his name with the ARON. Baal HaTurim adds that Bezalel
knew the secrets of the ARON, not just the technical details of its
construction. Therefore his name was associated with it. The Aron is described in the same
detail as when it was first commanded back in Parshat T’ruma. This
is so for all parts of the Mishkan, not just the Aron. [P> 37:10 (7)] This parsha
contains the details of the Shulchan. In T’ruma, the command to
build the Shulchan and its utensils was followed by the command to
put the Lechem HaPanim onto the shelves of the Shulchan. Here in
Vayaqhel, the mention of Lechem HaPanim is still to come. Did you know... even though the Torah commands that the Menora be made of gold, it may be made of other precious metals, if gold is not available. Furthermore, the requirement of MIKSHA ACHAT, one solid piece, only applies to the Menora when it is made of gold. And furthermore, a non-gold Menora, which is just as “kosher” for the Beit HaMikdash as a gold one, does not need the decorative orbs, cups, and flowers. Without these restrictions, it is much easier to make a Menora for use in the next Beit HaMikdash, until we get the gold and full details of the Menora’s form. In fact, there is a silver Menora in the Temple Institute in the Old City, that is waiting to function in the Third Beit HaMikdash. It was not hammered of one piece of silver – because it doesn’t need to be. Nor does it have G’VI’IM, KAFTORIM, and P’RACHIM, which it does not need and which we would be able to only guess as to exact detail. [P> 37:25 (5)] Next, the Golden Altar (a.k.a. Incense Altar, a.k.a. Inner Altar) is described. After this Mizbei'ach was made, the Anointing Oil and Incense were compounded. Just an observation... In the
first presentation of the Mishkan, the Golden Altar is found in
Parshat T’tzaveh. The Mizbei’ach for the korbanot, which was outside
the Mishkan, which is the next topic here in Vayaqhel, was presented
in T’ruma. It is possible that commentaries discuss the various
differences. [S> 38:1 (7)] The External Altar,
Copper Altar, Earth Altar (because it was filled with earth when the
camp rested and the Mishkan was erected) is described. Almost all
korbanot were brought on this Mizbei'ach. It was considerably larger
than the Golden Altar. SDT We are taught from the fact that Moshe Rabeinu gave a voluntary accounting of the materials, that a person in the position of collecting monies for the community must conduct himself in such a way that he will always be above suspicion. Even if the individual is completely trustworthy, he should take measures to avoid the possibility of appearing improper. SDT Rashi teaches us that the
description of the Mishkan as EIDUT, a Testimony, attests to the
fact that G-d had forgiven us for the Sin of the Golden Calf. This
is so because the SH'CHINA rested among us, in the Mishkan. The chief artisans of the Mishkan,
the Torah reminds us, were Bezalel from Yehuda and Aholiav from Dan.
[S> 39:6 (2)] Two onyx stones (Avnei Shoham) were attached to the shoulder straps of the Eifod. The names of the 12 tribes (actually, it was the 12 sons of Yaakov) were engraved on the stones, six on each stone. [P> 39:8 (14)] This parsha
contains the detailed description of the CHOSHEN. In addition to the
fabric of these two garments, there were gold settings for the
stones, gold rings and chains for attaching Choshen & Eifod. The hem of the ME'IL was fringed with alternating bells of gold and pompoms of colored wools. According to Rambam, there were 72 bells in all, 36 in the front and 36 in the back. Ramban says that the bells were embedding within the RIMONIM. Most other commentaries say that the bells alternated with RIMONIM. [S> 39:27 (3)] The KUTONET, a long-sleeved, floor-length garment was woven of white linen. All Kohanim wore a KUTONET. Each had it custom-fitted, since it is forbidden to do AVODA in the Mikdash if the garment was either two long or too short, or frayed or soiled. A turban of linen was worn by the
Kohen Gadol in one style, to accommodate the TZITZ. Regular Kohanim
wore their turban in a different style. There are different opinions as
to whether the regular kohen wore an AVNEIT of pure linen or of the
same mixed weave of the Kohein Gadol's AVNEIT. SDT Talmud Yerushalmi notes that the phrase, "as G-d had commanded Moshe" appears 18 times in P'kudei. Correspondingly, we have 18 brachot in our weekday Amida (the connection between Service in the Mikdash and Davening is obvious). Thus says Sh'muel b. Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. This does not include the first time the phrase is used: And Bezalel... did all the G-d had commanded Moshe. There are differences between the context of the phrase with Bezalel and contexts of all the other uses of the phrase that justify its not being counted together with the rest. On the other hand, our Amida does have a 19th bracha, so the "extra" phrase is accounted for. [P> 39:33 (11)] All the components of the Mishkan, its vessels, and the sacred garments were brought to Moshe following the completion of the work by the many men and women who voluntarily contributed their talents to the Mishkan. Moshe inspected all of the work and found it to be consistent with what G-d had commanded to be done. Moshe blessed the people: "May it be G-d's will that He will cause His Presence to settle upon your handiwork." (Rashi) The Torah once again enumerates all of the components of the Mishkan. And repeats over and over again that the People did everything that G-d had commanded Moshe. Here's a thought... The emphasis
upon the people doing as commanded stands in harsh contrast to the
Golden Calf, which was not at all what G-d had commanded. We can see
a rebuke every time the point is made that, "this time we listened,
but what happened a couple of months ago..." (To be sure, it is
complimentary, that we did as commanded, but we can also see an
implied rebuke.) [S> 40:20 (2)] Then the LUCHOT go
into the ARON, the carrying poles are inserted into their rings, the
lid (KAPORET) is placed on the ARON and the complete ARON is placed
into the Mishkan. When in position, the PAROCHET is hung between
what now becomes the Holy of Holies (with the ARON) and the rest of
the Mishkan. [P> 40:34 (5)] In the final 5 p'sukim of Sh'mot, the Torah tells us that Moshe was not able to approach the Mishkan because it was "covered by a Cloud". Only when the cloud lifted was Moshe able to approach. The Cloud was also that which signaled the people to travel or to remain encamped. The Cloud was there by day and the Pillar of Fire by night. Thus ends the Book of Sh'mot, with the stage set, so to speak, for the Book of Vayikra, Torat Kohanim. In the course of the Book of
Sh'mot, we started out as a family that was in Egypt, enslaved and
oppressed there. We grew into a nation, were redeemed from Egypt,
accompanied by great wonders and miracles. We received the Torah,
and set up the two main aspects of our nationhood - the day-to-day
rules of a Torah way of life and the building of the Mishkan to be
the focus of our spiritual energies. G-d's plan for us is well
underway. Everything is there except for our venue for Jewish Life
at its richest - Eretz Yisrael. But three books of the Chumash are
still to come. The main theme of the Maftir is Korban Pesach. K.P. is different from all other korbanot. All korbanot were brought in the Beit HaMikdash between the two daily T'midim, except for K.P. K.P. can be brought and eaten in a state of ritual impurity (in certain circum- stances). This can be seen as a "compromise" by G-d to facilitate our performance of this mitzva. (An individual is postponed until Pesach Sheni because of TUM'A, but the community brings and eats K.P. while TAMEI, rather than wait the month.) The Maftir contains several
mitzvot — the Jewish Calendar [4], to slaughter the K.P. [5], to eat
it [6], not to eat it rare or cooked [7], not to leave over any of
K.P. to the morning [8], to destroy Chametz from one's possession
[9], to eat matza on Seder night [10], not to possess Chametz on
Pesach [11], not to eat any foods that contain Chametz [12]. We also
find the source of SHMURA MATZA and the source of the permitted
M'LACHOT on Yom Tov. Assume that Reuven is carrying his jug of wine and Shimon is carrying his jug of honey. Honey is worth much more than wine. Shimon's jug of honey developed a crack in it and the honey will pour out. Reuven, seeing this, spills out his wine and places his now empty jug beneath the honey and all of the honey is now caught into Reuven's jug. Reuven will be compensated for his efforts in saving Shimon's honey but will not be paid for his lost wine. Since Shimon is there, if Reuven wants to be compensated for his efforts and also for the wine he is to spill out, he should so stipulate to Shimon. If Reuven states he will save Shimon's honey by pouring out his own wine, and Shimon says nothing, then Shimon must pay for the wine as well as for Reuven's efforts. Conversely, Shimon could have suggested that Reuven pour out his wine to save Shimon's honey and that Shimon pay Reuven for his efforts and for his wine. Reuven runs no risk since the honey is now in his jug and in his possession until he is paid. Reuven can set a reasonable time limit for payment and need not have to sue for payment. If Shimon does not pay within such reasonable time, the honey belongs to Reuven. Assume that Reuven leaves his jug of wine on the ground and Shimon is there with his jug of honey, which cracks. Shimon may take Reuven's jug of wine, spill it out, and let his honey flow into Reuven's now empty jug. Shimon owes Reuven the value of the wine. The foregoing laws hold true only if Shimon could somehow have saved his honey in some manner or form. If it is obvious that he could not have saved his honey, then if Reuven puts his jug under that of Shimon's jug as the honey pours out, the honey belongs to Reuven as abandoned property. The law is the same in similar situations. For example, there is a fire in the town and all of the residents are evacuating the town, which will surely burn down. Reuven runs into someone's home and takes something; it belongs to Reuven. The property is deemed to be abandoned property. However, if the owner of the property could have rescued his own objects with great effort, Reuven is to receive wages for the rescue, as determined by Beth Din, but the object belongs to the owner, and not to Reuven. In all events, there are laws of the land and rules of Beth Din that control many of these situations. In all those situations in this lesson where Reuven stipulates with Shimon that Shimon will pay to Reuven more than the going rate for such efforts, the stipulation will be enforced only if Reuven will suffer some damages by his rescue effort. But if Reuven does not suffer any damages by his effort to save the objects of Shimon, Shimon need pay only the amount that a person receives for such efforts. Thus in the above example, if Reuven's jars were empty and Reuven, before rescuing Shimon's honey, insists that Shimon pay him an exorbitant sum. Shimon need pay only such sum as Beth Din will fix for the amount of labor Reuven expended. Shimon's promise to pay the exorbitant amount is deemed to be a promise made without any intent, more in the nature of a jest. Another example given in the codes is where Shimon is escaping from captors who have wrongly imprisoned him. He comes to a ferry and pleads for Reuven, the ferry operator, to take him across the river. Reuven demands an exorbitant fee, or Shimon himself offers an exorbitant fee. Once Shimon is taken across the river, he need pay only the normal fee. However, if the person with the boat is a fisherman who is fishing and Shimon offers to pay the fisherman an exorbitant fee for leaving his nets and for getting him across the river, and the fisherman leaves the nets and takes Shimon across the river, Shimon must pay to the fisherman that which he promised. In all of the situations where
Shimon need not pay the exorbitant amount, this holds true if Shimon
did not yet make the payment. However, if he made the payment to
Reuven, then he may not receive anything back. A person retains a marriage broker or a business broker and promises the broker a fee that is in excess of the ordinary fee. When the matter is completed, the broker is entitled only to the normal fee, not to the agreed-upon higher fee. There is an opinion that the agreed-upon fee must be paid. A third opinion holds that where there is a community-fee, then that fee is controlling, and if the community does not have a set fee, then the agreed-upon fee must be paid. However, according to all opinions the agreed-upon fee must be paid if the agreement was concluded and made binding by a kinyan, or by a handshake in those communities where a handshake is the equivalent of a binding kinyan, or by oath to make the payment. Also if the broker was retained for an extraordinary task that is not usual, then the agreed-upon fee must be paid according to all opinions. Reuven, a broker, undertook to represent Shimon without a fee. Just before the entire performance of Reuven was completed, Reuven demands a fee for his work; Shimon has expended moneys in reliance of the completion of Reuven's performance. Shimon agrees to pay to Reuven the fee that he demands and makes the payment. Somehow Shimon holds moneys belonging to Reuven and wants to offset the money he is holding against the fees that he paid to Reuven. Shimon pleads that Reuven originally undertook to represent Shimon without a fee and made his demand for a fee after Shimon had expended money that he stood to lose if Reuven did not complete his task. Thus the money paid to Reuven was in the nature of robbery and can be recovered by Shimon. It was held that the fee belongs to Reuven and Shimon must return the money to Reuven. The reason is that even if Reuven undertook to work without a fee, he is not obligated to complete his undertaking. However, if Reuven's services were no longer needed by Shimon and Shimon could have completed the project himself if Reuven removed himself from the project, and now Reuven demands money not to interfere and ruin the project unless he is paid. Shimon may recover any money that he paid to Reuven under such circumstances. The subject matter of this lesson
is more fully discussed in Volume VIII Chapter 261 of A Restatement
of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be
purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website:
www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. “Returning Lost Objects” In a previous column, we explained that these two levels of obligation correspond to two levels or approaches to ownership. At one level is the utilitarian or formal rules of ownership, which society adopts in order to create orderly economic relations. Above this is a more profound and spiritual concept of ownership, where ownership of an object involves a responsibility to use our property in furthering G^d's will and acting as an agent of His providence. This level reaches its highest level among the Jewish people. The Torah is primarily concerned with eternal, spiritual realities; thus the primary mitzva of returning objects regards this higher second level. However, our Sages acknowledged the importance of orderly and friendly society and in many cases encouraged or required returning an object when only the first kind of ownership persists, because of such considerations as "beyond the letter of the law", sanctification of G^d's name, and so on. (See our column from Vayikra 5762, based on writings of Maharal and Rav Natan of Breslav.) Rav Kook presents an alternative, and ultimately complementary, explanation of these two levels of obligation. At one level, writes Rav Kook, there is insistence on individual ownership. This is exemplified by the character trait of "mine is mine and yours is yours" (Avot 5:10). While this insistence is important, there need to be limits to private ownership as well. Indeed, Rav Kook mentions that distinguishing the appropriate extent of private rights in property is one of the most difficult topics in judgment. At some stage, the rights of the individual need to give way to those of the collective. The Torah instructs us that after the owner of the property has already lost both physical and psychic connection with his property, "the Divine consideration tipped the balance in favor of the collective". For this reason, after loss of hope the ownership is collective, meaning that anyone can acquire the object. Why then is it praiseworthy to return the object even in this case? Rav Kook explains that among the Jewish people, it is usually a fair assumption that the original owner will make at least as good use of the object as the finder. (This is similar to Rav Natan's explanation that the original owner acquires a special Providential role in disposing of his property.) Given that the owner is likely to make better use, and that the finder is not greedy or acquisitive, it just makes sense to return the object, and so this course of action is praiseworthy. However, if the finder has a firm basis to believe that he can make better use of the object for the common good than the person who lost the object, then on the contrary, it makes sense for the finder to keep it himself. Thus, returning the object is praiseworthy but not obligatory, since judgment is required to determine the best course of action. But for mankind as a whole, there is no automatic assumption that the one who lost the object is ideally suited to direct it to its Divine purpose. Indeed, even before loss of hope there is no such presumption. While many people are righteous and G^d-fearing, there are also many individuals who use their possessions in a wasteful or destructive way. Thus, the Torah decreed that among mankind as a whole, ownership passes to the collective as soon as it is lost. However, even in the case of non-Jews we are bidden to exercise our judgment and return the object if it seems to us that this advances HaShem's plan. Rav Kook's reference to the mishna in Avot, via the expression "Mine is mine and yours is yours", reminds us that while the first opinion in the mishna calls this an "average approach", the second opinion states that this approach to possession is Sodomic - gratuitously possessive. This hints that sometimes we have to go beyond this narrow understanding. Later on, the mishna states that "Mine is yours and yours is mine" represents the approach of "a common person" (am haaretz). While this expression usually refers to an ignorant person, Rav Kook in other places explains that this expression can also refer to certain basic, healthy human instincts that are found in common people. (This is how he explains the "common people" who took their lulavim from under the rocks where hostile enemies had placed them on Sukkot - Sukka 43b.) For the masses, the appropriate boundary between individual and collective ownership is tipped more in favor of the collective; in a more advanced and public-minded society, the interests of the collective are not harmed if the balanced leans more in favor of the enlightened individual. (Based on Igrot Rayah I:89) Rabbi Meir authors a popular
weekly on-line Q&A column, "The Jewish Ethicist"... You can see the
Jewish Ethicist, and submit your own Qs — www.jewishethicist.com or
www.aish.com His marriage to Jezebel cemented an alliance with her father's kingdom of Zidon in Phoenicia and Israel enjoyed great prosperity. By any normal measurements of king- ship, Achav was a great king, as were his political and military achievements. However, the Tanach's judgment was, "and he did evil in the sight of the Lord, more than all those who had ruled before him" (16:30). Nevertheless, he retained some of the traits that have always characterized Jewish kingship and political rule. When Ben Haddad of Damascus laid siege to Shomron, he sent to Achav, demanding the most treasured of his possessions; Achav agreed to give him gold, silver, his wives and his children. Ben Haddad was not satisfied and demanded, "Give to me even your most treasured and beloved possessions" (19:2-9). Our Sages understood this to refer to the Sefer Torah, whose words are, "more to be desired than plentiful gold, even much fine gold" (T'hilim19:11). Achav showed love for the Torah and replied that that Torah was what he had written as his obligation as a king (D'varim 17:18), so that it did not belong to him and was not his to give away (Sanhedrin 105b). For this refusal, the cost of which was war, he merited a great victory against Ben Haddad and his 32 kingly allies, killing 100,000 of their men in one day. The remnant fled before Israel to Afek, only to suffer further defeat when the city wall collapsed and killed many. Ben Haddad sought refuge in the innermost rooms of the city until his servants came up with a suggested way for saving him. "Behold we have heard that the kings of Israel are indeed merciful. Let us then clothe ourselves in sackcloth and place ropes on our heads [as a sign of submission]. Perhaps the king will grant you your life?" (20:31). Achav, acting on a centuries old national religious tradition, showed Ben Haddad great mercy and let him return to Damascus. "Three traits this people [Israel] have. They are merciful and the sons of merciful Fathers". Avraham whose merit is chesed, pleaded for G-d's mercy on S'dom, even though they did not deserve it. Our Rabbis learnt from 'vayichan Yaakov', [lit. encamped, but understood instead to flow from chen - mercy], that Yaakov in his mercy for the city of Shechem, established things that benefited the inhabitants; either a just coinage, or public baths or efficient market places. Moshe had mercy on the daughters of Yitro and saved them from the antagonistic shepherds, and David, merciful shepherd, saved his flocks from the lions and bears. This tradition befitted Israel as they tried to imitate Hashem at the beginning of whose Torah He clothed the naked [Adam and Eve. (Gen. 3:21) and at its end He buried the dead - chesed shel emet [Moshe (D'varim 34:6]. Hashem, who Himself taught Moshe the 13 Attributes of His kindness, so that the Jews would always be able to rely for forgiveness on, "Lord, Lord merciful and gracious long-suffering and abundant in love" (Sh'mot 34:6). Because of this longstanding and intrinsically Jewish trait, it is difficult to understand the anger of G-d at Achav's behavior as expressed in the words of the prophet, "Because you have let out of your hand a man who I have devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be forfeit for his and your people for his" (29:42). So too in the light of our traditions of mercy, we may have difficulty in understand- ing the anger at Saul's treatment of Agag, the Amaleki. However, it becomes clear if we bear in mind Judaism's balance between mercy and justice that is an integral part of the perpetual and consistent balance between spirituality and materialism, between ethics and legalism, between universalism and nationalism, and between ritualism and religious ecstasy. Whenever, in Jewish history there has been a distortion of such a balance in any sphere, suffering, spiritual or physical, has come upon us. Both Agag and Ben Haddad were enemies of G-d and of the Jewish People, not only of the Jewish kings, so their treatment could not only be considered in the light of the king's individual spiritual and ethical values. After his first defeat at the hands of Achav and Israel, Ben Haddad reasoned that the G-d of Israel was a god of the mountains, who could be defeated on the plains; thereby he needed to be taught that Hashem was Lord and Master of everything. Pharaoh had said, "Who is Hashem? I know Him not", and therefore was forced through the 10 plagues to acknowledge that he had sinned before Hashem. Agag followed his ancestor Amalek who had mocked the greatness of G-d's miracles and thereby mocked Him until there is war between them for eternity, and so deserved to die. Achav could not maintain the
balance inherent in Judaism and let his mercy distort and corrupt
the obligation of justice, a distortion that placed great danger on
Israel and acquiesced in the mockery of Hashem. Such a distorted
balance could not continue, so Achav had to die, despite the
national tradition of mercy. Q My car got a deep scratch in the door when it was parked. The offender drove on without leaving a note. Because it was expensive to fix, we decided to leave it. Some time later, a similar damage occurred, but this time, the damager left a note and is willing to pay to have it fixed, if he is obligated. Once the door is removed to be fixed, there is little difference in price between fixing one scratch or two. Can I make the second person pay for damage which is significant in its own right but, given the fact that the door was already scratched, did not change very much? A We want to commend you and the
person who made the accident for wanting to do the right thing
without regard to coming out monetarily ahead. May many follow in
your footsteps (but drive more carefully than he). (The question
ignores any involvement of insurance companies, and the answer
follows suit.) Yet it appears that according to both approaches on the fundamental issue you are not entitled to demand full payment to fix the door. That is because the second damager is not responsible for previous damages you incurred but just for those that he did. Regarding depreciation of the car's (re-sale) value, there is probably little difference between a car with one scratch and a car with two scratches on the door. The possibility that the same, second scratch would have made a bigger difference in the price had it been the car's only blemish is not relevant. If one severely damages a luxury car and a second person subsequently "totals" it, the second person is responsible to pay only the value of a severely damaged car. From the perspective of paying to fix the car, you probably do not have a claim. The fact that you decided not to fix the door after the first scratch indicates that the damage is one that does not warrant fixing, given its relative cost and gain. In such a case, even the Rambam should agree one does not pay to have it fixed. Is it logical to require an exorbitant price to fix something of little value or improve it only slightly? Under two circum- stances, you could demand the second damager to pay to fix the scratch he made: 1) If the average person would pay to have the car fixed and for personal reasons, you decided not to fix it the first time. If so, you can now decide to fix it, but you can only charge for the added price of the second scratch. 2) If the added damage from the second accident is that which causes the car to be in such a state that the average person would fix it despite the expense. If so, the second person would have to pay the whole price of fixing the scratch he made, not half. Again, we compare the situation before and after the accident in question and make the damager make up the difference. (Of course, you could not charge him for any added charge for fixing the first scratch.) Responsibly figuring out the car's depreciation and whether fixing it is warranted requires an experienced appraiser. Hiring one is probably expensive enough to make a compromise that all can live with the best option for two honest people. 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 (for the english version) or Subscribe/Hebrew(for
the hebrew version). Please leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe
Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel Rabbi Solovetichik ztz"l, explained the difference between the two: A nadvo rucho reacts in an intellectual, rational way. Many in Bnei Yisrael analyzed their ability to donate based on the needs of the Mishkan and contributed a commensurate amount. Their approach was perfectly acceptable and legitimate. The nesa'o libo, however, reacted on a more instinctive level. They were overcome with the desire to build a Mishkan as an expression of their attachment to Hashem. Such people acted well above what was required of them. The difference between the intellectual and emotional approach to the performance of a mitzvah can be applied to almost all of the Torah's mitzvot. Notably, in the Mitzvah of giving charity. Man can readily accept and understand rationally the need for giving charity. When, however, one gives charity from an emotional need and desire to do so, it becomes etched in his mind and no intellectual or rational reason will deter him. When one acts on such an impulse, it is characterized as an act of chesed. There is another Mitzvah which demonstrates the difference between the nadvo rucho and the nesa'o libo - the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael - living in Eretz Yisrael. It is perfectly legitimate and under certain circum- stances necessary to approach aliyah to Eretz Yisrael as a nadvo rucho. Practical, economic, rational considerations should be part of the process. But ultimately, the nesao libo is the one who will make aliyah. One who has an emotional, existential attachment to Israel to the extent that it becomes etched in his mind so that he is constantly aware of the desire and necessity of performing this mitzvah, is the one who will actually make aliyah and no rational or intellectual decision will deter him. Rabbi Benyamin Walfish, Jerusalem The tremendous detail offered in the text and the repetition of items remind us of a bride and groom anticipating every detail of their new home, their "Miniature Sanctuary". The details prompt us to consider the value of every facet of the Mishkan and of every contribution. They reminds us, perhaps, that often those who work behind the scenes, even in the most mundane areas, gain equal merit to those whose service to G-d is more overtly precious and public. The Torah ends the account of the Mishkan's construction with the vessels that represent its true essence and which reflect Man's deepest deliberations. There is the Aron, the Holy Ark containing G-d's teaching, then the Shulchan, the Table symbolizing the struggle for one's daily bread, and finally the Menorah, which represents our duty to spread the light of Torah in the world. Moshe erects the Tabernacle step
by step until, as the Book of Shemot closes, he "completed the work
[and] the Glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan… before the eyes of all
the Children of Israel". Happy are they who saw their own handiwork
restore to an enslaved people the lost glory of their forefathers.
Blessed are they who in their personal merit created a holy vehicle
and resting-place for the Shechina. Lishkat Osei Chavitin (Chamber
of the Griddle-Cake Makers) There were two Lishkot (chambers) in the eastern wall of the Ezrat Yisrael located on either side of Sha'ar Nicanor. These two Lishkot are not mentioned in the Mishna in Midot 5:3 which lists the Lishkot in the Ezrat Yisrael ("There were six chambers in the Azara - actually Ezrat Yisrael... three to the north… and three to the south…") probably, because unlike them, they were actually built into the wall and did not protrude into the courtyard. The chamber to the south of Sha'ar Nicanor was called Lishkat Osei Chavitin." The Minchat Chavitin, the twelve unleavened loaves ("griddles") offered daily by the Kohein Gadol on the Mizbei'ach, were prepared in this chamber (Midot 1:4, Menachot 76a). The Torah ordains, "And G-d said to Moses saying: 'This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which each shall offer to G-d on the day that he (Aaron) is inaugurated: a tenth of an Eifa (2.48 kg.) of Solet (fine flour) as a continual meal offering; half of it in the morning and half of it in the afternoon. It should be made on a pan with oil; scalded shall you bring it, a repeatedly baked meal offering, broke into pieces as a sweet savour to G-d. And the Kohein who is anointed (i.e. the Kohein Gadol) from among his sons in his place shall perform it - it is an eternal law before G-d. It shall be wholly burnt (on the Mizbei'ach). And every meal offering of the Kohein shall be burnt (on the Mizbei'ach): it shall not be eaten'" (Vayikra 6:12-16). The Sages interpreted this Pasuk to mean that a regular Kohein (Hedyot, not the Kohein Gadol) brought his offering on the first day that he began to serve in the Mikdash. A kind of priestly initiation, this offering also consisted of twelve loaves and was called Minchat Chinuch. It preceded any other Avoda performed by the novice Kohein in the Mikdash and he offered it only once in his lifetime. The Kohein Gadol on the other hand, offered his Minchat Chavitin every day including Shabbat as long as he held his position. The Kohein Hedyot offered all twelve loaves with the morning Tamid, however the Minchat Chavitin of the Kohein Gadol were offered in two stages; half accompanied the morning Tamid and half accompanied the afternoon Tamid. Similar to all other Menachot (with the exception of one of a variety of loaves offered with the Shelamim - peace offering (Vayikra 7:13) and the Two Loaves brought on Shavu'ot (Vayikra 23:17)), the Chavitin were actually a kind of Matza. While today Matzot are usually quite thin, they can be made quite thick, as in fact, the traditional Temani Matzot are to this day. The Torah, in discussing the Lechem HaPanim, specifies that there were twelve loaves (Vayikra 24:5-8), however when the Minchat Chavitin of the Kohein Gadol is considered, the Torah does not specify a number. (Lechem HaPanim is usually translated "showbread," also spelled 'shewbread' - after the German Shaubrot which is Martin Luther's translation! A better term perhaps would be "Bread of the Presence". Lechem HaPanim has also been translated as "Bread of Faces" because each loaf was oblong and had straight sides - like faces.) The Gemara reads, "All Menachot - the generic name for meal offerings - consist of ten cakes each except for the Lechem HaPanim and the Chavitin of the Kohein Gadol which consist of twelve loaves each. The Lechem HaPanim consisted of twelve loaves as written. With regard to the Chavitin of the Kohein Gadol, it is not written, but we can infer it by the Scriptural utilization of the word Chok ("statute") both here (in reference to the Chavitin) and elsewhere referring to the Lechem HaPanim" (Menachot 76a). The Sages concluded that the Chavitin of both the Kohein Gadol and the Kohein Hedyot also consisted of twelve loaves by means of a Gezeira Shava, a verbal analogy, which may be utilized only when there is a Tradition asserting that the two legal expressions in different Pesukim complement each other. "What the syllogism is in logic, the verbal analogy is in philology." Incorporated into the Shacharit service many centuries ago, the Gezeira Shava is the second of the thirteen hermeneutic principles used to "deduce the whole breath and depth of meaning hidden in the epigrammatic brevity of the Torah" as promulgated by the Tana R. Yishmael. The Gemara explains how the
Chavitin offering of the Kohein Gadol was prepared. "How was the
dough of the Chavitin divided into the (twelve) loaves? Was it done
by hand or by using a utensil? Certainly it must have been done by
hand because otherwise if you maintain that it was done by use of a
utensil - would you bring a scale to weigh bread into the Mikdash?
And why not? Because weighing bread is connected with curses" (Menachot
87b). Vayikra 26:14-43 records the frightful punishments Am Yisrael
would experience if they refused to live up to their Divine calling.
One of the curses mentioned is that "ten women will bake your bread
in one oven and they will bring back your bread by weight; you will
eat and not be satisfied" (Vayikra 14:26). Therefore the dough of
the Chavitin was divided by hand without recourse to utensils. Bread
(or dough but not flour) should not have to be measured exactly.
Like most other Menachot, the twelve Chavitin of the Kohein Gadol
were prepared from Solet, the finest wheat flour mixed with pure
olive oil (Menachot 4:5). Like other Menachot, the Chavitin were
accompanied to the Mizbei'ach by frankincense. Early every morning,
Kohanim were assigned to begin heating up the water necessary for
the preparation of the Chavitin (Tamid 28b). Since the Minchat
Chavitin was considered to be the personal offering of the Kohein
Gadol and not a communal offering, he either paid for the Solet
himself or brought it from home. (See Menachot 5:4; also note Torat
Kohanim, Parshat Tzav 3 and Menachot 50b). The Kohanim preparing the
Chavitin first placed the flour in a Mikdash measuring vessel to
ascertain that they had the correct amount. Placing the Solet in the
Mikdash vessel sanctified the flour permitting it to be utilized for
an offering in the Mikdash. This act is called Hakdasha. <to be
continued> Quite often, people contact us about where to get the sefer that this column is based on. It so happens that Manny’s (a.k.a. Ohr HaTzafon) in Me’a She’arim has several copies of the book. So if you want to own Ein LaMikra HaShaleim, get it there while supplies last. In last week’s column, we discussed how putting a pause or a comma in the wrong place can lead to a distortion of the meaning of the text in the Torah - or at least to a confusion and possible misunderstanding. The specific issue concerned the requirement of having the Para Aduma Potion spinkled on a person who is T’MEI MEIT on the third day AND the seventh day of his counting of the period of TUM’A, and then following the seventh day (and after Mikve) the person becomes TAHOR. The structure and wording of the pasuk (Bamidbar 19:12) lends itself to being misread, and requires a little juggling (not really the right word) to come out right. Commentaries point out the possible misunderstanding from the first part of the pasuk, but point to the second half of the pasuk that is less prone to misreading. The point in last week’s TBDATR was that the TAAMIM (TROP) help avoid the misreading - if one knows how to handle the pausing-TAAMIM properly. Anyway, all this is besides the point for now. The reason I bring it up this week is to publicly apologize for the harsh words of criticism towards a translation (which wasn’t identified in last week’s column, yet the translator himself recognized that I was talking about his translation). After reading the translator’s letter, I realized that my character- izations were improper. We have spoken by phone and I hope my apologies then and now are both accepted. I still believe that the translation is potentially misleading, but the second half of the pasuk was quite unambiguous and accurate. And the points about the reading of the TAAMIM were the main intent of the piece last week, and they still stand as a reminder towards more careful Torah reading. A TTreader has asked for clarification about the HEI HAYEDI’A before words with a MEM. We’ll try, but let’s get there slowly. Be patient. HEI HAYEDI’A is the HEI at the beginning of a word that means THE. Definite article. Shulchan - table. HaShulchan - the table. So far, so good. [Part of this discussion, which we’ll save for later, will be the HEI HASH’EILA, the questioning HEI. Later.] Generally, a HEI HAYEDI’A is voweled with a PATACH - HA - and will also be responsible for putting a DAGESH CHAZAK in the first letter of the word that the HEI is in front of. Generally. Shabbat. ,MEKASDEISH HASHABBAT - He Who sanctifies THE SHABBAT. Notice that the SHIN of Shabbat has a DAGESH (dot) in it when the HEI is prefixed to the word. The effect of a DAGESH CHAZAK in the SHIN in pronunciation of the word is an emphasis of the letter. Graphically, it’s the difference between shabbat and haSHSHabbat. Actually, the DAGESH in the BET is CHAZAK too, so the word is haSHSHaBBat. Most people do not say a letter with a DAGESH CHAZAK any different from the letter without the DAGESH. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue. Anyway, if the first letter of
the word already has a DAGESH KAL (one of the letters BET, GIMEL,
DALET, KAF, PEI, TAV), then the prefixed HEI HAYEDI’A changes the
DAGESH to CHAZAK. You won’t see the difference in print, as both
DAGESHes look the same, and you probably won’t hear a difference
either, but it should sound a little different (as mentioned above).
kadur - ball. haKKadur - the ball. For sale at the Israel Center:
Set of 6 tapes by Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet
on The Rav & Religious Zionism -
160nis ($36) Every week from Nahariya and Tzfat in the north to Sderot and Kiryat Gat in the south, over three thousand youngsters participate in the OU Israel Center's youth programs. The NCSY-style Makom BaLev, the Zula for teenagers at risk and NESTO for English-speaking teen Olim are three facets of our Youth program. There is more.Please take a couple of minutes to read about our Youth programs in more detail, in the enclosed ad journal form. Day in and day out the OU Israel Center is here for you; now we turn to you to be there for us. On May 18th we will celebrate together at the OU Israel Center's first annual Dinner. We will have the pleasure of honoring Mr. Marc Belzberg, Rabbi Aharon Adler, and Rabbi Stewart & Susie Weiss, each of whom has contributed so much to the Israel Center and Torah education. The dinner and its journal is the opportunity for you to express you appreciation and show your support to the Israel Center. The proceeds of the dinner and journal are earmarked for the Center's youth programs. Just think! Your donation means that another teenage oleh from Kharkov will find a warm welcome in our Beit Kharkov, your contribution will assist Makom BaLev to bring another group of Israeli kids closer to yiddishkeit. With your assistance, young religious high school students will be able to reach out to their non-religiouspeers with Torah and Mitzvot. And with your help, the Zula will save another boy or girl from life on the streets. Please fill out the enclosed
form, reserve places for the dinner and/or place an ad in the dinner
journal. We thank you in advance for your generosity and look
forward to seeing you at the Israel Center and at the Dinner. (or
call 5667787 x 203 for more info..) THE TIYUL HOTLINE Dial the Israel Center's number 5-66-77-87, then press 211. You'll hear "thank you, one moment please", and then the phone system's music for 15 seconds (or less). Then the Tiyul Hotline message begins. You can listen to the whole message and then press 2 to leave your message, or you can interrupt bypressing2rightawayandleavingyourmessage sooner. What’s for lunch? When a tiyul
says “bring your own lunch”, you can buy one instead from the Israel
Center Cafe. Call the TRAVEL DESK or TIYUL HOTLINE up to the day
before the TIYUL and request a box lunch. 18NIS will get you a
delicious sandwich (specify your preference), a refreshing drink
(specify regular or diet) and a
dessert. Your
box will
be ready for you when you board the bus. Students from Abroad Are your parents planning on visiting you some time this year? If so, you want to speak to us! (566-7787 ext. 249). We have many attractive deals for them... and you. Let us turn an ordinary “been there, did it” visit into an unforgettable, special one! KASHRUT POLICY Food for Israel Center In-House programs is supervised by <-in-Israel - Mehadrin. Israel Center sponsored trips and programs are under Mehadrin Hashgacha. Hotels, restaurants, and tiyulim advertised by the Travel Desk or by outside parties are not necessarily Mehadrin and are not endorsed by the OU or the Israel Center. Please note: We cannot return phone calls from overseas, but rather people should fax 972-2-5660156 for the Attention of Batya or email to tiyul@israelcenter.co.il For reservations at the hotels listed below or any other Israeli hotels, please call Batya directly at the Travel Desk 566 7787, ext. 249.She'll be happy to accommodate you with any of your requests. Israel Center Tiyulim are
partially subsidized by the Jewish Agency for Israel The background to the Biriya ascent were the restrictions imposed on Jewish immigration and the purchase of land during the British Mandate, as promulgated in its official White Books. The last White Book of 1939 limited the quota of Jews to 75,000 over a five-year period, preventing more Jews from immigrating during the Holocaust. When the war ended, many Jewish refugees wanting to start a new life in a place they could call home were barred entry. The yishuv fought the British in different ways including armed struggle, illegal immigration ("ha'apala") and settlement. The Mizrahi movement founded the settlement of Biriya in 1945. It was also a stronghold of the Hagana. In 1946, upon discovering a cache of arms, the British attacked Biriya, destroyed its structures, and sent its settlers to Acre Prison. Aryeh Kroll, of Kibbutz Sa'ad, was one of the pioneers who rebuilt Biriya as a Bnei Akiva leader. Kroll recounts the sequence of events: "It was the first time that the British destroyed a Jewish place. In response to this, 5,000 young people came from all over to ascend Biriya on the 11th of Adar under cover of going to nearby Tel Chai to commemorate the Tel Chai battle (in March 1920). They built huts, which the British destroyed. This again happened a second time. I went up the third time with nineteen others, and we finally succeeded". Kroll stayed for a year, and shortly after this and other developments, the British left the country for good. Kroll was an Israel Prize recipient in 1999 for his work with the Jews behind the Iron Curtain. Discovering their plight in 1965 while visiting his sisters in his native Russia, he realized that the Jews still had a spark of Yiddishkeit, despite the oppressive regime. He risked his life in secret missions in order to keep up this interest. For over 20 years Kroll coordinated and sent youth missions to encourage activities among the Soviet Jews. Many Jews were inspired and eventually came on Aliyah. Kroll continued with the klita of these Jews, and today coordinates World Bnei Akiva and Kibbutz haDati activities in the FSU. Regarding the North American Jews, Kroll says: "We have a problem, and encouraging Aliyah should be done with a Zionist education at home. Education is the key against assimilation. If G-d forbid, there would be a situation that masses of American Jews would have to come to Israel, there would be a problem because of the high assmilation rate. Today, it is a great miracle that some 2,000 American Jews come on Aliyah every year!" Quite a few of the Bnei Akiva
youth who went up to Biriya are descendants of North American olim,
and are raised as proud Jews in Israel. According to Kroll, when the
youth reenact the Aliyah to Biriya they feel the pulse of history,
and learn the importance of determination in order to succeed under
difficult conditions. Inspiration is essential for the Jews of North
America, with American-Israelis having a significant part in this. The diverse "Only in Israel" experiences presented here by Dr. David Rosen of Har Nof, Jerusalem have anchored his commitment to Israel. Seeing your son "graduate" boot camp after his "Sea to Shining Sea" Galilee to Mediterranean, nonstop march; seeing the bright faces of the students in your daughter's National Service class; receiving an SMS on the cell that your daughter finally heard she was accepted to the high school of her choice; listening to the angelic harmony of your daughter's youth orchestra; or tragically, waiting in pronounced silence for the bereaved father to get the words of Kaddish said for his fallen hero son... These are but a few vignettes that well up our eyes, yet curiously anchor our Aliyah. Life is precarious everywhere, but here it is LIVED. The Lebanon War, my first personal encounter with "grown-up" fear, shortly after arrival, was my crucible of commitment. The purifying fire we call "Israel" did not consume, on the contrary, it is the medium that fuels rich experiences and molds true friendships. My first job here was in a precision machine shop; "who would have imagined" the joy of having my first piece scrutinized, then accepted with words the "Yashar Koach!" (Well Done!). Another of those first year jobs was to beat the calendar and plant some 2000 vine saplings before TU b'Av, the new counting of the "Orlah", first fruits year. The verdant vineyard can be seen today immediately east of the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway minutes after one transits the Kibbutz Sha'alvim road overpass and meets up with the Trans Israel Highway. A pat on the back from an officer, a good 12 years my junior, when told to guard this precious patch of Jewish Homeland, is yet another forging of our steadfastness. With our Aliyah going on eighteen years -- it certainly has been a L'Chayim. "Life happens when you're busy making plans", rings here: Air raid sirens of the first Gulf War and the toddler children knowing, instinctively, to crawl into their gas protection cribs. The prayers and anguish after fanatic homicidal bus attacks. The joyous bracha on affixing a
Mezuzah in our home -- Jerusalem -- the focus of longing of our
people for 2000 years. Four mornings a week we bicycle to work
through the pine woods of the JNF planted Jerusalem Forest. Meeting
joggers and morning exercisers, who range from acquaintances of past
university days in Boston, to the honorable Speaker of the Knesset,
is the norm. As we pass, a quick exchange: "Shalom, Shalom" says it
all. We have our language, we again have our country, we have
assumed our destiny in Zion and G-d bestows His blessings. The neighborhood is built on what was the village of Deir Yassin before the War of Independence. Deir Yassin was used as a base of operations by Arabs against nearby Jewish neighborhoods. Members of the Lehi and Etzel underground movements attacked the village on April 9, 1948. In the battle, many villagers were killed. Since then, Arab propaganda has claimed that the events of Deir Yassin were a premeditated massacre. Lehi and Etzel have always said they did the maximum possible to prevent civilian casualties. In Talmudic times, Har Nof was an agricultural area serving the city of Jerusalem. Within the neighborhood are remains of ancient wine presses as well as a farmhouse built over 1500 years ago. At the edge of the neighborhood are remains of ancient farming terraces, similar to those built by our ancestors of the Tribe of Yehuda who settled the area at the time of Yehoshua bin Nun. Har Nof is exclusively a religious neighborhood. Predominantly Haredi, it has a vibrant Dati Leumi community as well. As a religious neighborhood, Har Nof is blessed with many yeshivot, both for Israeli and foreign students, as well as an abundance of shuls and chessed organizations. The Jerusalem Forest surrounds
Har Nof on three sides. The Committee for Quality of Life actively
works to preserve a suitable balance between preserving the
greenbelt and developing the neighborhood. The name Har Nof
translates as "mountain view", and visitors to the neighborhood will
see that it has earned its name. [The
Parshat Vayaqhel-P'kudei Homepage]
|
