Shabbat Parshat Chukat (Korach) The Israel Center Family sends its condolences to the families of the murdered soldiers and its prayers to HaShem for the safe return of our kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, and other captives. This Shabbat is the 271st day (of 354); the 39th Shabbat (of 50) of 5766 ...VAYIVKU ET AHARON SH'LOSHIM YOM KOL BEIT YISRAEL... (Bamidbar 20:29) HALACHIC TIMES Candle Lighting and Havdala times - Regular and (earliest) WORD OF THE MONTH First opportunity for Kiddush L'vana this month, according to Minhag Yerushalayim, is at least 3 full days after the announced molad. That was Monday morning, so the first op is Thursday night, June 29th, eve of the 4th of Tamuz. Many people will wait until Motza'ei Shabbat, since that is generally held to be the favored night for KL. And it is still very early in the month. Others will wait for Monday night July 3rd, that being 7 full days following the molad. Although we tend to think of Tamuz as the month with the infamous 17th day - anniversary of the Sin of the Golden Calf, breaking of the Luchot, beginning of the Three Weeks mourning period for the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, the month actually begins on a bright note: The 3rd is the date of the great miracle of SHEMESH B'GIV'ON DOM... LEAD TIDBIT (Part of) the answer is MITZVOT. The Torah's mitzvot are for all generations. Mitzvot that are integrally linked to Biblical events help us with the B'CHOL DOR VADOR challenge. Having the mitzvot of Matza, Maror, Four Cups, Hagada, and discussing and commemorating Korban Pesach all combine to an important subconscious and conscious lesson: Mitzvot are for every generation: so is that which they remind us of, so is their context and background. Rabban Gamliel used to say: He who does not say (discuss) these three things, has not fulfilled his obligation. Discussing the mitzvot of Pesach in the context of the Hagada, helps us properly fulfill the mitzva of V'HIGADTA L'VINCHA with its enhancement of B'CHOL DOR VADOR. The mitzva of BIKURIM, and all the other Lad-related mitzvot - whether currently practiced, commemorated, or just studied - adds an important dimension to the episode of the Spies (as one example of many) that allows us to bring the episode of so long ago into our own time. If the mitzva is in perpetuity, so is the episode(s) linked to it. It's NOT like: because such-and- such happened a long time ago, we have to do this mitzva then, now, and for all time. No, it is more like: Because we have these mitzvot, that which happened then continues to echo throughout Jewish History, right into our time, and stays alive, rich with lessons for us here and now. Korach's rebellion and the aftermath is a recurring story. The mitzvot of Parshat Korach are testimony to that. And more, they coax us to find the contemporary counterparts of the original stories, so that we can better relate to the mitzvot that are part of Jewish Life and Consciousness. Mitzvot are alive and contemporary. History belongs in the past. But history that links to mitzvot stays alive and permits us to fulfill the very important challenge of B'CHOL DOR VADOR. CHUKAT stats Mitzvot: Aliya-by-Aliya Sedra Summary [P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start of a parsha p’tucha or s’tuma respectively. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha. Kohen - First Aliya - 17 p'sukim - 19:1-17 The mitzva involves taking a cow with reddish hair (even two black hairs invalidate it), that is blemish-free (i.e. fit for the Altar) and that has not worn a yoke or carried a burden for people. (If it carried upon its back something for its own benefit - e.g. a blanket to keep flies away - it is still acceptable.) Elazarb. Aharon was in charge of the preparation of this first Para Aduma. SDT SDT "Take a PARA ADUMA T'MIMA..." T'MIMA usually means blemish-free, fit for the Altar. However, here the word T'MIMA is followed by the phrase "that has no MUM (blemish)", making the adjective T'MIMA superfluous. There- fore, we are taught that T'MIMA in this context is describing ADUMA, indicating that COMPLETE reddish hair is required. Without T'MIMA, a cow that was a "jinji" would be acceptable even if it had some non-red hairs. Not so, because of the word T'MIMA. As opposed to all korbanot in the Mikdash which had to be brought "inside", the Red Cow is slaughtered and prepared "outside". It is not a korban, but it does have korban-like features (atonement, among others). After the cow is slaughtered, it is burnt whole (some of its blood having been sprinkled towards the Mikdash first). The complete process of the Para Aduma (including what is thrown into the fire, how the ashes are collected and how the potion is made) is a positive mitzva [397,A113 19:2] that has been fulfilled nine times, so far. The next (tenth) time will be in the time of the Moshiach. A person who comes in contact with a dead body is rendered ritually impure for a seven-day period [398,A107 19:4]. The "Para Aduma Potion" is to be sprinkled on the defiled person on the third and seventh day. Without this procedure, the state of ritual impurity remains forever. It is most important to avoid entering the Mikdash while one is defiled. Intentional violation is a (Divinely imposed) capital offense. MitzvaWatch (2) We are not permitted to go onto Har HaBayit in those areas that the Beit HaMikdash and its courtyard stood (or might have stood). SDT Levi - Second Aliya - 11 p'sukim - 19:18-20:6 Note that the cedar branch and hyssop are added to the potion as well as to the burning of the Para Aduma. Commentaries see special significance in the fact that the cedar is a lofty tree and the hyssop is a lowly shrub. The dual nature of the Para Aduma potion (that it purifies the defiled and defiles the ritually pure) is counted as a mitzva of its own [399,A108 19:19]. [P> 20:1 (6)] The next topic the Torah deals with is the death of Miriam in the Tzin Wilderness in Nissan (on the 10th of the month, according to Tradition). The Torah immediately tells us that the People had no water (Midrashim speak of the Well of Miriam that miraculously accompanied the People during their wanderings. This well disappeared upon Miriam's death, since it was in her merit - because she had watched over Moshe at the river - that we had the Well.) The People complain bitterly to Moshe and Aharon. (The custom of emptying out water containers in the room in which someone has died, comes from the sequence: "...and Miriam died ...and there was no water...") Shlishi - Third Aliya - 7 p'sukim - 20:7-13 [S> 20:12 (2)] G-d is "angry" at Moshe and Aharon for missing a chance to sanctify G-d's Name by having the People see water come from the rock by speaking to it. (The People had previously seen water come from a struck rock.) G-d decrees that neither Moshe nor Aharon shall lead the People into the Land of Israel. Because of the inclusion of Aharon in this decree, there is an implication that he was not punished for any involvement in the Golden Calf - a point that needed clarification. Rashi says that the Torah is telling us that Moshe and Aharon would have gone into Eretz Yisrael, except for this, and only this sin. Interesting that Moshe himself tells the people (in D'varim) that he carries some of the blame for the Sin of the Spies. With Aharon's involvement in the Calf incident and Moshe's in the Spies episode, there is an interesting balance. On the other hand, Aharon IS held accountable in this case, even though it was Moshe who "acted". G-d's decree seems excessively harsh on Moshe and Aharon. Commentators point to this as an example of how strictly G-d judges the greatest of our people. Observation... (2) Moshe Rabeinu was on the high level that he was able to control and divert nature (with limits). He had previously stricken a rock to get water; this now is something he can do. (3) A twist on the Chilul HaShem possibility of (1) is that G-d wanted to avoid Moshe's losing face. G-d and Moshe are very much partners, so to speak, in the perception of the People. At the Sea, the people believed in "HaShem and in Moshe His servant, BASHEM UV-MOSHE AVDO. In contrast, their lack of faith is expressed as their talking against G-d and against Moshe, BEILOKIM UV-MOSHE. These are the only two times the word UV-MOSHE appears in all of Tanach. R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya - 8 p'sukim - 20:14-21 SDT Chamishi - Fifth Aliya - 17 p'sukim - 20:22-21:9 Commentaries point out that Aharon's death had elements that were missing in Moshe's. Seeing his son continue in his footsteps and being loved by all the people as Aharon was, adds a special dimension to Aharon's full life. The Midrash says that the Heavenly Clouds that protected the People, left upon Aharon's death. We can see now that the miracles of the Midbar were each associated with one of our leaders: Moshe, the Manna; Aharon, the Clouds; Miriam, the Well. [S> 21:1 (3)] That made them vulnerable to attack from Emori. The attack was successfully countered by Israel. The Mishna in Rosh HaShana (3:8) asks, “What? (The copper image of) a snake can kill or restore life?” Not so, says the Mishna. “Rather, when the People of Israel look towards the Heavens and subjugate their hearts to G-d, then they were cured; and if not, they would decay.” The Mishna in P'sachim (4:9) records different things that Chizkiyahu HaMelech did, and was either praised for them, or the opposite. He destroyed the Copper Serpent and the Sages approved of his actions. People were misusing it, and misunderstanding it (despite the concept presented in the Mishna cited above). This same kind of problem exists with the use of Korbanot in the time of the Beit HaMikdash, amulets, Tashlich on Rosh HaShana, Kaparot before Yom Kippur, visiting holy places, notes in the cracks of the Kotel, red threads around one's wrist, and even saying T’hilim - meaning that there are people who do certain things in lieu of heartfelt prayer and sincere kavanot, somehow expecting miraculous salvation. All of the above, to some extent or another, are meant to be incentive and inspiration to sincere repentance and prayer, not substitutes for them. This is why Chizkiyahu HaMelech got rid of the N’CHASH NECHOSHET. This is why some rabbis banned Kaparot in their communities, etc. Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 11 p'sukim - 21:10-20 [S> 21:17 (4)] This was another significant event related to water. From a physical point of view, water is by far the most valuable "commodity" of the wandering Nation. On a spiritual level, water represents Torah and Life itself. The "Song of the Well", a short but beautiful song is recorded, highlighting the preciousness of water. The words are filled with symbolisms and allusions. The next piece of travelog is either part of the song at the well... or not. From the desert, the people went to Matana, from Matana to Nachliel, and from Nachliel to Bamot. From Bamot to Hagai in the field of Moav, on a cliff top that overlooks the Wastelands. Notice that we have, shortly out of Egypt, before the wandering period in the Midbar, an AZ YASHIR... Shirat HaYam. Water. At the end of the period of wandering, shortly before leaving the Midbar and entering Eretz Yisrael, we have another AZ YASHIR... B'eir. Water. Sh'vi'i - Seventh Aliya - 16 p'sukim - 21:21-22:1 SDT SDT Israel's military victories in the Midbar, towards the end of the period of wandering, were very important for the morale of the people as they faced long years of many battles upon crossing the Jordan River into Eretz Yisrael. In the Midbar, they get a taste of G-d's promises and might. Moshe sends Meraglim to Ya'zer. Rashi says that the spies who were sent said, "we will not do as our predecessors did; we have complete confidence in the power of Moshe's prayer.” In a way, the sending of these Meraglim is a TIKUN (repair) of the Sin of the Spies. Spies were always sent to facilitate the nation's next step. They were not meant to decide on what G-d already had decreed. The final pasuk tells us that Israel traveled and arrived at Arvot Moav - this is their final stop before entry into Eretz Yisrael. Note the significance of the above statement. The four remaining sedras of Bamidbar and all 11 of D'varim are still in front of us, and we are already at Arvot Moav. Mas'ei will give a summary of the wandering, but with the conclusion of Chukat, we have arrived at the threshold of Eretz Yisrael. Remember that back in Mikeitz we left the Land and went down into Egypt. Now we are readying ourselves to return. Haftara - 33 p'sukim - Sho-f'tim 11:1-33 THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW - Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean Alfasi living in the 11th century enlarged the principle of the Baraita to extend the court’s extra-judicial authority beyond the boundaries of Israel, thereby applying it to non-ordained judges. Without the principle extracted from the thief case, this would have not been apparent, since the incident in the Baraita related by R. Eliezer b. Jacob took place in the Land of Israel during the period of ordination. Rambam and all the subsequent codes elaborate on the authority of the non-ordained judges to mete out extra-judicial penalties to safe-guard the safety of the community. However, some other codes add that only the outstanding authorities of the generation may engage in such practice. There was in the 12th century added on to these laws that (1) such outstanding personality could exercise such functions if (2) he was specifically appointed for such task. Just (1) without (2) or (2) without (1) is not sufficient to give authority to the leader to mete out such decisions. In some communities there was a tradition that the community appointed “seven leaders” and they too were held to be able to exercise such authority. The leaders, before exercising such punishments which are extra-judicial, should determine that the times require it and although the individual to be punished would not have been punished in normal times. By the time of the writing of the Shulhan Aruch by R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) the law was already included in all the codes as practiced by the Jews wherever they resided. The question that usually arose was which court is of such stature that it could so act. A few examples as the doctrine of exigency jurisdiction appears in Rabbinic responsa. Shevut Yaakov (1670-1733) discusses a question of extra judicial remedies in a responsum. The question concerned a problem in one of the communities in which a nefarious practice had emerged. Almost every bridegroom, soon after the marriage was consummated lodged a complaint against his bride charging her with being unchaste. The accusations were investigated and found to be groundless, it being ascertained that the accusation was raised as a method of embarrassing and extorting money from the bride’s father. In order to put an end to this shameful practice the elder of the community wished to assume extra judicial jurisdiction and to punish the last complaining bridegroom by flogging or a monetary punishment. Shevut Yaakov was asked to decide whether the elder could assume such jurisdiction, there was no specific authority for a judge to decide such a case. Also the punishment involved either flogging or money, but not the death penalty. In his reply, Shevut Yaakov held that there was ample authority for the elder to assume extra judicial authority. There seems to be a wide consensus that such authority may be exercised if there is no death penalty involved. As to applying the extra judicial authority to the case at hand, Shevut Yaakov cautions that the elder should proceed with due deliberation since the bridegroom is not guilty of violating any specific law. Many centuries earlier, Rabbeinu Asher (the RO"SH 1250-1327) decided several cases involving extra- judicial jurisdiction of the courts. In one of the cases, the RO"SH discussed the law relating to courtyard boundaries regarding carrying objects from one premise to another on Shabbat. Apparently one of the members of the community dissented from the holding and the RO"SH instructed the community to excommunicate him. And if this did not dissuade the dissenter, then the civil authorities of the city were to be asked to fine him one thousand coins. And if this still did not dissuade the dissenter, the community could judge him to be a rebellious elder and put him to death. From this decision it is apparent that the RO"SH would extend the extra judicial jurisdiction of the non-ordained courts to include meting out the death penalty. Yet the RO"SH seems to favor a contrary position in a second case which occurred in Cordova, Spain. One of the members of the community was imprisoned by the Arab rulers until he made a monetary settlement with them on their claim. When members of the community came to console him, he allegedly responded by committing blasphemy, cursing the name of the Lord. This case was widely followed by all the Jewish and also non-Jewish communities in Spain and the matter was sent to R. Asher for decision as to what should be done. There were those in Spain who held that he should be put to death for the blasphemy. When the RO"SH, who had moved from Germany to Spain was asked for a decision in the case, he first stated that he was surprised to hear the Beth Din in Spain meted out the death penalty. How could they judge capital punishment without a Sanhedrin that had lapsed centuries earlier. He heard that this was done with the authority of the king. Moreover, by being judged by their fellow Jew, many were saved from the death penalty since under Arabic law there were many more cases with a death penalty. The RO"SH adds that in spite of all this, he is reluctant to consent to the death penalty. Nevertheless he understand their point of view to impose the death penalty in order to eliminate the evil in their midst. However, from a reading of many decisions by R. Asher, it appears that he does not favor extending extra judicial remedies to include the death penalty. (IY"H next lesson will continue with more cases along the same lines.) The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume I chapter 2 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. Questions to quint@inter.net.il TANACH Sarah the first Matriarch was likewise barren, and in her spirituality and understanding of that future, in order to make it possible, she was even willing to introduce her maid into her household despite the complications and problems that followed. The second Matriarch Rivka and her husband Yitschak, jointly prayed for the same goal. Later, Tamar and Ruth risked their very lives to give that Nation and Kingdom the Kingship that it would need to fulfill its spiritual task. Yaakov too, had the same yearning to establish the future Avrahamic Nation. "How is it that Yaakov chose to differ from the tzaddikim of previous generations? Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem and Ever, never took more than one wife. Yitschak married Rivka but took no concubines, while Avraham took Hagar only at the suggestion of Sarah. However, Yaakov took two sisters and their maids as his wives. He knew that he was the last of the Avot and that there had to be a nucleus to go into exile, sufficiently large so that they could grow to be the multitude that God had promised. However, since he was already quite old when he married, there was a danger that he, like Avraham and Yitschak, would only have one son and then the future of Am Yisrael would not be assured. So he married the four women simply in order to establish the 12 tribes" (Abarbanel). "When God saw that Leah was the hated one, He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren". "Far be it from us to think that Leah was hated by Yaakov, for one is forbidden to marry a woman that one hates. Rather as we learn from the case of a man who has two wives, one loved and the other hated [D'varim 21:15], this means only that one is more loved than the other. [This is common in societies practicing polygamy that one wife is considered the main wife]. So it was with Yaakov who loved Rachel more than Leah but he loved Leah as well, as the verse (29:30) tells us. Yet in her own eyes, Leah felt that she was less loved, so God saw her suffering and opened her womb" (Radak). "Here the Name Hashem [Merit of Mercy is used] whereas with regard to Rachel's barrenness Yaakov says that Elokim [Merit of Justice] has withheld children from her. This teaches us that it was God's mercy alone that caused Leah to give birth otherwise Judgment would have demanded that she remain barren like Sarah, Rivka, and Rachel until such time as He decreed miracles" (R' Hoffman). From the Midrash we learn more. "G-d saw that Leah, in her resolution not to be married to Eisav, defrauded Yaakov thus acting in the way of those that He hates; now He gave her her just reward, a son from that tzaddik. God hearkens to the poor, the miserable ones and the barren women. This is Leah; for when God saw her suffering He opened her womb. [Furthermore, understanding S'NU'A in the midrash to come from the Latin 'to pierce like a thorn'], she was hated by people, even women who were strangers, even those who were outcasts from society, spoke slightingly about her saying that she had supplanted her sister and that showed she was not as pious as she pretended to be. Yaakov thought that because of her barrenness she had agreed to Lavan's deception so he thought of divorcing Leah. When God saw that, He opened her womb so she gave birth, and He said to Yaakov, 'the mother of these sons you would divorce?' In the end, Yaakov gave recognition to Leah's spiritual greatness, as we read, "And Yaakov bowed to the head of the bed" [after blessing the sons of Yosef]. Who was the head of Yaakov's bed? Leah" (Bereishit Rabba 71:1-2). "That which was denied to the bride and wife [Rachel] was fully given to the mother of his children [Leah]. It was just to Leah the sad one that it was decreed to experience and immortalize the cheerful and brightest aspects of home and marriage, while to Rachel the happy one was allocated the more serious ones" (R' S.R. Hirsch). "Rachel is the mainstay of Beit Yaakov" (Midrash Bereishit Rabba 71:2). Yet Leah bears half of the 12 Tribes and provides Israel with Priesthood and Kingship. It has been suggested to me that as far as the nation is concerned Leah is the mainstay, while to Yaakov the man, Rachel whom he loved more is the mainstay as the wife is the mainstay of every husband. Furthermore, the Midrash continues: "Everything is dependent on Rachel, therefore Israel is named after her; 'Rachel weeps for her children' (Yirmiyahu 31:15)". The Midrash concludes: "Everybody at that feast [for the birth of Ruth's son] was from Leah yet everything depends on Rachel; everybody present was from Yehuda, descendant of Leah, yet they blessed Ruth that she should be like Rachel and Leah who [supplementing and completing each other], together built the House of Yaakov, placing Rachel first". This is installment #134 in Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” MISC section - contents: [1] From the virtual desk of the OU VEBBE REBBE Q: I used 2 kilo of flour to bake several challot. I remembered about hafrashat challah (=HC) only after baking most of the challot and freezing the remaining dough (which I didn’t need for that Shabbat). How do I do HC now? A: One who did not do HC on dough may do so even on the resulting bread (we will reserve the term challah for that which is taken off during HC) with a b'racha (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 327:5). However, should the challah be taken from the dough, the bread, both, or either? One may not do HC from one MIN (type) onto another,e.g., if they are made from different grains (ibid. 324:2). Are dough and bread from the same grain considered one MIN in this regard? The Tur (YD 324) discusses one who mixed up loaves of bread, where only one had HC done on it. One solution to the problem is to make enough new dough for a new obligation of HC and take from it onto whichever loaf requires it. The Derisha (ad loc. :4) wonders why one could not make a little dough and connect it to the existing loaves to create a combination. He answers that bread and dough are like two MINIM which do not combine to create an obligation of HC, and one cannot take challah from some- thing that is not obligated to exempt something that is (one of the loaves). However, if the dough is independently obligated, the challah taken to exempt it can also exempt the bread. In your case, the original dough was ostensibly obligated in HC and, therefore, challah can be taken from either the bread or the dough. However, we must examine a few assumptions. First, it is not clear that all agree with the Derisha. The Hag'hot Maimoniot (Teshuvot after Zera’im, 22) says that one cannot do HC from bread on dough or vice versa. Admittedly, that is a minority opinion and the Challat Lechem (2:(23)) even limits it to an exceptional situation. Few seem to be aware of the more serious issue. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 326:2) (based on a mishna (Challah 1:7)) says that if one makes enough dough for HC with the intention to break it up before baking into pieces that are too small for HC, it is exempt from HC. (Although the obligation begins at the time it is dough, this is based on assumptions regarding the future baking. That which happens after baking does not affect the obligation of HC.) If so, how do we ever do HC, since our individual loaves are small? The most common answer is that the aforementioned ruling refers to cases where the dough is given to different people. However, if one keeps and bakes smaller loaves, so that they may be “reunited” later, it is considered one batch, which is obligated. However, several poskim make distinctions regarding the level of future connection between the loaves even when they are kept by one person (see Pitchei Teshuva, YD 326:2). This is not the forum for in-depth analysis. However, the bottom line is that it is unclear if there is an obligation of HC when that which is baked immediately and that which is baked much later (in this case, after the first batch is finished) are individually “undersized.” If you may have already baked enough for HC and the leftover dough is smaller, you may not be able to take challah from the possibly exempt dough on the obligated bread. However, it is possible that a minhag has developed to view the dough to be baked and that to be frozen as dough as one batch, for many women make a b'racha even in this case (see Shevet Halevi IV, 145). (One can question the wisdom of kneading and freezing more dough than needed just to enable making a b'racha.) In your case, the safest idea is to bake the remaining dough (and freeze later) and put the batches together (i.e. by covering them together - Shulchan Aruch ibid. 325:1) for HC. Another safe system is to take challah from the bread on the bread and the dough on the dough without a b'racha (assuming each is too small for a b'racha). It is legitimate to accept the opinions that you can do HC as you like with a b'racha as long as they are all before you (see ibid.:2) 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 [2] Candle by Day [3] CHIZUK and IDUD (for Olim & not-yet-Olim respectively) As the people of Israel neared the Promised Land, after 40 years of delay, there arose new yet familiar problems. First, they became impatient and surly. The closer one gets to one's destination, the stronger the desire to get there already. Being so close makes what remains to be covered intolerably far (see Netziv). That is the meaning of the text: "the people became impatient because of the way" - it was so near, yet looked so distant. In such a situation one is in danger of saying and doing foolish things. Then they announced that they "loathed" the wondrous manna that had nourished them now for 40 years. But this too was connected with the fact that they were fast approaching the Promised Land. They said: This light bread was adequate during our long "abnormal" existence in the wilderness, where we enjoyed divine protection. Now, however, as we are about to enter the real world and became responsible for our security and economic well- being, perhaps this "light bread" is too "spiritual" to provide the extra energy (just as the developing infant begins to find his mother's milk inadequate; Netziv). So too, our own generation. After 58 years of kibbutz galuyot and Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel, we are drawing closer to the Promised Redemption. And once again, we have become impatient. In our desire to "get there already' some have resorted to violence and turned against the State. This is foolish and dangerous. Others who are still in Galut should perhaps begin to question the attitudes they have been "fed" for so long. Perhaps these were adequate for the "abnormal" existence during the long Exile but they have failed to provide the spiritual fibre and balanced outlook needed to respond properly to the new reality which is Atchalta d'Geula - "the beginning of the sprouting of our Redemption." Rabbi Shubert Spero, Jerusalem TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah publication on Parshat HaShavu’a [4] A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit [5] Parsha Points to Ponder - CHUKAT THESE ARE THE ANSWERS 2) The Meshech Chochma answers that the manna had the taste of honey and oil and, therefore, they were not really lacking those items. Thus, they were precise in choosing the fruits of Israel from which they derived no benefit at that time. 3) Rav Moshe Feinstein teaches that G-D wanted their to be an everlasting message that there is importance to speaking to people even when they appear to be as unreceptive as an inanimate rock. Whether it be our children, students, or good friends, there is benefit in instructing and trying to guide them even when it seems to make no impression. Something good often comes out of such discussions and situations. [6] Portion for the Portion by Rakel Berenbaum - FEEDback to berenbau@actcom.net.il Yet the commentators don't agree on what the sin was. The answers to the question 'What exactly was Moshe's sin?" abound. Luzzatto even says "Moshe, our teacher committed one sin, but our commentators have heaped on him 13 and more, each one having invented a fresh one... I have therefore refrained from going into this problem for fear I might attribute a new sin to Moshe!" We will concentrate on one suggestion for where the sin entered. Rambam (in Shmoneh Perakim) says the whole sin lay in "erring on the side of anger and deviating from the mean of patience". Rav Yisrael from Rozin says it is legitimate to get angry every now and then. Even Hashem gets angry. The Rabbis even say that Hashem gets angry every day (Brachot 7). But His anger lasts only for a minute as it says in the verse in Tehilim (30:6), "For His anger endures but a moment". A person can get angry sometimes -but if he remains angry for a long time that is a sign that the trait of anger is taking him over. The verse says that Moshe hit the rock twice (20:11). Being angry and hitting the rock once would have been okay, but hitting it a second time was excessive. It showed that Moshe was not in full control of his anger, and for someone on his level that was a sin. BAKED SESAME CARAWAY POTATO STICKS [7] MicroUlpan [8] Torah from Nature - Fiddler Crab [9] Divrei Menachem Paradoxically, those who sprinkle the purifying ashes of this heifer on an individual contaminated by a dead body themselves become ritually defiled. We can suggest that the use of a red animal symbolizes sin and that the lack of a yoke invokes the sinner who cast off his religious responsibilities. The lowly hyssop might then signify the need for the sinner to humble himself. But how do we explain the paradox? In essence we cannot. This unusual law is the quintessential Chok, a command for which we cannot grasp its reason. Of this Chok, even King Solomon exclaimed, "I said I would be wise, but it is far from me" (Mishleh 7:23). We, in turn, would be wise to heed Ramban's counsel in this respect. For he reminds us that since the statute of the Red Heifer (and other seemingly illogical laws) are the product of G-d's intelligence, our inability to comprehend them is only a product of our own human deficiency. Towards Better Davening and Torah Reading B'NEFESH • V'CHIBES For your information, S'FARADIM call TG TALSHA and TK TARSA. For TEIMANIM (Yemenites), TG is TILSHA YAMIN and TK is TILSHA S'MOL. Okay, now for a tricky fact about TK followed by KADMA V'AZLA (that's AZLA G'RISH for S'faradim and AZEIL V'ATEI for Teimanim). Let's take the "regular" situation first. In this week's sedra we find: However, sometimes, the word with the TK pulls to itself the word with the KADMA, and the word under the AZLA is slightly more separated from the KADMA word. Example, also from this week's sedra: If this phrase is read: V'CHOL MADVEI (pause) MITZRAYIM HARA'IM... it would mean: and all the maladies of evil Egypt - and even though calling Egypt evil is not off the mark, that is not what the pasuk means. HARA'IM is not modifying Egypt here, it is modifying Egyptian maladies. Here it is MADVEI MITZRAYIM that are bad. It's the old big truck driver - is the driver big or is the truck he drives big? Depends where you pause. Rare two SH'VA NACHs in a row. Easy to mispronounce a few different ways. VAYISHB, not VA-YISHP, not VAYISH-B', a B sound, voiced but no vowel sound. SHEYIBANEH BEIT HAMIKDASH... Goats and Yehoshua bin Nun The Gemara lists ten ordinances decreed by Yehoshua when he led Am Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. The first one was "that cattle be permitted to pasture in woods… R. Papa explains, "that this applies only to small cattle (Beheimot Dakot) - i.e. sheep and goats - pasturing in 'big woods'. It would not be permitted in the case of small cattle pasturing in small woods or big cattle pasturing in large forests [because of possible damage to the trees] (Baba Kama 80b). Historically speaking, Transjordania - Ammon, Moab, the Gil'ad and the Bashan were particularly devoted to sheep growing from earliest times. Nevertheless, it was believed that the best sheep came from Hebron and the best rams from Moab (Sotah 34b). A perusal of almost any page of Tanach will show that virtually every rural family kept a few goats and sheep for their personal use. Their meat and milk were staple foods and their wool was indispensable, "The lambs will be for your clothing… and there will be goats' milk enough for your food, [and] for the food of your household… (Mishlei 27:26,27). Lamb chops were a favorite meal at a time of celebration (Yeshayahu 22:13). Goat hair was woven into curtains and tent covers (Sh'mot 26:7, 35:26) or for stuffing pillows (I Shmuel 19:13). And of course, sheep and goats were preeminently the animals used for Korbanot in the Beit HaMikdash, first and second. I Divrei Hayamim 27:31 tells us that "over the flocks (Tzon) [of King David] was Yaziz the Hagrite." Good King Chizkiyahu had "flocks (Tzon) and herds in abundance; for G-d had given him much substance" (II Divrei Hayamim 32:29). In Biblical days, the so-called Takana of Yehoshua either fell by the wayside or was observed in the breach. The commercial raising of sheep and goats required large grazing areas and only the large latifundia (in Bayit Sheini days usually foreign-owned) had enough land to make it worthwhile. The Nevi'im and later the Sages were keenly aware that every time a great landowner "enclosed" hundreds of small homesteads for his sheep and goats, thousands of expellees - Jewish farmers and their families - lost their livelihood. During the great war which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Mikdash, and in particular after the Bar Kochba debacle 65 years later, vast areas of prime agricultural land throughout Eretz Yisrael were ravaged, causing the destruction of Jewish agriculture and the ruin of countless more farmers. A frequent phenomenon even before the Roman wars, the twin defeats and the resultant repression caused this socially unhealthy development to accelerate. The noted historian Michael Avi Yona wrote (The Jews Under Roman and Byzantine Rule, p.28), "Heavy losses were caused to the Jewish community (after the wars, CS)… by short sighted (and greedy, CS) people who were out for quick returns and who began to raise herds and sheep and goats ("small cattle" in the Talmudic language) in areas once cultivated but now temporally abandoned. Such enterprises were apparently very profitable, due to the expansion of the textile industry. R. Yochanan was recorded as saying; "Who ever wishes to become rich, should raise small cattle" (Chulin 84b). The rapid increase in the number of sheep and goats was bound in the end to ruin the crops and wooded areas (and the livelihood of the yeoman peasantry, CS); it was therefore decided that 'small cattle may not be raised in the Land of Israel, but only in Syria and in the deserts of the Land of Israel' (Baba Kama 7:7). The Jewish authorities under- took to protect the trees of their country; their point of view was expressed thus: 'Because of four things is daylight extinguished… because people cut down good trees and raise small cattle' (Tosefta Sukka 2:5)." The sage R' Chanina attributed the early death of his son to the fact that the boy had chopped down a fig tree (Baba Kama 91b). The Sages' thoughts on what 1800 years later would come to be called "ecology" or "bionomics" could be encapsulated in this beautiful Midrash. In the hour when the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the first man, He took him and let him pass before all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said to him: "See my works, how fine and excellent they are! Now all that I have created, for you have I created. Think upon this and do not corrupt and desolate My World, For if you corrupt it, there is no one to set it right after you" (Kohelet Rabbah 7:28). The Mishna in Sanhedrin (3:3) lists negative elements (gamblers, usurers etc.) that the earlier Sages barred from testifying in court or being appointed judges because of their general untrustworthiness. Because of shepherds' growing habit of driving their herds to pasture on the property of others, the later Sages added them to the list (Sanhedrin 25b). (Note: This decree only applied to shepherds who pastured their own flocks but not to hired herdsman who pastured the animals of others. The Sages - optimistically perhaps - assumed that a man does not trespass unless material benefits accrue to him.) After the horrific defeats in the two wars against Rome, the farsighted Sages were anxious to reestablish Jewish agriculture, the basis of Jewish national existence in Eretz Yisrael. It was essential to provide a living for as many Jews as possible; many more Jewish families could be supported by agriculture than by animal husbandry. The Sages remembered the ancient Takana attributed to Yehoshua bin Nun and endeavored to enforce it. "Our rabbis taught, 'There was once a righteous man who had heart ailments ("The righteous man" was reputed to be R. Yehudah ben But a [Tosefta BK 8:4] who ordained five of R. Akiva's students at a time when the Roman occupiers murdered both those ordaining and those being ordained in their effort to break the chain of Semicha. However, the traditions are at variance.). he doctors, upon being consulted, said that there was no remedy for him unless he sucked warm milk every morning. Therefore, they brought a goat to him and tied it to the legs of the bed, and he sucked from it every morning. After some days, his colleagues came to visit him, but as soon as they saw the goat tied to the legs of the bed, they turned back and said, 'An armed robber is in the house of this man! How can we come in and see him?' Then they sat down and inquired after his conduct, but they did not find any fault in him except for the matter of the goat. At the time of his death, he proclaimed, 'I know of no sin that be imputed to me except for the goat when I transgressed against the words of my colleagues (Baba Kama 80a). And this was a case of Piku'ach Nefesh - a clear danger to life! Catriel's book in progress: The Temple of Jerusalem, A Pilgrim’s Perspective; A Guided Tour through the Temple and the Divine Service Parsha Pix TTRIDDLES... Last issue’s (KORACH) TTriddles: This week's TTriddles: Israel Center Miscellany Help young couples (evacuees and children of evacuees) from Gush Katif get ready for the arrival of their newborn babies - Tzedaka - Matan B’Seter - The money collected will be used to buy carriages, cribs, layettes...Make checks out to the Israel Center. Write on the envelope: Gush Katif - Baby Fund, For more info. call Sara 0505-444-397 Special thanks to Avrohom & Sara Kriss, Rivkah Epstein, Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher,Mrs. Roberta Cohen, Mrs. Helen Moses, and IR for lending their videos to the Dr. Maurice E. Joseph Jewish Video Resource Center. If you have a video with a Jewish theme or of a Jewish personality and you would be willing to share it with the "JewishVideo and Lunch" program or the "Israel Center Video Club" ("ICVC"), please call Mark at 054-801-1957. Thank you in advance. LAST CALL - Camp Dror NESTO Native English-Speaking Teen Olim Congratulations...to all NESTO's so talented actors! The NESTO summer program is coming up! Our first summer activity will take place this Thursday in SUPERLAND. Jr. NESTO is for 7th, 8th, and 9th graders, Tiyulim and Shabbatonim New & Improved Travel Desk! Tour of the Great Synagogue with its beautiful edifice, with attractive, colorful and meaningful stained glass windows. We will hear explanations in the main lobby about the unusual Mezuzah Collection on exhibit. Guided by Rabbi George Finkelstein, Director General of THE JERUSALEM GREAT SYNAGOGUE - Friday, July 7, 9:00am, 18NIS per person. Call Shulamit at 0505 937 932 to sign up • Number of participants limited Wednesday, July 19th - A great day in a great place - Ein Gedi, Together we will IY"H bathe in the famous Ein Gedi Spa, enjoy a grand tour of the Botanical Gardens (highly praised in the National Geographic Magazine) and dine on a Mehadrin Buffet Lunch Meal in their air-conditioned guest house dining room, Leaving the Israel Center at 8:00am, return approx. 6:00pm, 180NIS (200NIS for non-members), Call the Travel Desk to sign up - 566 7787 ext. 261 The Palmach Museum, Tel Aviv with Nachman Kupietzky, Sunday, August 13th - Check-in 1:15pm • Leave Center 1:30pm PROMPTLY • Return 6:00pm (approx.), See the newest state-of-the-art museum vividly portraying the pre-state defense army of Israel, 85NIS (100NIS non-members) • must pay in advance • Limit: 25 people, Call Travel Desk (ext. 261) to reserve From Wall to Wall - From the southern end to the northern end, including the excavations at the south-western corner. The Western Wall is the longest of the four walls which support the Temple Mount with Yaacov Billig, Archeologist and Tour Guide, former Director of the Archeological Excavations of the Western Wall - Friday, July 21st, You must register in advance, Check-in just inside Dung Gate, entrance to Archeological Park, 7:45amOur tour begins promptly at 8:00 o'clock with a viewing of the virtual model of the Temple Mount area at the time of Jerusalem's peak of glory. The tour will end approx. 12:00 noon, 55NIS per person (non-members 65NIS) • Call the Travel Desk to register Special for Bein Hazmanim - Family time at the Inbar Hotel, Arad - Sunday-Wednesday, August 6-9 (4 days, 3 nights), Mehadrin meals, Hashgacha T'midit - meat & chicken - Rav Landau, all other products Badatz, Tours, daily shuttle to Ein Bokek, separate beach on the Dead Sea, Jeep Rides, Activities for children, Spa and Pool on premises, dance groups, shiurim and lectures, 975nis dbl occ half-board; 1080nis, dbl. occ. fullboard, Transportation additional • Call the Travel Desk to register, Shulamit's tiyulim are always treats; Come - You will surely enjoy her delicious sweets! The Back Page of TT721 Schedule for Erev Shabbat to Erev Shabbat, 4-11 Tammuz (June 30 - July 7) Friday Friday Eve Shabbat day Motza'ei Shabbat SUN-Thu in the Ganchrow Beis Medrash (first floor) Sunday Monday - N'SHEI LIBRARY 10:00-12:30 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Upcoming at the Israel Center Shabbat Parshat Balak, July 8th, 5:00pm (Mincha at 6:00): From Prophecy to Perfidy with Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Poupko Monday, July 10, 10:00am-3:00pm - YESHA FAIR Monday, July 10, 7:00pm Movie Time - The Chosen - award-winning 1981 film of Chaim Potok's novel of two Jewish teens who become friends and are fascinated by each other's lives - the one from an ultra-Orthodox family; the other from a modern Orthodox home. A story of 60 years ago... and of today. With Maximilian Schell, Rod Steiger, Robby Benson, Barry Miller.1h48m Thursday, July 13, SHIV'A ASAR B'TAMMUZ Shabbat Parshat Pinchas, July 15th, 5:00pm (Mincha at 6:00) - Yaacov Peterseil & Co. Motza'ei Shabbat Parshat Pinchas, July 15th, 9:30pm SHARP: Another reason to mourn... Why the Bank of Israel was in the Holy Temple by Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher Sunday, July 16th, 8:00pm: Har HaBayit - Yesterday & Today with Nachman Kupietzky OU ISRAEL CENTER [The Parshat Chukat Homepage]
|
