Editor's Note:
Dear Friend,
Maybe it’s because I don’t see myself possessing a rare beauty worth sharing with the world at large, but I never really took to selfie taking.
Come to think of it, the selfie can be a very selfish thing. In the old days, people would take pictures to share with others what they saw. “Look, here is a beautiful flower!” “A historic building!" But now that’s not enough. It’s as if we need to add ourselves to everything. The focus is not on the flower or the landmark; it’s me, and something else in the background.
But focusing on yourself can sometimes be a good thing.
We’ve begun the seven weeks of Sefirat HaOmer, when we count the days from Passover to Shavuot, and each day is another step in a process of self-refinement. For 49 days we are to take our personality and examine it closely, repairing the broken parts and perfecting the good ones. Each week focuses on another one of the seven facets of our personality, and each day focuses on one subfacet.
And when we do it, it’s perfectly fine to share with others as well, if that will propel you or them forward.
Use Facebook, Instagram or Twitter to tell the world about your personal journey, and encourage them to join you.
Mendy Kaminker,
on behalf of the Chabad.org Editorial Team
Life in a Day
Before you were formed in the womb, your days were numbered and set in place. They are the chapters of the lessons you came here to learn, the faces of the wisdom this world has to teach you, the gateways to the treasures this lifetime alone can bestow.
A day enters, opens its doors, tells its story, and then returns above, never to visit again. Never—for no two days of your life will share the same wisdom.[Hayom Yom, 17 Cheshvan; Naso 5737:6]
This Week's Features Printable Magazine
A long journey to enter the covenant in a community decimated by the Holocaust by Menachem Posner
They sat together in the car, driving from Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, to Vienna, Austria, just an hour away. Rabbi Baruch Myers was accompanying Ivan Pasternak, a 70-year-old member of his community who was going to have his circumcision, finally entering into the covenant of Abraham.“There are a number of such men in our community,” explains Myers, who has served as chief rabbi and Chabad representative to Slovakia since 1993. “There were years of Communist rule when it was socially unacceptable and only the most devout kept this tradition alive. Over the years, many men and boys have decided to ‘take the plunge,’ thus earning their Jewish names and the right to be called to the Torah.”
Pasternak had been somewhat of an enigma to the rabbi. A teacher by profession, he regularly attended services every Shabbat in the cozy little sanctuary carved out from the cavernous old synagogue that was far too large for a community reduced to a fraction of its prewar self, having been decimated by World War II and the Holocaust.
After his retirement and the passing of his wife, Zuzka, Pasternak took up the duties ofshamash, caring for the synagogue and making sure that the books were in order.
Yet he was hesitant to undergo circumcision, even if not doing so created a barrier between him and the crusty old stalwarts who formed the backbone of the regular minyan(the quorum of 10 Jewish men needed for public prayer). They would grumble in Hungarian about the younger men who lacked Jewish names and the education they carried with them from their youths.
During Simchat Torah of 2014, something changed. Exuberant with dancing, Pasternak told the rabbi that he was ready. He would have a brit milah and take the Hebrew name “Ilan,” which sounds similar to Ivan and is quite popular inIsrael today.
As they drove towards Vienna, Pasternak told the rabbi the other reason he chose that name.
War Interrupts Everything
“My family is originally from Prešov, “he began. “My parents, Marta and Teodor Pasternak, were married there in 1940. It was not long after that Jews were persecuted in earnest by Czechoslovakian Nazi sympathizers. It was the first city where Jews had to wear special white arm bands, and it did not take long before many people, including my grandparents and many other relatives, were deported, never to be seen again.
“Realizing that Prešov, where they were well-known, would be a death trap for them, my parents decided to run to Pressburg [now Bratislava] using a false non-Jewish identity. Marta and Teodor Pasternak became Mr. and Mrs.Paulovič.
“I was born in the summer of 1944, and of course, there was no way they could have me circumcised under those circumstances. So they waited, hoping they would be able to do it when I got older. My father had a Hebrew name picked and everything.
“But three weeks after I was born, we were discovered. We were taken to a small concentration camp. Three days later, my father was sent off to Auschwitz and then Dachau.
“My mother and I were fortunate. She managed to bribe a Slovak night guard to turn a blind eye towards us, and she ran holding me for 15 kilometers to safety. My mother and I then hid with a gentile family. There were roundups very often; we were in constant danger of being discovered. I never cried all through those terrible times, my mother would tell me.
“When the war ended, we went back to Prešov, but nothing was the same. My mother waited patiently for my father to come home, hoping to hear that he was alive. But alas, we received word from the Red Cross that he had been killed in Dachau, as had been so many of my mother’s friends and relatives.
“We settled in Bratislava. My mother would tell me about her family, how large it had been and how almost everyone had been killed. Occasionally, I would ask her about my circumcision, knowing that it was something every Jewish male should have. She told me that she believed it could only be done for an eight-day-old baby, and it was impossible for me now.
"For years, I knew that my father had chosen a Hebrew name for me, and I was haunted by the fact that I had never taken the name.
“I married my wife, Zuzka, and we had two sons together. After she passed away five years ago, I began to think about circumcision again.”
Upon their arrival in Vienna, Ivan Pasternak underwent his brit and took the name Ilan—the very same name his father had chosen for him before being taken away by the Nazis.
“Today, I am more than 70 years old,” he reflects, “and I feel that my parents and my grandparents are looking down from somewhere above, and they are satisfied knowing that everything is in order.”
“A man is talking on the telephone behind a glass partition. We can’t hear him, but we see his pointless pantomime. We wonder why he is alive.” by Michael KigelAs a boy raised on the promise vouchsafed by Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind” upon the moon’s crust and Captain Kirk’s invitation to “boldly go where no man has gone before,” I am a member of a generation afflicted with a great disappointment. By this time in my life, according to what I was assured by the Jetsons, I should have been flying to work on my private hoverjet, enjoying gourmet meals materialized ex nihilo at the beep of a red button, and vacationing once a year on the sunny side of a planet orbiting around Alpha Centauri or at least on nearby Mars.
Sitting atop this great heap of broken promises of techno-felicity, I find myself living in a future where it seems the one and only consolation for all my dashed boyhood hopes is encased in a singular technical device, the only item that contemporary Israelis acknowledge by name as a pele, a wonder, to wit, thesmartphone.
Am I consoled? The smartphone, to be sure, is no mere device among devices. Who with even a modicum of spiritual sensibility could deny that, for better or for worse, a new dawn of the human spirit is upon us? —The Age of the Smartphone!
The Virtual Life of the Smartphoner on the Street
A second sublime potential eventually unlocked itself when two interlocutors on the opposite ends of a very long wire running under the Atlantic found that they were quite content with achieving a dimension of closeness that no longer said, “Come here, I want to see you!” (As Mr. Watson replied to the same statement repeated by Bell in their historic 1915 call between New York and San Francisco: “It will take me five days to get there now!”) A happy proximity could be satisfactorily attained by two family members or two friends at a great physical distance from each other within the phone call itself.
Not that this proximity was accepted as genuine or wholesome by everyone or right away. In the 1940s, the novelist Albert Camus could be upset by the eerie spectacle of a man gesticulating fervidly inside a phonebooth. “A man is talking on the telephone behind a glass partition. We can’t hear him, but we see his pointless pantomime. We wonder why he is alive.”3 How, wondered Camus in dismay, could this count as “being alive,” this self-imprisoned, inaudible one-man act in a glass box on the street corner? Could this really be a livingconversation?
In 1983, Motorola Inc. manufactured the DynaTAC 8000x, the first commercially available cellular phone. And once the fad took off 1991, the spectacle that appeared so unnerving and absurd for Camus has achieved epidemic proportions—an epidemic against which today, evidently, no one in his or her right mind desires to be inoculated.I walk down the street at a quarter past five. I see a fellow pedestrian walking in the other direction, toward me, chatting into his smartphone. His feet touch the sidewalk, his free arm makes tender gestures in the air, the sun shines into his squinting eyes, the noise of the street swirls around him, and yet he is not there. Or he is just barely there. His body is there going through various motions. But he, he himself, is somewhere else. Where? Right beside his wife, as far as I can tell, in his kitchen at home, where his wife is stirring tomato sauce for the spaghetti bolognese they will soon be sharing for dinner.
And now—I am still studying him—now the most remarkable thing takes place. The conversation winds down to see-you-soons, and, just before he holds out the cell and presses the red phone icon, I see my fellow pedestrian puckering his lips—into a kiss!
A man has just expressed sweet affection for a little black appliance in public. I look around. No one has noticed anything unusual. Just another guy on the street kissing his wife in the kitchen.
The Virtue of Virtual Reality
Now, for some social critics, as for Camus, this kind of behaviour might appear like nothing but another sad phase in the general plague of technologized life. The fact that the cellphone epidemic is eating away into the face-to-face encounter between two flesh-and-blood human beings, and by the same token into the precious loneliness that used to be suffered patiently between such encounters which made the encounters themselves all the sweeter, appears as a major step toward the cybernetic dystopia looming just ahead, a world in which humans will lie prone, like macrochips wedged in a green panel, with tiny smartphones implanted under their skulls as they participate in a dense world-web of electronic interconnectedness.
Such social critics, moreover, insist on the simple physical fact that my fellow pedestrian is in reality, in fact, on the street, and that his “presence” at home with his wife is merely a virtual one. It is precisely the self-abandonment to virtual existence that is taken to be so lamentable. The smartphone dimension is said to be a non-reality.
Yet there is a distinctly cavalier dishonesty in this criticism. Where, how, after all, does this social critic make this criticism? More often than not, he formulates his ideas on his laptop, transmits his critique by email to his publisher, who uploads it to the internet, so that the critic’s loyal fans can access it on their smartphones while riding the bus.
That a certain type of intimacy and hence of reality has been compromised since the smartphone revolution took place is not to be doubted. But a rigorousphenomenology of the situation—that is, an honest recognition of the most real dimension of life in which we breathe and move about and share our feelings and thoughts with one another—also points to the equally real fact, indeed, realer fact, that human beings have lived in a profoundly virtual dimension since time began, namely the dimension of language.
Is there anything more meaningful, more real, within human existence than the constant barter and banter of words in which we live our lives? When the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure wanted to represent pictorially “where” it is that language takes place, he resorted, sensibly enough, to drawing trajectories suspended in the air between two human heads.4
This classical diagram affirms the full concrete reality of the heads while it depicts the two-fold action of speaking-and-hearing by means of two abstract geometric arcs. And when I see the man on the street with his cellphone, this scientific estimation of what is real versus what is abstract can certainly make an amusing impression at times. I see his head, to be sure; but where are the dotted lines?! Nevertheless, when I am the man on the street blowing kisses to his wife on the phone—and I am certainly that man at some point during the day—the experience of what is abstract versus what is concrete is very different. I can smell the spaghetti.How the Universe Was Uttered Into Place
“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!” (Song of Songs 1:2) The beloved Shulamite says these words about her lover. It is a metaphor for how we feel about G‑d.5
A closely related metaphor speaks of the “breath of G‑d’s mouth,” which “breath,” as Rabbi Shneur Zalman explains, represents, not something ethereal and unreal, but the most real of realities. More in fact, it represents the source of reality itself. “By the word of G‑d were the heavens made and their hosts by the breath of His mouth.” (Psalms 33:6)
The reason that all things created and actualized appear to us as existing and tangible, is that we do not comprehend or see with our eyes of flesh the power of G‑d and the breath of His mouth which is in every creature. If, however, the eye were permitted to see and to comprehend the vital principle and the spirituality within every creature, flowing into it from ‘That which proceeds out of the mouth of G‑d’ [Deuteronomy 8:3] and His breath, then the corporeality, materiality and tangibility of the creature would not be visible to our eyes at all, for its existence is utterly null vis-à-vis the vitality and the spirituality which is within it, since without the spirituality it would be nothingness and literally zero, exactly as before the Six Days of Creation.6
What is it that comes out of the mouth of G‑d to constitute and to vitalize reality? Words! Words! Words! G‑d speaks and reality is released from silent nothingness into being. “Let there be …” said G‑d, eight times explicitly and twice implicitly,7 as everything that is real was permitted, as it were, to be and to take shape in the six primordial days when G‑d invoked the unfathomable idea of a cosmos to percolate from the depths of His inscrutable Mind up to the surface of this superficial layer of thingishness we call the universe. “And G‑d said: ‘Let there be …’” G‑d said this. G‑d made the universe by uttering words.
… even in thoroughly inanimate matter, such as rocks or earth or water, there is soul and spiritual vitality, that is, the investiture of the letters of speech of the Ten Utterances which give life and existence to inanimate matter that it might come to be out the nothingness and zero that preceded the Six Days of Creation. And although [for example,] the noun אבן [rock] is not mentioned in the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, nevertheless, vitality flows to the rock through combinations and permutations of the letters that circulate in the Two Hundred and Thirty-One Gates [of binary Hebrew letter combinations], either in direct or reverse order, as is explained in the Sefer Yetzirah, until the combination of the [three letters in the] noun אבן devolves from the Ten Utterances, and is derived from them, this being the vitality of the rock.8
Which means that the very being of this thing called a “rock” which was summoned into reality by the divine utterance of the Hebrew noun êvên, this thing whose very being is derived from this word, must be less real than the word whence it is derived. If the eye were permitted to see a rock as is in its truth, then it would no longer be seen in its mere physical manifestations: its grey colour, its shape, its hardness, its heaviness, its ability to smash windows. The rock would appear as the word, as the word êvên, a primordial word that “proceeds out of the mouth of G‑d.” (What would this word look like? Well, if the eye were permitted to see it … which, alas, is something the eye is not permitted to do ….) The Smartphone as a "You Have Just Entered" Sign of the Messianic Age
“This is my comfort in my affliction, that Your word gives me vitality!” (Psalms 119:50)
The great disappointment regarding the technological paradise that was promised to the 21st century, it turns out, is a blessing in disguise. For what was promised was a life of consummate ease and comfort, a life of perfect laziness. And such a paradise has dire little to do with the messianic era as envisioned by the prophets.
The comforts promised by the prophets—for example to all the sheep of the world, who are assured they will finally get to snuggle with lions and wolves (Isaiah 11:6)—are but accidental features of an era utterly submerged in a full-time preoccupation with acquiring knowledge of G‑d (Isaiah 11:9). And what is the smartphone but a sign of the general readiness of humanity for such a preoccupation?
Our smartphones submerge us in a reality of around-the-clock communication, where words are more real than things, where the bursting open of the wellsprings of constant conversation is as harmless, indeed as welcome, as a global deluge would be to fish.
The content of this great flood of communication and information, to be sure, still needs to be channeled into better, more decent, holier, smarter words. But the technology, at least, is in place. As is, most importantly, the passion for words.
Am I consoled then? —Never mind consolation! If private flying saucers, zap-into-existence Tiramisu, and candle-light dinner dates on the dark side of the moon are not yet a reality, perhaps this has something to do with the basic economic rule that technology develops in accordance with what human beings are willing to invest in.
We don’t really care about being able to fly home from the office. We want to be able to be home while still at the office. This is no abrogation of space. It is a transcendence of space. Better still, it is a disclosure of the innermost secret of spatiality itself as a host for language, communication, and submersion in divine knowledge.
The smartphone is no mere zonk-gift behind door number two or a consolation prize for technology’s slowness to catch up to science fiction. Kabbalistically understood: the smartphone is the very flower of technological wisdom.
FOOTNOTES
1. Widely attributed to a revelation experienced by the patriarch Abraham, e.g. in Zohar II:275b, ZoharḤadash 37c; Sefer Raziel 8b; Pardes Rimonim 11:1.
2. The date is not far from 1840, i.e. the Hebrew year 5600, which was prognosticated in the Zohar(116b; cf. Sanhedrin 99a) as a time in which an “opening of the supernal gates of wisdom above,” i.e. the gates of kabbalistic wisdom, would be complimented by a concomitant “opening of the wellsprings of the wisdom below,” which would include technological wisdom. See a translation of Zohar 116b by Simcha-Shmuel Treister and and Tzvi Freeman's article, The Last day of History.
We may note moreover that in the Torah itself the first thematization of wisdom, including its tripartite form of ḥokhmah-binah-daat, takes place in Exodus 31:2ff.: “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: and I have filled him with the spirit of G‑d, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass …” (cf. 28:3). Bezalel’s specifically technical know-how pertains to the construction of a dwelling here below to accommodate the descent from above of the divine Indwelling, the Shekhinah. (In Deuteronomy 1:13, the three aspects of wisdom are cited again but in the context of qualifications for being a judge. See Deut. Rabbah 1:10.)
3. Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe (Paris: Gallimard, 1942), p. 29.
4. Ferdinand de Saussure, Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de linguistique générale, ed. T. d. Mauro (Paris: Payot, 1972), p. 27.
5. On the anthropomorphism of a “divine kiss,” See Baba Batra 17a re Deuteronomy 34:5. Cf. Moed Katan 28a, Berakhot 8a.
6. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya (Vilna edition, 1900), Pt. 2, Shaar HaYiḥud vehaEmunah, Ch. 3, p. 78a.
7. Avot 5:1. According to Rosh Hashanah 32a and Megillah 21b (see commentaries of Rabbeinu Beḥaye, Rashbatz and Rambam re Avot 5:1), the Ten Utterances are enumerated as the eight instances of ויאמר (“and He said”) in verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26 of the first chapter of Genesis, plus the instance in Genesis 2:18, plus as being implied in the word בראשית (“In the beginning”) in Genesis 1:1.
| 8. | Shaar HaYiḥud vehaEmunah, Ch. 1, pp. 76b-77a. Cf. Ch. 12. |
A riveting story of one man’s quest to fulfill his father’s last wish seventy years later. by Menachem PosnerThey sat together in the car, driving from Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, to Vienna, Austria, just an hour away. Rabbi Baruch Myers was accompanying Ivan Pasternak, a 70-year-old member of his community who was going to have his circumcision, finally entering into the covenant of Abraham.
“There are a number of such men in our community,” explains Myers, who has served as chief rabbi and Chabad representative to Slovakia since 1993. “There were years of Communist rule when it was socially unacceptable and only the most devout kept this tradition alive. Over the years, many men and boys have decided to ‘take the plunge,’ thus earning their Jewish names and the right to be called to the Torah.”
Pasternak had been somewhat of an enigma to the rabbi. A teacher by profession, he regularly attended services every Shabbat in the cozy little sanctuary carved out from the cavernous old synagogue that was far too large for a community reduced to a fraction of its prewar self, having been decimated by World War II and the Holocaust.
After his retirement and the passing of his wife, Zuzka, Pasternak took up the duties ofshamash, caring for the synagogue and making sure that the books were in order.
Yet he was hesitant to undergo circumcision, even if not doing so created a barrier between him and the crusty old stalwarts who formed the backbone of the regular minyan(the quorum of 10 Jewish men needed for public prayer). They would grumble in Hungarian about the younger men who lacked Jewish names and the education they carried with them from their youths.
During Simchat Torah of 2014, something changed. Exuberant with dancing, Pasternak told the rabbi that he was ready. He would have a brit milah and take the Hebrew name “Ilan,” which sounds similar to Ivan and is quite popular inIsrael today.
As they drove towards Vienna, Pasternak told the rabbi the other reason he chose that name.
War Interrupts Everything
“My family is originally from Prešov, “he began. “My parents, Marta and Teodor Pasternak, were married there in 1940. It was not long after that Jews were persecuted in earnest by Czechoslovakian Nazi sympathizers. It was the first city where Jews had to wear special white arm bands, and it did not take long before many people, including my grandparents and many other relatives, were deported, never to be seen again.
“Realizing that Prešov, where they were well-known, would be a death trap for them, my parents decided to run to Pressburg [now Bratislava] using a false non-Jewish identity. Marta and Teodor Pasternak became Mr. and Mrs.Paulovič.
“I was born in the summer of 1944, and of course, there was no way they could have me circumcised under those circumstances. So they waited, hoping they would be able to do it when I got older. My father had a Hebrew name picked and everything.
“But three weeks after I was born, we were discovered. We were taken to a small concentration camp. Three days later, my father was sent off to Auschwitz and then Dachau.
“My mother and I were fortunate. She managed to bribe a Slovak night guard to turn a blind eye towards us, and she ran holding me for 15 kilometers to safety. My mother and I then hid with a gentile family. There were roundups very often; we were in constant danger of being discovered. I never cried all through those terrible times, my mother would tell me.
“When the war ended, we went back to Prešov, but nothing was the same. My mother waited patiently for my father to come home, hoping to hear that he was alive. But alas, we received word from the Red Cross that he had been killed in Dachau, as had been so many of my mother’s friends and relatives.
“We settled in Bratislava. My mother would tell me about her family, how large it had been and how almost everyone had been killed. Occasionally, I would ask her about my circumcision, knowing that it was something every Jewish male should have. She told me that she believed it could only be done for an eight-day-old baby, and it was impossible for me now.
"For years, I knew that my father had chosen a Hebrew name for me, and I was haunted by the fact that I had never taken the name.
“I married my wife, Zuzka, and we had two sons together. After she passed away five years ago, I began to think about circumcision again.”
Upon their arrival in Vienna, Ivan Pasternak underwent his brit and took the name Ilan—the very same name his father had chosen for him before being taken away by the Nazis.
“Today, I am more than 70 years old,” he reflects, “and I feel that my parents and my grandparents are looking down from somewhere above, and they are satisfied knowing that everything is in order.”
• The Nazi Trove and Returning Lost Art to Jewish Heirs (By Yvette Miller)
The Museum of Fine Arts in Berne, Switzerland, recently announced it would accept untraced paintings from a vast trove of over 1,000 priceless works of art, many looted from Jewish owners during World War II. The collection—containing works by Renoir, Matisse and other masters—was found during a routine tax inspection by German tax authorities in 2012. Shocked inspectors found a collection of over 1,200 paintings when they raided the apartment of a tax-defaulter by the name of Cornelius Gurlitt.
The son of a senior-level Nazi who plundered art from European museums and from individual Jewish families, Gurlitt held on to his father’s collection for decades, never breathing a word about the immense treasure he guarded. Once his hoard was discovered, Gurlitt negotiated an agreement with the German government to turn over his father’s vast fortune to authorities who might track down the paintings’ owners. Gurlitt died in May 2014, and though some of his relatives continue to contest the bequest, the Museum of Fine Arts agreed to act on behalf of the German government to restore the stolen paintings to their rightful owners and their heirs.
Germany’s culture minister called the deal a “milestone in coming to terms with our history,” and stressed the museum is committed to returning the stolen art “as soon as possible, with no if’s, and’s or but’s.”It seemed to many like a happy ending
It seemed to many like a happy ending: a museum working to find the paintings’ rightful owners; a German government committed to righting the wrongs of the Nazi era; grateful heirs finally reunited with their plundered property.
Unfortunately, it’s not always easy. When I was growing up, two dark paintings used to grace our living room walls: one depicted a winter scene; the other, autumn. My grandmother explained that before they came to Chicago, they used to hang—next to brighter canvasses showing summer and spring—on the walls of her family’s apartment in Vienna. When the family fled Europe, weeks before the outbreak of World War II, strict rules governed what Jews could bring out: only the clothes they wore and some personal items. My great-grandparents, Kamilla and Alfred Dubsky, packed up their paintings and sent them on to America, knowing there was little chance they’d arrive. Shockingly, the package eventually did arrive, though somewhat lighter than when it set out: “spring” and “summer” had been stolen along the way. But “autumn” and “winter,” miraculously, hung on our walls, a reminder for my grandmother and her parents of the home they’d left behind.
When I first read about the trove of art discovered in Germany, one article mentioned an international firm that specializes in tracking down stolen artwork. On a whim, I e-mailed the company. “I’ve read you’ve successfully tracked down artwork that was stolen during the Holocaust,” I wrote. It felt cathartic to put it into words, to explain that we, like so many Jews, were plundered, our possessions stolen, our relatives murdered. I felt a kinship with other Jews whose families were torn apart and taken from them. In asking to track down my grandmother’s missing paintings, I was aware of trying to restore something more: my family’s history.
A friendly-sounding woman e-mailed back. She walked me through the process. For a nominal fee, her company would scour sales and auction records. If the paintings I described were ever publicly sold, her company would be able to tell me when and by whom. At this point, I told my father what I’d been researching. His eyes widened. “I’ll pay their fee!” he exclaimed. For a moment, he too imagined tracking down his mother’s missing paintings. But I gently broke it to my dad: even if we were able to find the paintings, we could never claim them. My grandmother had no written proof she’d ever owned them; without documents, there was no way to link us to them—mere My grandmother had no written proof she’d ever owned themsentiment and family history counted for nothing in proving provenance. My father’s eyes lost their sparkle. At that moment, it felt like we lost the paintings a second time. We realized they were truly gone, and that my grandmother’s loss was permanent.
It might seem odd, given the importance in my family of these two Austrian paintings, that I never wanted them. After my grandmother died, though, there were other mementos of her life that I identified with her so much more.
There are the names, for instance. Arriving in Chicago in 1939, she and my grandfather had no idea who was still alive back in Europe. They couldn’t name their children for their parents or siblings, because they didn’t know whether anyone in their families was still living. Years later, my grandmother made sure to write a family history, recalling all she could of her and my grandfather’s relatives. Some names were already lost, forgotten and unable to be recalled. It was so important to Grandma that we remember what we could. Years later, I was able to name my son Aron after his great-great-grandfather, who was murdered in Auschwitz, only because of my grandmother’s commitment to never letting us forget the relatives they left behind.
Another legacy my grandmother left us is feeling we’re part of a wider Jewish community. She used to tell us how she and a few relatives were saved only because a distant relation in Chicago spent all his personal savings sponsoring them for American visas. Later, another distant relative helped her family financially. This is simply what Jews do for each other, she taught. When I wanted to visit Israel for the first time during college, Grandma was overjoyed, giving me the name of someone I’d never hear of: an elderly, far-flung relative—a connection that dated to the 1930s in Austria—to look up. I did, and felt viscerally what my grandmother had often spoken of—that all Jews are connected, all responsible for each other.
My grandmother didn’t leave many tangible objects behind.My grandmother didn’t leave many tangible objects behind Those two Austrian oil paintings might have been the most valuable objects she ever owned. But they were dark and dreary, and they only reminded me of the many, many things she’d lost.
Instead, after my grandmother’s death, I inherited a beautiful picture that I felt represented her so much more. It’s a cheap print she bought once in Israel, an artist’s rendering of Jerusalem. I hung it on my dining room wall, and each time I look at it I think of my grandmother—sometimes of what she left behind and mourned, but more often of what she loved and looked forward to, instead.
LIVING WITH THE OMER PERIOD
From “Vedibarta Bam,” a compendium of questions and answers on the Torah portion, holidays, and many other aspects of Jewish life, available online for the first time on Chabad.org. by Moshe Bogomilsky"משה קבל תורה מסיני"
“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.” (1:1)
QUESTION: Sinai did not give the Torah; It was the mountain upon whichHashem gave the Torah. It should have said, “Moshe received the Torah from Hashem”?
ANSWER: When Hashem was preparing to give the Torah to the Jewish people, the highest mountains came praising their majestic appearance and said that the Torah should be given upon them. Hashem disregarded them all and selected Sinai, the lowest mountain, thus emphasizing that He preferred humility (see Sotah 5a). If Hashem wanted to accentuate the importance of being humble, why didn’t He give the Torah on level ground?
The difference between the earth and a mountain is that people tread easily upon earth but not on the rocky and steep slopes of a mountain. By giving the Torah on the lowest mountain, Hashem conveyed the lesson that the Torah Jew should be proud of his convictions and not permit himself to be trampled or stepped upon.
Of King Yehoshafat it is said, “And his heart was lifted up in the ways of G‑d” (II Chronicles 17:6). Though he did not permit himself to be impressed by his great wealth and honor, he was proud about the fact that he walked in the path of Hashem.
Torah is not a book of history or a collection of tales. It stems from the word“hora’ah,” which means teaching and guidance (Psalms 19:8, Radak). Moshe is described in the Torah as the most humble person that ever lived. The Mishnahis teaching that Moshe received Torah — a lesson — “miSinai” — from the mountain of Sinai. From the fact that Hashem selected a mountain and specifically Sinai, he derived the importance of both humility and pride in his Torah observance. He conveyed this message to his beloved discipleYehoshua to pass along for posterity.
(ביאורים לפרקי אבות – כ"ק אדמו"ר)
"משה קבל תורה מסיני"
“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.” (1:1)
QUESTION: Why did Hashem give the Torah while the Jews were still in the wilderness and not wait till after they arrived in their own land,Eretz Yisrael?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Tamid 32a) relates that Alexander the Great put ten questions to the elders of the South. One of the questions was “Were the heavens created first or the earth?” They replied, “Heaven was created first, as the Torah states, ‘In the beginning of G‑d’s creating the heavens and the earth’ ” (Bereishit 1:1).
Why did he want to know the order of creation?
As a great philosopher and student of Aristotle, Alexander was understandably interested in the Jewish view of creation. However, the intent of his question here was much more profound. Alexander was the most powerful king of his times, and his goal of conquering the entire world was almost realized. Heaven represents spirituality, and earth represents material pursuits. He was thus uncertain whether to emphasize physically acquiring as much of the world as possible or spiritually uplifting and enhancing the world already under his control.
Unable to decide on his own, he turned to our Sages for counsel. They responded that when G‑d created the world, He created heaven first, indicating that spiritual values are pre-eminent.
Therefore, Hashem gave the Torah in the wilderness prior to the arrival of the Jews in their own land to emphasize the Torah’s superiority to land. The nations of the world who refused to accept the Torah became extinct with the loss of their lands. The Jews, however, exist forever, even without a land, as long as they keep the Torah.
(מצאתי בכתבי זקני הרב צבי הכהן ז"ל קאפלאן)
"משה קבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע"
“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and passed it on to Yehoshua.” (1:1)
QUESTION: Instead of “umesarah” — “passed it on” — why doesn’t it say“veYehoshua kibel miMoshe” — “and Yehoshua received it from Moshe”?
ANSWER: The Torah is the wisdom of Hashem. Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe, but did not convey to him all His wisdom. As the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 21b) says, “fifty gates of understanding were created in the world, and all but one (the understanding of Hashem’s very essence) were given to Moshe, as it says: “You made him only slightly wanting in [understanding] Divinity” (Psalms 8:6). Since he received only what was given to him, it says“Moshe kibel” — “he received [whatever was given to him].” However,“umesarah lihoshua” — he conveyed everything that was given to him to Yehoshua.
(תוס' יו"ט)
"הוו מתונים בדין, והעמידו תלמידים הרבה, ועשו סיג לתורה"
“Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.” (1:1)
QUESTION: What is the connection between these three things?
ANSWER: The Anshei Keneset Hagedolah — Men of the Great Assembly — were concerned about the continuity of Torah for posterity. This, they felt, can only be accomplished when young men study Torah and grow up to be the leaders and teachers of the generation. The need to establish Yeshivot in every Jewish community so that every Jewish child can receive a Torah education was uppermost in their mind.
It is a common tendency among many of the older members of the community to reject the young people and consider them inadequate. In many Yeshivot, unfortunately, Jewish children are rejected or expelled for minor infractions. Thus, the Men of the Great Assembly emphasize being patient in judgment. They are saying, “Do not be judgmental and quick to reject students. Though on the surface they may fall short of your expectations and fail to compare to your peers when you were students, nevertheless, give them a chance.”
With this approach, many students will be raised. Thus, there will be many future leaders to serve the needs of Jewish communities the world over. Hence, thanks to the multitude of students learning Torah, a fence will be erected around the Torah, i.e. the Torah will be protected and safeguarded for all the years to come.
(דבר בעתו)
* * *
The Mishnah carefully says, “Veha’amidu talmidim harbei” — “And raise up many students” — and not “velimdu” — “and teach [many students]” — to imply that one must instruct one’s students until they are able to stand independently. A teacher’s responsibility is not merely to impart knowledge, but rather to give his students a strong foundation of values and principles which will continue to give them strength.
(ביאורים לפרקי אבות – כ"ק אדמו"ר)
* * *
In regard to “Veha’amidu talmidim harbei” the Avot D’Rabbi Natan (2:3) writes, “The School of Shammai says, ‘One should teach only one who is smart, meek, of good ancestry and rich.’ But the school of Hillel says, ‘One should teach every man, for there were many transgressors in Israel who were brought close to Torah, and from them descended righteous, pious, and worthy folk.’ ”
"שמעון הצדיק"
“Shimon the Righteous” (1:2)
QUESTION: Why was he called Shimon the Righteous?
ANSWER: Shimon earned the title “HaTzaddik” — “the righteous” — for his great piety, which was evident throughout the forty years he served as Kohen Gadol — High Priest — in the second Beit Hamikdash. The Gemara (Yoma39a) relates that during the entire period that he served as Kohen Gadol, the crimson colored strap which was tied between the horns of the bullock on Yom Kippur would become white. This signified that Hashem had forgiven the sins ofK’lal Yisrael. Also, during all the years he served in the Beit Hamikdash, the neirma’aravi — westernmost light on the menorah — candelabra – was never extinguished, although in it was put as much oil as in the others and it was the first to be kindled. This miracle was taken as a sign that the Shechinah — Divine Presence — dwells in Israel (see Rashi).
The Gemara (ibid. 69a) relates that when Alexander the Macedonian came to destroy theBeit Hamikdash (upon the request of the Cutheans), ShimonHaTzaddik robed himself in the Priestly garments and went out to meet him. When he saw ShimonHaTzaddik, he descended from his carriage and bowed down before him. The Cutheans said to him, “How can a great king like yourself bow down before this Jew?” He answered, “An image in the likeness of this man gains victory before me on all my battlefields.”
In the year he died, he foretold that he would die. Upon being asked how he knew he replied, “Every Yom Kippur an old man dressed in white would join me entering theKodesh Hakadashim — Holy of Holies — and leaving it with me. Today I was met by an old man dressed in black, who entered but did not exit with me.” Seven days after Sukkot, he passed away (ibid. 39b). According to the Jerusalem Talmud (5:2), the “old man” was the Shechinah. (See Tosafot, Menachot 109b).
"שמעון הצדיק...אומר, 'על שלשה דברים העולם עומד: על התורה, ועל העבודה, ועל גמילות חסדים' "
“Shimon the Righteous...used to say, ‘The world stands on three things: On [the study of] Torah’ the service [of G‑d], and deeds of kindness.’ ” (1:2)
QUESTION: Instead of saying, “The world stands on three things” and then enumerating them, he should have just said “Study Torah, serve Hashem, and do acts of kindness”?
ANSWER: There is no question that over the years the world has progressed immensely. Modern technology has changed our lifestyle so drastically that the previous generation appears antiquated and primitive. Surpassing prior accomplishments, humanity continues to progress and increase in sophistication. With all this progress and advancement, some claim that Torah and the Torah lifestyle should be modified to the contemporary modern age.
Shimon HaTzaddik’s message is that regardless of contemporary progress, there are three things in which the world must be “omeid” — “stationary” — i.e. remain the same as in previous times without being altered, modernized, or modified in the minutest way. They are Torah, service of Hashem, and acts of kindness. In regard to these the Jews in all generations must maintain their observance in accordance with the old established authentic ways of our rabbis of previous generations.
(כנסת ישראל – ליקוט ע"י ר' ישראל ז"ל גאלדמאנן, סעאיני –רומיניא–, תרפ"ד)
"על התורה ועל העבודה ועל גמילות חסדים"
“On [the study of] Torah, the service [of G‑d], and deeds of kindness.” (1:2)
QUESTION: The three patriarchs were each the prototype of one of the above spiritual qualities. Yaakov represented Torah. He is described as, “A wholesome man, abiding in tents [the Yeshivot of Shem and Eiver]” (Bereishit25:27, Rashi). Yitzchak represents avodah — sacrifice. He allowed himself be brought up as an offering to Hashem. Also, if avodah is interpreted as tefillah — prayer — it says of him, “And Yitzchak went out to supplicate in the field” (ibid. 24:63). Avraham who was renown for his acts of kindness, corresponds togemilut chassadim (Megaleh Amukot, Bereishit).
If so, why is gemilut chassadim listed last, when Avraham was the first of the patriarchs?
ANSWER: Hashem told Avraham to leave his native land and promised him that “I will make you a great nation: I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (ibid. 12:2). Rashi explains that “I will make you a great nation” is a reference to that which they say in the Shemonah Esreih,“Elokei Avraham” — “G‑d of Avraham.” “I will bless you” is a reference to that which they say” in Shemoneh Esreih, “Elokei Yitzchak” — “G‑d of Yitzchok.” I will make your name great” is a reference to that which they say in Shemoneh Esreih, “Elokei Yaakov” — “G‑d of Yaakov.” “But,” Hashem told Avraham, “And you will be a blessing” to imply that “the berachah will be concluded with your name only — Magen Avraham — and not with them.”
Wouldn’t Avraham be happier if Yitzchak and Yaakov were also mentioned in the conclusion of the berachah?
According to Rashi, the pasuk is projecting the history of K’lal Yisrael. There will be a time when the major relationship between the Jews and Hashem will be through the study of Torah (Elokei Yaakov). At other times it will be throughtefillah — prayer (Elokei Yitzchak), and there will be a period when it will be through chessed — tzedakah (Elokei Avraham).
However, the “concluding phase” of galut and the coming of Mashiach will not be dependent on all three pillars, but will occur in thezechut ofdeeds of kindness alone, which is personified by Avraham.
(שמעתי מזקני הרב צבי הכהן ז"ל קפלן)
"ועל גמילות חסדים"
“And deeds of kindness.” (1:2)
QUESTION: Why does it say “gemilut chassadim” — “deeds of kindness” — in plural, and not “gemilut chesed” — in singular?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sukkah 49b) says that gemilut chassadim — deeds of kindness — are greater than tzedakah — charity — for the following reasons:
1) Charity is performed only with one’s property, while deeds of kindness are performed both with one’s person and with one’s property.
2) Charity is performed only for the living. Gemilut chassadim is performed with the living and the deceased, e.g. eulogizing and burying the deceased.
3) Charity is primarily for the poor. Gemilut chassadim is for both the poor and the rich.
Since there are so many different aspects, it says “gemilut chassadim” — “deeds of kindness” — in plural.
"ועל גמילות חסדים"
“And deeds of kindness.” (1:2)
QUESTION: Why doesn’t it simply say chassadim — kindness? Isn’t the wordgemilut — bestowing — extra?
ANSWER: The Rambam (MatanotAniyim 10:7) writes that “there are eight forms (levels) of charity, each is one a step above the other, and The highest level which surpasses them all is to help a Jew who is in need by offering him a loan or entering a business partnership or employment or any other form of assistance which will help to prevent him from being poor. This is what the Torah (Vayikra 25:35) meant when it said ‘If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him... — proselyte or resident — so that he can live with you.’ ”
Now the word “gemilut,” which is usually interpreted as “bestowing,” can also be from the same root word as “vayigameil” which means “weaning,” as in thepasuk “The child grew vayigameil — and was weaned [he was no longer dependant on Sarah’s nursing], and Avraham made a great feast on the dayhigameil et Yitzchok — Yitzchok was weaned” (Bereishit 21:17).
Hence, gemilut chassadim refers to the greatest form of assistance to the needy, to help in such a way that the needy person will be weaned from needing any further assistance.
"אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס, אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס, ויהי מורא שמים עליכם"
“Do not be like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but rather be like servants who serve their master without the intent of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” (1:3)
QUESTION: What is the connection between the way we should serve Hashem and fear of Heaven?
ANSWER: The word "פרס" — “peras” — may be derived from the word “prusah”(פרוסה), which means a small portion broken off from a large loaf. As in thepasuk “Halo pharos lara’eiv lachmecha” — “surely you should break your bread for the hungry” (Isaiah 58:7).
In every employer-employee relationship, the worker’s salary is a portion of what he produces. The employer keeps a larger part of the profit for himself and gives a smaller part to the worker. An employee is afraid of his employer, who can terminate his job. On the other hand, the employer is afraid of the employee, who can abruptly quit and leave the business understaffed.
Antigonus ish Socho is teaching that the exception to this rule is our relationship with Hashem. He does not need any part of what we produce, and yet he gives us full credit for all our good deeds. Since He does not need our work, He has no reason to fear us. We, however, must always remember that we are totally dependent on Him and that we must fear Him.
(לקוטי בתר לקוטי – ליקוט ע"י ר' שמואל ז"ל אלטער)
"אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס"
“But rather be like servants who serve their master without the intent of receiving a reward.” (1:3)
QUESTION: How can this be reconciled with the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 4a) that the one who says “This coin is to charity so that my son shall live” or “so that I shall merit the World to Come” is a tzaddik gamur — a completely righteous person?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Bava Batra 9b) says that for giving tzedakah to the poor one receives six blessings, and for also saying comforting and encouraging words to the poor, one receives an additional eleven blessings, for more important than the actual giving of tzedakah is the way it is given. The poor and destitute that have to beg for alms are heartbroken and shattered. Instead of making them feel that they are on the receiving end and you are on the giving end, you should convey a sense of gratitude to the poor for giving you the opportunity to do a mitzvah.
Thus, the Gemara could be explained to mean that if while giving charity to a poor man one says “I am giving this because of the benefit in store for me. Through the fulfillment of this mitzvah, my son shall live” (it is possible even that he does not have a son, but is just saying so to make the poor man feel more comfortable), or “I shall meritthe World to Come” — such a person is a tzaddik gamur — a complete tzaddik — because he makes the recipient feel like a giver.
"אנטיגנוס איש סוכו...אומר, 'אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס...' "
“Antigonus of Socho...He used to say, ‘Do not be like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward....’ ” (1:3)
QUESTION: What effect did a misunderstanding of this statement have on Jewish history?
ANSWER: Antigonus had two disciples, Tzadok and Boethus, who misinterpreted his teaching and perpetuated this error by teaching it to their disciples, and their disciples to their disciples, etc. “Why,” they said “did our rabbis see fit to say a thing like this? Is it possible, then, that a workman upon completing his day’s work will not receive his wages in the evening? If our rabbis are convinced that there is a future world and that the dead will be resurrected, they would not have said that.” From these two disciples, Tzadok and Boethus, two sects arose, the Sadducees (the Tzedokim) and the Boethusians. All their days they lived in great luxury, using silver and gold utensils, because they became arrogant. The Sadducees used to say, “ThePerushim — Pharisees — (the term for the group faitful to the Rabbis and meticulous in their Torah observance, and opponents of the Sadducees) — have a tradition to deny themselves pleasures in this world, and in the World to Come they have nothing [to expect].”
Antigonus really meant that all rewards are in the World to Come and that in this world one prepares himself for it. Man’s service of Hashem should not be for the sake of receiving a reward, but merely out of love for Him in the same way as a child does things for his parents purely out of love. Nevertheless, in addition to loving Hashem, one should also fear Him and stand in awe when considering His greatness, might, and holiness.
(אבות דרבי נתן ה:ב)
"יוסי בן יועזר...ויוסי בן יוחנן"
“Yosi the son of Yo’ezer...and Yosi the son of Yochanan.” (1:4)
QUESTION: This Mishnah and the succeeding four Mishnayot mention statements said by five zugot — pairs. What did they all have in common?
ANSWER: In each of the pairs listed, the first one mentioned was the Nasi —leader of the community — and the second was the Av Beit Din — Chief Justice of the Sanhedrin. The leadership of “the pairs” spanned over more than a century.
According to the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:2) each pair in their respective years of leadership disagreed over the same issue: Whether on Yom Tov is it permissible to do semichah — leaning — on the animal offering with both hands with all one’s strength, or if it is forbidden because it is comparable to riding the animal. The Nasi’s opinion was always that it should not be done, and the Av Beit Din always took the opposite position. In the generation of Shammai and Hillel, however, it was the reverse. The Nasi, Hillel, was in favor of it and Shammai, the Av Beit Din, disagreed.
The interesting thing is that regardless of their opposing view on this halachicissue, they all had the greatest respect for each other personally and worked in unison. At no time did they permit their difference on a certain interpretation ofhalachah to interfere in their united efforts to promote the welfare of the community materially and spiritually.
"יהי ביתך בית ועד לחכמים"
“Let your house be a meeting place for Sages.” (1:4)
QUESTION: How can one who dwells in a very small apartment fulfill this?
ANSWER: This instruction is addressed to everyone regardless of how big his living quarters are. The intent is that “beitecha” — “your primary residence” — should be where the Sages gather, i.e. in the synagogues and halls of Torah study, and the fancy place where you eat and sleep should be your temporary domicile.
(ר' יצחק ז"ל מוואלאזין)
"יהי ביתך בית ועד לחכמים והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם"
“Let your house be a meeting place for Sages; sit in the dust of their feet.” (1:4)
QUESTION: Sitting in the dust of their feet is not necessarily when you learn from them in your house; it could apply to anywhere you go to hear them. So what is its connection with the statement “Your house should be a meeting place for the Sages”?
ANSWER: There are people who refrain from giving their home to a study group out of concern that some specks of dust will be dropped on their plush carpets. These people are foolishly more worried about dust on their carpets than dust on their souls.
The Mishnah is teaching that the beauty of a Jewish home is not the carpets and furnishing, but the spiritual atmosphere that prevails. The Sages that assemble there and the Torah they teach enhance a household more than all the expensive decor therein. So make your house a meeting place for the Sages and do not worry about the possibility of some dust on the carpet, because the detriment of a stain or speck of dirt is far outweighed by the spiritual benefit of a Torah atmosphere.
(לקוטי בתר לקוטי)
"והוי שותה בצמא את דבריהם"
“And drink in their words thirstily.” (1:4)
QUESTION: What is the analogy between studying Torah and drinking water thirstily?
ANSWER: To someone who is thirsty, every drop of water is precious. Likewise, every drop of Torah study should be precious and cherished. When one is thirsty, he will turn over every stone to find some water and even walk for miles to reach a well. Similarly, one should make every effort to study Torah and not hesitate even to travel a long distance in order to participate in a Torah study group.
* * *
Alternatively, since water is available in such abundant measure, the cost of a glass of water is very little. However, when one is dying of thirst and is given a glass of water, the value of that glass of water is priceless, and he does not just owe his benefactor the price of the water, but the value of his life since without the water his life might have come to an end, G‑d forbid.
The message is the following: Appreciate the words of Torah and the rabbis who share it with you in the same way as the very thirsty man values the glass of water and is indebted to the one who gave him water to quench his thirst. In both cases the recipient receives an extension of life, one physical and the other spiritual.
* * *
Alternatively, the Mishnah is teaching that one should always be like a thirsty person when learning Torah. A thirsty person keeps on drinking till his thirst is quenched. Likewise, even if one has had an opportunity to learn Torah previously, he should not rest contented but continuously seek to learn more and more.
(ראשי אבות להחיד"א)
"יהי ביתך פתוח לרוחה ויהיו עניים בני ביתך"
“Let your house be wide open [for guests]; treat the poor as members of your household.” (1:5)
QUESTION: What is the connection between these two instructions?
ANSWER: Some people are very selective when it comes tohachnasat orchim— hospitality. They will readily invite a prominent or affluent person to their home, but avoid welcoming in one who is poor or insignificant. The Mishnah is teaching that a person’s home should be opened to the public without any discrimination. In fact, real hospitality is inviting the poor to one’s table. In such an instance one is really giving. In contrast, when one invites prominent or wealthy people, it may be that one is egotistically anticipating gaining prominence and recognition for himself.
* * *
The Biblical prototype for hospitality is Avraham. Why is so much attention devoted to his hospitality while no recognition is given to his nephew Lot, who welcomed the same guests that Avraham did?
In reference to Avraham the Torah refers to his guests as “anashim” — “men” (Bereishit 18:2) — while in reference to Lot it refers to them as “angels” (ibid. 19:2). Avraham was a tzaddik and very great in the mitzvah of hachnasat orchim — hospitality. To him it made absolutely no difference who a guest was. Even if the guest was just an ordinary person, Avraham would take him into his home, treat him with the greatest respect, and give him the best of everything.
Lot was different. When a prominent person would come to town, Lot would take him into his home because it was an honor for him to have important people visiting. If a simple person would come to town and he would stand nothing to gain by taking him in, Lot would not bother with him at all. Therefore, when Lot saw that the visitors were angels and that it would add to his prestige to have such guests, only then did he invite them to his house.
(פרדס יוסף עה"ת, ר' יוסף ז"ל פאצאנאווסקי)
* * *
A story is told that once a great tzaddik who did not want to reveal his identity came to a city dressed unimpressively. When he asked for the opportunity to stay at the home of the head of the community, the person refused because he only catered to prominent guests and not ordinary folk.
Years later, when the tzaddik revealed his identity, again he came to the city and this time he rode in a chariot which was led by six horses. The entire town went out to meet the tzaddik and the head of the community told the tzaddik’ssecretary that he would be delighted if the tzaddik would be his guest. Thetzaddik instructed his secretary, “Please take the six horses and bring them to the home of the head of the community, and I will eat at the home where I ate a few years ago when I visited this city.”
The head of the community was very surprised and ran to the tzaddik to ask for an explanation. The tzaddik told him, “I am the same person who was here a few years ago and who asked to stay at your home. I have not changed since then. The only difference is that last time I came alone and you were not impressed with me. Today when I came with six horses, you were impressed. Therefore, I sent what impresses you to be your guests for the weekend.”
"ויהיו עניים בני ביתך"
“The poor should be members of your household.” (1:5)
QUESTION: Doesn’t the saying sound like a curse that, G‑d forbid, our household members should be poverty stricken?
ANSWER: Often when a poor man comes into a house, children ridicule him for the shabby and dirty appearance imposed on him by his poverty. They would never taunt their father, however, if he came home dirty from work as a plumber or painter etc. Thus, the saying teaches that we should train our children to accept the poor that come into our homes as members of the family, receiving them with respect, not ridicule.
* * *
Alternatively, the Mishnah is advising parents that even if they can, thank G‑d, afford to open their home to the public and feed many guests, they should train their children to live frugally. Flaunting one’s riches and living extravagantly can arouse the envy and animosity, not only of the gentile communities, but also of the Jewish neighbors.
(אבות על בנים)
* * *
Alternatively, very often when people are solicited to host guests in their homes, they respond “had you called earlier I would have planned it in my shopping, but now it’s already Friday and we’re not prepared for additional guests.”
Now, imagine your son and his family are returning from a trip abroad with the hope to reach their destination before Shabbat and unexpectedly they are forced to land in your city and an hour before Shabbat your son calls about his dilemma and asks if he can come with the family for Shabbat. The answer would indeed be “of course, it’s always a pleasure to have you and your family.”
Treat the poor guest like members of your household, and accept them at all times.
(כנסת ישראל)
"יהי ביתך פתוח לרוחה, ויהיו עניים בני ביתך, ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה"
“Let your house be wide open [for guests]; treat the poor as members of your household; and do not indulge excessively in conversation with the woman.” (1:5)
QUESTION: What is the connection between not indulging excessively in conversation with a woman and practicing hospitality?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Bava Metzia 87a) says “Women do not have a good attitude towards guests.” This may mean that when guests come to the home, it is the burden of the women to make all the preparations, and thus, due to the bother, they would rather not have the guests at all. Yosei ben Yochanan is indicating that one’s house should be wide open for guests and that one should invite poor people to one’s home and make them comfortable. A person may find it difficult to follow this advice due to his wife’s reluctance to cooperate. Therefore, he advises, “Al tarbeh — do not go out of your way with lavish preparations — sichah im ha’isha — should be the conversation between you and your wife.” Thus, she will cooperate with you to open your home wide for guests.
(דברי אבות)
* * *
There are many people who talk a lot but do little. The Mishnah is teaching, “Do not have lengthy conversations with your wife about the guests, but roll up your sleeves and help her with the preparations, and thus she will happily agree to have guests in the home.”
(שמעתי מדר. זאב שי' רב-נוי, מקאליפארניא)
* * *
It is mentioned in Shulchan Aruch Harav (300:4) that people who were meticulous in mitzvot had a separate tallit for Shabbat, and every Motzai Shabbat they would fold it, in order to be involved in a mitzvah immediately afterShabbat.
Some say that since the woman gives the tallit to the husband as a gift before the wedding, folding it shows his appreciation of her gift and therefore it is asegulah for shalom bayit — harmony in the home. A wise man once added that helping the wife wash the dishes that are left over from Shabbat is an even greater means to preserve harmony in the home.
(טעמי המנהגים ע' ת"ה, ועי' נטעי גבריאל, נישואין ח"א פ"ט סעי' י"ב)
"ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה באשתו אמרו קל וחמר באשת חבירו"
“And do not indulge excessively in conversation with the woman. This has been said concerning one’s own wife; how much more so does it apply to the wife of another.” (1:5)
QUESTION: It should have just said, “Do not engage in lengthy conversation with strange women.” Why is it necessary to state that this is derived through akol vechomer — a fortiori argument — from the prohibition not to have lengthy conversations with one’s own wife?
ANSWER: The Mishnah is actually addressing two problems which may cause a hesitancy to extend hospitality. Firstly, guests infringe on a couple’s privacy and limit their freedom to conduct lengthy conversations with each other. Secondly, one may be reluctant to invite male guests to his home out of concern that they will engage in lengthy conversations with his wife, which may ultimately lead to a disruption of hisshalom bayit.
Therefore, theMishnah advises the husband — “Al tarbeh sichah im ha’ishah —train yourself not to engage in overly lengthy conversations with your wife. Thus, you will not find the presence of a guest to be an impediment to your freedom to have extended conversations with your spouse.” Now the Mishnahcontinues with a message to the guest: “If the husband is advised not to speak excessively with his own wife, how much more, should you, the stranger, refrain from indulging in conversation with another man’s wife — the hostess.” Obeying these directives by both host and guest will ensure the continuity of hachnasat orchim — hospitality.
(מדרש שמואל)
"ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה, באשתו אמרו, קל וחמר באשת חברו"
“And do not indulge excessively in conversation with the woman. This has been said concerning one’s own wife; how much more so does it apply to the wife of another.” (1:5)
QUESTION: How much is “excessively”?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Chagigah 5b) explains thepasuk “He recounts to a person what his conversation was” (Amos 4:13) to mean that even a superfluous conversation between a man and his wife is counted against a person when he comes before the Heavenly Tribunal.
The Mishnah is saying, “Do not engage in excessive conversation with the woman. [Should you want to know how much is excessive, judge from] be’ishto amru” — our Sages have told us that one will have to account for a superfluous conversation regardless of its length with his own wife. How much more will one have to account for even a brief superfluous conversation that one holds with his friend’s wife.
(מעינם של אבות)
"ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה"
“And do not indulge excessivelyin conversation with the woman” (1:5)
QUESTION: Why is the Mishnah so adamant about even speaking to one’s own wife?
ANSWER: Instead of “Al tarbeh sichah im ha’ishah” — the woman — it could have said just “im ishah” — with a woman? The Mishnah is teaching that when it is necessary for one to engage in conversation with a woman and, for that matter, even his own wife, his thoughts should not be centered on “ha’ishah” — the feminine features of the woman — but rather he should consider her as another person with whom he needs to communicate.
"וסופו יורש גיהנם"
“And will in the end inherit Geihinom.” (1:5)
QUESTION: Instead of “yoreish Geihinom” — “inheritsGeihinom” — it should have said “yoreid leGeihinom” — “will go down to Geihinom”?
ANSWER: The Chovot Halevavot in Sha’ar Hachani’ah writes that when a person comes before the Heavenly Tribunal for judgment he may find in his ledger “debits” (aveirot) which are not his own. When he argues, “I never did this,” he will be told, “They were removed from the person about whom you spoke evil and added to your account.”
An inheritance is something which once belonged to a certain person and which was transferred to the possession of a second person upon the first one’s death. Our Sages are cautioning not to indulge excessively in conversation with a woman because ultimately this may lead to lashon hara — slander — for which not only will the offender be punished, but “yoreish Geihinom” — he will be charged with the victim’s wrongdoing and “inherit” the Geihinom due him.
(דברי דניאל מר' דניאל ז"ל פרוסטיץ - פרשבורג)
"יהושע בן פרחיה ונתאי הארבלי קבלו מהם, יהושע בן פרחיה אומר: עשה לך רב, וקנה לך חבר, והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות"
“Yehoshua ben Perachyah and Nittai Ha’arbeili received [the oral tradition] from them. Yehoshua ben Perachyah says: ‘Provide yourself with a teacher; acquire for yourself a friend; and judge every person favorably.’” (1:6)
QUESTION: What is the connection between these three things?
ANSWER: Yehoshua ben Perachyah felt that every individual must have someone to whom he looks up to as his Rav. Whenever a person must make a decision, whether halachic or personal, he should turn to his “Rav” since he is objective and will be able to give him his unbiased opinion. The “Rav” will also take an interest in him and guide him from time to time in his efforts to elevate himself in his relationship with Hashem as well as in his inter-personal relationships. While the “Rav” is someone whom he can only approach occasionally, it is also very important that one have a “chaveir” — a friend — someone with whom to have an ongoing relationship.
Yehoshua ben Perachyah realized that the difficulty some have with appointing a “Rav” or acquiring a friend is that they find fault with every prospective candidate and do not see them as qualified to be their “Rav” or “chaveir.”Therefore, he advised that though on the surface one may see faults in the person, one should, judge every person “lekaf zechut” — “favorably” — and thus it will be easy for one to find a “Rav” and a “chaveir.”
"עשה לך רב"
“Make yourself a teacher.” (1:6)
QUESTION: It should have said “asei avurcha Rav” — “provide a teacher for yourself”?
ANSWER: A Chassid of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of ChabadChassidut, once said that, “through conceit he overcame the urge to transgress.” Whenever his yeitzer hara — evil inclination — would approach him, he would exclaim, “Do you know who I am? I am a prominent person, aChassid of a very great Rebbe; how can you expect me to do this?”
Yehoshua ben Perachyah is advising every Jew: “Make yourself a Rav — declare yourself as a distinguished person, one for whom improper conduct is not befitting. You will thus spare yourself the pitfalls of your evil inclination.”
"יהושע בן פרחיה אומר: ...והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות"
“Yehoshua ben Perachyah says: ‘Judge every person favorably.’” (1:6)
QUESTION: Why was this one of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah’s popular sayings?
ANSWER: According to the uncensored version of the Gemara (Sanhedrin107b) the infamous “that person” (known as “Yeshu,” which is an acronym foryemach shemo vezichro — may his name and memory be erased — ימח שמווזכרו) was a student of Yehoshua ben Perachyah. Displeased with his behavior, He excommunicated him. Afterwards, he reconsidered and wanted to accept him back. “That person” replied, “You have taught me that the one who sins and causes many others to sin is not given the opportunity to repent” (Avot5:18).
Perhaps Yehoshua ben Perachyah felt that he was somewhat quick in being judgmental on “that person,” and had he given him the benefit of the doubt, he would have avoided a students’ becoming corrupt and misleading others.
* * *
Incidentally, according to the secular world, “that man” was born in the year 3760, 68 years prior to the destruction of the second Beit Hamikdash (3828), and their calendar started its first year counting from his birth. Jewish historians have difficulty accepting this thought because his teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah passed away approximately 125 years before the destruction of theBeit Hamikdash. Therefore, they conclude that there were actually two men called “Yeshu” and the first one was the student of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. However, the Naazarite whom Xianity accepted lived before the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash in the days of beit Hillel and beit Shamai.
(סדר הדורות ע' 144)
* * *
According to other Jewish historians there was only one, and he was born in the year 3671, more than one hundred and fifty years before the destruction of theBeit Hamikdash (3828). His mother’s name was Miriam (see Chagigah 4b,Tosafot), and he was fathered by Pandira, a non-Jew. In Gemara he is named “Yeshua (ישוע) ben Stadia,” (Stadia is an abbreviation for “satit da miba’alah” — “this [lady] turned from her husband, i.e. unfaithful) and thus in Eastern Europe he was referred to as “Yoshke Pandrik.” He studied in Egypt under Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah and when Shimon ben Shatach brought back Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah to Eretz Yisrael, he came along.
Egypt was known for sorcery (Kiddushin 49b). There he learned the art and secretly took it with him when he left Egypt. Afterwards, he publicly practiced sorcery and induced people to worship idolatry. He was the one who instituted the celebration of Sunday, and claimed that Hashem spoke to him.
He is also known as “Yeshu the Notzri” because he claimed that the words of the prophet “Veneitzermisharashavyifreh” — “A shoot will sprout from his root” (Isaiah 11:1) are a reference to him. At the age of thirty-six, on Erev Pesach3707, he was stoned and then hung by the Beit Din for sorcery, and incitement to embrace idolatry. (See Chesronot Hashas to Shabbat 104b, Sotah 47a,Sanhedrin 43.)
Thus, the secular calendar in reality has nothing to do with his birth, and it was actually made some seven hundred years after his death by a Roman priest Dionysius (דיאוניסיוס) who based his calendar on the false birth date publicized by the church fathers (Britannica 1965 Ed. Vol. 12 p. 1016). Contemporary Catholic historians admit that he was really born more than ninety years prior to the two thousand years of the calendar.
They falsified the year of his birth in order to convince the masses that the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash took place shortly after his death and that it was a punishment for our putting him to death.
It is interesting to note that the authentic information they have about him is taken from our sources. The reason is that during his lifetime the world at large knew very little of him and had no regard for him. About one hundred years after his death, certain individuals decided to make him the foundation of their new belief and started fabricating stories of his greatness.
(תולדות עם עולם, ח"ב, ע' שי"ז, מהרב שלמה הכהן ע"ה ראטענבערג)
"והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות"
“Judge every person favorably [meritoriously].” (1:6)
QUESTION: The word “lekaf,” whichliterally means the “pan of a balance scale,” seems extra. It could have said “lizechut”?
ANSWER: Often a person’s behavior puzzles us, and even after judging him favorably, we remain with certain doubts. The word “chaf” (כף) has the numerical value of 100. Yehoshua ben Perachyah is teaching us that we must judge another Jew 100 percent favorably, without any apprehensions or reservations.
"הרחק משכן רע, ואל תתחבר לרשע, ואל תתיאש מן הפורעניות"
“Distance yourself from a bad neighbor; do not connect yourself with a rasha; do not abandon belief in Divine retribution.” (1:7)
QUESTION: 1) The first two statements seem to be repetitious? 2) What is the connection between all three statements?
ANSWER: King Shlomo says, ‘A nearby neighbor is better than a distant brother’ (Proverbs 27:10). Thus, Nittai Ha’arbeili’s statement can be interpreted as follows: “Harcheik mishachein — distancing yourself from your immediate neighbor — ra — is bad. However, though it is important to be friendly and close with neighbors, a person must beware not to attach himself, G‑d forbid, to a neighbor who is wicked.”
Unfortunately, when one is experiencing Divine retribution, in a moment of despair, he may stoop to seek help from the wicked or consider following their ways. In view of this possibility, Nittai Ha’arbeili cautions us not to become despondent and give up hope in difficult times. He is saying, “Be assured that everything Hashem does is for our benefit and eventually the person will see the good in a tangible way.”
(מלי דאבות)
"הרחק משכן רע"
“Distance yourself from a bad neighbor.” (1:7)
QUESTION: What is a bad neighbor?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Berachot 8a) says that if one has a shul in his city and does not go there to pray, he is called “ra” — “wicked.” Thus, the Mishnah is cautioning that a person should distance himself from being labeled “a bad neighbor.” Rather, he should visit theshul to pray daily and participate regularly in the Torah study groups there.
To speak in shul during thedavening is a great iniquity. According to the Zohar(Shemot 131b, see Iggeret Hakodesh, 24) one who does so has no share in the G‑d of Israel. Thus, in addition to attending shul, “Al titchabeir larasha” — be careful next to whom you sit — i.e. do not sit next to one who chatters throughout the entire services.
(עבודת ישראל)
There is a popular slogan, “If you must talk in shul, talk to Hashem.”
"ואל תתיאש מן הפרענות"
“And do not abandon belief in [Divine] retribution.” (1:7)
QUESTION: Hashem is the All-merciful. Why does the Mishnah tell us to dwell on the negative?
ANSWER: Unfortunately, there are people who abandon their faith in Hashem and give up hope when they experience a difficulty. Some unintelligently say, “If He allows this to happen, it proves that there is no G‑d.” In truth, His ways are far above human comprehension. We may probe and try to find an explanation, but we may never conclude that He is wrong. A wise man once said, “For those who have faith there are no questions, and for those who lack faith, there are no answers.”
The Mishnah is teaching: “Al titya’eish — do not abandon [your relationship with Hashem] — min hapuraniyot — because it appears that punishment was meted out. One must not despair, because an apparently negative event will ultimately lead to good.”
(מדרש שמואל)
* * *
In the phrase“darosh darash Moshe” — “Moshe questioned and queried” — (Vayikra 10:16) in manyChumashim, the statement “Half of the words of the Torah” is printed between the words “darosh” and “darash.” Why is the half-way point in words significant?
The ways of Hashem are far above human comprehension. Often we question and try to fathom His actions. It is perfectly all right to seek explanations, but we must always remember that even if we do not find a reason or rationale, we should never conclude that Hashem is, G‑d forbid, wrong.
Moshe, too, had questions and was seeking answers. The Torah’s half-way point is marked in the middle of his questioning to allude that he had realized that he had only reached the middle and that there was much more ahead which he had not yet learnt. Hopefully, as his Torah knowledge increased, his questions would be answered.
"אל תעש עצמך כעורכי הדינים"
“Do not act as a counselor [when sitting as a judge].” (1:8)
QUESTION: What does the counselor do that the judge should not do?
ANSWER: A Beit Din can be either an established tribunal before whom all the litigants bring their issues without having any input as to the identity of the judges or a group of three judges chosen in the following manner: each litigant chooses one judge, and then the two judges together with the litigants select a third (see Aruch HaShulchan, Choshen Mishpat 13:1). The latter system is known as “zabla” (זבל"א) which is an abbreviation for “zeh boreir lo echad” (זהבורר לו אחד) — “this one [litigant] chooses one [judge] for himself.”
A lawyer will work feverishly to have his client vindicated or win, even if he personally knows that his client is guilty. The Mishnah is warning the judge, “Even if you were selected by the litigant, you are prohibited from favoring him if you see that he is wrong. You must rule fairly, and you are not required to assure a win for the litigant who selected you. You may search for halachicmerits on his behalf, but under no circumstances may you waive your impartiality and twist the halachah.”
(מדרש שמואל)
"וכשיהיו בעלי הדין עומדים לפניך יהיו בעיניך כרשעים"
“When the litigants stand before you, regard them both as wicked.” (1:8)
QUESTION: The word “omdim” — “standing” — is extra. It could have just said “When the litigants are before you”?
ANSWER: Sometimes, at the end of the Din Torah when the judges make their decision known, the litigants begin to argue with the rabbis in an attempt to prove them wrong. The Mishnah is saying to judges, “In the course of theDinTorah you are to be completely impartial and have no opinion whatsoever regarding the litigants. However, if they are omdim lifanecha — standing up before you — lingering on in argument and not readily accepting your decision, then you may consider them wicked people. But if after hearing your decision they are niftarin milefanecha — leave and have accepted your decision and will comply — then they are zaka’in — people of refined character.”
(לב אבות – ר' גדלי' ז"ל סילווערסטאן – ירושלים תרצ"ב)
"יהיו בעיניך כרשעים"
“Regard them both as wicked.” (1:8)
QUESTION: Why should both of them be looked upon as wicked?
ANSWER: The very fact that two people are involved in a dispute severe enough to bring them before a judge appears to indicate that both possess a certain measure of wickedness. When two people cannot resolve their differences without arbitration, both of them need to increase their love for their fellow man.
(לקוטי שיחות חכ"ד ע' 155)
* * *
It says of Devorah the prophetess, “She would sit under the date palm, and the Children of Israel would go up to her for judgment” (Judges 4:5). The Gemara(Megillah 14a) says that the reason she sat under a date palm and not in her home was to avoid yichud — being alone with men. The palm is tall, its branches are high up, and it casts no shade.
In every trial there is a plaintiff and a defendant. Thus, should yichud not be a concern because according to halachah (Even Ha’ezer 22:5) a woman is prohibited from being alone with one man, but not with two men?
The difference between being alone with one man or more, applies only when they are respectable and honorable. Since our Mishnah says that the judge should view the litigants with suspicion and consider both as resha’im — wicked — the law of yichud applies even when there is more than one such man in the room (ibid.).
(עיון יעקב על ע"י מס' מגילה)
"שמעון בן שטח אומר הוי מרבה לחקור את העדים"
“Shimon ben Shatach says, ‘Examine the witnesses thoroughly.” (1:9)
QUESTION: Since the Torah says “You shall investigate well and behold it is true, the testimony is correct” (Devarim 17:4), why did Shimon ben Shatach accentuate this advice to the judges?
ANSWER: He was influenced in this respect by a sad experience which he personally encountered and by another incident which he witnessed in his days.
1) It is related that Shimon ben Shatach executed eighty witches in Ashkelon, in accordance with Biblical Law (Shemot 22:17), which ordains, “You shall not allow a witch to live.” The relatives and friends of the witches, seeking revenge for their death, hired false witnesses who testified that Shimon’s son had committed a capital offense. The young man was tried and found guilty and condemned to die.
When the young man was about to be executed, the witnesses confessed that their testimony was false. Shimon ben Shatach nullified the guilty verdict against his son. However, his son said, “Father, let the law have its course at the expense of my life. There is a rule of evidence in Jewish jurisprudence, After a witness has once testified, he is not permitted to retract” (Sanhedrin 44b). According to this rule of law, the son claimed that he must suffer punishment, and he insisted that no exception can can be made as regards the carrying out the mandate of the law. (See Sanhedrin 44b, Rashi, Seder Hadorot).
2) When witnesses offer testimony and other witnesses refute them claiming that they were unable to witness the alleged crime since they were together with them at a different location, the first are called “eidim zomemim” “scheming witnesses” — and they receive whatever punishment they endeavored to have meted out to the one they accused. According to the Gemara (Makkot 5b), this law only applies as long as the alleged perpetrator was not punished already.
The Sadducees, who explain Torah literally and do not accept Rabbinic interpretations, claim that it only applies when the defendant actually received the punishment. To disprove them, Yehudah ben Tabai executed a witness who was found to be aneid zomeim — a scheming witness. When Shimon ben Shatach heard of this, he told him that he had killed an innocent person because according to Torah rule the eidim zomemim are punished only whenboth of the witnesses are found to be lying (ibid.).
Due to these two episodes, Shimon ben Shatach encouraged the judges to be assiduous in their investigation of testimony because had his Beit Din more thoroughly examined the witnesses against his son, they probably would have found them to be false, and his son would be living. Also, if Yehudah ben Tabai would have been more thorough in his investigation, perhaps he would have found the other witness to also be an eid zomeim and thus he rightfully would have killed the two of them, contrary to the opinion of the Sadducees that they are not liable for the punishment as long as their victim was not punished yet.
(מדרש שמואל ומחקרי אבות – ר' יעקב ז"ל לוינסאן – שיקאגא תרע"ה)
"אהוב את המלאכה ושנא את הרבנות"
“Love work and abhor taking high office.” (1:10)
QUESTION: The word “Rabbanut” literally means “Rabbinate.” How can this be reconciled with the Gemara (Sotah 22a), which explains that the pasuk “For she has felled many victims” (Proverbs 7:26) is a reference to a still-unqualified disciple who decides questions of law and that the conclusion of the pasuk, “The number of her slain is huge,” refers to a disciple who has attained the qualifications but nevertheless does not decide halachic questions? Accordingly, the one who is worthy to enter the Rabbinate and does not do so is committing an iniquity.
ANSWER: The Rabbinate offers two opportunities. The first involves the positive accomplishments one can achieve: Teaching Torah, guiding the community, upholding Torah standards and enhancing the congregants’ observance of Mitzvot. The second involves the power, prominence, and glory which also comes with the position. Unfortunately, some rabbis are blinded by the glory and at times they are too eager to wield their power or to demand honor from the community.
The Mishnah is not against qualified people entering the Rabbinate. On the contrary, they are urgently needed, and promising students should be encouraged to become rabbis. However, the Mishnah is giving some points every rabbi should bear in mind. The rabbi must have his priorities in proper order. The thing one should love and desire foremost in the Rabbinate is“hamelachah” — “the work” — the laborious endeavors to make the community a haven for Torah andmitzvot and to develop the institutions necessary for the enhancement of Yiddishkeit — authentic Judaism. The thing to be despised and hated is “harabanut” — the power and prestige that goes with the position. This must not be the reason why a rabbi chooses to enter the Rabbinate.
A rabbi should always bear in mind what the Gemara (Horiyat 10a) says, “When Rabbi Yehoshua told Rabban Gamliel, on a journey, concerning the Comet that appears once in seventy years, the latter said, ‘You posses so much knowledge and you are journeying on a ship [to seek a livelihood — Rashi]?’ He replied, ‘Rather than wonder at me, wonder at the two disciples whom you have on dry land, Rabbi Eliezer Chisma and Rabbi Yochanan, who can calculate the number of drops contained in the sea, and yet they have no bread to eat and no clothes to wear.’ He sent for them, but they would not come. So he again sent for them saying, ‘You seem to believe that I place rulership upon you by appointing you to office [since you are avoiding honor — Rashi]; I place servitude upon you.’ ”
A good rabbi is not one who seeks glory, but who is there to serve his community by providing them with their spiritual needs.
(מדרש שמואל, ומעינם של אבות בשם ר' מנחם מענדל זצ"ל מקוצק)
"ואל תתודע לרשות"
“Do not seek intimacy with the ruling power.” (1:10)
QUESTION: What is the connection between the Rabbinate and “not seeking intimacy with the ruling power”?
ANSWER: This is an important message for Rabbis. The Mishnah is teaching, “Remember that you are a spiritual leader, and al titvada larashut — do not become involved in the political arena. Through properly maintaining your integrity as the spiritual leader of the Jewish community, you may rest assured that you will not need to chase after the politicians, but rather they will seek you.”
"חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם"
“Sages, be careful with your words.” (1:11)
QUESTION: The difference between a wise person and a foolish person is obvious in their speaking. As long as the fool is quiet, he can be mistaken for a smart person (see Proverbs 17:28). Since the Mishnah is addressing“chachamim” — “wise people” — obviously they are careful with what they say, and otherwise they are not chachamim but fools?
ANSWER: It is the duty of a rabbi or teacher to guide his congregants or students in the right path. To meet this end, such a person gives many lectures on various Torah matters, and especially issues in which he sees a need for improvement. The worst thing possible is for a rabbi or teacher to be a hypocrite. The listener loses respect for him and does not accept anything that he says, even when it happens to be correct and sincere.
Avtalyon’s message is “Chachamim — you people who are looked up to as the wise, i.e. rabbis, teachers, etc., — hizaharu — you yourselves be very careful and observant — bedivreichem — with your own words. By practicing what you preach, your words will definitely enter into the minds and hearts of the listeners.”
* * *
King Shlomo says, “Sof davar hakol nishma et ha’Elokim yira ve’et mitzvotavshemor” — “Ultimately all is known; fear G‑d and observe His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). His message can also be interpreted as follows: “Sof davar — the bottom line is that hakol nishma — everything you say (about Torah and Yiddishkeit) will be listened to [when]et ha’Elokim yira ve’et mitzvotav shemor — you, the preacher, practices fear of Hashem and observance of Hismitzvot.”
(פניני אבות – ליקוט ע"י ר' שלמה יהלומי (ד'אמאנט), תל אביב תש"ט)
"הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן...אוהב את הבריות"
“Be of the disciples of Aharon... loving the created beings” (1:12)
QUESTION: Why does he use the term “beriyot” — “creatures” — and not“anashim” — “people”?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Ta’anit 20b)tells a story of a Sage who once while walking in the street observed a person who was exceptionally ugly and remarked, “How ugly is this person!” The person heard the comment and responded, “Go tell the Craftsman who made me ‘How ugly is this vessel.’ ” Unfortunately, there are people who lack any spiritual beauty whatsoever. The only pedigree that they can claim as Jews is that they were created by Hashem. Aharon loved everyone indiscriminately, even “beriyot” — those whose only good quality was in the fact that they were Hashem’s creatures. Hillel is teaching that everyone should endeavor to emulate Aharon in this respect.
(ביאורים לפרקי אבות)
"ומקרבן לתורה"
“Bringing them near to the Torah.” (1:12)
QUESTION: Why doesn’t it say umelamdan Torah — taught them Torah?
ANSWER: Everyone is obligated to bring estranged Jews closer to Judaism. Unfortunately, some people think that it is necessary to adjust the Torah to the level of the estranged Jew in order to accomplish this. Hillel is teaching that it is forbidden to, G‑d forbid, alter or falsify any part of the Torah. The Torah must remain in its entirety, and our efforts should be umekarvan laTorah — tobring the alienated Jew closer to the authentic Torah and to mitzvot — and not to try to bring the Torah closer to him.
(ביאורים לפרקי אבות)
"נגד שמא אבד שמה"
“He who seeks renown loses his name.” (1:13)
QUESTION: King Shlomo, the wisest of all men, said, “A good name is better than good oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1). Why is the Mishnah taking a negative view about a good name?
ANSWER: When one spiritually elevates himself to the extent that his achievements and qualities are recognized and acclaimed by all, such a name is indeed better than oil The Mishnah is talking of one who in pursuit of recognition and fame, often resorts to unethical means to attain his end. Such a person not only does not reach his goal, but ultimately loses whatever good name he has already acquired.
Just as oil rises to the top when it is mixed with other liquids, the true possessor of a good name will always be on top — honored and respected by all. The false possessor of a good name, like adulterated oil, will sink down. The upshot is that respect and reputation that is earned is everlasting. If it is bought or fought for, it will ultimately wane.
* * *
The truth of this is apparent from Korach’s rebellion, of which the Torah writes,“vayikach Korach” — “and Korach took” (Bamidbar 16:1). The word “vayikach”— “and he took” — which seems superfluous, is actually a clue to the key reason for Korach’s fatal error.
An impressive looking person once appeared to Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl, offering to teach him esoteric Torah knowledge. He replied, “Before I can agree to accept your offer, I must consult with my Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch.” The Maggid listened attentively and then said, “It was very wise of you not to immediately agree, because the person who approached you was from the realm of evil. Incidentally, tell me, where did you get the intuition to turn down such a seemingly valuable offer?”
Rabbi Nachum told him that when he was a very young boy, his mother passed away. His father remarried and his step-mother treated him very harshly. “Once,” he related, “when I came home from cheider to eat lunch, my step-mother was not home. On the stove were fried eggs. Knowing the size of the portion my step-mother would usually give me, I took somewhat less for myself. She came home while I was eating and slapped me. I asked her, ‘What have I done wrong? You were not home and I took less than what you normally give me.’
“Her reply was ‘Alein nemt men nit’ — ‘You do not take by yourself.’ This episode taught me a lesson which remained with me throughout my entire life: Regardless of all my calculations, ‘Alein nemt men nit.’ ”
Though Korach was a wise person, and according to all his calculations he was right, he unwisely wanted to take something on his own, and “alein nemt men nit.”
Of Korach and those like him the Gemara (Sotah 9b) says, “When one sets his eyes on that which is not meant for him, what he seeks is not granted to him, and what he possesses is taken away from him.”
"אם אין אני לי מי לי וכשאני לעצמי מה אני"
“If I am not for myself who is for me? And if I am only for myself what am I?” (1:14)
QUESTION: Hillel’s statement seems to be contradictory. Why does he first stress the importance of independence and then deride it?
ANSWER: The word “mi” can be a reference to Hashem, as the prophet says, “Raise your eyes on high and see mi bara eileh — who created these” (Isaiah 40:26). Thus, Hillel is saying, “If I am not for myself, i.e. I am not conceited and arrogant and I do not egotistically see only myself and no one else, then mi li — Hashem sees me and is with me. However, when keshe’ani le’atzmi — if I am only for myself — and conceitedly see only myself and regard everyone as insignificant, thenmah ani — what am I — because Hashem will not dwell together with me in the world (Sotah 5a), and without Hashem man is really nothing.”
(כנסת ישראל)
* * *
A Chassid once visited hisRebbe and spoke very arrogantly about himself. TheRebbe took a stern look at the Chassid and said to him, “The prophet says‘Im yisateir ish bamistarim va’ani lo arenu ne’um Hashem’ — ‘Can any man hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? says Hashem’ (Jeremiah 23:24). I think the prophet’s message can be read as follows; ‘Im yisateir ish bamistarim va’ani’ — if a person thinks he can hide himself and dwell on ‘ani’ — ‘I’ — I am a scholar, I am righteous, etc. — then ‘lo arenu ne’um Hashem’ — Hashem says ‘I do not want to see this person.’”
Upon hearing theRebbe’s message, the Chassid fainted. After he was revived, he asked theRebbe how to rectify his improper behavior, and the Rebbe said, “The prophet is also teaching ‘Im yisateir ish bamistarim va’ani lo’ — ‘if a person hides and the “I” does not exist’ — i.e. he is humble and unassuming — then‘arenu ne’um Hashem’ — ‘Hashem says: This person I want to see.’ ”
"אם אין אני לי מי לי וכשאני לעצמי מה אני"
“If I am not for myself who is for me? And if I am only for myself what am I?” (1:14)
QUESTION: How is it that Hillel, who was such a humble person (see Shabbat30b), should talk about the importance of being concerned with one’s self?
ANSWER: Hillel is not talking about conceit and arrogance, but discussing the ugliness of selfishness and self-centeredness. He is therefore saying, “Im ein ani li — If when I do a favor to others, I do it altruistically and have no ulterior motives, and I do not calculate what will I ultimately gain from this, then mi li — who can say anything negative about me? However, if when I do a favor for others ani le’atzmi — I think of my selfish interest and benefits and otherwise I will not act, then mah ani — what kind of person am I considered to be? — someone of a little worth.”
(פניני אבות — תפארת ישראל)
Alternatively, Hillel is referring to a Jew’s performance of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. When Moshe told the Jewish people about the giving of the Torah, they responded yachdav — together — and said, “Everything that Hashem has spoken na’aseh — we shall do” (Shemot 19:8). The Torah emphasizes that they responded yachdav — together — because it is really impossible for every Jew to perform all 613 mitzvot on his own. Some mitzvot can only be performed by a king, some by a Kohen, etc. Nevertheless, when the Jews are united, they are considered one entity. Thus, through togetherness, every Jew can receive credit for the fulfillment of all the 613 mitzvot.
Therefore, Hillel is stating, “If I am not for myself — but united with all of K’lalYisrael — then mi li — I can anticipate receiving credit for themitzvot I am unable to perform when they will be performed by others capable of doing them. However, keshe’ani le’atzmi — if I am only for myself — and there is no unity, mah ani — what am I? A Jew is required to fulfill all of the 613 mitzvot and I am not doing it.”
(ר' יחיאל מיכל זצ"ל מזלאצוב)
"הוא היה אומר אם אין אני לי מי לי וכשאני לעצמי מה אני ואם לא עכשיו אימתי"
“He used to say, ‘If I am not for myself who is for me? And if I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when?” (1:14)
QUESTION: Why was it Hillel necessarily who said these three things together?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Pesachim 66a) relates that the sons of Beteira, who were preeminent Torah scholars, once forgot the law concerning whether the slaughter of the Pesach-offering overrides the Shabbat restrictions. Upon inquiring if there was anyone who possibly could know, the people said to them, “There is one man who came up from Babylonia, and his name is Hillel the Babylonian. He served the two greats of the generation, Shemayah and Avtalyon, and he knows.”
They sent for him and asked him the question. He answered in the affirmative, for it is no different than the daily communal sacrifice, which is also offered onShabbat and whose slaughter overrides the Shabbat prohibitions. Immediately, they seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi and he expounded the laws of Pesach all that day.
There are two reasons why the Pesach-offering supersedes the Shabbatrestrictions.
1) Though in reality it is a karban yachid — an individual offering — since it is purchased with private funds and it is incumbent on the individual, nevertheless, it is considered a karban tzibur — communal offering — to a certain extent, since each is offered by a large group of people and all were slaughtered in a total of three shifts.
2) Because zemano kavua — it has a specific time when it can be offered.
Thus, in this statement, Hillel is alluding to the reasons that the Pesach offering supersedes Shabbat restrictions, and to his experience with the sons of Beteira, through which he ultimately became the Nasi. He is saying about the Pesach-offering, “If I am not for myself, what am I” — i.e. in essence the sacrifice is akarban yachid — individual offering and emphasizes individuality. However, “If I am only for myself, what am I?” — i.e. it is not strictly individual but also has the quality of a communal offering. Then he goes on to allude to the second reason by saying “If not now, when” — i.e. it must be offered in a specific time and therefore it supersedes the Shabbat.
In the middle statement he was also saying about himself, “Ukeshe’ani le’atzmi”— “Were it only an individual offering and thus not considered a communal offering, it would not supersede the Shabbat prohibitions, so I would not have added any insight and would not have been appointed Nasi, so mah ani — what would I be?”
(ביאורים לפרקי אבות)
"עשה תורתך קבע"
“Set a fixed time for your study of Torah.” (1:15)
QUESTION: If this is referring to study of Torah, instead of just Toratecha — your Torah — it should say, “limud Toratcha” — “your study of Torah”?
ANSWER: There is a story of an American who took his son to London to show him the interesting sights of that historic city. During the tour, the father made sure to take him to Parliament and point out the huge clock on top of the building known as “Big Ben.” The child strained to get a full view of the clock, and so did the others who came to see it. “Daddy, I would like to ask you something,” said the boy. “Why did they put the clock so high and make people strain their necks to look up to it? Couldn’t they have made the clock level with the eyes so that everyone could see it easily, without trouble?” The father thought for a moment and replied, “It is this way: If they had placed the clock low, people would adjust Big Ben to the time on their watches. Now that the clock is high, beyond the reach of all, they cannot try to reset it. If they want to have the correct time, they must set their own watches in accordance with the time shown by Big Ben.”
The same is true about the Torah. We should always regard it as being on a lofty plane so that it will not be changed by mortals. It is the correct “time” for all of us, and we must adjust ourselves to this Divine clock and not tamper with it and endeavor to adjust it to our opinion and convenience.
The word “keva” is from the same root as the word “kavua” — “stationary and affixed strongly.” The Mishnah is instructing that our Torah, which each of us received at Sinai, should be “keva” — “affixed firmly” — we should adjust ourselves and our “times” to it and not the reverse.
* * *
According to the Gemara (Shabbat 31a) when a person comes before the Heavenly Tribunal, he is asked, “Kavataitimlatorah” — “Did you set aside fixed times for Torah study?” In light of the above, the question is did you set your“times” in accordance to the Torah, i.e. live your life the way Torah prescribes, or did you, G‑d forbid, conveniently adjust the Torah to your time?
(חלק יעקב – ר' יעקב ז"ל גרינוואלד, סאיני תרפ"ג)
"עשה תורתך קבע, אמור מעט ועשה הרבה"
“Set a fixed time for your study of Torah, say little and do a lot.” (1:15)
QUESTION: How can these two points enhance one’s Torah study?
ANSWER: The word “keva” can also mean “steal” as in the pasuk, “Hayikbaadam Elokim” — “Should a person steal from G‑d” (Malachi 3:8). The Mishnahis teaching us that one should “steal” some time from his preoccupations and engage in the study of Torah.
It is also teaching, “Emor me’at v’asei harbei” — “Say little and do a lot.” This means that if commitment to a long study period of Torah may seem impossible due to a person’s hectic schedule, “Emor me’at” — Commit yourself to a short interval of study, and once you become involved and see the beauty of Torah, you will continue on with your study and reevaluate your priorities.”
(מוסר אבות)
* * *
A story is told of a student who approached one of the Ba’alei Hamusar — figures of the ethics movement — and asked him, “I only have fifteen minutes to study. Should I study Chumash, Gemara, or musar?” The rabbi told him, “Studymusar and you will come to the realization that you have much more than fifteen minutes to spare.”
"אמור מעט ועשה הרבה"
“Say little and do much.” (1:15)
QUESTION: Who was the first in the Torah to demonstrate this attribute?
ANSWER: When Avraham noticed the travelers in the desert, he ran towards them and urged them to come to his tent for some food, telling them “I will take a loaf of bread that you may sustain yourselves.” Once they came in, he prepared three calves in order to serve each one a tongue with mustard (Bereishit 18:5, 7, Rashi). Of this behavior the Gemara (Bava Metzia 87a) says, “The righteous say little and do much.”
By serving them specifically tongues with mustard, he intended to impart a message. Mustard is hard to eat in large amounts and a little bit on the tip of one’s tongue is sufficient. The tongue is the main speech organ. When Avraham offered to prepare only some bread, they replied, “Do just as you have said,” implying that his talking and doing should be of equal measure. To justify his extravagance he took the tongue, which represents talking, and served it with mustard, as if to say to them, “Just as the tongue can tolerate only a very limited amount of mustard, likewise the use of the tongue — one’s speaking — should be very limited, while one’s actions should exceed one’s speaking many times over.”
(דרשות שלמות – ר' חנוך זונדל הלוי ז"ל גרינוואלד, נוא יארק תרצ"ו)
"עשה תורתך קבע, אמור מעט ועשה הרבה והוי מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות"
“Set a fixed time for your study of Torah, say little and do much, and receive all the men with a cheerful countenance.” (1:15)
QUESTION: Why are these three sayings of Shammai put together?
ANSWER: These three are an elaboration on the three things that, according to Shimon HaTzaddik, maintain the existence of the world (Mishnah 2). Regarding Torah, Shamai says, “Make your Torah study a fixed habit. Regardless how occupied you may be, set aside a fixed time daily to study Torah.”
Regarding “avodah” — “service” — Shammai is advising that one should say little and do much. In regard to “gemilut chassadim” — “acts of kindness” — Shammai says that one should “receive all men with a cheerful countenance.”
(תפארת ישראל)
"והוי מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות"
“And receive all the men with a cheerful countenance.” (1:15)
QUESTION: Instead of “kol ha’adam” — “all the men” — he should have just said “kol adam” — “all men”?
ANSWER: Shammai was strict and intolerant while Hillel was extremely patient. The Gemara (Shabbat 31a) relates that, “A gentile who desired to convert to Judaism came to Shammai and said to him: ‘Teach me the whole Torah within the time that I can stand on one leg.’ Shammai, angered at the request, struck him with the builder’s instrument which he had in his hand. Then the gentile went to Hillel and repeated his request. The patient Hillel told him the famous precept: ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; this is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary [what precisely is deemed hateful to others and should be avoided]; go study.’ ”
In theGemara (Yevamot 61a) Tosafot writes that though the term “adam” refers only to the Jews, the expression “ha’adam” includes non-Jews as well. Realizing the superiority of Hillel’s approach and the inadequacy of his, Shammai is now admitting that one should receive “kol ha’adam” — “all the men” (including gentiles) — with a cheerful countenance. Tolerance and affability accomplishes much more than sternness and impatience. With his change of attitude he was giving credence to the popular adage, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
(מחקרי אבות)
"בסבר פנים יפות"
“With a cheerful countenance.” (1:15)
QUESTION: Literally, “panim yafot” means “a pleasant countenance,” which is obviously a cheerful one, so it could have just said“bepanim yafot” — “with a pleasant countenance.” What does the word “seiver” add?
ANSWER: The word “seiver” is from the same root as the word “sevarah” — “a thought and opinion.” Sometimes one is very busy and does not desire any visitors. Suddenly, the doorbell rings and it is a friend coming to ask for a loan. Though the host may be irritated by the intrusion, he should avoid expressing any negative feelings and make sure that his outward appearance will be such that “beseiver” — the solicitor will have a “sevarah” — a thought — i.e., impression, that the host’s countenance is “panim yafot” — an indication of his happiness at the opportunity to help a friend in need.
(מאירי)
"עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק"
“Provide yourself with a teacher and free yourself of doubt.” (1:16)
QUESTION: The words “histaleik min hasafeik” — “free yourself of doubt” — are superfluous. If one has a Rav, hewill solve the doubts and obviously one will no longer have them?
ANSWER: Rabban Gamliel’s message is that in selecting a Rav, one must select one whose greatness in Torah and piety are unquestionable. If there are any “sefeikot” — “doubts” — about his calibre, one must stay away from him and pick someone else.
(באר האבות, ר' מנחם מרדכי ז"ל פרנקל תאומים)
* * *
At the Seder table, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the third Rebbe ofLubavitch, the Tzemach Tzedek, once observed that by yachatz — breaking of the middle matzah for the purpose of Afikomen — someone was trying to determine which piece of the middle matzah was bigger. The Tzemach Tzedek remarked, “A gadol vas men darf em mestin iz kein gadol nit” — “One whose greatness has to be measured is not really great.” True greatness is readily apparent and recognized immediately.
"והסתלק מן הספק"
“And free yourself of doubt.” (1:16)
QUESTION: What sort of doubts will one eliminate by selecting a Rav?
ANSWER: When the famous Chassidic Rebbe, Rabbi Schmelke of Nikolsburg, was asked by the great Torah giant Rabbi Yechezkeil Landau, known after his famous work Noda Biyehudah, why he took away time from his studies to travel to Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezritch, his response was the following:
The Torah portion which discusses Yitro’s visit to Moshe and his resolution to convert and embrace Judaism, starts with the words “And Yitro heard.” Rashi asks, “Ma shemu’a shama uba” — “What did he hear that made him decide to come?” What bothered Rashi, Reb Schmelke said, is not the question of what he heard, but why he made the effort to come. If he had resolved to convert, why was it necessary to make a trip to Moshe? He could have done it while remaining at home.
Rashi’s answer is that he heard of the splitting of the sea and Amalek’s attack against the Jewish people. Yitro wondered how it was possible for Amalek to do such a foolish thing. The entire world witnessed the miracles at the sea which Hashem performed for the Jews (Mechilta Yitro 18). How after such a revelation, could Amalek demonstrate his lack of fear for Hashem so blatantly?
Reb Schmelke concluded that from this it is apparent that the evil inclination is so skillful that he can cast doubts in one’s mind even about things he has virtually witnessed with his own eyes. To prevent such doubts from misleading the person, one must be attached to a true tzaddik, and that is why Yitro traveled to Moshe. The tzaddik helps the person to rid himself of all doubts.
(כנסת ישראל)
"עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק ואל תרבה לעשר אמדות"
“Provide yourself with a teacher and free yourself of doubt and do not tithe by guesswork, even if giving in excess of the required amount.” (1:16)
QUESTION: What is wrong if one wants to give in excess of the required amount?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Eiruvin 50a) says that if one exceeds the ten percent required for ma’aseir, his remaining produce becomes fit for consumption, but his ma’aseir is ruined and may not be eaten. Rashi explains that the Torah does not specify what percentage of a crop should be separated as terumah. It does, however, specify that ten percent of the crop be given as ma’aseir. Therefore, any percentage of a crop may be designated as terumah, but no more than ten percent may be designated as ma’aseir.
If more than ten percent is designated, the extra produce does not attainma’aseir status. This, however, does not prevent the ma’aseir designation from taking effect on that part of it which should have been separated. Thus, the remainder of the crop is no longer tevel (untithed), and it may be eaten. It does, however, mean that the excess “ma’aseir” that did not attain the ma’aseirdesignation remains untithed and forbidden to eat. Since there is no way of determining which part of the separated portion is the ma’aseir and which thetevel, the Levite may not eat any of it.
Rabban Gamliel is addressing those who claim they do not need a rabbi and that whenever they have a doubt, they will be “machmir” — “act stringently.” In response to them he says that stringency is not always the proper solution and that sometimes it can be improper. In support of this, he cites an example from the laws of tithing, where exceeding the legal requirements is not in compliance with halachah. Likewise, one should not just act stringently when he has a doubt, but consult a rabbi and receive proper guidance.
(תפארת ישראל)
* * *
A “modern” thinking rabbi once moved into a neighborhood and began attracting people away from the authentic Torah-oriented synagogue. The Ravof the shul met with him and asked him what he did when someone asked him a she’eilah in a matter of kashrut. His response was, “I have no problem with that. I take a stringent approach, and I tell the inquirer to discard the food in question.”
Upon hearing this the old Rav said, “Let me tell you a story. There was once a villager that would always come into the city to see the rabbi whenever he had ashe’eilah. The poor rabbi’s family enjoyed his coming, since he would always bring produce from his farm. Once, a long time passed, and he no longer came, and it was assumed that he must have passed on. Then one day, he suddenly appeared and somewhat surprised, the rabbi asked him, ‘How is it that for such a long time you did not have any she’eilot?’
The villager told him that one morning when he was getting ready to come in with a she’eilah, a new neighbor told him that it was not necessary for him to go to the rabbi anymore since there was a “do it yourself” method devised by the Torah. It is written, “Meat in the field which is treif you shall not eat; you shall throw it to the dog” (Shemot 22:30). My neighbor told me that this means that when one has a question whether meat is kosher or treif, one should throw it to the dog. If he eats it, it is a sign that it is treif, and if he refuses to eat it, it is a sign that it is kosher. I started doing this whenever I had a she’eilah.’ ‘If so,’ asked the Rav, ‘Why do you come now?’ The villager replied, ‘When I would come to you, sometimes you said the meat was kosher and at other times you said it was not. The dog, however, is a very machmir — stringent — every time I throw him a she’eilah, he decides it is treif and eats it up.’ ”
"שמעון בנו אומר, 'כל ימי גדלתי בין החכמים'"
“Shimon his son says, ‘All my days I grew up among the Sages.’ ” (1:17)
QUESTION: 1) Why does the Mishnah list him as “Shimon his son” and not “Rabban Shimon,” as it does in the following Mishnah? 2) To bring out the importance of silence, why did he first state that “All my days I grew up among the Sages”?
ANSWER: Rabban Shimon’s intent is to emphasize the importance of humility. Usually the son of a leader, through his father, has the opportunity to meet often with important dignitaries. Being the son of a leader, he becomes friendly with them and they admire him.
In this Mishnah Rabban Shimon is saying, “though I was the son of the Prince of the generation, Rabbi Gamliel, and all the Rabbis knew me and I knew them, I never used this to my benefit, but always conducted myself humbly and did not speak in the presence of other great men.”
"שמעון בנו אומר, 'כל ימי גדלתי בין החכמים'"
“Shimon his son says, ‘All my days I grew up among the Sages.’ ” (1:17)
QUESTION: “All my days” superficially means his entire lifetime, even when he was the Nasi. Wasn’t he already grown and great then?
ANSWER: The fundamental purpose of this Mishnah is to teach humility. Rabbi Shimon, even upon ascending the highest rank of leadership, never ceased growing. He considered all the people around him to bechachamim — wise. Regardless of the extent of their intelligence, each possesses a certain spark of wisdom which is worthy to be learned and studied.
Consequently, he said all my days, my entire lifetime, “gadalti” — I constantly grew and became bigger, thanks to my being “bein hachachamim” — among the wise, i.e. learning some wisdom from everyone.
(מדרש שמואל)
"ולא מצאתי לגוף טוב משתיקה"
“And I did not find anything better for one’s person than silence.” (1:17)
QUESTION: Why the emphasis on “guf” — “the body”?
ANSWER: Rabban Shimon is saying that he learned the virtue of silence from the human body. Hashem created a man with two ears and one mouth to teach him that he should spend twice as much time listening as he does speaking.
(פון אונזער אלטען אוצר בשם שירי מדות)
"ולא מצאתי לגוף טוב משתיקה"
“And I did not find anything better for one’s body than silence.” (1:17)
QUESTION: The word “leguf” — “for the body” — is superfluous. It could have just said “I found nothing better than silence”?
ANSWER: Silence is not always a virtue. One should speak words of Torah as much as is physically possible, and one should engage as much as possible in prayer and reciting Psalms. It is not enough to just read the words with one’s eyes; they should be verbalized.
The Gemara (Eiruvin 54a) says that Shmuel told Rabbi Yehudah “Open your mouth and read the Scripture.” He told him to study aloud when learning so that the learning would remain with him, as it says (Proverbs 4:22), “These [the words of Torah] are life to those who find them. Do not read this as it is written,lemotza’eihem — to those who find them — rather read it as if it were writtenlemotzi’eihem bepeh — to those who express them [the words of Torah] with their mouths.”
However, when Rabbi Shimon says that the best thing for the guf — physical body — is silence, he means that a person’s requests for sustenance and all physical needs should not be merely for the material and physical benefit of theguf — body — per se. Rather he should pray for a strong and healthy body so that he will be able to study Torah and perform mitzvot without any interference or ailments.
(פניני אבות)
This sort of spiritual service is illustrated in the following dialogue which theprevious Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn related. When Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn, the fifth Rebbe of Lubavitch, was a young child he was discussing with his brother Rabbi Zalman the advantage of Jews over non Jews. His brother, who was older, said that Jews are a wise people: they can study much Torah and pray to Hashem with deveikut — devotion and dedication. The young Sholom Ber asked him, “But what advantage do the very simple Jews have, who cannot learn and daven with devotion?”
Their father, Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn, who was the Rebbe of Lubavitch at the time, noticed his son’s dilemma and inability to answer his younger brother, called them both over, and also called for Ben Tzion, who was a very simple and unlearned Jew who worked as a servant in their house. When he arrived the Rebbe asked him, “Did you eat?” Ben Tzion answered, “Yes.” “Did you eat well?” Ben Tzion answered, “Thank G‑d I am full.” “Why did you eat?” the Rebbe asked him. “In order to live.” “And why do you live?” With a sigh he responded, “So that I can be a Jew and fulfill the will of Hashem.”
The Rebbe them told him to call their gentile wagon driver Ivan, who happened to speakYiddish fluently. The Rebbe asked him, “Did you eat today?” “Yes.” “Did you eat well?” “Yes.” “Why did you eat?” “In order to live.” “And why do you live?” “So that I should be able to have a good drink of whiskey and a morsel(farbaisen).”
The Rebbe then said to his children, “Now you see, inherent in a Jew’s nature is that he eats in order to be a Jew and serve Hashem, and his sigh tells you that he really means it. The Jew eats for the sake of his soul, and the non-Jew eats for the sake of his body.”
(קובץ מכתבים על אמירת תהלים מכ"ק אדמו"ר מהריי"ץ)
"שמעון בנו אומר...ולא המדרש העיקר אלא המעשה"
“Shimon his son said, ‘Not study but practice is the essential thing.’” (1:17)
QUESTION: Why for this statement is the author listed as “Shimon his son [of Rabban Gamliel]” and not as “Rabbi Shimon”?
ANSWER: Shimon was the son of Rabban Gamliel. In this mishnah, he is giving credit for what he is to his father. He is saying that he owes his present stature to being his father’s [Rabban Gamliel] son. From the way his father reared him he learned an important lesson concerning father-son relationships, which he is now conveying.
It is not sufficient to merely instruct your child about Torah and mitzvot. You must first show your own commitment, and then you can endeavor to convince him. You cannot just say to your child “Go to shul to daven or take a sefer and learn.” You must be a living example for the child to emulate.
Thus, Rabbi Shimon is saying, “My father raised me not with lectures, but by serving as a living example. He did not satisfy himself by just Midrash — preaching — and telling me what is right and what is wrong, but by ma’aseh — practice — doing it himself. Seeing him do it, I developed a desire to emulate him.
(צדיק כתמר)
* * *
A non-observant father once sent his child to a Hebrew school. As the child’sBar-Mitzvah was approaching, he took his son to a Jewish book store and asked the salesman for a Bar-Mitzvah set. The salesman opened the box and the boy saw a pair of tefillin and a tallit in it. Having no knowledge of these strange items, he asked his father with a puzzled expression on his face, “What are these?” The father told him, “My son, this is what every Jew must have after he becomes Bar-Mitzvah.” The young boy looked up to his father inquisitively and asked, “So father, when are you becoming Bar-Mitzvah?”
"וכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא"
“And whoever engages in excessive talk brings on sin.” (1:17)
QUESTION: Instead of “meivi cheit” — “brings on sin” — it should have said that he himself is a “choteh” — “sinner”?
ANSWER: Worse than sinning oneself, is to cause others to sin. Rabbi Shimon’s statement “Not study, but practice is the essential thing” is directed to rabbis and teachers. He is telling them that the way to impress congregants and students is not through lengthy lectures, but showing a live example.
Rabbi Shimon continues; the rabbi or teacher who is a “marbeh devarim” — “a big talker” — but does not practice what he preaches, will “meivi cheit” — “cause sin” — because the congregation and students who observe his hypocrisy will not follow him even when he says the right thing, but do whatever they desire. They will make the popular argument that they do not want to be hypocrites and therefore they do no mitzvot at all.
(אבות על בנים – ר' ישראל ז"ל בראך, סאיני תרפ"ו)
"על שלשה דברים העולם קים: על הדין, ועל האמת, ועל השלום"
“The world endures by virtue of three things: Justice, truth, and peace.” (1:18)
QUESTION: How does this reconcile with what Shimon HaTzaddik said, “The world stands on three things: Torah, avodah, and gemilut chassadim’ “ (1:2)?
ANSWER: Shimon HaTzaddik is discussing why Hashem created the world. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is referring to the way the world Hashem created can endure and successfully flourish and develop. Without these three qualities, there would be self-destruction of the world and society.
(ר"ע מברטנורה)
There is aMidrash pliah — wondrous Midrash — that says that when Moshe saw in the Torah the words “tadeshei ha’aretz desha” — “Let the earth sprout vegetation” (Bereishit 1:12) — he saw the destruction [of the Beit Hamikdash] and cried. What is the connection between this pasuk and the destruction of theBeit Hamikdash?
According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Pei’ah 2:4), Moshe studied the entire Torah, including anything that will be expounded later by the Sages throughout the generations. When he came to Pirkei Avot, he realized an obvious contradiction: Two Sages offer different lists of things which maintain the worlds existence. They can be reconciled, however, by noting that Shimon HaTzaddikis referring to the time when the Beit Hamikdash existed and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is giving three other qualities, which in the time of destruction will replace the pillar of avodah — sacrifice (see Midrash Shemuel).
The acronym for the three things that he mentions, “din” (דין), “shalom” (שלום), and “emet” (אמת), is the word “desha” (דשא). Therefore, when he reflected back on the pasuk “tadeshei ha’aretz desha,” he cried because he saw that there would be a destruction and “desha” — “din, shalom, and emet” would be the thing through which the earth would remain in existence.
(זכות הרבים פ' פקודי, ר' יצחק ז"ל פרחי, קושטא תקפ"ט)
* * *
"רבי חנניה בן עקשיא אומר: רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצוה"
“Rabbi Chananyah ben Akashya says: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to make the people of Israel meritorious; therefore, He gave them Torah and mitzvot in abundant measure.”
QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be more convenient for the Jews if there were lessmitzvot?
ANSWER: Adam, the first man, lived nine hundred and thirty years. The Torah relates very little of what he did during all these years. One of the things recorded in the Torah about him, is that on the very day he was created he violated the one and only command which Hashem gave him, not to eat of the fruits of the eitz hada’at — Tree of Knowledge.
Why is it necessary to reveal that Adam violated Hashem’s command?
There are people who claim that 613 mitzvot are too many. If the number were reduced, it would be easier for them to be Torah observant. Adam, on the day of creation had only one mitzvah, which unfortunately he violated. This teaches, that regardless of how many mitzvot a person has to observe, he must be aware of the yeitzer hara, who will always endeavor to find a way to trap him into sinning. Hashem did not overburden us with His mitzvot. He gave us 613, knowing that it is the amount a Jew is capable of handling.
(לקוטי שיחות ח"ג)
* * *
Two people, each carrying a sack weighing 100 pounds, were climbing a mountain. One was extremely happy, the other very sad. Someone yelled up to each of them, asking if he could add to his sack. The happy one said, “of course,” and the other one replied, “oh no!” It turned out that the happy one was carrying valuable gems, and the other a sack full of rocks.
Every Jew is required to “climb the mountain,” i.e., elevate himself spiritually. This is accomplished through studying Torah and performing mitzvot. When a person considers Torah and mitzvot a sack of gems, he “carries” it joyfully, and his yeitzer hara cannot deter him. If he views Torah and mitzvot as a difficult burden, he moans all the way and even one mitzvah would be more than enough.
* * *
Many of the mitzvot are in the category of mishpatim — civil laws — which human intellect also dictates as proper, and many non-Jews and governments adhere to these laws. Likewise, the Torah contains many admonitions which people abstain from them in any case, e.g., eating abominable creatures and crawling things, etc.
However, theGemara (Kiddushin 31a) says that the one who is commanded and observes is greater than the one who is not commanded and performs precepts voluntarily. The reason for this is because, unlike the one who is not obligated, the one who is obligated to perform a precept is more worried and anxious lest he not fulfill. Thus, his reward is greater.
Hence, by making all these human-approved laws mitzvot, Hashem gave us an opportunity to receive extra reward, for now they are mitzvot and not merely something we do to uphold morality.
(ר"ע מברטנורה, תפארת ישראל, סוף מסכת מכות)• How a Tiny Splinter on My Finger Changed My Perspective(By Chana Weisberg)
I would never have detected this invasion. But, a few days after it made its new abode in the tip of my finger, redness and irritation developed. Upon close inspection, it dawned on me that there was a splinter in my skin that needed to be removed post-haste. The longer I would wait, the more infected my finger--and perhaps even my entire arm and body would eventually become. That’s what happens when an alien, unwanted entity penetrate into our bodies; something small and innocuous spreads and develops into something far more harmful.
In the days between Passover to Shavuot we have begun a new count-down. For seven complete weeks, we count the Omer, until we finally reach the summit on Shavuot.
This counting is meant to also be a spiritual accounting, as we work to refine ourselves. The Kabbalists explain that each of these 7 weeks, we are meant to be working on another of the seven sefirot, the traits and drives of the human psyche. So, for example, the first week, we develop our trait of chessed, love. Every day of this week we refine that drive, as it is complimented and tempered by the other sefirot, (for example: love tempered by discipline, empathetic love, enduring love, humility in love, bonding love, etc.) for a total of seven times seven days and traits.
After we have undergone this methodical, 49-step process of self-refinement, we are ready to receive the Torah on the holiday of Shavuot.
But doesn’t it seem like Judaism demands an awful lot of introspection and self-reflection? All the more so considering that this all follows the strict regimen of Passover; we’ve just meticulously cleansed our homes and ourselves from the ego represented by leaven. I mean, give me a break, more work now to rectify every particular soul trait?
But when I think of my splinter I realize just how much harm a foreign trait or value can cause. A character trait gone bad, or an alien value that has seeped into our psyche may start by taking over just the forefinger, but its effect quickly spreads to infect the entire body.
Luckily, without too much effort I noticed the splinter in time and was able to remove it. If only negative or selfish character traits could be fixed as easily.
YOUR QUESTIONS
Join Rabbi Shurpin for a fascinating halachic discussion of why the preferred time for this mitzvah is during the night. by Yehuda Shurpin
Question
I learned that starting from the second night of Passover, we count 49 days until the holiday of Shavuot, and this counting is known as Sefirat HaOmer, the Counting of the Omer. I’m wondering, why do we count the Omer specifically at night?
Reply
Let’s first understand the origin of the term “Omer.” The Omer was actually an offering brought in the Holy Temple on the second day of Passover, containing an omer measure of barley from that year’s new crop. The barley would be harvested the night before and offered up on the altar that day. It was forbidden to eat from that year’s new crops until the Omer was offered on the altar.
This only strengthens your question. If the Omer was brought during the day, why does the count begin at night?
The answer is that the Torah specifies that the counting should be “complete”: “[And] you shall count for yourselves, from the morrow of the rest day from the day you bring the Omer as a wave offering seven weeks; they shall be complete.”1
The only way to have a “complete count” is if the counting begins during the preceding night, since the day begins with the night in Jewish law.2 (In the creation story, the Torah tells us: “ . . . And it was evening and it was morning, one day.”3)
Sefirat HaOmer is actually somewhat of an anomaly. Unlike all other areas of the Torah, when it comes to Temple offerings, a “day” is considered the daytime and its following night. Since the Torah correlates Sefirat HaOmer with the Omer offering, it would have made sense to begin counting in the daytime. However, in order to have a “complete count,” we start counting during the preceding night.
And since the Torah intends for us to start counting the Omer at night, it stands to reason that we should continue to perform this mitzvah at night, so that we have a “complete count” for all 49 days of the Omer.4
On a deeper level, the Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that the concept of Sefirat HaOmer is a 49-day process of refining the darkness of the world; thus, it is appropriate for the counting to be done at night. At the same time, the counting correlates with the Omer offering, for which the day precedes the night. This symbolizes the light and G‑dliness that pervades the world through the mitzvah of Sefirat HaOmer.5
For more on the Counting of the Omer, see Sefirat HaOmer.
FOOTNOTES
1.Leviticus 23:15.
2.Talmud, Menachot 66a.
3.Genesis 1:5.
4.See Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orech Chaim 489:3.
5.Likutei Sichot, vol. 3, p. 976-979.
More in Your Questions:• Who Am I to Bring Moshiach? (By Chaya Sarah Silberberg)
If all the great sages, mystics, and holy people of the past generations were unable to bring Moshiach in their lifetimes, how can we imagine we will be able to make it happen?
Response:
The thing to realize about redemption is that it is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bringing Moshiach is not the sole responsibility of any one generation; it is the culmination of a collective effort, goodness accumulated throughout the ages. And goodness doesn't disappear.
Also, there is a specific benefit to being in this generation.The Chassidic masters teach that the purpose of creation is to make this world into a dwelling place for G‑d. Not the worlds of the angels, not some heavenly realm of souls and spiritual beings—but this earthy, palpable, mundane physical world. In order to bring Moshiach, this is what we need to work on—we've got to bring G‑d down to earth.
Let me ask you: Is there any generation that better qualifies as being "down on earth” than ours? For Moshiach to come, the G‑dly needs to be revealed in us. In what the Kabbalists call "the lower realms." In fact, the generation before the coming of Moshiach is called the "heel of Moshiach" because the world is at its lowest point since Sinai.
When I was younger, I used to sew needlepoint tapestries. One of the first ones I ever sewed was a picture of a quaint cottage, surrounded with trees and colorful flowers, with a bright blue sky and puffy white, gray, and dark gray clouds. While sewing it, I decided that the grays of the clouds were too dreary. So I replaced them with bright blue and white. When I finished the picture it didn't look quite right. Those darker, "drearier" colors were necessary to make the picture perfect. Sure, the vital reds and pinks and yellows and bright greens "made" the picture—but without the simple grays, the somber browns, and the unobtrusive blacks, the picture was not complete.
Each and every one of us has a crucial role in drawing the divine picture and bringing Moshiach; if you didn't, you would not have been created. Telling ourselves that we have no power, are insignificant, unimportant, and don't matter is simply a product of laziness. On the contrary, the very fact that we are such ordinary people, struggling with the most earthly, mundane matters—that's exactly what qualifies us more than any other generation to bring G‑d down to earth. You can't invite Him in unless you live there yourself!
Remember, G‑d put us in this position because He believes in us. And if He does, so should we.
Sources
This concept of G-d wanting to dwell in the "lower realms" is so central that we have an entire sectiondevoted to this subject on our site. The source most often cited for this concept is Tanya, chapter 37. However, there he cites the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.
PARSHAH
Isn’t religion just another way to feel safe?by Rochel Holzkenner
It was Shabbat afternoon, and Danna, Beth and I were lounging on the sofa.
“I get that a lot too, ever since I started keeping Shabbat,” Beth interjected. “I honestly don’t know what to say. Maybe it’s true, maybe religion is my escape.”
We sat quietly for a moment. The question weighed down our buoyant dialogue.Isn’t religion just another way to feel safe?
“I agree with your friends,” I finally said. “Belief in G‑d should make us feel safe. But that’s not why we believe. We believe in G‑d because it makes sense. If there is a world, there must be a creator. Our brilliantly designed universe has G‑d’s signature written all over it.
“Even the authenticity of the Torah is logical. The Torah claims that three million people experienced the miracles and revelation at Mt. Sinai. Who would construe such a risky lie? For a people that constitutes less than one percent of mankind, our Torah should be an obscure account. But quite the contrary—our Torah is the world’s best-selling and most widely distributed book. We believe in G‑d’s Torah because it’s true. If it also happens to make us feel safe—that’s a bonus!”
I wish that I felt safe all of the time. Observing the Torah’s laws doesn’t automatically make people feel safe; it doesn’t transport them into a world of serenity. If only it were that easy! Instead, faith in G‑d is like a muscle that needs constant exercise. It takes conscious meditation on G‑d to push back against stress and fear. Faith pulls everything together into a purposeful mosaic, while skepticism wonders if there is any purpose at all.
Some of the most religious Jews out there don’t feel particularly peaceful at all.
If there was one Jewish leader who challenged the notion that you can be ultra-religious and still ultra-uptight, it was Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. He told practically anyone who would listen to him that the basis of our observant practice is the belief that G‑d desperately loves us and cares about the goings-on in our lives. The mitzvahs are our way of connecting back to G‑d. That’s how we love Him back.
The Baal Shem Tov was not without critics. (Can a Jewish leader ever be without critics?) Many people, even other respected leaders, felt that he’d gone too far by assuming that G‑d was so intimately involved in the life of every creature.The Baal Shem Tov was not without critics
But the Baal Shem Tov insisted that G‑d cares, that He animates every creation at every moment, that He purposefully micromanages every detail of the universe. The Baal Shem Tov taught about divine providence from mystical Kabbalistic writings and from Talmudic stories. He even claimed that the Torah itself was full of references to G‑d’s concern for our everyday affairs.
There was another scholar, a Talmudic sage, who also saw G‑d’s love for humanity in the most simple verses of the the Torah. His name was Rabbi Yochanan. He inferred G‑d’s deep concern for us from the most unlikely of places—the Torah’s list of non-kosher birds: “And among birds, you shall hold these in abomination; they shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle [or the griffin vulture], the kite, the osprey . . . the owl, the cormorant, the little owl . . .”1
After studying this verse, Rabbi Yochanan was inspired by the cormorant. Whenever he’d see a cormorant, he would spontaneously praise G‑d for providing every creature with his needs.2 Why did the cormorant so deeply inspire him?
The Torah calls the cormorant a shalach. According to the Midrash, the word“shalach” is derived from the word “sholeh,” which means “draws up.” The cormorant is a fish-eater—it catches its prey by diving from the surface, drawing out the fish that G‑d has preordained to die that day.
Rabbi Yochanan was so taken with the shalach and its meaning that whenever he noticed a cormorant, he marvelled, “G‑d, your judgment reaches the depth of the sea. Even the deaths of fish are predetermined by G‑d.”
If G‑d controls the life of each fish, then it’s obvious that G‑d manages the events in our lives.
Which sounds nice, but how does it jibe with the fact that a variety of factors contribute to our circumstances? What about society, politics, the economy—don’t those factors play a huge role in our lives? What about our own choices that we make?What about society, politics, the economy?
That was precisely why Rabbi Yochanan would marvel at a the cormorant. The cormorant reaches its beak beneath the water’s surface as schools of fish swim by. The cormorant eats some but not others, and that is the story of our lives.
Life beneath the sea represents the complex labyrinth of systems that govern our lives. “Why did I get a flat tire? It was punctured by a nail on the road.” “Why did I get the job? Demand exceeded supply and I’m qualified.” But if we could view our lives from the inside out, we’d see that every experience was custom-made for us. G‑d humbly couched His master plan in a natural chain of events. “Yes, I met my Sally as a freshman, we both ended up in Calculus.” Ha! If only you knew how G‑d enticed both of you to go to that college, and how He put you in the same class just so that you’d meet each other.
G‑d’s hand is “drowned,” so to speak, underneath the sea of nature. In fact, the Hebrew word for nature is “teva,” which is very similar to the word “tubu,”“drowned.” Nature intentionally drowns out our ability to recognize the hand of G‑d as the cause of every single event in our lives. That facade allows us free choice.
Every time we recognize the hand of G‑d directing the natural course of events, we mimic the cormorant. We “draw the fish out of the water,” or expose G‑d’s plan from within the natural circumstance. The mere recognition of divine providence in our lives is an accomplishment.
The Baal Shem Tov taught that pessimism and stress is indicative of a lack of belief, no matter how religious one may be. If G‑d’s in control then He’s got your back and everything that happens is an importantThe soul is optimistic and self-confident part of your journey. The soul is optimistic and self-confident, and sees right through other factors that obscure G‑d’s control.
When Moshiach comes, it’ll be clear as day that every event in our lives, life-changing or mundane, was set into place by G‑d for us, with very specific intent and a lot of love.3
FOOTNOTES
1. Leviticus 11:13-17.
2. Psalms 36:17.
3. Likkutei Sichot, vol. 7, pg. 54.More in Parshah:
• Why Water? (Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe)
Leviticus 11:34
In the 11th chapter of Leviticus theTorah discusses some of the laws of ritual impurity (tum'ah): food that comes in contact with a source of impurity (such as a corpse, a rodent, an object of idolatry, etc.) is thereby rendered ritually impure and disqualified from use in the Holy Temple and its service.
The above-quoted verse touches on two of the necessary conditions before a foodstuff is susceptible to contamination: 1) The food in question must be fit for human consumption. 2) It must first come in contact with water (or one of the other "seven liquids"); for example, grain that has been kept dry from the time it was harvested is not subject to tum'ah.
Animal Safety
As man is a synthesis of body and soul, the Torah that instructs and inspires his life likewise possesses both a "physical" element as well as a conceptual-spiritual side. The "body" of Torah is its legal code and pragmatic guide to daily living; its "soul" is the inner dimension of these laws, which addresses the internal world of the human mind and heart, man's relationship with his Creator and his purpose in life.
The is also true of the laws regarding the ritual impurity of food. These, too, have a moral-spiritual application to our lives.
The first law recounted above--that only food that is fit for human consumption is open to contamination--expresses the idea that the loftier a thing, all the more vulnerable is it to corruption. Animal fodder is of a limited potential; equally limited are its negative uses. But the food that drives the human mind and heart can be the instrument of tremendous achievement; conversely, it may fuel the most destructive endeavors.
The same applies to all areas of life. A person may choose to "play it safe" and avoid anything touched by controversy, risk, or the possibility of failure---anything that may challenge his spiritual purity. But in doing so, he also disavows his most lofty potentials, the vulnerable but invaluable "human food" resources of his life.
Three Characteristics of Water
The second law specifies that food becomes susceptible to contamination only after having come in contact with a liquid. In other words, simply being fit for human consumption is not enough; unless the foodstuff has been wetted, it does not attain the high degree of potential that is indicated by the possibility of impurity.
In the spiritual sense this means that a "dry" life will always remain safely limited in scope and extent. In order to be in a position to truly realize its potential it must assume a "liquid" quality.
What are the specialties of the liquid state?
Three things characterize liquids: a) a liquid is an adhesive; b) a liquid is a conveyer; c) a liquid always seeks the lowest point of a terrain.
With the addition of liquid, powder becomes a paste, clay a pot, flour a loaf. Liquid is thus a unifier, bonding the dry particulars to a cohesive whole.
While food provides nourishment for our bodies, it would be utterly useless without the fluids that carry it to the body's every limb and cell (in the words of the Talmud, "He who eats without drink, his food is poison"). In other words, when transportation and integration is needed, be it in the human body or in a river valley, water is the medium of conveyance.
Finally, the solid is a snob. It clings to its station, descending to levels lower than itself only when forcefully dragged down. The liquid, however, naturally flows downward, seeping through the slightest of openings to transport itself from the highest elevations to the lowest plains.
A Fluid Life
The "dry" individual is egocentric, stagnant and jealous of his position. His life is series of "localized" deeds---deeds and achievements which have no effect beyond their immediate time and place, and which leave no lasting imprint on their performer. He stands alone, shunning connection and adhesion with his fellows, particularly with those inferior to himself.
On the other hand, the fluid individual is one who knows that "He who eats without drink, his food is poison." A thought learned, a goal achieved, must never remain confined to its specific place and parameters; it must affect his entire person and pervade his every thought and experience.
This individual also extends the fluidity of his life to his relations with his fellows. He unites with them so that their endeavors should fuse to a cohesive whole, understanding that "If I am only for myself, what am I?"
And as water, he "flows from a high place to the lowest of places." He applies his most sublime experiences to the mundane particulars of everyday life; and he relates to every man as his equal, regardless of their moral and spiritual station.
Leviticus 9:1-11:47
Parshah Summary
"And it came to pass on the eighth day..."
Last week's Parshah, Tzav, told of the "seven days of inauguration" during which the Sanctuary was consecrated and Aaron and his sons were trained for the priesthood. This week's reading, Shemini ("eighth"), begins by recounting the events of the eighth day--which was the 1st of Nissan of the year 2449 from Creation (1312 bce), two weeks before the first anniversary of the Exodus.
And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel.
And he said to Aaron: "Take you a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for an ascent offering, without blemish, and offer them before G-d.
"And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Take a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before G-d; and a meal offering mingled with oil;
"For today G-d will appear to you..."
The offerings are brought as instructed, following which,
Moses and Aaron went into the Tent of Meeting, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of G-d appeared to all the people.
And there came a fire out from before G-d, and consumed the ascent offering and the fat [of the other offerings] upon the Altar. And all the people saw, and sang out, and fell on their faces.
Strange Fire
And then, in the midst of the jubilation, tragedy struck.
Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered strange fire before G-d, which He commanded them not.
A fire went out from G-d, and consumed them, and they died before G-d.
And Moses said to Aaron: "This is it that which G-d spoke, saying: I will be sanctified in those who are close to Me, and before all the people I will be glorified." And Aaron was silent.
And Moses called Mishael and Elzafan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them: "Come near, carry your brothers from before the Sanctuary out of the camp." So they went near, and carried them in their robes out of the camp; as Moses had said.
Because of the centrality of their role in the revelation of the Divine Presence in the Sanctuary that day, Aaron and his two remaining sons are forbidden to engage in any of the customary mourning practices:
And Moses said to Aaron, and to Elazar and to Itamar, his sons:
"Let not the hair of your heads grow long, neither rend your clothes; lest you die, and lest anger come upon all the people. Your brethren, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the conflagration which G-d has burned..."
And they did according to the word of Moses.
G-d Speaks to Aaron
And G-d spoke to Aaron, saying:
"Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.
"And that you differentiate between holy and the profane, and between the impure and the pure. And that you instruct the children of Israel all the statutes which G-d has spoken to them by the hand of Moses."
The Disagreement
Moses instructs Aaron, Elazar and Itamar to eat the special offerings of the day, as prescribed (despite the fact that, ordinarily, a priest in mourning does not partake of the offerings). This they do, except in the case of one offering:
And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Elazar and Itamar, the sons of Aaron that were left alive, saying:
"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy... you should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded."
And Aaron replied to Moses: "Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their ascent offering before G-d; and such things have befallen me. If I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been accepted in the sight of G-d?"
And Moses heard this, and it was favorable in his eyes.
The Dietary Laws
"These are the animals which you may eat," G-d tells Moses to instruct the people of Israel, "among all the beasts that are upon the earth: Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven footed, and chews the cud."
To be fit to eat, an animal must have both identifying signs; the Torah cites four examples of animals that have but one, and are thus "unclean":
The camel... the hyrax... and the hare, because he chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
And the swine, though he divide the hoof and be cloven footed, yet be chews not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall you not eat, and their carcass shall you not touch; they are unclean to you.
Water creatures may be eaten if they have both fins and scales (thereby excluding all forms of "seafood" other than the kosher species of fish).
Regarding birds, the Torah does not provide "signs," but instead lists twenty species of non-kosher fowl:
And these are they which you shall have in abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are abominable:
The eagle, and the bearded vulture and the black vulture. The kite, and the buzzard after its kind. Every raven after its kind. The owl, the kestrel, and the gull; and the sparrow hawk after its kind. The little owl, the fish fowl, and the great owl. The barn owl, the jackdaw, and the gier eagle. The stork, the heron after her kind; the hoopoe, and the bat.
Insects, as a rule, are forbidden--"All swarming things that fly, going upon four, shall be an abomination to you"--with four exceptions:
These of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind, and the hargol after its kind, and the hagav after its kind.
Ritual Purity
Carcasses of non-kosher mammals render the one who touches them or carries them tameh, ritually impure, as does the carcass of a kosher animal that was not slaughtered in the prescribed manner. The Torah also lists eight "creeping animals" which render a person tameh: "The rat, the mouse, and the tortoise after its kind; the gecko, the monitor, the lizard, the skink, and the chameleon."
Utensils, food and drink also become tameh through contact with a carcass. Food, however, can become tameh only if it has first been made "susceptible" by being wetted with a liquid.
A mikveh--a naturally occurring pool of water--or a wellspring do not become tameh; indeed, the mikveh and the wellspring have the power to purify things that have become impure that are immersed in them.
Sanctity and Distinction
You shall not make yourselves abominable [by eating] any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them.
For I am G-d your G-d; you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy...
This is the law of the beasts, and of the birds, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth.
To differentiate the pure and the impure, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.
From Our Sages
And it came to pass on the eighth day (Leviticus 9:1)
That day took ten crowns: It was the first day of the Creation (i.e., a Sunday), the first for the offerings of the nessi'im (tribal heads), the first for the priesthood, the first for [public] sacrifice, the first for the fall of fire from Heaven, the first for the eating of sacred food, the first for the dwelling of the Divine Presence in Israel, the first for the priestly blessing of Israel, the first day on which it was forbidden to sacrifice to G-d anywhere save in the Sanctuary, and the first of months.
(Talmud, Shabbat 87b)
That day was as joyous to G-d as the day on which heaven and earth were created.
(Talmud, Megillah 10b)
And it came to pass on the eighth day (9:1)
The number seven represents the cycle of creation; the number eight represents the "circumference"--that which lies beyond the perimeter of time and space. This is why the Divine Presence came to dwell in the Israelite camp on the eighth day. This is also alluded to in the saying of our sages (Talmud, Erchin 13b) that "The lyre of Moshiach has eight strings."
(Keli Yakar; Shaloh)
more
And it came to pass on the eighth day... And he said to Aaron (9:1)
For seven days, G-d persuaded Moses at the burning bush to go on His mission to Egypt, as Moses refused... Said G-d to Moses: "By your life, I shall tie this in your skirts." When did He repay him? ... All the seven days of inauguration Moses ministered in the office of High Priest, and he imagined it was his. On the seventh day G-d said to him: "It belongs not to you but to your brother Aaron..."
(Midrash Rabbah)
And Moses said: "This is the thing which G-d commanded you to do; and the glory of G-d shall appear to you" (9:6)
For the seven days of inauguration, during which Moses set up the Sanctuary, performed the service in it, and dismantled it each day, the Divine Presence did not rest in it. The people of Israel were humiliated, and said to Moses: "Moses our teacher! All the toil that we toiled was only that the Divine Presence should dwell amongst us and we should know the sin of the Calf was forgiven us!" Said Moses to them: "Aaron my brother is more worthy than I--through his offerings and his service the Divine Presence will rest upon you, and you will know that G-d has chosen you."
(Rashi)
And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer... And they died before G-d (10:1-2)
Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah ben Elazar: Aaron's sons died on account of four things: for drawing near, for offering, for the strange fire, and for not having taken counsel from each other. "For drawing near"--because they entered into the innermost precincts of the Sanctuary. "For offering"--because they offered a sacrifice which they had not been commanded to offer. "For the strange fire"--they brought in fire from the kitchen. "And for not having taken counsel from each other"--as it says, "Each of them his censer," implying that they acted each on his own initiative, not taking counsel from one another.
Rabbi Mani of She'ab, Rabbi Joshua of Siknin, and Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Levi said: The sons of Aaron died on account of four things... Because they had drunk wine, as it says [immediately following the incident], "Drink no wine nor strong drink... that you die not" (Leviticus 10:9). Because they served in the Sanctuary lacking the prescribed number of priestly garments (cf. Exodus 28:43). Because they entered the Sanctuary without washing their hands and feet (cf. Exodus 30:21). Because they had no children... as it says, "And Nadav and Avihu died... and they had no children" (Numbers 3:4).
Abba Hanin says it was because they had no wives, for it is written [regarding the High Priest], "And [he shall] make atonement for himself, and for his house" (Leviticus 16:6)--"his house" refers to his wife.
Rabbi Levi says that they were arrogant. Many women remained unmarried waiting for them. What did they say? Our father's brother is a king, our mother's brother is a prince [i.e., Nachshon, the head of the tribe of Judah], our father is a High Priest, and we are both Deputy High Priests; what woman is worthy of us? ... Moses and Aaron went first, Nadav and Avihu walked behind them, and all Israel followed, and Nadav and Avihu were saying: "When will these two old men die and we assume authority over the community?" Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Aibu said that they uttered this to one another with their mouths, while Rabbi Pinchas said that they harbored the thought in their hearts.
Others say: They already deserved to die at Mount Sinai, when they callously feasted their eyes on the Divine (Exodus 24:9-11).
(Midrash Rabbah; Rashi)
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov stated: The sons of Aaron died only because they gave a legal decision in the presence of their master Moses. What was the exposition they made? They interpreted the verse (Leviticus 1:7), "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar." This is to teach us, they said, that although fire came down from heaven, it is nevertheless a mitzvah to bring also ordinary fire. (This is indeed the law; their sin was that they rendered a Halachic decision in the presence of their teacher.)
(Talmud, Eruvin 63a; Rashi)
Nadav and Avihu died because of Aaron's making of the Golden Calf, as it is written: "And against Aaron did G-d verily rage to destroy him; and I prayed also for Aaron at that time" (Deuteronomy 9:20). "To destroy him" means the death of children, as it is written, "And I destroyed his fruit from above" (Amos 2:9). Moses' prayer was halfway effective, so that two died and two remained alive.
(Rashi on Deuteronomy 9:20)
"They came close to G-d and died" (Leviticus 16:1)--they approached the supernal light out of their great love of the Holy, and thereby died. Thus they died by "divine kiss" such as experienced by the perfectly righteous; it is only that the righteous die when the divine kiss approaches them, while they died by their approaching it... Although they sensed their own demise, this did not prevent them from drawing near to G-d in attachment, delight, delectability, fellowship, love, kiss and sweetness, to the point that their souls ceased from them.
(Ohr HaChaim)
And a fire went out from G-d and consumed them (10:2)
But subsequently it says that Moses instructed Mishael and Eltzafan "Carry your brothers from before the Sanctuary" and that "They carried them out in their robes"? ... G-d sent forth two threads of fire into each one's nostrils and consumed their souls, without touching their flesh and without touching their clothes.
(Midrash Tanchuma)
And Moses said to Aaron: "This is it that which G-d spoke, saying: I will be sanctified in those who are close to Me..." (10:3)
This was said to Moses at Sinai, but its meaning was not known to him until the occurrence happened, when Moses said to Aaron: "My brother, at Sinai, G-d said to me: 'I will sanctify this House, and through a great man would I sanctify it,' and I thought that either through me or through you would this House be sanctified; but now I see that your two sons are greater than you or I."
(Midrash Rabbah; Rashi)
And Aaron was silent (10:3)
Because Aaron was silent, he was rewarded that G-d spoke exclusively to him (see below, verses 8-11; ordinarily G-d spoke to Aaron only in conjunction with--or through--Moses).
(Midrash Rabbah)
Said Rav Papa: The merit of attending a house of mourning lies in the silence observed.
(Talmud, Berachot 6b)
In youth, one learns to talk; in maturity, one learns to be silent. This is man's problem: that he learns to talk before he learns to be silent.
(Rabbi Nachman of Breslav)
Speech signifies comprehensibility. Melody is beyond language, expressing moods which words cannot describe. Silence is yet higher.
The power to be silent at certain moments of life and of history is an important strength. It expresses the awareness that G-d is infinite, and cannot be encapsulated in our human conceptions of what should take place.
The Talmud tells of an instance in which Moses himself was told by G-d to be silent. G-d showed him in a vision all future generations of the Jewish people, and the leaders of each generation. Moses was greatly impressed by the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva. Then he saw the way the Romans tortured him to death. "Is this the reward of his Torah knowledge?" Moses asked. G-d answered: "Be silent. Thus it arose in My thought".
This is not to say that the Torah advocates a fatalistic approach to life. Before the event, one must do everything possible to prevent tragedy. But once it has happened, G-d forbid, through the acceptance and the silence we reach a special closeness to the Divine. Our Sages tell us that because Aaron was silent, he was rewarded by G-d speaking directly to him.
In our generation, too, there is a need for this power of silence. It is not a passive power, but one that leads to vigorous and joyous action. The Jewish response to the harrowing events of the Shoah is the determined and energetic action to rebuild Jewish family life and Jewish knowledge.
Through our power of silence we too, like Aaron, will merit Divine revelation. G-d will bring the Messiah, rebuilding the Temple and bringing lasting peace to the world.
(The Lubavitcher Rebbe)
Do not drink wine or strong drink... when you enter the Tent of Meeting (10:9)
Though the vine be supported by straight reeds and forked reeds, these cannot stand up under the weight of the wine in the grapes. So if wine's own mother cannot bear its burden, how then can you?
(Midrash Rabbah)
And that you differentiate between holy and the profane... and that you instruct the children of Israel (10:10-11)
This teaches us that one who has drunk wine is forbidden to render a ruling of Torah law.
(Rashi)
And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt... (10:16)
Three goats were brought that day as sin-offerings: (1) the one that G-d commanded should be offered by Aaron on the occasion of the Eighth Day; (2) the one brought by Nachshon, leader of the tribe of Judah, as the first in the series of offerings brought by the tribal heads in honor of the Sanctuary's inauguration; (3) the goat offered every Rosh Chodesh (first of the month--that day was the first of Nissan).
The first two were not burnt, but eaten by Aaron and his sons as per Moses' instructions. The Rosh Chodesh offering, however, Aaron burned, reasoning that if he was instructed to eat the meat of the day's special offerings even though he is in mourning (contrary to the usual law), he should not deduce that the same applies to an offering that is not unique to this special occasion, but is part of the regularly scheduled offerings.
This distinction escaped Moses, who demanded of Aaron and his sons: Why did you burn this sin-offering? And if you burned it because you are mourners, why did you eat the others? To which Aaron replied: "If you heard this instruction (that the offerings should be eaten even by mourners) regarding the offerings of the moment, you should not apply the same to the offerings for all times."
(Talmud, Zevachim; Rashi)
more
And [Moses] was angry (10:16)
Because he became angry, he forgot the law that a mourner is forbidden to eat from the meat of the offerings.
(Midrash Rabbah; Rashi)
And he was angry with Elazar and Itamar (10:16)
In deference to Aaron's honor he directed his anger to Elazar and Itamar.
(Rashi)
And Aaron replied to Moses (10:19)
If Moses spoke angrily to Elazar and Itamar, why did Aaron reply? This tells us that Moses spoke to them only in deference to Aaron. Thus they said: it is not appropriate that our father sits silently and we reply, nor is it appropriate that a student should correct his teacher. Perhaps it was because Elazar knew not how to answer? But the verse (Numbers 31:21) attests that, when he desired, he spoke in the presence of Moses and the tribal leaders.
(Rashi)
And Moses heard this, and it was favorable in his eyes (10:20)
Moses was not ashamed to admit his error; he did not say "I did not hear this," but said, "I heard it and I forgot it."
(Talmud; Rashi)
He issued a proclamation to all the camp, saying: "I made an error in regard to the law, and Aaron my brother came and taught it me."
(Midrash Rabbah)
There are seven things that characterize a boor, and seven that characterize a wise man. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom or age. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. He does not hasten to answer. His questions are on the subject and his answers to the point. He responds to first things first and to latter things later. Concerning what he did not hear, he says "I did not hear." He concedes to the truth. With the boor, the reverse of all these is the case.
"He does not interrupt his fellow's words"--this is Aaron, who though he had an answer to Moses' charge, waited in silence until Moses had concluded speaking. "He concedes to the truth"--this is Moses, who admitted that Aaron was in the right.
(Ethics of the Fathers; Avot d'Rabbi Natan)
These are the animals which you may eat... (11:2)
The birds and many of the mammals forbidden by the Torah are predators, while the permitted animals are not. We are commanded not to eat those animals possessive of a cruel nature, so that we should not absorb these qualities into ourselves.
(Nachmanides)
The great Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, taught that every created thing possesses a "spark" of divine energy that constitutes its essence and soul. When a person utilizes something toward a G-dly end, he brings to light this divine spark, manifesting and realizing the purpose for which it was created. In all physical substances, a material "husk" (kelipah) encases and conceals the divine spark at its core, necessitating great effort on the part of man to access the spark without becoming enmeshed in the surface materiality.
No existence is devoid of a divine spark--indeed, nothing can exist without the pinpoint of G-dliness that imbues it with being and purpose. But not every spark can be actualized. There are certain "impregnable" elements whose sparks are inaccessible to us. The fact that something is forbidden by the Torah means that its husk cannot be penetrated, so that its spark remains locked within it and cannot be elevated.
Thus, one who eats a piece of kosher meat and then uses the energy gained from it to perform a mitzvah, thereby elevates the spark of divinity that is the essence of the meat, freeing it of its mundane incarnation and raising it to a state of fulfilled spirituality. However, if one would do the same with a piece of non-kosher meat, no such "elevation" would take place. Even if he applied the energy to positive and G-dly ends, this would not constitute a realization of the divine purpose in the meats creation, since the consumption of the meat was an express violation of the divine will.
This is the deeper significance of the Hebrew terms assur and mutar employed by Torah law for the forbidden and the permissible. Assur, commonly translated as "forbidden," literally means "bound", implying that these are things whose sparks the Torah has deemed bound and imprisoned in a shell of negativity and proscription. Mutar ("permitted"), which literally means "unbound," is the term for those sparks which the Torah has empowered us to extricate from their mundane embodiment and actively involve in our positive endeavors.
The "bound" elements of creation also have a role in the realization of the divine purpose outlined by the Torah. But theirs is a "negative" rolethey exist so that we should achieve a conquest of self by resisting them. There is no Torah-authorized way in which they can actively be involved in our development of creation, no way in which they may themselves become part of the "dwelling for G-d" that we are charged to make of our world. Of these elements it is said, "Their breaking is their rectification." They exist to be rejected and defeated, and it is in their defeat and exclusion from our lives that their raison d'etre is realized.
(The Chassidic Masters)
These are the animals which you shall eat among all the beasts that are upon the earth... of all that are in the waters... among the birds... (11:2, 9, 13)
Land animals, which were created from the soil, are rendered fit to eat by the severing of both vital passages (the windpipe and the gullet). Fish, which were created from the water, do not require any shechitah to render them fit to eat. Birds, which were created from a mixture of soil and water, are rendered fit to eat with the severing of either one of the two vital passages.
(Talmud, Chulin 27b)
more
But these you shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof... (11:4)
The Torah does not list the animals that have both kosher signs (and are thus kosher), nor does it list those which lack both (and are thus forbidden); but it does name the four animals--the camel, hyrax, hare, and the swine--that have one but not the other (making them, too, unfit for consumption for the Jew).
It is noteworthy that in the 33 centuries since G-d communicated these laws to Moses, entire continents, replete with many "new" and unimagined species have been discovered. A number of these hitherto unknown species possess both of the kosher signs, and many lack them both; but not a single one has been found with only one sign. The only such animals on earth are the four species enumerated by the Torah!
And the swine, though he divide the hoof and be cloven footed, yet be chews not the cud; he is unclean to you (11:7)
Just as the swine when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say, "See that I am kosher," so too does the empire of Rome boast as it commits violence and robbery, under the guise of establishing a judicial tribunal. This may be compared to a governor who put to death the thieves, adulterers, and sorcerers. He leaned over to a counselor and said: "I myself did these three things in one night."
(Midrash Rabbah)
These shall you eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales (11:9)
All fish that have scales also have fins (and are thus kosher). But there are fish that have fins but do not have scales, and are thus impure. If so, the Torah could have written only "scales," without having to also write "fins"? ... Said Rabbi Abahu, and so it was learned in the study house of Rabbi Yishmael: This is so that "Torah be increased and made great" (Isaiah 42:21).
(Talmud, Niddah 51b)
The student of Torah is comparable to a fish in water, as in Rabbi Akiva's famous parable. His fins are the means by which he moves forward through the water--the intellect and study skills with which he advances in wisdom and increases the Torah and makes it great with his own contributions (chiddushim) to Torah learning. His scales are his protective armor against predators and adverse elements--his fear of Heaven, which shields his learning from error and distortion.
One might think that the primary requirement for success in Torah is the fins, while the scales serve a secondary function. It is the fins that move the fish forward, while the scales merely preserve what is. After all, learning is an intellectual exercise; piety and fear of G-d are lofty virtues, but are they any use in navigating the complexities of a difficult Tosafot?
In truth, however, the very opposite is the case. A scholar with fins but no scales is a non-kosher fish. He might swim and frolic with his talent and genius, but his learning is corrupt; it is not Torah, but his egoistic arrogation of the divine wisdom. On the other hand, the Talmud tells us that while there are fish with fins and no scales, all fish with scales have fins. If a person approaches Torah with an awe of its divine author and the commitment to serve Him, he will certainly succeed. Regardless of the degree of his intellectual prowess, he will find the fins with which to advance in his learning and contribute to the growth of Torah.
(The Lubavitcher Rebbe)
And these are they which you shall have in abomination among the birds ... (11:13-19)
In Hebrew, the 20 non-kosher species of bird are: nesher, peres, ozniyah, daah, ayah, oreiv, bat yaanah, tachmas, shachaf, netz, kops, shalach, yanshuf, tinshemet, kaat, racham, chassidah, anafah, duchifat, atalef.
The commentaries differ as to the identity of many of these species, so that the above translation reflects but one of many interpretations. An alternate rendition, based on traditional commentaries as researched by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his Living Torah, is: "eagle, ossifrage, osprey, kite, vulture family, the entire raven family, ostrich, owl, gull, hawk family, falcon, cormorant, ibis, swan, pelican, magpie, stork, heron family, hoopoe, and bat."
Other interpretations include the following species in the list (while eliminating others): griffin vulture, albatross, woodpecker, goshawk, long-eared owl, and/or capercaillie.
The Talmud offers a number of identifying markers that are common to kosher fowl, including the fact that they are not predators. In practice, Torah law rules that due to the many uncertainties as to the precise identity of the non-kosher birds listed by the Torah, only birds with a tradition of Kashrut should be eaten.
And every earthen vessel into which any of them fall... shall be unclean (11:33)
If the source of impurity enters within the space of an earthen vessel--even without touching its walls--it becomes impure. If it did not enter into it, even if it touched it from the outside, it remains pure.
With all other utensils, the opposite is the case: entering within them alone does not make them impure, while touching any part of them does.
(Talmud, Chulin 24b; Rashi)
The worth of a utensil of wood or metal is not only in its function as a container--the material of which it is made also has value. So contact with any part of it, including its outside surface, affects its ritual state. On the other hand, an earthen utensil, whose body is mere earth, has value only as a container; accordingly it is affected only by what happens to its inside. Indeed, its inside is therefore even more susceptible to contamination than that of other utensils.
Man is an earthen vessel ("And G-d formed man out of the dust of the earth, and He blew into his nostril a living soul"--Genesis 2:7). His worth lies not in his material exterior, but in its content. He should therefore regard as significant only what pertains to his inner self.
(The Rebbe of Kotzk)
A wellspring or pool (mikveh)... shall be pure (11:36)
A wellspring purifies regardless of the amount of the water it contains, and also when flowing; a mikveh purifies only when stationary, and must contain 40 se'ah (approx. 87.5 gallons) of water.
(Torat Kohanim)
When a person endeavors to venture forth on his own, relying on his own intellect and feelings to guide him in the proper path, he had best be well equipped for the task. For he is then a mikveh, a pool of water no longer in direct contact with its source, which must possess a minimum of so many "gallons" of understanding and fortitude. Furthermore, he must be "stationary," contained and delimited by walls outside of himself; for without such objective control he is susceptible to all sorts of distortions and corruptions. A mikveh that lacks these criteria not only fails to purify other things, but is also itself vulnerable to contamination.
On the other hand, one who is a "wellspring," disavowing all pretensions of a "separate identity" from his Source, has no such limitations. His intellect may not be the deepest, his talents quite unspectacular, but the little he has can effectively take on the most challenging of tasks. Nor does he require any confining walls or "closed communities" to safeguard his integrity: wherever he goes and flows, he has a positive effect on his environment and is never negatively influenced by its imperfections. For no matter how scant his resources, and no matter where he ventures forth, he maintains an unbroken attachment to his Source.
(The Lubavitcher Rebbe)
To differentiate the pure and the impure, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten (11:47)
Need this be said regarding the difference between a donkey and a cow? ... Rather, this is to tell us to differentiate between the animal which had half its windpipe cut [during the slaughtering] and the animal which had most of its windpipe cut (According to the laws of shechitah, ritual slaughter, if a majority of the windpipe is not severed in an uninterrupted motion of the slaughterer's knife, the animal is rendered tereifah and unfit for consumption)...
Need this be said regarding the difference between a wild ass and a deer? Rather, this is to tell us to differentiate between an animal in which there developed a defect yet remains fit to be eaten and an animal in which there developed a defect which renders it unfit to be eaten.
(Torat Kohanim; Rashi)
more
Why do some traditional Jews sway while they pray or study? by Pinchas Taylor
Watch (5:07)<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.chabad.org/multimedia/mediaplayer/embedded/embed.js.asp?aid=2887874&width=auto&height=auto"></script><span style="clear:both;" class="lb" id="lbdiv">Visit <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish.TV</a> for more <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish videos</a>.</span>
More in Video:
• Take a Virtual Tour of Kever Rachel
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.chabad.org/multimedia/mediaplayer/embedded/embed.js.asp?aid=2904189&width=auto&height=auto"></script><span style="clear:both;" class="lb" id="lbdiv">Visit <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish.TV</a> for more <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish videos</a>.</span>
• The Miraculous Number Eight (By Yehoshua B. Gordon)
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.chabad.org/multimedia/mediaplayer/embedded/embed.js.asp?aid=2531147&width=auto&height=auto"></script><span style="clear:both;" class="lb" id="lbdiv">Visit <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish.TV</a> for more <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish videos</a>.</span>
LIFESTYLE
Special for this Shabbat: Key Challah
A healthier version of the traditional Shabbat loaves. by Miriam SzokovskiThere is a tradition in some Jewish communities to make shlissel challah the week after Passover. Shlissel means “key,” and the custom involves either baking the challah in the shape of a key, or wrapping ones real house (or business) key in foil and pressing it into the underside of the challah before baking. The key is removed before the challah is eaten, and the tradition is considered a segulah (spiritually propitious) for livelihood.
Have you made challah before? Or do you have bread-baking-phobia (not uncommon, even among seasoned cooks)? This is my sister-in-law's delicious whole wheat challah recipe. If you prefer white challah, use this recipe.
A big part of making challah is doing the mitzvah of separating challah. After the dough has risen, say the blessing, separate a small piece of dough, and set it aside to burn after the loaves have finished baking. For more about this mitzvah, and a step-by-step guide, watch this short do-it-yourself clip.
You can see in the pictures, I made two different types of challahs with the same dough. I did a traditional 3-braid challah, which I topped with sautéed onion, and I did a 6-braid challah which I egg washed for a simple, shiny finish. You can also use crushed garlic or sesame or poppy seeds. Other popular toppings include raisins, cinnamon sugar and pesto. It's up to you.
You can also see that I baked the challahs in two different kinds of pans. A cookie sheet gives the challah more space to spread out, whereas a loaf pan keeps it more contained. Again, it all comes down to personal preference.
Ingredients:
5 tsp. dry yeast
½ cup sugar + 2 tbsp. sugar
4 ½ cups warm water
5 eggs
1 ½ cups oil
½ cup honey
5 tsp. salt
2½ lbs. whole wheat flour
2½ lbs. white bread flour
optional: 2 sautéed onions, and/or 1 egg, beaten
Directions:
Pour ½ cup warm water, 2 tbsp. sugar and the yeast into a large bowl. Set aside for 10-15 minutes until thick and bubbled. (If the mixture does not bubble, it means your yeast is probably dead and your challah will not rise, so you'll need to start over.)
After the mixture has bubbled, add the eggs, oil, honey, salt and the rest of the sugar and warm water. Mix until just combined.
Add the whole wheat flour first and mix well. Add the bread flour a few cups at a time and keep mixing until you have a soft ball of dough.
The more you knead the dough, the better. If you're using a mixer, the machine can do the kneading for you. Just leave it turning on a low speed for 5+ minutes. If you're kneading by hand, turn the dough out onto a table to counter and knead for a good 10 minutes.
Put the dough in a bowl, cover tightly with saran wrap and leave to rise. You can put it in a warm place to rise for 2-2½ hours, or in the fridge overnight for a slow rise.
When the dough has finished rising, do the mitzvah of separating challah. Then tip it out and divide into 5-6 pieces. Each of the pieces will become 1 challah. If the dough feels a little sticky, dust your hands with flour so you can work with it easily.
Divide each piece of dough into either 3 or 6 strands (depending on whether you want to do a traditional 3-braid challah or a more complex 6-braid.) If you want to make an onion challah, rub each strand with the onion mixture before braiding. Then smear more onion mixture over the top when done. To make a plain challah, brush the top with beaten egg.
Place the challahs on a pan. Use 11x17 cookie sheets (2 challahs per pan), or put them in loaf pans. Let the loaves rise for 15-20 minutes after braiding, then bake on 350°F for 45 minutes.
Freezes well.
Yields: 5-6 medium sized challahs
More in Lifestyle:
• Foreign Fire (By Yoram Raanan)
• The Miraculous Number Eight (By Yehoshua B. Gordon)
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://embed.chabad.org/multimedia/mediaplayer/embedded/embed.js.asp?aid=2531147&width=auto&height=auto"></script><span style="clear:both;" class="lb" id="lbdiv">Visit <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish.TV</a> for more <a href="http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/default_cdo/aid/591213/jewish/Video.htm">Jewish videos</a>.</span>
LIFESTYLE
A healthier version of the traditional Shabbat loaves. by Miriam SzokovskiThere is a tradition in some Jewish communities to make shlissel challah the week after Passover. Shlissel means “key,” and the custom involves either baking the challah in the shape of a key, or wrapping ones real house (or business) key in foil and pressing it into the underside of the challah before baking. The key is removed before the challah is eaten, and the tradition is considered a segulah (spiritually propitious) for livelihood.
5 tsp. dry yeast
½ cup sugar + 2 tbsp. sugar
4 ½ cups warm water
5 eggs
1 ½ cups oil
½ cup honey
5 tsp. salt
2½ lbs. whole wheat flour
2½ lbs. white bread flour
optional: 2 sautéed onions, and/or 1 egg, beaten
Directions:
Pour ½ cup warm water, 2 tbsp. sugar and the yeast into a large bowl. Set aside for 10-15 minutes until thick and bubbled. (If the mixture does not bubble, it means your yeast is probably dead and your challah will not rise, so you'll need to start over.)
After the mixture has bubbled, add the eggs, oil, honey, salt and the rest of the sugar and warm water. Mix until just combined.
Add the whole wheat flour first and mix well. Add the bread flour a few cups at a time and keep mixing until you have a soft ball of dough.
The more you knead the dough, the better. If you're using a mixer, the machine can do the kneading for you. Just leave it turning on a low speed for 5+ minutes. If you're kneading by hand, turn the dough out onto a table to counter and knead for a good 10 minutes.
Put the dough in a bowl, cover tightly with saran wrap and leave to rise. You can put it in a warm place to rise for 2-2½ hours, or in the fridge overnight for a slow rise.
When the dough has finished rising, do the mitzvah of separating challah. Then tip it out and divide into 5-6 pieces. Each of the pieces will become 1 challah. If the dough feels a little sticky, dust your hands with flour so you can work with it easily.
Divide each piece of dough into either 3 or 6 strands (depending on whether you want to do a traditional 3-braid challah or a more complex 6-braid.) If you want to make an onion challah, rub each strand with the onion mixture before braiding. Then smear more onion mixture over the top when done. To make a plain challah, brush the top with beaten egg.
Place the challahs on a pan. Use 11x17 cookie sheets (2 challahs per pan), or put them in loaf pans. Let the loaves rise for 15-20 minutes after braiding, then bake on 350°F for 45 minutes.
Freezes well.
Yields: 5-6 medium sized challahs
• Foreign Fire (By Yoram Raanan)
A "fire of favor" came down consuming the offering on the altar on the eighth day of the inauguration of the desert sanctuary, and the people "sang glad song". In stark contrast to this joyous event, is the "unauthorized fire" of the sons of Aaron, the High Priest, who, in their spiritual frenzy, are consumed in a "counter-fire" from heaven.
In the painting, this tension of conflicting energies is reflected in the opposing colors. In contrast to striking greenish hues, the color of nature and of life, the strong reds and oranges suggest passion and life as they burn. As Nadav andAvihu offer their "strange" fire, a divine fire consumes them. The abstract suggestive figures are separate individuals, yet energetic lines pull them together; they become one with the fire rising upward as the flames dance between life and death in this continuum.
Add to it a splash of Kabbalah - the inner dimension of Torah,
and G-d's wisdom is flavored with your passion and awe!
Learn more about this photoJEWISH NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
New exhibit puts visitors smack-dab in the middle of Jewish history by Mordechai Lightstone
Experiential learning has long been at the core of Jewish education. Think of brushing the letters of the aleph-bet with honey or directly engaging children in the Passover seder.
Along those lines, the relatively new fourth-floor exhibit of the Jewish Children’s Museum in Brooklyn, N.Y., represents yet another building block for young minds. Called “A Voyage Through Jewish History,” the goal is to learn through entertaining and engaging activities.
Designed by Work With Your Brain—a museum and exhibit design firm, and built in part thanks to a donation from philanthropist David Slager and a grant from New York City—the themes of the floor present visitors with a powerful experiential survey of Jewish history.
Spanning the time of Abraham through modernity, the exhibit offers not just a survey of Jewish history, but a chance for guests to actively participate in exploring such history. Guests are not merely spectators to the past, but put squarely in the center of it.
The various sections include “Patriarchs and Matriarchs,” “Mount Sinai Experience” (this opens soon; guests will be able to relive some of the defining moments in Jewish history, including the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai), “Temple and Tabernacle,” “Land of Israel,” “Sages Through the Ages,” “Jewish World Today,” “The Holocaust” and “One Good Deed.”
In the midst of it is a massive replica of theWestern Wall (Kotel), where visitors can write down their prayers on notes and insert them into the wall, just like in Jerusalem.
Recreating the Midrashic narrative about Abraham’s Tent—a refuge to desert wayfarers that afforded them food and water, and a chance to bless G-d—a stand at the exhibit lets children assemble the blessings said over food. A bank of phones on a nearby wall allows them to record their own personal prayers.
An exhibit about the Tabernacle in the desert doesn’t merely suffice to show a diorama of the structure, but provides the chance for kids to build it themselves.
Entering the hall of Jewish sages, a copy of the Talmud lets guests literally peel back the text, showing the layers of commentary and the historical context.
‘Their Rich Heritage’
The seven-story museum, which opened its doors to the general public for the first time exactly 10 years ago during Passover of 2005, is the largest Jewish-themed children’s museum in the world. It primarily serves elementary-school-age kids and their families.
According to its directors, the museum, along Brooklyn’s Museum Row on Eastern Parkway in the Chassidic neighborhood of Crown Heights, welcomes some 200,000 children every year.
Chaya Serebryanski, the museum’s program and marketing director, says “children should be able to experience their rich heritage, and see the continuation of the Jewish people and their role in reaching a greater Jewish future.”
By example, she points to the final aspect of the exhibit. In a room connected with the arrival of Moshiach and the Messianic era, guests are given the chance to carry on their experience outside the museum walls, encouraging them to take a lesson or action from Jewish history and tradition, and implement it into their lives.
“We hope that by encouraging everyone to do a good deed,” she says, “we can unite our guests as active members in the tapestry of Jewish history.”
For more information, visithttp://jcm.museum.
More in Jewish News from Around the World:
• Rabbi Takes to the Radio, Offering Insight Through the Generations (By Menachem Posner)
The third in a series of articles on Chabad spreading Torah through a variety of media.
Radio has always been something of a family affair. Long before the advent of television, radio—the original electronic medium—brought together listeners for all kinds of programs, including news for adults and entertainment for children. It also ran specifically Jewish content, with one extended family of rabbis drawn to the medium over generations: the Hechts.
It all started with Rabbi Solomon S. Hecht, whose post-World War II radio programs in English and Yiddish conjure up associations of war-era newscasts. Yet beyond the clipped inflection and nasal pitch, the content is entirely different.
Rather than bombs, aircraft, enemies and submarines, these recordings transport listeners to a world of Chassidic Rebbes, Torah insights, and the string- and horn-heavy Chassidic music of that time period.
In the years between Hecht’s arrival in Chicago at the age of 25 in 1942 and his untimely passing at the age of 62 in 1979, he hosted no less than four regular programs: “Way of Life,” “Torah in the Home,” Di Velt Derzeilt (‘The World Tells’)” and his popular Friday feature, “Shabbat Shalom.”
Speaking to the audience—referring to listeners as “my dear radio friends”—the rabbi filled his shows with relevant information on upcoming holidays, Jewish history, timely lessons and, of course, stories.
Cynthia (Tzivia) Moscowitz remembers the deep impression those early-1950s’ Friday shows made on her at the time. “Rabbi Hecht had a wonderful commanding voice, and he was very inspiring. When he spoke, you listened,” says the retired schoolteacher in a phone interview from Florida. “His programs were very popular with all kinds of Jews and even non-Jews. I remember my principal telling me that his mother would listen regularly to the Yiddish programs—and she was by no means religious.”
Though he was born in New York to American parents, the rabbi studied inIsrael and Europe in his youth, and spoke impeccable Yiddish with an authentic accent. In fact, for a time, his Yiddish-story programs were taped and rebroadcast in Israel.
The rabbi had been sent by the PreviousRebbe—Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory—to serve the needs of Chicago Jewry. When he arrived, he took leadership of the Anshei Lubavitchsynagogue, then celebrating its 50th anniversary.
The Rebbe had recently arrived on the shores of the United States in the winter of 1940, having narrowly escaped war-torn Poland. Almost immediately, he began dispatching young rabbis to communities across the nation with the mandate to bolster Jewish observance and engagement.
“Rabbi Hecht’s arrival stirred much interest,” recalls Moscowitz’s husband,Ephraim. “With a full beard, wearing a long frock coat and speaking perfect Yiddish, people were surprised to learn that he was American-born. With his charisma and regal appearance, he attracted a following of young adults into his Torah classes.”
Many of the advertisements on his radio program reflected the rabbi’s far-reaching efforts to bolster all facets of Jewish life in the “Windy City.” A regular sponsor was the Tel Aviv Bakery, then the only shomer Shabbos bakery in Chicago, which the rabbi worked hard to have established.
After the rabbi’s sudden passing, the Moscowitzes’ son—the late Rabbi DanielMoscowitz, who succeeded Hecht as head shaliach (Chabad emissary) to Illinois—would continue the tradition with a weekly radio program on Fridays called “Lichvod Shabbat (‘In Honor of Shabbat’).”
Segments, Stories and More
Some 800 miles to the East in New York, Hecht’s younger brother—Rabbi J.J. Hecht—also plied the microphone every Friday, beginning with a Yiddish-language program that extended to include a Sunday English segment and more.
The radio show—called “Shema Yisrael (‘Hear O Israel’)”—was sponsored by Anti Shmad, the branch of the NCFJE (National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education) that combatted Christian missionary groups targeting uneducated Jews.
His Friday segment was the first of a string of rabbinical messages that would follow every Friday morning on WEVD, which once belonged to The Jewish Daily Forward and was largely viewed as New York’s “Jewish” station.
While the Friday program was a time for Torah thoughts and sharing the laws pertaining to upcoming Jewish holidays, Sunday afternoon was often dedicated to interviewing elected political and administrative officials, in addition to other guests.
Over the years, the format changed. At one point in the 1970s, Hecht would tell Jewish-themed bedtime stories for children three nights a week. In fact, his son, Rabbi Shimon Hecht, recalls listening to the stories over the radio in his father’s car—and “that was how I got to hear bedtime stories from my father,” he says.
Another segment was called “With Jewish Youth” and served as a forum for young people who had re-established their connection to traditional Judaism to share their experiences.
In the 1980s, a third brother, Rabbi Abraham Hecht—rabbi of Congregation Shaare Zion of Brooklyn, N.Y., the largest Sephardic congregation in North America—also hosted a program interviewing rabbis on a variety of subjects.
The Microphone Changes Hands
After Rabbi J.J. Hecht passed away in 1990, his son Rabbi Shea Hecht took over his father’s Sunday radio spot.
The younger Rabbi Hecht experimented with other forums as well, including co-hosting a morning drive show with author, journalist and publisher Karen Hunter, and an afternoon drive show on WWRL with poet and media personality Felipe Luciano. His latest endeavor is a weekly show on relationships, carried by Israel National Radio and streamed over the Internet.
After six decades, the radio bug has yet to leave the Hecht family, despite the fact that the medium seems to be in a state of slow decline as electronic media takes an increasingly large piece of the entertainment and information pie.
In recent years, Rabbi Shea Hecht’s sons Hanoch Hecht and Yitzchok Hecht have started their own programs in Upstate New York, taking up the mantle of a family tradition that’s affected so many avid audiophiles.
An Israeli citizen found dead in Berlin over the weekend had approachedChabad of Berlin for food and a place to sleep late last week and had made plans to attend the Passover seder there.
“A man in his early 20s came to us during the day last Friday and didn’t have a place to sleep and didn’t have anything to eat,” Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal, community rabbi of Berlin and director of Chabad-Lubavitch Jewish Education Center, told the Associated Press.
Teichtal said a fellow rabbi arranged a place for the man to sleep at a community center near the Alexanderplatz—the large public square and transport hub in the central Mitte district of Berlin—less than a mile from where the victim was found Sunday morning.
“We arranged everything for him, but then he didn’t show up again,” reported Teichtal.
The Israeli embassy said it had received confirmation of the man’s identity, but declined to release the victim’s name or age. A police spokesperson in Berlin confirmed that investigators had found the passport of a 22-year-old Israeli man in the back pocket of the victim’s sweatpants. The man was found by passers-by early Sunday morning, apparently beaten to death, with “massive injuries to his head,” according to reports.
Berlin has a vibrant Jewish community, which, like those of many cities in Europe, has been grappling with growing anti-Semitism. In recent years, a reported 20,000 to 30,000 Israelis have moved to Berlin.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment