Parshat Lech Lecha - פרשת לך לך

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ
Now the Lord said unto Avram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.
(בראשית יב:א)

This week's Parsha is named for the famous command that Hashem gave to Avram (as he was known before his name was changed to Avraham): "Lech lecha; Go for yourself - from your country, from your birthright, from your father's house."

There's a tremendous amount in these words that Rabbis over the centuries have seen fit to comment on, but I'd like to pick up on something that I first heard from Rav Daniel Katz of Ramat Eshkol, Jerusalem, and that I heard again from Rav Mordechai Machlis of Ma'alot Dafna this week. The words "Lech l'cha," meaning "go for yourself" when translated literally, seem a bit extraneous - of course Avram was going for himself; when he left, he was fulfilling the word of God because he wanted to.

We may resolve this diffiuclty by translating the word "Lecha" in another way. We can say that it means "to yourself." The command meant that Avram had to go within himself and come to realise who he truly was -he had to be true to himself. This command, according to the Rambam, the first of Avram's ten tests from Hashem, was literally to leave his father's house and head abroad where he would gain a different perspective.

I would like to add something to this way of looking at things. Following the Rambam's view, (that this was indeed the first of Avram's tests,) we can say that it was the foundation upon which all the others were built. The other tests included extremely challenging situations such as the being thrown in a furnace, his wife being abducted, circumcising himself at the age of 90 and culminating in the horrific test of being asked to sacrifice his only son. These tests were highly demanding and required true devotion to Hashem, especially in the case of the last test. But above all the tests was the first test of Lech lecha - that Avram had to remain true to himself.

I'd like to suggest that at any given time, Avram was not just being tested on one front, for Hashem was also checking to see whether Avram was behaving in a manner that was true to himself. When he was asked to give himself a Brit Milah at a very advanced age for example, in order to pass the test he couldn't merely tick all the boxes; his actions could not be construed as contrived. He had to genuinely want to do that which was asked of him.

From the holy city of Netanya, wishing you a Shabbat Shalom!

Parshat Noach - פרשת נח

"אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ. נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו: אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, הִתְהַלֶּךְ-נֹחַ - These are the generations of Noach. Noach was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noach walked with God."
(בראשית ו:ט)

In Zichron Meir, Rabbi Meir Robman writes that there is a problem with the way we perceive Noach. From the verse above, it would seem quite clear that Noach was a particularly holy man, but a number of the commentators on the Torah talk about Noach in a denigratory manner. Commenting on Masechet Sandhedrin in his notes on the Talmud, Rashi points out that "There are a number of our Rabbis who praise Noach... and there are those who denigrate him; "According to his generation he was deemed righteous, but had he lived during the time of Avraham, he wouldn't have been counted as anything."

This perception is even more puzzling given the Radak's view of Noach. The Radak explains that "Noach walked with Hashem, he was attached to Him, and all his deeds were in His name," before going on to highlight his great strength in "defeating his natural inclination, for he lived in a generation of wicked and evil people but didn't learn from their ways."

So we have two ways of regarding Noach - we can say that he was only deemed a righteous man because he lived amongst a very low, base people. Or we can say that he was genuinely righteous because he managed to ignore them and stay on the "straight and narrow." It would seem that these two persepectives are the polar opposite of one another. We need to resolve this issue - either Noach was righteous or he was not!

The answer to this problem is that the two opinions do not truly clash - both schools of thought agree that Noach was righteous man; what they argue about is the meaning of the word "בְּדֹרֹתָיו - his generations." When saying that Noach didn't comapre to the men of Avraham's generation, Reish Lakish's opinion in the gemara might seem derogotary of Noach, but he actually wasn't criticising Noach. His point was that it although it wasn't his fault, Noach lived amongst wicked people, abd because Noach lived at that particular time, he was limited spiritually. Had he lived at another time though, Noach may well have been able to attain a significantly higher spiritual level.

Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom from Yerushalayim!

Parshat B'reishit - פרשת בראשית

In Lecha Dodi there's a line that I find particularly relevant to this week's Parsha. The line is: "סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה," roughly meaning that "the end product is found in the first thoughts."

This week we read B'reishit, which is the first Parsha in the Torah. The concept outlined above can be found in various levels in this week's Parsha. In B'reishit, we read of the creation of the universe - the very first thing that happened, according to the opening pasuk of the Torah. Following the concept above, we learn that everything in the Torah can be found in the opening act of B'reisihit.

In fact, the Vilna Gaon claimed to have a way of reading into the first word of the Torah 613 ways; one for each of the MItzvot. The story goes that he was challenged by a student/a group of his students. They asked him how he could see the mitzvah of Pidyon Haben (click here to find out more) in the the word B'reishit.

Incredibly, he answered them that בראשית is an acronym. Each of the first letters of the word stand for בן ראשון אחרי שלושים יום תפדה, which means "Firstborn son - after 30 days you shall release!"

Another thing worth pointing out about Parshat B'reishit, the first Parsha in the Torah, is that it opens with the second letter in the Alef-Bet.

The Medrash explains that the word Arur (meaning cursed) begins with an Alef, but a Bet is at the beginning of the word Baruch (meaning blessed). While this answer is certainly nice, we can also note that the Talmud starts with the letter Mem. (In the tractate of Brachot, when we read the words, "מאמתי קורין את השמע - from what time do we read the Sh'ma")

In the Sh'ma itself, there's a phrase "- ושננתם לבניך ודברת בם," meaning "And you shall teach them your sons and you shall speak of them. The "בם" here is rather vague. It literally means "them," and we are not helped by the fact thay they are intriduced earlier on as "הדברים" - another vague term, meaning "things."

A beautiful answer to this difficulty is provided by the Magid Ta'alumah, who says that the two letters of the word "בם" correspond to the written Torah and to the oral Torah. The written Torah begins with a ב, while the oral law starts with a מ - which together form the word בם. When we read the relevant part of Sh'ma, "ודברת בם," we may now understand what is being commanded of us - to continually speak words of Torah; both the written and the oral Torah.

Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom!

One of the many reasons why I love living in Israel

Hat tip: Lahav Harkov.

Shmini Atzeret, Simchat Torah - שמיני עצרת ושמחת תורה

I covered an event for work yesterday and I heard an interesting D'var Torah there that I'd like to share here. The D'var Torah comes from Rabbi Metzger, who is the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, and was one of the guests of honour at the event.

R' Metzger pointed out that a number of the Jewish festivals are referred to by multiple monikers; for example Sukkot is also known as Chag Ha'Asif, Shmini Atzeret is known also as Simchat Torah and Pesach is known as Chag Hamatzot. We also call Rosh Hashana by the names Yom T'ruah, Yom Hazikaron and Yom Hadin, while Shavuot is known variously as Chag Habikkurim, Chag Hakatzir and Zman Matan Torateinu.

Each of these names have a different meaning and represent a different aspect of each festival. R' Metzger suggested though, that some of these names are linked. While he didn't go through all the names of all the chagim, he took a few examples.

The two names Pesach and Chag Hamatzot, R' Metzger suggested, are a pair; Pesach refers to Hashem's passing over the houses of the Jews; it is Bnei Yisrael's way of being grateful for Hashem's kindness in overlooking them while killing Egyptians worthy of death. Chag Hamatzot is Hashem's name for the festival - he looks favourably upon our swiftness to leave Egypt when the time came.

In the same way, two of Sukkot's names can be seen as a pair; Chag Ha'Asif, Festival of the Collecting (of the harvest,) is the one of the names that the Jewish people uses for it - we thank God that we He has given us sustenance. But Hashem has refers to it from a different perspective; His name for the festival is Sukkot, for He recognises the Jewish people's devotion to sitting outside in the Sukkah, often through rather unpleasant conditions.

And so too we have the names of Chag Shmini Ha'atzeret and Simchat Torah. Shmini means eight, and Atzeret means stopping. Rabbi Metzger explained that this name can be understood as belonging to Hashem - after seeing the Jews observing Sukkot for seven days, he says to us "today is the eight day - you may stop dwelling in your Sukkot now and dwell inside with me." But the name Simchat Torah represents a completely different aspect, showing the love of the Jewish nation for Hashem; when we celebrate Simchat Torah, we are thanking Hashem for the greatest gift given - that of the Torah.

Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom and a Chag Sameach!

It's raining

It's raining in Jerusalem, and raining fairly hard, too. Bearing in mind the long hard droughts of the last three years, that there's already been a few rains in Israel by early October is a minor miracle.



UPDATE: The rain lasted less than ten minutes. While it didn't quite bucket down, there was a steady flow for a solid five minutes. Another good sign is that the clouds parted and the sun broke out immediately afterwards; something that is listed in Megilat Ta'anit as being as good for the soil as two rains :)

UPDATE #2: It's 1:40am now, and there's been another short but solid rainfall. With any luck, Israel might get a little bit of a soaking every so often over the next few days.

A question on campaigning

Last Friday, shortly before Israel entered into the Jewish festival of Sukkot, Israel (and her supporters around the globe) came together as one in joy, as we learned that Gilad Schalit is alive, and seemingly well.

If and when Gilad Schalit does finally return from Gaza, I hope that he publishes his story. I am sure he had many interesting experiences over his time as a prisoner of one of the most extreme terrorist organisations on the planet. But more than anything, I want to know if he was aware of the campaign for his return.


Recently I posted my reservations about the campaign on this blog, but I now feel that a revision of my thoughts is needed. Or more accurately, a question has been posed.

The question is simple, but exceedingly difficult to answer: would Gilad Schalit have been killed had the campaign not been as strong and as vocal as it was. In previous years, Israel has had soldiers captured, but not once has a soldier returned to Israel alive.

My gut feeling is that in previous cases, most times a soldier went missing in action in enemy territory, the soldier died either while falling, or before falling, into enemy hands. I have a suspicion, however, that maybe one or two Israeli soldiers have been captured alive previously. Schalit was alive when captured, but over the course of the last three years, I, and many others, have wondered whether he had been killed by his captors.

One of the slogans adopted by the campaign has been the hopeful and yet firm, "Gilad is still alive." Many people have responded strongly against this slogan, ranging from statements that it's best not to get our collective hopes up, to messages I've seen left on facebook stating that "people should stop being so silly; Hamas realised that Israel would do a deal with them regardless of whether he was alive or dead and have almost certainly killed him by now."

Mercifully, such pronouncements have been proven false. Moreover, given that for the first time ever, a captive Israeli soldier has been proven to be alive in enemy hands, I am lead to ask the important question of whether the campaign for Schalit's release actually ended up keeping him alive. Even though I remain extremely concerned on two counts that the campaign is counter-productive, (that a swap of hundreds of terrorists for one man is dangerous and sets a precedent, and that by campaigning so publicly, we are only reducing the chances of a deal being done; for more, read my previous blog entry,) the possibility that the campaign contributed to keeping Schalit alive one that intrigues me.

I have to reconcile these concerns with the possibility that by campaigning as publicly as we did, Schalit's life was spared. We don't know much, hence my interest in hearing Schalit's story, but we do know he is alive. We take this as a given, but maybe the continuous high-profile campaigning provided Schalit with a stay of execution (quite literally). Normally when we talk about perspective, we state that it is vital to look at things in the long-term, as the short-term is less important. But in this case, while I do take issue with the long-term effect of the campaign, if it is proven that it saved Schalit's life, then I believe that it has proved itself to be worth all these ramifications.

What do you think?

I'm not really one for this kind of thing...

...but this label is just great :)

Goldstone the fool?

I stumbled an interesting article on the Muqata blog last week that I want to share with you.

'JoeSettler,' the blogger who penned this entry, points out that “there seems to be a lot of confirmation that this story is true, and it doesn’t say much for Goldstone's credibility as an investigator of war crimes.”

In 1995, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecutor’s office listed a certain Serb named Gruban as a serious war criminal. Very serious. They had a lot of details of his war crimes.

But it seems that the Prosecutor’s office had mistakenly identified the criminal involved. The person linked to this case of mistaken identy was none other than head prosecutor himself; Richard Goldstone.

From 1994 until 1996 Goldstone was the head Prosecutor at the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the UN, and here is a link to the text of his indictment against Gruban. The ICTY's PDF is extracted here:

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL
AGAINST

ZELJKO MEAKIC, MIROSLAV KVOCKA, DRAGOLJUB PRCAC, MLADEN RADIC a.k.a. "KRKAN," MILOJICA KOS a.k.a. "KRLE," MOMCILO GRUBAN a.k.a. "CKALJA," ZDRAVKO GOVEDARICA, GRUBAN

INDICTMENT
Richard J. Goldstone, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to his authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("The Statute of the Tribunal"), charges...

But in 1998 the ICTY dropped all charges against the above-named Gruban:

Latma's take on Goldstone

Funny, if politically incorrect stuff from Latma.co.il

Saw this in an email I recently received

I saw this quote in an email I recently received. I find it absolutely incredible.

"All the nations are one day going to come together and start talking peace amongst themselves. This talk of peace will have one underlying goal: to destroy Israel. And their rationale shall be: because they [the Jews] established for themselves their own government; and though the Jews will be in tremendous danger at that time, nevertheless they will not be destroyed; in fact, from that very situation they will be saved."

Written approximately 500 years ago, by Rabbi Moshe Cordevero ("The Ramak") on Zohar Bereishis, 199.

Sukkot - סוכות

It is by no coincidence that the festivals of Sukkot and that of Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah (which takes place over one day in Israel but it split over two days in the Diaspora,) are occur one after the other. It seems a tad strange to be commanded to live in a Sukkah for seven days, and then without a break, without even a day in which to dismantle the Sukkah, we jump into another festival.

The word Atzeret comes from the Hebrew root עצר, which means stopping. On this day, Jews around the world celebrate finishing the yearly cycle of reading the Torah. But there's a concept in Judaism that seems to directly contradict this term. The concept is that we never stop going; that there's always more work to be done in this world. I'd like to point out that although this idea seems simple, it's very much the opposite of the prevalent custom today. Most people nowadays live a lifestyle that demands hard work so that ultimately, one may take time off. The Jewish concept though, is that up until one's dying day, one remains obligated to perform Mitzot - there's no such thing as time off.

With this in mind, how can there be a Jewish festival that celebrates the completion of the Torah? The standard answer is cute; that we don't just stop - we start again and read from Parshat B'reishit on the same day. We refuse to wait the normal week to progress to the next Parsha, and instead signal our intent to keep going. This answer certainly proves that though this Torah reading has ended we don't stop, but I would like to propose an alternative answer.

A point repeatedly made by various Rabbis over the years is that the number seven in Judaism signifies that which lies in the natural. There are seven notes in the musical scale, seven continents and there are seven days in the week - something that remains remarkably indisputed, despite the fact that there are various calendar systems in use around the world, all agree that there is such a thing as a week and that it has seven days. We also say that there Hashem made seven heavens (hence the expression,) Tefillin are wrapped around the arm seven times and the Menorah in the Bet Hamikdash had seven branches. Additionally, it is said that the world was created with the number seven. The first verse in the Torah deals with the creation of the universe, and contains seven words and twenty-eight letters; a number which happens to divisible by seven!

As such, it is no surprise to say that the seven days of sukkot correspond to the natural world. For seven days we sit outside, exposed to the elements. The second Gerer Rebbe writes in his seminal work, the Sfat Emet, that during this time we need the extra defence of the Sukkah. But beyond seven, the number of the physical, of the natural, is the number eight - which is said to represent the spiritual. On the day after Sukkot, we go one level above the physical world and enter into the spiritual domain, so to speak. We call this day Shmini Atzeret, which means the eighth day. The question posed at the beginning of this D'var Torah, why Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret are placed next to one another, may now be answered. On Shmini Atzeret, we leave the Sukkot outside because we don't need the protection it affords. That protection is only needed by someone living a physical, natural lifestyle. We learn that Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret have to be placed next to one another to show that when one lives life fully and spiritually, one moves beyond the need for such external protection.

Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom and a pleasant Sukkah experience :)