The mitzva of מרור

The Gemara says that when there is no קרבן פסח then מרור is only מדרבנן. There is a fundamental dispute between Tosafos and the Rambam what this means.

Tosafos understands that מרור is an independent mitzva that is only נוהג when there is a קרבן פסח. The Rambam however, states both in the Sefer Hamitzvot and in the Mishna Torah that מרור is not an independent mitzva but rather a part of the mitzva of קרבן פסח. One נפקא מינה is someone בזמן הבית who did not bring a קרבן פסח (because he was טמא or בדרך רחוקה). Does he have a chiyuv min hatorah to eat מרור? According to Tosafos yes according to the Rambam no.

The Rosh in ערבי פסחים is מסתפק whether you need to eat a כזית of מרור. He says you do based on the fact that you make a beracha על אכילת מרור and אכילה is never less then a כזית. The שאגת אריה is bothered by a number of questions. The Mishna on 39a states explicitly that you need to eat a כזית of מרור, also why not make a beracha of על מצות and eat less then a כזית?

RYBS answered as follows. The Rosh agrees that when מרור is דאורייתא you have to eat a כזית. His whole question was nowadays that it is d'rabbanan. RYBS explained the safek as follows. What was the takana of מרור? The reason for the takana was clearly זכר למקדש. There are 2 possibilities:
1. The takana was also זכר למקדש
2. While the reason was זכר למקדש the takana was to fulfill the mitzva of מרור m'drabbanan.

If the takana was זכר למקדש, then it would make sense that you would not be chayav to eat a כזית and there would be no beracha. Therefore the Rosh says from the fact that we make a beracha on the mitzva of מרור shows that takana was to fulfill the mitzva of מרור m'drabbanan and therefore it requires a כזית.

The mitzva of making שמן המשחה

The Mishan at the beginning of the third perek of מכות mentions the issur of making the שמן המשחה for your own purposes. I saw a fascinating machlokes relating to the the שמן המשחה.

Th gemara in :כריתות ה states that one of the many ניסים of the שמן המשחה was that even though Moshe only made a small amount it lasted until it was hidden by Yoshiyahu (towards the end of the first Beis Hamikdash) and will be used to anoint the מלך המשיח. The gemara bases this on a pasuk לי לדורותיכם. Based on this Tosafos in Nazir (47a) seem to say that there is no mitzva to make שמן המשחה, as it was a mitzvah only for Moshe Rabbenu. The Minchas Chinuch says this as well, that there is no mitzva to make שמן המשחה because it is not נוהג לדורות.

However, the Rambam counts it as a mitzva and the Rambam (כלי המקדש א:א) writes
מצות עשה לעשות שמן המשחה, שיהיה מוכן לדברים שצריכין משיחה בו

The Rambam clearly states that there is a mitzva to make שמן המשחה. What does the Rambam do with the Gemara in כריתות ה that only Moshe made שמן המשחה (which is learned out from a pasuk)? The Rambam understands that there is a mitzva to makeשמן המשחה that is נוהג לדורות. The pasuk is just telling us a historical fact, that the only person to ever be מקיים this mitzva was Moshe Rabbenu, however, in theory if there was a need there would be a mitzva on us to make שמן המשחה.

מכות ג. - משלשלים בממןן ואין משלשלים במלקות

The gemara says that money can be split 3 ways between the עדים זוממים each paying a third while מלקות cannot be split between them, each one gets 39. The question is why not?

The Beis Halevi Al Hatorah at the end of Parshas Beshalach has a very interesting p'shat on this. He explains as follows. When it comes to money, $100 is $100 coming from 1 person or 10. The witnesses as a group tried to cause him a loss of $100, k'aasher zamam is for them as a group to pay him $100. They as a group are experiencing the exact same loss that they wanted to cause him. However, by מלקות while 13 + 13 + 13 = 39 it is not the equivalent of 39 מלקות. The Beis Halevi points out that the 14th maka hurts more then the 13th simply because 13 מלקות preceded it, and so on. The 39th is much more painful then the 13th because it was preceded by 38 מלקות. Therefore, if we split up the מלקות the witnesses may get the same number but do not suffer the same pain and suffering that the person would have suffered. He would have felt the pain of מלקות 14 - 39 which is worse then the pain from any of the מלקות that the witnesses are getting. The witnesses are therefore not experiencing the same pain and suffering that the defendant would have suffered. Because of this (the pain and suffering of the witnesses does not add up to the same pain and suffering that the person would have undergone), splitting up the מלקות it is not called כאשר זמם, they would not be receiving what he would have received but something much less (even though a total of 39 מלקות are given) and therefore
they each need to get 39 מלקות.

The instant guide to the קנאים of Meah Shearim

Last week's Mishpacha magazine had a fascinating article explaining the various groups of קנאים in Meah Shearim. Here are some highlights.

The עיקרי האמונה of a קנאי

There are a number of עיקרי האמונה
1. It is assur to participate in elections
2. It is assur to take government money for education
3. It is assur to speak in Hebrew. This rule is not absolute.
4. The only hashgacha that is acceptable is Badatz Edah Hachareidis

Each group of Kannaim adds their own issurim as well.

The groups

Satmar

Just like there is a Shulchan Aruch for halacha there is a Shulchan Aruch for קנאות, the sefer ויואל משה written by the Satmar Rebbe is the Shulchan Aruch for קנאות. What he assurs is assur what he doesn't assur is mutar. Here are some examples:
1. Satmar does not get involved with demonstrations against chilul shabbos
2. It is assur to go to go the Holy places (e.g. the kotel) that were captured in 1967
3. They do take money from Bituach Leumi

Satmar is very much inward focused.

Toldos Aharon

Toldos Aharon is more extreme then Satmar. They don't take money from Bituach leumi, they won't work for a government company (e.g. Egged). They don't belong to a Kupat Cholim. Because of this it is a very poor community where there are very few opportunities for jobs. Most people work in מלאכת הקדש. Very few people can sit and learn all day because of the financial hardship.

The following typifies Toldos Aharon. In the introduction to the sefer שומרי אמונים the Rebbe writes "The opposition to the ציונים needs to be so great that if the government made a law to put on tefillin every day, you shouldn't put on Tefillin"

Neturei Karta

The Neturei Karta start where Toldos Aharon ends. The big difference is in there attitude towards the Arabs. The Neturei Karta meet with Arabs etc.

Who is a קנאי? Someone for whom כבוד שמים burns for them, it is the only thing for them.

Important information for all Daf Yomi Learners - Updated

The following ad was printed in yesterday's Yated Neeman (Wednesday כ"ד אדר).


Below is my translation of the ad:

Important announcement for all Daf Yomi learners

With the starting of tractate Moed Katan, R' Chaim Kanievsky said that it is known in the name of the Chasam Sofer that there is a concern in learning Moed Katan because of the fact they you are learning the halachos of mourning. Therefore the Chasam Sofer said that a person should give charity before learning this tractate.

R' Kanievsky added that certainly someone who gives charity to "Kupat Hair" will be saved from any pain and anguish and has nothing to worry about.

As always, the names of all donors will be passed on to R' Kanievsky for a blessing

The mesora that I got from my Rabbeim (RMW, RHS, from RYBS) was diametrically opposed to this approach. They said as follows. Moed Katan and Hilchos Aveilus are just as much Torah as Bava Kama, Zevachim, etc. You are מקיים the same mitzva of talmud torah. There is a chiyuv to know all of Torah and Moed Katan and Hilchos Aveilus are part of that. Therefore, it is inconceivable that a person would come to harm by learning Moed Katan and Hilchos Aveilus when by doing so he is fulfilling his chiyuv to learn Torah.

I remember that in the Morasha Kollel one summer R' Willig learned Moed Katan , half the summer learning Hilchos Chol Hamoed and half the summer learning Hilchos Aveilus with us when we were all between the ages of 18-25. He was not all concerned with this based on what I wrote above.

Update

Here is what the Chafetz Chaim had to say about not learning Moed Katan.

Reb Moshe Bik used to say over the following incident: It once happened in Radin that there were several men that passed away one after the other in a very short span of time. They called a gathering to contemplate as to what was the message that Hashem was sending them.

The Chafetz Chaim arose and proclaimed that the Mesechta Moed Katan is complaining to the Ribino shel Olam that it is a Mesechta that the Yeshivos do not learn. Only mourners learn this Mesechta and that is why many people were passing away.

(Sefer Meir Einei Yisroel 2: P. 239)

Exactly the opposite of the Chasam Sofer, Sefer Chasidim etc.

מכות ז: אומר מותר בגלות

The gemara states (רבא) that we learn out from בשגגה that אומר מותר does not go to גלות. The rishonim there ask as follows. The Gemara in Shabbos (68b) states that אומר מותר on shabbos is chayav a חטאת (except for certain extreme cases like תינוק שנשבע), meaning that אומר מותר is considered a שוגג. If so, why does he not go to גלות?

The rishonim give a number of answers:
1. Since by גלות it says שוגג many times it needs to be a higher level of שוגג , אומר מותר is either קרוב למזיד or קרוב לאונס and is not considered this level of שוגג and therefore there is no גלות. On shabbos however, the requirement for שוגג is less stringent and therefore אומר מותר is considered שוגג. Because גלות requires a higher level of שוגג, the gemara on 9a calls someone who intended to kill an animal and killed a person אומר מותר, however, this is a special din by גלות, by shabbos for example this would not be called אומר מותר
2. The Ritva and Ramban quote יש אומרים that the use of אומר מותר both on 7b as well as 9a is a different usage then in other places. In other words, the gemara uses the same phrase with a different meaning. They explain that the gemara on 7b when it says אומר מותר means the case that the gemara mentioned 9a ( someone who intended to kill an animal and killed a person).

There is a big נפקא מינה between the 2 answers. According to the second answer, if Reuven kills Shimon and says that he thought he was allowed to kill Shimon, it is a classic case of אומר מותר which is considered שוגג and he would go to גלות. According to the first answer this is exactly what the gemara excludes based on the pasuk.

The bottom line is that according to everyone, the usage of אומר מותר on 9a to mean someone who intended to kill an animal and killed a person, is restricted to גלות only, in other places (such as Shabbos) this would not be considered אומר מותר.

Posts on מכות

I am learning מכות these days so from time to time I am going to post things that came up in my learning of מכות that seem interesting.

When to bake the מצה II?

continued from here...

Some rishonim have a different version of Rashi. They understand that according to Rashi you need to bake the מצה on erev Pesach but even in the morning. This is clearly not connected to קרבן פסח as the קרבן פסח cannot be brought in the morning. The question is if so, why do you need to bake the מצה on erev Pesach?

RYBS explained as follows. The Yerushalmi has a din that it is prohibited to eat מצה on erev Pesach. The Ramban explains this as follows (why is the prohibition limited to erev Pesach). מצה is defined as being not חמץ. Without חמץ there can be no מצה. Before erev Pesach there is no halachic significance to חמץ, it doesn't really exist, therefore there can be no issur to eat מצה as if there is no חמץ there is no מצה. On erev Pesach when the mitzva of תשביתו destroying חמץ starts, then you can have מצה and therefore there is an issur to eat מצה.

Based on this RYBS explained Rashi. We know that מצת מצוה needs to be made לשמה. Rashi holds like this Ramban, that מצה is defined as being not חמץ and that without חמץ there can be no מצה. Therefore, before erev Pesach you cannot bake מצת מצוה because it can't be made לשמה as there is no שם מצה yet. Only on erev Pesach where there is halachic significance to חמץ can there be מצה made לשמה. Therefore Rashi says that the מצה needs to be baked on erev Pesach, even in the morning, to create the לשמה of מצת מצוה, and מצה baked earlier is no good because it lacks לשמה.

This also explains why they would bake the מצה on the seder night if erev Pesach was Shabbos.

When to bake the matzah?

There is a famous שיטת Rashi that the Matzas mitzva needs to be baked erev Pesach after חצות, otherwise you are not יוצא. Rashi gets this from the Gemara on Pesachim 120b where Rava has a היקש between מצה and קרבן פסח, that the זמן of eating מצה is the same as the זמן of eating קרבן פסח. Rashi understands that the היקש would likewise apply to the preparations, just like the קרבן פסח has to be prepared on erev Pesach after חצות, so too does the מצה. This is quoted as a יש אומרים in Shulchan Aruch. The Gra disagrees, one of his proofs is the following. What happens when erev Pesach is on Shabbos? קרבן פסח is דוחה Shabbos and is therefore brought on Shabbos afternoon, however baking מצה is not דוחה Shabbos and therefore cannot be done on Shabbos afternoon. If so, how is anyone יוצא the mitzva of מצה, the מצה was not prepared in the זמן of the קרבן פסח? In truth, those rishonim who hold like Rashi say that when erev pesach is Shabbos, you bake the מצה on the seder night. However, the Gra's question stil holds. If the מצה needs to be baked in the זמן of the קרבן פסח, the seder night is too late, you cannot bring the קרבן פסח at that time.

A number of later acharonim answer as follows. The Gemara earlier states that the קרבן פסח is brought on Shabbos (and not that night after Shabbos) because it is זמנו קבוע. Rashi explains because there is a general din that korbanos cannot be brought at night. The acharonim ask, why didn't Rashi simply answer because the Torah says that the קרבן פסח needs to be brought on the 14th of Nisan and that night is already the 15th? They answer as follows. In halacha day follows night. However, by קרבנות the din is that night follows day. Therefore they say as follows. Although the seder night is the 15th in the calendar, with regards to קרבנות it is still the 14th as night follows day. Therefore, Rashi can't answer that the seder night is too late because that night is considered the 14th for קרבנות so Rashi needs to answer that קרבנות in general cannot be brought at night.

Based on this, we can answer the Gra's question as well. From the perspective of the קרבן פסח the night of the 15th is still the זמן, there is just a technical problem that you can't bring קרבנות at night, but from the pure קרבן פסח perspective it is the זמן and therefore you can bake the מצה that night. The היקש between מצה and קרבן פסח only relates to those special dinim of קרבן פסח, not to the regular dinim of קרבנות. Therefore from that perspective the seder night is still considered to be the זמן of the קרבן פסח and therefore you can bake the מצה then.

to be continued ...

Olmert has sunk to an all time low in the polls

Believe it or not only 3% of the people would vote for Olmert for Prime Minister. This is not a mistake, only 3%. Amir Peretz is even lower at only 1%. Here are the numbers (from the Jerusalem Post):

Who is best suited to be the next Prime Minister?
Netanyahu - 30%
Ami Ayalon - 18%
Ehud Barak - 12%
Avigdor Lieberman - 7%
Ehud Olmert - 3%
Amir Peretz - 1%

Ynet has some interesting poll numbers as well. They asked

What should Olmert do?

Resign and call for new elections - 64%
Don't resign - 29%
No opinion - 7%

A clear majority of the population is so fed up that they want new elections less then 1 year after the previous elections.

Are Charedi schools in Israel discriminated against?

This claim was raised again by the Charedi MK's today regarding the plan to give extra money to northern schools.

The government is giving money to all the public schools in the North. Charedi schools even if they get money from the government are not official public schools and therefore are not getting money. This claim is really a case of the Charedi schools wanting to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they won't let the government have any hand in what the curriculum is, what is learned, standards, etc. on the other hand they want the same money from the government as the public schools where the government has full control.

What is even funnier is that one of the things the government is giving is computers. What exactly are Chinuch Atzmai schools going to do with computers anyway?

El Al's apology for the flight on last Shabbos

This is an ad that El Al printed in Wednesday's Yated Neeman in Israel.

Did Vashti have a tail? What should we tell our kids

Here are 2 interesting articles about this issue.

Did Vashti have a Tail? Reflections on Teaching Midrash Aggadah in Elementary Day Schools

Did Vashti really have a Tail?

The common denominator is that not every medrash needs to be taught and medrashim are not always meant to be taken literally.

Laining on Rosh Chodesh

Today's and continuing to tomorrow's daf (Megilla 21b,22a), discusses how to split up the aliyas on Rosh Chodesh. There are 4 aliyas on Rosh Chodesh and the laining consists of 3 parshas of 8,2 and 5 pesukim. The gemara has 3 principles (the last 2 are really extensions of the first) that need to be followed when splitting up aliyas.
1. An aliya must be at least 3 pesukim
2. An aliya cannot start less then 3 pesukim from the beginning of a parsha lest someone walk in and mistakenly think that the previous aliya was only the 1 or 2 pesukim at the beginning of the parsha
3. An aliya cannot end with less then 3 pesukim left in the parsha lest someone leave and think that the next aliya will only be 1 or 2 pesukim (to finish the parsha).

There is no way to split up the Rosh Chodesh laining as is without violating one of these principles. The Gemara brings up a similar problem by maamados and answers that you repeat one of the pesukim. The maskana of the gemara is that we repeat a pasuk in the middle. It is not so clear what the maskana really means (is it referring to Rosh Chodesh or maamados? What does middle mean when you have 4 aliyos?).

The Ran quoting the Geonim explains the maskana as referring to Rosh Chodesh, and the laining is as follows.

Kohen - the first 3 pesukim
Levi - repeat pasuk 3 and read the next 2 (pesukim 3,4,5)
Shlishi - read pesukim 6,7,8 and the 2 pesukim of the parsha of shabbos
Revii - read the parsha of Rosh Chodesh (5 pesukim)

The Ramban asks a bomb question. What does it help that we repeat pasuk 3, we are still violating principle 2. By starting Levi with the third pasuk someone who walks in may think that the first aliya was only 2 pesukim, so what did we gain by repeating. Therefore, the Ramban says that the maskana of the gemara was for maamados and on Rosh Chodesh you don't repeat anything (and violate principle 2).

In Shulchan Aruch (Siman 422) we pasken like the Geonim quoted by the Ran.

The Gra there based on a Maseches Sofrim comes up with a way to split up the aliyas by repeating 1 3 pesukim without violating any of the principles. The Gra proposed the following:
Kohen - the first 3 pesukim
Levi - next 5 pesukim (4,5,6,7,8) until the end of the parsha
Shlishi - repeat pesukim 6,7,8 and the 2 pesukim of the parsha of shabbos
Revii - read the parsha of Rosh Chodesh (5 pesukim)

What the Gra proposes is an elegant solution to the problem and it is interesting that the minhag haolam is not like the Gra. In Israel many of the shuls (for example where I daven) are noheg like the Gra.

How much does it cost to get engaged in Charedi Israel?

Well over 20,000 shekel and this is not including the wedding, an apartment, sheva berachos, etc. This is just the engagement period. Here is a list of gifts that need to be given:
Kallah
Watch - Chasidim give a gold watch costing $1000+ many times costing between $1500 and $2000. In yeshivish circles they spend less only around 1200 shekel
Diamond ring - starts at $450
Necklace - $800 - $1200, Chasidim add another necklace for another $300 - $700
Bracelet - $500 - $700
Earrings - $250
Candlesticks - $300 - $500
Set of Machzorim - 750 shekel
Siddur and Tehilim - 300 shekel

This comes out to almost $4000.

Chassan
Watch - Chasidim $1200 - $1500, yeshivish $500
Shas - 1500 - 3000 shekel
Tur - 1400 shekel
Kiddush Cup - Chasidim $400 - $500, Yeshivish $100 - $200
Menora - $300 - $700
Esrog Box - Chasidim $200 - $600
Atara - Chasidim $200
Miscellaneous - $250

This comes out to around $3000.

Remember, this is a very poor society, a very large element of the Charedi population lives under the poverty line. To spend these sums of money on (impractical) wedding gifts seems ridiculous especially when you need to multiply this by 7 (for each of the kids).

There is a problem of priorities when people who can hardly put food on the table are suddenly spending thousands of dollars on jewelry.

All the numbers are from this week's (Teruma) Hebrew Mishpacha magazine.

More judicial tyranny

After the resignation of the Police Chief, the Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, appointed Yaakov Ganot as his replacement. Yaakov Ganot has a problematic past where he was indicted for bribery and although acquitted came out of the whole story looking very bad. Based on this, the good government groups immediately ran to the Supreme Court asking it to cancel the appointment. Everyone agrees that from a purely formal legal perspective the appointment is legal. If so, how can the Supreme Court get involved? The Supreme Court under Aharon Barak decided that everything is judiciable and that the Supreme Court can decide that the government's actions were unreasonable. There is no way to describe this except as judicial dictatorship. The elected government makes a decision based on their judgment of what is best and comes the Supreme Court and substitutes it's judgment and says that the decision was unreasonable. Why should the opinion of unelected judges hold more weight then the man elected and charged with the responsibility?

With regards to Yaakov Ganot, the Minister, Avi Dichter, whose responsibility it is to pick the Police Chief, decided that Ganot is the best candidate for the job. One of the fundamentals of representative democracy is that the people elect representatives who are supposed to use their judgment in running the government. Basically what the petitioners are saying is that based on our judgment we think he is a bad candidate and we would not have appointed him. The problem is that Avi Dichter was elected to apply his judgment as to what is best, if you don't like it run for the Knesset.

The only ray of light is that the mainstream newspapers have published a number of opinion pieces over the past few days (for example לגנות את בג"ץ גנות ) agreeing with my position here. Maybe now with the retirement of Aharon Barak we will see a return to sanity by the Supreme Court.

No more vacations in Miami Beach

I saw here that a group of Rabbonim have prohibited visiting (and kal vachomer living in) Miami Beach because of the pritzus. The question we need to ask is NYC that much better in the summer? Where does it stop?

Commentary on Jonthan Rosenblum's latest article

Jonathan Rosenblum wrote a very important article Look Before You Leap about the new Charedi "life insurance" plan in Israel. As he points out it is not a life insurance plan and is quite problematic. I would like to relate to the points that he raises at the end of the article.

He makes 3 observations:

Observation 1:
The first is the suspicion of experts. When the idea of a self-insuring group was first raised, the need to consult trained actuaries and lawyers with a background in insurance law should have been obvious.

There are a number of reasons for the Charedi population's suspicion of experts.
1. Charedi society in Israel denigrates all knowledge except for Torah. Secular education is kept to a bare minimum. Expert opinions on various subjects (such as the age of the world, evolution, and other areas that seem to contradict Torah) are made fun of. The overall atmosphere in the Charedi world is that everything is in Torah and that secular knowledge is unimportant and experts know nothing. When people in the Charedi world believe that Shlomo Hamelech could have invented cars, nuclear weapons etc., (see Could Shlomo Hamelech have invented cars?) then who needs secular experts? Given this atmosphere why would you think an expert opinion on this subject would be sought?
2. The average Charedi has no idea that there is such a thing as an actuary or that math can actually help here. When the extent of your mathematical education is arithmetic it is hard to relate to an actuary and understand that he actually has the tools to deal with these issues.

Observation 2:
The second is the tendency to believe that we have found a way to outsmart the odds – the financial equivalent of Ponce de Leon’s fountain of youth. Every year or so, we hear of avreichim who have lost all their chasanah money in some new Ponzi scheme that promised 30% returns, with no risk.

The premise is simply mistaken. He assumes that the average Charedi avreich understands what a Ponzi scheme is and that a 30% return is not realistic. While Jonathan Rosenblum knows this, I know this, and everyone reading this knows this, I don’t believe that the average Charedi avreich in Israel knows this. Someone who has grown up completely sheltered from secular society, doesn’t read newspapers, etc., has no secular education, has absolutely no idea how the economy works, has no reason to think that a 30% return is out of the ordinary. Based on what should they judge an investment? They have been give no tools to make a judgment about the worthiness of an investment and therefore it is not fair to hold them accountable.

Observation 3:
The sociology of our community is such that most families would not individually purchase relatively low-cost term life-insurance if they did not participate in this program. A group program sponsored by highly respected tzedakah organizations has a much better chance of providing some degree of protection to a large number of families.

Why can't we change the sociology? Why shouldn't the askanim go to the Gedolim, explain the problem, and offer a solution, low cost life insurance. If the gedolim would encourage everyone to buy life insurance wouldn't people listen? Why should we agree to a solution that is a poor second to real life insurance?

Rabbi Wein: The end of an era

Rabbi Wein has a fascinating article about Tu Bishvat where he states that we have reached the end of an era in Jewish history and today there is a tremendous lack of leadership in the Jewish world and that we need a new approach (within Torah).

Thus there is a great feeling of apathy and emptiness in the Jewish world today. In the realm of traditional Jewry, much of Religious Zionism has lost its steam; Chasidut has pretty much frozen and atrophied and become insular; the yeshiva world has become a place of narrow focus and elitism; the Mussar movement no longer exists; and modern Orthodoxy has not found its voice and parameters.

Therefore we are witness to the end of an era. The old is going and the new has not yet arrived. Hence the apathy and ennui, and the seeming lack of leadership that grips the Jewish world today. It is at such moments in Jewish history that a renewal of faith and idealism has always occurred.
...
The old tactics are no longer efficient for the solution of today’s problems. The answers are available within the framework of tradition and halacha as they were when Chasidut revolutionized Ashkenazic Jewry in the eighteenth century and Mussar created the yeshiva world of the late nineteenth century. We will not be able to live forever based on Holocaust memorials or Zionistic slogans that belie the reality of our situation here in the Land of Israel. We need a new way to govern here, to reform our politics and make it more representative.

The Torah should be freed from the chains of party politics that currently smother it.

I wholeheartedly agree with him, the current systems (Charedi or MO) are just not working.

What is the din if you kill 2 people בשוגג?

Take the following case, Reuven kills Shimon and Levi בשוגג, he goes to גלות and the כהן גדול dies. Does Reuven go free or does he have to go back to גלות again to wait for the new כהן גדול to die as punishment/kappara for the second killing?

This would seem to be a machlokes Rashi and the Baalei Hatosafos on Chumash. Rashi quotes the Medrash that Hashem makes sure that everyone is punished for their actions. The Medrash gives the following example. Reuven killed בשוגג and Shimon killed במזיד both without witnesses. Hashem will then arrange it so that Reuven kills Shimon in front of witnesses so that both get thier punishments. Reuven will go to גלות and Shimon will be killed. The Baalei Hatosafos ask on Rashi, Reuven is chayav to go to גלות twice once for the first killing with no witnesses and once for Shimon so how is he getting his punishment? We see clearly that they hold that each killing needs a separate גלות. Rashi on the other hand would seem to hold that one period of גלות can serve as the pubishment for a number of killings and therefore Reuven's one trip to גלות serves as teh complete punishment for both the killings.

The Brisker Rav on teaching Hashkafa

The following is quoted in the name of the Brisker Rav (הרב מבריסק Volume 3 p. 179) with respect to the proper way to teach hashkafa.

... it is prohibited to teach students a number of opinions while explaining each opinion and how they differ, rather you should only teach the correct hashkafa

This statement of the Brisker Rav is clearly one of the points where MO and UO disagree. The Charedi world today follows this Brisker Rav to a T, they only teach the correct hashkafa. The MO world is more open to other hashkafic approaches and at least acknowledges that they exist and are valid.

However, the question we need to ask is, how do we know what is the correct hashkafa? There is no shulchan aruch in hashkafa and in fact the Rambam writes in a number of places that there is no psak in hashkafa (see Is there psak in hashkafa?).

I heard the following from R' CY Goldvicht Rosh Yeshiva of KBY. He was a talmid of both the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav and a big baal machshava. He once asked the Chazon Ish why he only talks in halacha to his talimdim, why doesn't he talk machshava? The Chazon Ish answered that in Halacha there are boundaries. We have the words of the tannaim, then amoraim, then rishonim, acharaonim and the shulchan aruch. If we go off the path we will see it right away. In machshava, when we interpret a midrash, we are trying to say pshat in the words of the tannaim with no intervening generations. (see To be mechadesh in machashava for more on this)

This applies to hashkafa as well, there is no shulchan aruch and therefore it is not so simple to know what is the correct hashkafa and what is not.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe as a god

If this article is correct many Lubavitchers have literally started worshipping Avoda Zara.

Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky is a Moldova-born Chabad rabbi in Portland, Oregon, and a more amiable soul would be hard to find. Yet Sokolovsky maintains a blog he entitled "Rebbegod" and refers to Schneerson as "Rebbe-Almighty" among other adulatory sobriquets.
...
He concedes that there are few people like him who will openly call the Rebbe God. He claims, however, that many people believe it, but do not say so openly for fear of scaring people away from Chabad altogether.

"The Rebbe and God are not the same thing exactly, but I do not object to people thinking that they are the same thing."
...
Above all else? Above God? "As far as we are concerned, we can pray to the Rebbe and he can deal with God for us."
...
If one believes in God but leaves the Rebbe aside, is one still Jewish? "When the messiah reveals himself, those who didn't see him won't be saved, so you should work on..." He is interrupted. "Look, what you need to do is start with God and work your way up to the Rebbe."
...
How do they view the connection between Schneerson and God? "The Rebbe is not something different from God - the Rebbe is a part of God," says a British teenaged student.

Does this not 'idolize' Schneerson, in the literal sense? "We cannot connect to God directly - we need the Rebbe to take our prayers from here to there and to help us in this world. We are told by our rabbis that a great man is like God and the Rebbe was the greatest man ever. That is how we know he is the messiah, because how could life continue without him? No existence is possible without the Rebbe."

I don't understand why the frum world is standing by and not saying anything (except for Dr. David Berger). This is literally avoda zara.

Recently, I was in the airport and a Lubavitcher was putting tefillin on people. After they put on the tefillin he told them to say shma and then "יחי אדונינו ורבינו מלך המשיח", I was blown away. It is nice that Lubavitch go around with tefillin and put them on non-religious Jews, but making them say the יחי is a terrible thing.

2 opposing viewpoints on Charedi education

Today I read 2 different articles which are in stark opposition to what should be taught in the schools.

In shul this morning I saw a pamphlet decrying the secular education that girls get in Bais Yaakov.

It advocates a return to basics where girls would not learn computers, english, etc. where academic standards would be low and there would be no pressure. Here is a short quote:

... the expectations are unreasonably high, the workload is much too great, and the fattening up of the girls with knowledge and information that does not contribute towards building their character and personality. The girls are exposed to a heavy amount of information, math, English, science, and other subjects with a tremendous amount of pressure and competition. The expectations are unreasonable and they grow up as students of Judaism and and general knowledge (my emphasis).

Here are the kind of teachers that they want.



...oversight of the curriculum! checking of goals! We are not interested in teachers who have a good (secular) education for our daughters, we don't want teachers with degrees, rather we want teachers who know less (my emphasis), who are vessels full of fear of God who can influence their surroundings - meaning their students through their character, their davening, and most importantly by their actions serving as a personal example.

What is the result of this?


.. I have heard from mothers that their learned daughters when it comes to marraige relate to "Bnei Torah" who went up in fear of God and torah but are not worldly, disparagingly . They dismiss the possibility of building a house with them by saying if I marry him I should get money for becoming a shmatta. One mother quoted to me from her learned daughter "he is not interesting, he is small minded, he doesn't know what is going on in the world, he doesn't know geography, and worst of all he doesn't speak correctly (grammar errors) ..." and this is not the place to go on about what happens after marriage!

In short, the girls need to be protected from the outside world, not be so learned so that they can be wives for the Bnei Torah.

This position is untenable today for 1 simple reason, the girls need the education in order to be able to work and support their husbands who learn in kollel. You can't have it both ways.

The second article Are Our Children Too Worldly? takes a very different stance. His thesis is that our children are not worldly enough. This is a very worthwhile article to read. Here is 1 short quote which drives home the point:

We had put a number of practical questions about teaching to Reb Yaakov. To cite just two examples: whether and how to teach a) evolution, and b) the history of the Roman Catholic Church and Greek mythology. Reb Yaakov answered each of these questions with specific suggestions and advice
...
I’ll tell you. I’m often asked here in Monsey and especially regarding girls, “How much should we or can we shut them off to protect them from the culture at large?” I
always tell them, “You can’t! Unless, that is, you live in Squaretown.”
...
Not tell a young boy about evolution and then wait until at age 16 or 17 he reads in the New York Times, which he ‘knows’ prints only ‘verified facts,’ that the bones of a person 2 or 3 million years old were found!?? And the Times will print this without any mention of detracting opinions or controversy. What will this young man do? He’ll be completely lost! This would not happen if he had been taught at an earlier time in school by his rabbei’im and teachers
...
Reb Yaakov was talking about two kinds of knowledge to which he felt our talmidim should be exposed.
1. A knowledge and understanding of ideas that are widely accepted in the general culture, where a lack of understanding of which, can potentially harm our children and of which our children will perforce become aware.
2. A knowledge and understanding of those aspects of the general culture which are not only benign, but perhaps also important for our growth; language, history, science, social mores, etc.

This quote is quite sad, what kind of education is it when you can't ask serious questions.

There is an unwritten but whispered rule amongst Bais Yaakov girls that, “If you have some really serious questions, whatever you do, don’t ask your teacher, not unless you don’t care what it does to your shidduch chances!”

As you can imagine I agree with the second viewpoint and think that all of the efforts to create more and more walls are destined to fail and even backfire.

The right decision for the wrong reasons

PM Olmert actually made a good decision in deciding to appoint Daniel Friedman as the new Justice Minister. As I have written before, ( Judicial Tyranny in Israel, The Israeli Supreme Court) Israel is a judicial dictatorship where the judges and the AG have tremendous power. Professor Friedman is a staunch advocate of cutting back the power of the Supreme Court and changing the way judges are chosen which is a very good thing.

However, the decision was probably made for the wrong reasons, namely, to get back at the Justice system because it has made the PM's life miserable.

Haim Ramon -- Guilty

Good riddance.

What is really pathetic is that his whole defense was that it was consensual. He is a 50+ man, Justice Minister, a leader, one of the elite of Israeli society, and he is playing around with 21 year old girls? What kind of judgment does that show? What kind of morals is that even if it was consensual?

What is also disturbing is the reaction of Eli Yishai.
Reactions from Politicians
This is a prominent public and political leader, who has given so much to the Israeli political system. I am sure that Ramon will take advantage of his right to appeal

Eli Yishai is the leader of Shas a religious, Haredi party. Even if Ramon is "innocent" he doesn't deny what happened just the interpretation (consensual or not). What happened is not the mark of a leader and certainly not someone who should be praised by the religious community.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of Kadima.

There is 1 downside to this whole story. It strengthens the judicial dictatorship currently ruling the country. This decision strengthens AG Mazuz and makes him by far the most powerful person in the country (unelected of course). This greatly weakens the chance that something wil be done to break the judidical dictatorship.

Rabbi Elyashiv: Jews in Eilat must hold two Seder nights

This is from an articles in Globes
Religious and haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jews who travel to Antalya, Turkey, or Eilat for Passover must hold two Seder nights, the same as Jews in the Diaspora ever since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Bnei Brak local paper “Kol Ha’Ir” quotes Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv as saying. Eilat is included in the rabbi’s ruling because it is not part of the Land of Israel.
...
Eilat chief rabbi, Yosef Hecht says that the town’s residents and hotels hold only one Seder night.

If you want peace, prepare for war

This is what the left in Israel simply cannot understand. Professor Auman (the Nobel Prize winner) spoke recently:

I will allow myself to say a few unpopular, unfashionable words: our panicked longing for peace is working against us. It brings us farther away from peace, and endangers our very existence.
...
Roadmaps, capitulation, gestures, disengagements, convergences, deportations, and so forth do not bring peace. On the contrary, they bring war, just as we saw last summer. These things send a clear signal to our 'cousins' [the Arabs -ed.] that we are tired, that we no longer have spiritual strength, that we have no time, that we are calling for a time-out. They only whet their appetites. It only encourages them to pressure us more, to demand more, and not to give up on anything. These things stem from simple theoretical considerations and also from straight thinking. But it's not just theory: it has been proven and re-proven in the field over thousands of years. I returned today from a trip to India, where we heard about historical stories that illustrate the same. Capitulations bring about war; determination and readiness bring about peace.

Kiddush Hachodesh

In this weeks parsha we have the first mitzva given to the Jewish people, החדש הזה לכם the mitzva of קידוש החדש. This meant that Rosh Chodesh was determined by the testimony of the witnesses in front of the בית דין and that it was their determination and pronouncement that actually made it Rosh Chodesh. At some point about 1800 years ago this stopped and since then we have been using a fixed calendar. The obvious question is how does this work?

The Rambam states both in the Sefer Hamitzvos and the Mishna Torah that there are 2 systems in halacha of determining when Rosh Chodesh is.
1.קידוש החדש
2.A הלכה למשה מסיני of חשבון (calculation, e.g. the calender).

According to the Rambam when קידוש החדש stopped about 1800 years ago, the הלכה למשה מסיני of the calendar kicked in.

The Rambam writes that nowadays what is מקדש is the ניהוג of ראש חדש by the Jews in Israel. Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (5,13)
זה שאנו מחשבין בזמן הזה כל אחד ואחד בעירו ואומרין שראש חודש יום פלוני, ויום טוב ביום פלוני--לא בחשבון שלנו אנו קובעין ולא עליו אנו סומכין, שאין מעברין שנים וקובעין חודשים בחוצה לארץ; ואין אנו סומכין, אלא על חשבון בני ארץ ישראל וקביעתם. וזה שאנו מחשבין, לגלות הדבר בלבד: כיון שאנו יודעין שעל חשבון זה הן סומכין, אנו מחשבין לידע יום שקבעו בו בני ארץ ישראל איזה יום הוא; ובקביעת בני ארץ ישראל אותו הוא שיהיה ראש חודש או יום טוב, לא מפני חשבון שאנו מחשבין.

RYBS explains the Rambam as follows. One of the jobs of the Sanhedrin is to represent the Jewish nation (this is for example why real semicha can only be given in Israel even thoug it is clearly not a מצוה התלויה בארץ, based on this as well he explains a contradiction in the Rambam between Hilchos Terumos and Hilchos Melachim in the definition of כיבוש רבים and more). קידוש החדש is really a mitzva on all of the Jewish nation. However, all of the Jewish people cannot do קידוש החדש, therefore the Sanhedrin does it as our representative. However, when we switch over to the הלכה למשה מסיני of חשבון, the mitzva reverts back to the Jewish nation and it is the ניהוג of the Jewish nation that is what is actually מקדש, and because the Jewish people as a nation only exists in Israel it is the קביעות of the Jews living in Israel which is what is actually מקדש the חדש.

This Rambam is used to answer the question of why the Rambam left out the mitzva of ישוב הארץ?

Some answer that we see from this Rambam that ישוב הארץ is not just a regular mitzva, the whole calendar depends on Jews living in Israel and therefore it is a mitzva כללית and according to the Rambam's principles is not listed.

In any case, we see the tremendous emphasis the Rambam placed on living in Israel.

The Ramban disagrees with the Rambam and claims that he never heard of such a הלכה למשה מסיני, rather, he explains that the calendar is really based on the regular halacha of קידוש החדש. The chachamim at that time got together and were actually מקדש all the future ראשי חדשים, and they left us a calendar which tells us what days they were מקדש.

How did the חרטומים turn water into blood?

The answer would seem to be that magic really worked in those days. I think we all understand that magic does not work today. The question is why did it stop working?

The answer is that to enable free choice Hashem has to create balance in the world. In a world where there is נבואה there needs to be a counterbalancing force, otherwise belief in Hashem would be coerced. Therefore, magic worked and served as teh counterbalance to נבואה.

We find this idea expressed in a number of other places as well.

The Gemara in Shabbos comments that כפה עליהם הר כגיגת by Matan Torah. The obvious question is didn't they say נעשה ונשמע, meaning that they excepted the Torah willingly? The Meshech Chochma answers that the Gemara is meant to be taken allegorically. The revelation when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, krias yam suf, and matan torah was so great that it was as if Hashem forced them to accept the Torah. The revelation was so great that they could not say no, Hashem's presence in the world and Torah's importance were self understood like the sun is shining. They understood that if they did not accept the Torah the world would be destroyed, not as a threat but as a fact, as reality. In other words, their free choice was taken away by the tremendous revelation.

The Anshei Knesses Hagedola asked Hashem to be mevatel the yetzer hara for avoda zara at the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash and Hashem agreed. However, as a consequence, נבואה ended as well. נבואה can not exist in the world without a counterbalancing force. Otherwise people will lose their בחירה חפשית.

Likewise, magic cannot exist without a counterbalancing force like נבואה and miracles. Without the counterbalance the pendulum will swing too far away from belief in Hashem. Since we don't have these counterbalancing forces magic can't work today.

This idea also explains how/why Hashem hardened Pharoah's heart. The revelation of the makos took away his free choice, the hardening of his heart restored that balance. Hashem didn't take away his בחירה חפשית by hardening his heart, rather he restored it. By taking the makos out of the equation he gave Pharoah free choice whether to release Bnei Yisrael or not.

1 down 2 to go

The Chief of Staff Dan Chalutz resigned last night because of his performance in the Lebanon war. Better late then never. It is clear that he did an awful job in the war and needed to go. Hopefully his other 2 partners Peretz and Olmert will also go soon.

The resignation of Chalutz casts a very bad light on Sharon (and Mofaz) who appointed him. It is clear that he was appointed for 1 reason only, he would follow orders and execute the disengagement. As we look back it is becoming crystal clear that Sharon was one of the worst PM's ever and that just about every major decision that he made was a mistake.

The Slifkin affair erupts in RBS

R' Slifkin recently started giving shiurim at the shul he davens in about topics related to the animal kingdom (not science and torah). The "Rav Av Beis Din of RBS", R' Perlstein recently publicized an anti-Slifkin letter denouncing these shiurim.


The letter is written in flowery and rabbinic Hebrew and is quite hard to literally translate. Here is my attempt at a translation:

Regarding what you asked about Natan Slifkin, it is definitely prohibited to participate in the shiurim of one who distorts and cuts up the words of Chazal. Woe to the ears of one who hears such nonsense, especially since all the Great Sages in both Israel and America have declared that it is prohibited to read his books and to listen to his shiurim, and it has already been publicized many times, who would not be careful with his soul and keep their distance from him. Give it some thought, when expert doctors warn against eating something specific because of a small possible danger, who would dare eat it, and this all the more so that the Great Sages said with certainty that his writings are prohibited and his words are suspected of containing heresy, who would want to lose his world (to come), destroy his portion and abandon the source of pure spring water (e.g. Torah), and drink from broken wells, at a time when the torch that was given to Moshe is passed through the generations via our sages, who kill themselves in the tents of torah and guard the holy watch, they are the same ones who said not to touch (Slifkin's works) therefore I say faithfully, (quote from a pasuk) people should listen to shiurim only from those who are confirmed in Torah and fear of Heaven and the words of chazal are embedded in their hearts like nails. With this you will be blessed with children and grandchildren learning torah and doing mitzvos from the purity of their heart as it has been passed on from generation to generation.

We should continue to go with the light of the torch of the Great Sages and blessed are we that the Torah was given to his guards.

Rafi Goldmier published a response from R' Malinowitz who is the Rav of the shul that R' Slifkin davens in and is the general editor of the Artscroll gemaras.

The response is quite interesting, R' Malinowitz accuses someone of forging the letter as he says that the letter is so inaccurate that it could not possibly have been written by R' Perlstein. For a full translation see And the Slifkin Saga Continues...

Moshe not nursing from a מצרית

The pasuk in last week's parsha (Shemos) says they brought a nursing woman from the Jews. The Medrash brought down by Rashi comments that Moshe refused to nurse from an Egyptian woman because he was going to grow up and be a Navi so how could he eat non-kosher food. In other words, the non-kosher food would have affected his soul and made it impossible for him to be the Navi that he became.

The Gra comments that this Medrash is the source of the din in Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah Siman 81 that although Jewish baby is allowed to have a non-Jewish wet nurse, the Shulchan Aruch says that you shouldn't do it because the non-kosher food will harm the baby spiritually. Likewise the Rama there states that a Jewish woman who needs to eat non-kosher food for health reasons should not nurse her baby because the non-kosher will harm him.

We see from the above, that non-kosher is intrinsically harmful for a person's soul even if they eat it b'heter.

The Ran in his Drashos says this explicitly. In the 11th drasha he discusses why Halacha is decided by Chachamim and not Neviim. He asks the following question. He says that if a Chacham makes a mistake and permits a forbidden food it is like a doctor who makes a mistake and gives a patient poison instead of medicine. In both cases the person is harmed. If so, why don't we have Neviim decide halacha with nevua and there would be no mistakes? He answers that nevua is not always available (see the drasha for more details). He then explains that even though eating non-kosher food is harmful the mitzva of listening to Chachamim may counterbalance the harmful effects. In any case, we see clearly from the Ran that non-kosher is objectively poison and harmful even if you eat it b'heter.

The Abarbanel (Devarim 17,4) disagress with the Ran. He holds that a person is never harmed by following the Chachamim. If it is mutar then it cannot be harmful. It would seem that the Abarbanel holds that non-kosher is not objectively harmful, rather it is harmful because it is prohibited. If for you there is no prohibition then it is not harmful.

Rashi in Chullin(5a) seems to agree with the Abarbanel. The gemara there is discussing whether a mumar l'avoda zara can do shechita. The gemara tries to bring a proof from Eliyahu Hanavi. At 1 point Hashem tells Eliyahu to go live by himself and the Orvim (birds) brought him meat to eat from Achav's place and (almost)everyone in Achav's palace worshipped Avoda Zara. How could Eliyahu eat the meat if meat slaughtered by a mumar is not kosher? It must be that a mumar is allowed to slaughter. The Gemara answers that על פי דיבור שאני. Rashi explains that Hashem permitted him to eat non-kosher meat (a Navi is allowed to violate the Torah based on his nevua). The obvious question is how could Eliyahu Hanavi eat non-kosher food if it is spiritually harmful? It didn't seem to affect him as he continued being a Navi. The answer would seem to be like the Abarbanel that because he ate it b'heter it was not spiritually harmful.

In fact, the Ritva in Chullin as well as the Maharsha understand the gemara's answer differently. They understand that the Gemara answered that Eliyahu Hanavi knew b'nevua that the meat was kosher, that it had been slaughtered by Ovadia who did not worship Avoda Zara. According to them, Eliyahu Hanavi did not end up eating non-kosher food.

To sum up, we have a major dispute whether non-kosher food is objectively harmful to a person (even if he eats it b'heter like a nursing baby) or not.

R' Moshe (Orach Chaim 2:88) quotes a teshuva of the Chasam Sofer where he discusses a handicapped girl in the following situation. If she stayed at home she would never develop and remain an ayno bar daas. However, if the parents sent her to a special school they claimed that she would reach the potential of a 13-14 year old. However, the school was in a non-Jewish area and there was no possibility of providing kosher food. The Chassam Sofer said that al pi din it is muttar, however he recommends against sending her for the following reason. If they send her she will become a bar daas and be chayav in mitzvos. However, the non-kosher food will affect her lev and she will probably violate torah and mitzvos and therefore it is better for her to remain an ayno bar daas.

We see clearly that this idea that any non-kosher food is metamtem halev, even if eaten b'heter (the girl was a ketan and an ayno bar daas so there was no issur), is brought down l'halacha.

The fallout from the El Al boycott

The Charedi press had some interesting points over the weekend.

In Mishpacha (Hebrew), one of the writers wrote that the public is still waiting for an explanation of why El Al was boycotted, but Egged (which runs buses on Shabbos), Israel Railways, Israir , etc. are not boycotted.

They also pointed out that the agreement is secret and no one really knows what exactly it says.

In Hamodia, they made the point that El Al may have made a lot of money from the boycott as they got all the cancellation fees and were able to sell cheap tickets at higher last minute prices.

Finally, The Yeshiva World (Israir: Sefer Torah update) has the following item about Israir

Radio Kol Chai has reported that a compromise has been worked out regarding the Sefer Torah on the Israir 767 that flies to Paris and London on Shabbos when not doing the transatlantic run. The Sefer Torah will now be removed from the aircraft and left with the Ben Gurion Airport Rabbi; in the airport shul aron kodesh for the weekends. It’s interesting to note that Israir did not blink, of course, about its 27+ scheduled flights every Shabbos.

More news from our wonderful Prime Minister

Prime Minister: Unilateralism policy has been a failure, remember, Olmert a year ago was so inspired by the disengagement that he was going to do it again, that was his main campaign plank. In fact, if the war in Lebanon had not occurred he may have gone ahead with it.

What does this say about the government? Why did he think that unilateral withdrawals would work? In essence, Rabin, Barak, Sharon, and Olmert are all experimenting with our lives at stake.

Olmert has now run away to China to get some applause and get away from from his problems in Israel. When he comes back it looks like he will be facing a criminal probe regarding his conduct in the Bank Leumi sale. In addition, the Jerusalem Post reports State to open criminal probe on Olmert that there are at least 2 other examinations involving criminal allegations against Olmert.

One has to do with his purchase of a private home on Cremieux Street in Jerusalem's German Colony. He is suspected of having bought the home for hundreds of thousands of dollars below the market price. In turn, he allegedly promised to use his influence at city hall, where he had served as mayor, to increase the contractor's building rights.

Another case involves allegations that Olmert made political appointments in the Small Businesses Authority when he served as Minister of Industry and Commerce under prime minister Ariel Sharon.

When there is smoke there is usually fire. There is no doubt in my mind that Olmert is very corrupt and that these are just the tip of the iceberg. It is amazing how such a loser was elected and not surprising that 77% of the people think he is doing a bad job and that 60% believe that Olmert is corrupt ( Some fascinating poll numbers about Olmert).

Election reform in Israel

The Megidor commission was appointed by the President 2 years ago to look into how the system of government in Israel could be changed for the better. They released their findings this week. I posted about this ( The electoral system in Israel is broken ...) a while ago and their main recommendation is along the lines of what I posted. The main points were:

1. Half the Knesset (60 MK's) whould be elected in regional elections in 17 districts each district sending 2-5 MK's to the Knesset


2. The other 60 MKs will be elected by proportional representation, according to the total number of votes that each party wins in the regional elections.


3. The number if ministers is capped at 18


4. Except for the prime minister and his deputy, all other MKs chosen for the cabinet will have to resign their Knesset seats

In yesterday's Yated Neeman there were a number of articles blasting the proposal and claiming that it will take away the Charedi representation in the Knesset. While they are probably right that the number of Charedi MK's will go down, it does not necessarily mean that Charedi interests will not be represented. In the US, there are no Charedi Senators or Representatives and yet, the Charedi population's interests are looked after. What this system will mean is that the modus operandi will need to change. The Charedi population willl need to work through non-Charedi representatives. Imagine a district with a sizable Charedi population (20%). Whoever would represent that district would need to take the Charedim into account, their support could swing the election. We might actually get a chiloni representing Charedi interests in the Knesset and vice versa. It would create a lot more understanding and a lot less posturing.

Some fascinating poll numbers about Olmert

A poll was released yesterday in Israel about Prime Minister Olmert. The numbers are pretty bad (or good depending on how you look at it).

Here are some of the results:

77% think he is doing a bad job
69% believe that his leadership skills are lacking
80%!!! believe that the decision to go to war with Lebanon was not thought out and did not take all the factors into consideration
70% believe that the way he makes decisions is bad
60% believe that Olmert is corrupt
62% believe that he cannot stand up to pressure

If elections were held today the results would be:

Likud 20 seats
Kadima 15 seats
Labor (under Peretz's leadership) 15 seats

These poll results are why Olmert and Peretz will do absolutely anything to avoid new elections.

Not just El Al, the railroad is next

Below is a picture of a pamphlet being given out decrying the chillul shabbos of the railroad in Israel.

Is there a חיוב כיבוד אב ואם for Grandparents?

See this post Is there a חיוב כיבוד אב ואם for Grandparents? from last year for a fascinating discussion about this issue based on a Rashi in this weeks parsha.

אני יוסף העוד אבי חי What was the תוכחה?

Rashi quotes the medrash that this was a great תוכחה. What exactly was the תוכחה? Last year I posted the Beis Halevi's very relevant pshat ( What was Yosef asking?").

This week I heard a different pshat in the name of the Chofetz Chaim. He explained that the simple fact that Yosef revealed himself was the Tochacha. As soon as the brothers saw Yosef as the King they realized without Yosef saying or doing anything that their whole outlook had been wrong and mistaken. The same thing applies to us when we go up to heaven. The simple fact that we see that Hashem really exists will be the greatest Tochacha. The only way a person can do an aveira is to deny the existence of Hashem on some level. If they really felt Hashem's presence there would be no way to do an aveira. Therefore the simple act of revealing himself will be the tochacha.

How to stop Charedim from burning garbage bins

I read in one of the free newspapers, a novel idea of how to stop the garbage bin burnings in Charedi neighborhoods. Put pesukim with the shem of Hashem on the bins, because no one would chas v'shalom commit the aveira of destroying Hashem's name.

This is so laughable it is pathetic. Burning the bins is clearly an issur of gezela (stealing) yet for some reason that doesn't stop the burners. And yet, the issur of destroying the shem Hashem will deter people, it shows how badly out of whack our priorities are.

The laining on Chanuka in chu"l and EY

I have lived in EY for a number of years and to my embarrassment until this year had not even realized that the laining here on Chanuka in EY is different then in chutz laaretz.

On Chanuka we read the parsha of the נשיאים, every day the נשיא for that day. Each נשיא is 6 pesukim and we have 3 aliyas. That means we are 3 pesukim short. There is a machlokes the Mechaber and the Rama how we remedy the situation. The Mechaber writes that we simply read over that day. In other words, tomorrow morning Kohen will read the first 3 pesukim of the 4th נשיא, Levi will read the next 3, and the third aliya simply repeats all 6 pesukim of the 4th נשיא. The Rama on the other hand says, that for the third aliya you simply read the next day. In other words, tomorrow morning Kohen will read the first 3 pesukim of the 4th נשיא, Levi will read the next 3, and the third aliya reads the 5th נשיא. In chu"l the minhag is like the Rama and in EY the minhag is like the mechaber.

The Gra points out that this לשיטתם by chol hamoed succos. On chol hamoed succos the problem is greater, each day is only 3 pesukim and there are 4 aliyos. According to the Mechaber in chu"l kohen and levi read the 2 days of sefeka d'yoma and then the next 2 aliyas simply repeat them. The Rama writes that שלישי reads the next day and רביעי goes back on the first 2 days. In EY the macheaber writes that we simply repeat the same thing 4 times. Here also the minhag in EY is like the mechaber.

The machlokes would seem to be does the next day have any connection to today and does it make sense to read it.

Interestingly enough the Ashkenazim in EY are noheg like the Mechaber both on Succos and on Chanuka.

When to daven mincha this Friday?

What is different about this Friday? This Friday we will light the first candle of Chanuka. Usually on Friday, most people light Shabbos candles and then they go to daven Mincha. The minhag on Shabbos Chanuka is that we light Chanuka candles before Shabbos candles (this needs a post by itself to explain why). Davening mincha after lighting Chanuka candles is problematic for 2 reasons:
1. The Chida writes that since Chanuka candles are זכר למקדש, they should be lit after Mincha because in the Beis Hamikdash the menora was lit only after the תמיד של בין הערבים. Nowadays, Mincha is instead of the תמיד.
2. There is a machlokes what is the nature of the mitzvah of lighting candles on Chanuka? Is it a mitzva of לילה? Or is it a mitzva of פרסומי ניסא? According to some Rishonim (the Rashba and others) it is a mitzva of night (see What is the nature of the mitzvah of lighting candles on Chanukka? for a lengthy explanation of the machlokes). Based on this, when we light before sunset on Friday night, it is the regular din that you can do mitzva's of night starting from plag hamincha. If so, when we light we are designating the time from plag hamincha until shkia, night and therefore it is inappropriate to daven mincha then (this is similar to the early Shabbos problem of davening Mincha and Maariv between plag and shkia).

Based on these 2 reasons, the minhag in many places has become to daven Mincha this Friday early (mincha gedola time) so that Chanuka candles will be lit after mincha.

בחירה חפשית: Can I kill an innocent person?

Imagine 2 people Reuven and Shimon. Last Rosh Hashana Shimon was granted life for the year. Now Reuven and Shimon get into an argument and Reuven wants to kill Shimon. Can he kill him? On one hand we have the idea of בחירה חפשית on the other the idea of hashgocha pratis. In this week's parsha (וישב) a number of mefarshim address this question.

When the brothers are planning on killing Yosef, Reuven saves him by suggesting throwing him into the pit. The mefarshim ask what did Reuven accomplish, the pit was very dangerous (full of snakes, etc.), even life threatening. The אור החיים and the אלשיך both answer as follows. A person has בחירה חפשית and therefore the brothers could kill Yosef even if he was not supposed to die. However, animals since they have no בחירה חפשית cannot kill someone if he is not supposed to die. In other words, בחירה חפשית trumps hashgocha pratis. The Netziv gives this answer as well, however he qualifies it by saying that this only applies to someone who is not a צדיק גמור, but a צדיק גמור cannot be harmed even through בחירה חפשית.

The truth is that this should not be surprising. Most (if not all) the Rishonim limit Hashgacha Pratis. The Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 169, writes:

There are sects among mankind who maintain that Divine providence controls all the matters of this world… that when a leaf falls from a tree, He decreed that it would fall…. This approach is far-removed from the intellect.

Both the Rambam and the Ramban based hashgacha pratis on a person's closeness to hashem.

Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9)writes:

Divine Providence is manifest for each Jew according to his spiritual level as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is proportional to their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence for the prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals... This concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level is one of foundations of Judaism...

Today, this idea (that the Chinuch explicitly rejects) of hashgacha pratis on everything has taken hold. There is no question that it is a very calming thought. You don't have to worry about chance occurrences affecting you, everything is directly from Hashem. However, this was not the view of the overwhelming majority of teh Rishonim.

Neturei Karta now Holocaust deniers as well?

Neturei Karta members showed up in Teheran at Iran's holocaust denial conference. Here is their excus for being there ("Neturei Karta: Iranians making logical claim)":
Neturei Karta's justification for attending the Holocaust denial conference is that they feel the need and the right "to declare on every Jewish stage that the Zionists don't represent the Jewish people, don't belong to the Jewish people, and don't belong to the Holy Land at all."
...
Neturei Karta's justification for attending the Holocaust denial conference is that they feel the need and the right "to declare on every Jewish stage that the Zionists don't represent the Jewish people, don't belong to the Jewish people, and don't belong to the Holy Land at all."

Rav Lau a Holocaust survivor expressed his outrage in a sentiment I think that we can all agree with:
According to Lau, "This is something not tolerated by the intellect, something that is complete insanity, truly chaos. If it could be that any Jew, for whatever reason, who is capable of shaking the hand of a Holocaust denier in a generation when there are still people with numbers tattooed on their arms among us – this is insanity that not only has no justification, but also no explanation."

As a Holocaust survivor, Lau wants to remind people: "What is the meaning of the number on the arm? The meaning is that the Nazis and their collaborators erased the humanity in people and turned us into numbers. I, for instance, wasn't Israel Lau, not even Lulek, my Polish nickname. I was Buchenwald prisoner number 117030, while I was still 7 and a half years old."

How the Neturei Karta can associate with people who deny the Holocaust is beyond me.

Why did the בני יעקב ask the people of שכם to convert?

I saw an amazingly relevant פשט on this. The brothers realized that if they killed a whole city of גוים the rest of the world would be outraged and would not leave them alone. However, they realized that if the people of שכם converted they could then kill them with impunity as they would be killing Jews and no in the world cares when Jews are killed.

When I first heard this I thought that it was a modern pshetl, but then I saw it is said in the name of R' Yonason Eyebeshutz. It is amazing that this basic truth has not changed in the past 250 years.

What does אחרון mean in Biblical Hebrew? Updated 12/10

In modern hebrew it means last. Does it also mean last in Biblical Hebrew?

RHS mentioned the following. Someone once asked the Tosfos Yom Tov how do we believe that there is going to be a third Beis Hamikdash, after all the pasuk in חגי talking about the Second Beis Hamikdash states: גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן הראשון, the pasuk states that the second Beis Hamikdash is the אחרון, the last one?

He answered based on a pasuk on this week's parsha (וישלח). The pasuk says: וישם את השפחות ואת ילדיהן ראשונה ואת לאה וילדיה אחרונים ואת רחל ואת יוסף אחרונים

Leah and her children were second in line followed by Rachel and yet the pasuk says with regards to Leah and her children, אחרונים and then the pasuk says Rachel and Yosef אחרונים. We see clearly that אחרון does not mean last but rather just means after. Therefore the Tosfos Yom Tov said, that is what the pasuk in חגי means as well, אחרון does not mean last but rather means the one after the first.

Update

The Torah Temima quotes the Tosfos Yom Tov (דמאי ז:ג) on that pasuk. The Tosfos Yom Tov is explaining the use of the word אחרון in Mishnaic Hebrew, there also it means after and not last.

עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי

Rashi comments based on the medrash that גרתי = תרי"ג and therefore Yaakov was saying to Esav, even though I lived in Lavan's house I kept all 613 mitzvos.

However, there is an obvious question here. No one can actually keep all 613 mitzvos. Some mitzvos are just for Cohanim, some are just for the Cohen Gadol, some just for the King, some just in Israel, etc. Therefore, how could Yaakov say he kept all 613 mitzvos? Additionally he clearly didn't keep all 613 mitzvos because he married 2 sisters.

There are a number of answers I will mention 2.

1. Yaakov was referring to those mitzvos that are שקולה כנגד כל המצות, like talmud torah, tzitzis, etc. He meant that he kept those mitzvos and therefore it was as if he had kept all 613.
2. By the ברית בין הבתרים Avraham asks Hashem based on what will his children be זוכה? Hashem answered בזכות הקרבנות. Avraham then asked, what about when there is no Beis Hamikdash and no קרבנות? Hashem answered that if we say (learn) the קרבנות it is considered as if we were מקריב them. This is why we daven musaf on Shabbos and Yom Tov and mention the Musafim, ונשלמה פרים שפתינו.

As an aside, based on this RHS says that if you come late to shul it is better to say all of קרבנות and skip in פסוקי דזמרא, then skip קרבנות because קרבנות is a קיום דאורייתא while פסוקי דזמרא is just a nice thing.

Some acharonim say that this is not just a din by קרבנות but it applies to other parts of Torah as well. Whatever mitzva you personally cannot fulfill, if you learn the dinim of the mitzva it is as if you fulfilled the mitzva. Based on this, Yaakov was telling Esav that whatever mitzvos he could keep he kept, all the rest he learned the dinim and it was as if he kept them as well.

Charedi boycott of El Al and the Chiloni response

Because of the strike last week in Israel, El Al had a number of flights that flew on shabbos. Because of this the Charedi world is threatening a boycott.

I support this. El Al is a business and if they want the Charedi public's money they have to take care of them as customers. El Al understood the consequences of flying on Shabbos and now they have to deal with it. This is a perfectly legitimate consumer decision and has nothing to do with religious coercion.

Ynet published an article about this and the talkbacks to the article are very scary for their absolute hatred of the Charedi public, and complete ignorance and stupidity. Here are some of their silly claims:
1. Continental, Lufthansa, etc. fly on shabbos so how are they different from El Al? Somehow they can't understand that a goy is allowed to work on Shabbos and a Jew is not.
2. On Continental, Lufthansa, etc. the charedim will have no food to eat.
The chilonim haven't figured out that on just about any airline in the world I can get kosher food.
3. All the chilonim are now going to fly on El Al.
This is so ridiculous it is funny. The chiloni public will forget about this tomorrow and will fly on whatever airline gives them the best price.
4. This is religious coercion
Not at all. This is a group of consumers telling a company that they will only do business with them on their terms, take it or leave it. This is market economics at it's best.
5. No other airline wants the Charedi public
Given that the Charedi public makes up a large percentage of the traffic between Tel Aviv and NY there will be plenty of airlines who will try to accomodate the Charedi population to capture this market. Israir is already talking about signing an agreement not to fly on Shabbos.

There is 1 common thread on most of the talkbacks, hate for the Charedi public, especially the way they are perceived to act while flying. The impression that the chiloni public gets from the Charedi traveler on El Al is a very negative one. People are constantly walking around blocking the aisles and making noise, the minyan blocks the aisles and the bathrooms etc. While this also may be biased, there is definitely some truth to this and the Charedi public needs to realize when traveling, that to the average chiloni they represent Torah Judaism and therefore they need to act in a fashion that creates a kiddush hashem and not a chillul hashem.

The interesting story of Dina and Yosef

In last week's parsha (ויצא) we have the story of the birth of Dina. Rashi there comments (based on the Medrash) that Leah understood that she was pregnant with a boy and if she had another boy then Rachel would only have 1 of the shevatim, therefore she davened and Hashem made a miracle and turned the baby into a girl, Dina.

There are a number of problems with this Rashi as well as with the whole story of Dina.

In Parshas ויגש, the Torah writes when it lists the descendents of Yaakov, ואת דינה בתו. Rashi comments (based on the Gemara in Nidda) that we see that the Torah calls Dina the daughter of Yaakov to show us that the father is responsible for having a daughter. The Maharsha there asks, what is the proof from Dina, after all Dina started off as a boy (per the medrash in ויצא) and therefore how can any proof be brought from Dina?

Another problem that comes up in Parshas Vayigash is that Rashi comments (based on the medrash) on the pasuk ושאול בן הכנענית, that after what happened with Shechem, Dina made Shimon promise to marry her. The obvious question is how could Shimon marry Dina, his full sister? Even though there is a machlokes whether the shevatim had the status of klal yisrael and had to keep all the mitzvos, they certaionly had to keep the 7 mitzvos of בני נח, and one of those is arayos which prohibits them to marry their sister from their mother.

Both the Tur and the Maharsha answer based on the תרגום יונתן in ויצא. The תרגום יונתן explains the birth of Dina as follows. Both Leah and Rachel were pregnant, Leah was pregnant with Yosef and Rachel with Dina and miraculously the fetuses were switched. Therefore, Dina was always a girl and the proof from the pasuk (that the man is responsible for girls) is fine because Yaakov caused Dina to be a girl. Also, since Yosef and Dina were switched, על פי הלכה Leah was not Dina's mother, rather Rachel was and a בן נח is allowed to marry his sister from his father.

This Tur however, raises another question, what about Yosef? Who על פי הלכה is considered to be his mother? If it is Leah, then what good was the נס? Rachel still ended up with only 1 of the shevatim. Therefore we need to differentiate and say that both Dina and Yosef were Rachel's children.

When we consider how the halacha determines who the the mother of a baby is there are 3 possible alternatives:
1. Whoever conceives the child
2. Wherever the fetus is 40 days after conception (as until then it is considered מיא בעלמא and for example you are allowed to daven for the sex of the child)
3. Whoever gives birth

We see that the Tur cannot hold from 1 because even though Yosef was conceived by Leah he is considered Rachel's son. The Tur cannot hold from 3 either as the Tur holds that Dina was considered Rachel's daughter even though Leah gave birth to her. It would seem that the Tur holds like option 2.

With this we can say the following about Yosef. Leah was pregnant with Yosef but it was before 40 days while Rachel was pregnant with Dina and it was after 40 days. Therefore when they switched Yosef was less then 40 days so he was considered Rachel's son as on day 40 he was in Rachel's womb, while Dina had already passed day 40 in Rachel's womb so she was considered Rachel's daughter even though Leah gave birth to her.

It turns out according to the Tur that Rachel was the mother of both Dina and Yosef.

This Tur clearly has ramifications l'halacha with regards to surrogate mothers etc.

Yaakov kissing Rachel

In this weeks parsha the first thing Yaakov does when he meets Rachel is kiss her and start to cry. This has always bothered me. Why did Yaakov kiss Rachel? What is the Torah trying to teach us? How could he do that?

Here is what I found in the Mefrashim on Chumash, and quite frankly these interpretations raise more questions then they answer.

The Medrash Rabba writes that Yaakov cried because the people around suspected him of pritzus for kissing Rachel. The seforno quotes this medrash and adds that this is the reason why Yaakov right away told Rachel that he was related to her so that she too wouldn't be choshed him of pritzus. The Netziv says a similar pshat on his own, he says that Yaakov cried to show Rachel that the kiss was because she was his relative and was not for lustful purposes. The question still remains why did he do it when it was an act that could clearly be badly misinterpreted?


Rabbenu Bachya offers 2 explanations, either Rachel was under 3 or that he kissed her hand or forehead and not her lips. This is clearly against the medrash which states that his action was misinterpreted as one of pritzus. In any case, where does R' Bachya get this idea that she was under 3?

What is most interesting is that in today's Charedi society this could never happen. Men and women mingling and talking at the well??? There would be a mehadrin well with different times for men and women or 2 separate mehadrin wells 1 for men and 1 for women so that they chas v'shalom shouldn't mingle.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

Halutz: Gov't did not consult IDF sufficiently on truce decision

This headline in Haaretz says it all. The government decided on a ceasefire without taking into account many of the security aspects. The Prime Minister on a whim made this important decision. Of course this shouldn't surprise anyone because the disengagement plan was done in the same way. Sharon and Dov Weisglass dreamed up the plan and it was basically presented as a fait accompli to the army.

Olmert is negotiating with himself ...

you can only lose doing that. It is amazing but the leaders of Israel have never learned the most fundamental tactic of negotiation, never negotiate against yourself (just google never negotiate against yourself and you will see what I mean). When you negotiate against yourself you put yourself in a weak position and make concessions without getting anything in return. Olmert's speech today was a classic case of this. He made all kinds of concessions getting nothing in return. Olmert's concession today are now the starting point for any negotiation where Olmert will have to make more concessions.

וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה

Could it be that Yaakov Avinu hated Leah? R' Baruch Simon quoted from the Rebbe R' Simcha Bunim the following explanation which is very relevant today. Leah hated herself. She thought that she was not worthy to be married to Yaakov. The pasuk is describing her feelings not the way Yaakov felt about her. Hashem gave her children to help her improve her self esteem.

Hezbollah rearmed

Olmert and Tzipi Livni listed as one of the main accomplishments of the war that the international community in the form of UNIFIL was going to stop Hezbollah from rearming. Olmert said "A strong international force...is organizing to... assist in stopping the Hezbullah."

The facts on the ground today say otherwise. Time magazine is reporting that Hizbullah has re-armed to pre-war levels. The magazine confirmed numerous media reports since the United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolution last August that Iran and Syria have been re-rearming Hizbullah. So much for the major accomplishment of the war.

In other words, the situation is worse then it was before the war, Hezbollah has the same number of rockets, the French are threatening to fire on the IAF over Lebanon, and the political situation in Lebanon is going from bad to worse. But, remember according to Olmert, Peretz, Livni and Halutz, we won the war.

Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me

I guess no one in the Israeli government has ever heard this famous saying. The latest "ceasefire agreement" with the PA has already entered Charlie Brown territory. Since Oslo how many times have we heard the same thing, a ceasefire, this time it is going to work. It is pathetic how people are willing to jump at anything.

It is clear that the Palestinians called for the ceasefire for 1 reason, to gain time to arm themselves for the next phase. They saw what happened in Lebanon and they want to do the same thing in Gaza. They understand that it was the 6 years of quiet that enabled Hezbollah to prepare for the war, they are going to do the same. Does anyone really believe that the arms smuggling is going to stop? Who is going to enforce it? It is patently clear that the Palestinians will use this time to arm and organize themselves for the next round.

The current government is latching on to this because the alternative, reconquering Gaza means admitting that the disengagement was a huge mistake and an utter failure. The current so called "leadership" unfortunately, does not have the courage to admit their mistakes.

The Avos and their children

See this post from last year which tries to explain why both Avraham and Yitzchak had children who were not their spiritual heirs.

Missing or extra letters in the Sefer Torah

Rashi in this week's parsha (Chayei Sarah) comments on the pasuk (25,6) ולבני הפילגשם that פילגשים is written חסר and therefore we learn out that Avraham only had 1 pilegesh Hagar. The only problem is that in our sifrei torah it is actually written ולבני הפילגשים with the extra י (and therefore the drasha does not work). In other words either our sifrei torah have an extra letter or Rashi's is missing one.

This is one of a number places where our sifrei torah differ for either statements of Chazal or Rishonim. R' Akiva Eiger (Shabbos 55a) collects over 20 cases from all over Shas, medrashim, etc. where our mesora differs from either Chazal's or the Rishonim.

The acharonim (see for example Minchas Chinuch on the mitzva of writing a sefer torah, Shaagas Aryeh siman 36, etc.) are very bothered by this and wonder how we can make a beracha nowadays on krias hatorah.

The story of the מערת המכפלה

Why does the Torah make such a big story about Avraham Avinu buying the Meoros Hamachpela? Rabenu Yona explains that this was the last of the 10 nisyonos of Avraham Avinu. Hashem promised him all of EY and yet, he didn't even have where to bury his wife. The Torah tells us the whole story about the sale to bring home this point.

R' Baruch Simon offered a similar pshat. He said based on the Malbim that the nisayon was in Avraham making such an effort to bury Sarah at all. For a non-believer after a person dies that is it, it's all over and the body decomposes and goes away. Therefore where and how they are buried is not important (witness all the cremations today). For a believer the story is much different. We believe in the eternity of the neshama and techiyas hameisim, after death things aren't over, the neshama lives on and will be one day reunited with the body. Therefore how and where a person is buried takes on much more significance. Avraham's nisayon was to see how hard he would push to get a suitable burial place for Sarah, would he show that he truly believed in these ikkarim of the eternity of the neshama and techiyas hameisim.

The Gra makes a fascinating diyuk. He points out that it says some combination of the words (in some form) קבר and מת seven times at the beginning of the parsha. 6 times קבר comes first and once מת comes first. The Gra explains that the 6 times refers to the 6 Avos and Imahos that are buried there. The word קבר comes first to signify that צדיקים even in death are considered alive. The 7th time is for עשו whose head was buried there. For עשו the rasha it says מת first because רשעים even when alive are considered dead.

What was the purpose of the Akeda?

This post from last year What was the purpose of the Akeda? is very relevant today as well.

When was the ברית בין הבתרים?

If you just read parshas לך לך you get the impression that first Hashem told Avraham to go to Eretz Yisroel, then came the story with לוט etc. However, if we take a closer look at the chronology we see that this is not true.

Hashem tells Avraham by the ברית בין הבתרים that his descendents will be in golus 400 years. Rashi points out that we were only in Egypt 210 years and therefore explains based on the medrashim that the 400 years started with the birth of Yitzchak. The Torah says in Parshas Bo that we were in Egypt 430 years. Rashi there explains (again based on medrashim) that the extra 30 years is from the ברית בין הבתרים, in other words the ברית בין הבתרים was 30 years before Yitzchak was born. We know that Yitzchak was born when Avraham was 100 years old which means that ברית בין הבתרים had to be 30 years earlier when Avraham was 70. However, at the beginning of parshas לך לך the Torah tells us that Avraham was 75 years old when he left Charan. This means that לך לך was actually 5 years after the ברית בין הבתרים. Tosafos in Shabbos 10b says this. Tosfasos says that Avraham came to EY when he was 70 and went through the ברית בין הבתרים, and then he returned to Charan for 5 years until Hashem told him לך לך.

The question we have now is why is the Torah written this way? What is the lesson we are supposed to learn from the way the Torah ordered things? Tosafos points out the discrepancy but doesn't explain why.

Judicial Tyranny in Israel

Today in Israel the true power is the Supreme Court, not the Knesset and the not the Prime Minister. A perfect example is the Court's actions in the case of the President. The supreme court gave President Moshe Katsav one week to explain why he has not stepped aside as he faces a possible rape indictment. The only problem is that the law explicitly states that the President is not answerable to the courts and in fact, the law provides him full immunity. Here is the text of the law:

לא ייתן נשיא המדינה את הדין לפני כל בית משפט בשל דבר הקשור בתפקידיו או בסמכויותיו, ויהיה חסין בפני כל פעולה משפטית בשל דבר כזה

The President will not appear before the courts on any matter that is related to the fulfillment of his office or duties and he will have full immunity from any legal action relating to this (my translation).

The law could not be clearer that the Courts have no power over the President. Does that bother the Supreme Court? Clearly not, they still ordered him to respond why he didn't resign. In any other country the court would have thrown this out. The following quote is a perfect example of the attitude of the Supreme Court (Legal Analysis / Digging in, not relinquishing):

the High Court can express its moral-ethical position on the matter at hand, even if it rules that the president has immunity against any order whatsoever.

Who appointed the Supreme Court the moral and ethical arbiters of society? What makes them any more qualified to offer moral and ethical opinions then anyone else? Based on what do they offer their moral and ethical opinions and why should they be binding on anyone?

The Supreme Court should have 1 and only 1 purpose, to decide matters of law.