Pretty amazing images. It says something about these people’s comfort with one another in close quarters. I find it very difficult to be standing or sitting so close to so many other people for long stretches of time. I guess the secret to these folks’ obvious sense of ease in the crowd is that they’re used to it, and they know the people they’re huddling with.

Here are a few more crowd images from the same wedding:

Photo by Yaakov Naumi/Flash90

Photo by Yaakov Naumi/Flash90

In a blog item on the Chabad disaster relief web site, Rabbi Ovadia Goldman, co-director of Chabad-Lubavitch of Oklahoma City, posted a report at 1 AM Wednesday, following two days of nonstop efforts by the Chabad staff and three young rabbinic interns who are part of the Glenna and Richard Tanenbaum Rabbinic Internship Program.

Goldman said that even with so many homes and businesses in ruins, a modicum of hope lay in the extent of the relief efforts themselves: “It’s been exhausting, emotionally draining, but in so many ways heart-warming.”

He went on to describe the extent of aid offered, noting that they opened their Chabad center early in the morning for those who wanted to drop off supply items before going to work, and that people have come by the past few days bringing basic supplies.

“We’re organizing 20,000 pounds of meat products and 1,000 pounds of cheese product to come from kosher companies,” he wrote. “We’ve been in close contact with state and local government officials, as well as relief agencies, to help coordinate shipments and let them know what companies from out of state are willing to donate.”

Goldman also praised the work of the interns there—Berel Kesselman, Mendy Grossbaum and Mendel Misholovin: “they left the center early to provide direct assistance and counseling, and to help with the delivery of basic supplies in the affected neighborhoods.”

The interns offered a synopsis of their own efforts, saying they visited some of the shelters and also met with families they had gotten to know during the High Holidays. They felt that people were uplifted by their presence and relished the opportunity to talk about what they experienced.

According to notes jotted down after a long day’s work, “we canvassed the most devastated areas in Moore. Here the need for emotional uplift and support is huge. Asking what would be needs, etc. Stopped to help out with ‘shlepping’ debris (although this was not our primary focus). Let everyone know of the shelter at Chabad.”

“These people are devastated. In the pictures, you can see a woman near her home and staircase; that’s how she survived, underneath that staircase. What they need immediately and can really use: cash [and] store gift cards.”

The three young men summed up their feelings about this natural disaster: “It’s really given us a new perspective on what is truly important in life.”

Goldman agreed, and emphasized the extent of concern from throughout the United States. “The response has been overwhelming,” he said, adding that calls have come in from individuals and organizations in New York, Ohio, Iowa, Illinois and California—and even from abroad. And they have been accompanied with kind words and offers to help in any way they can.”

And that’s especially meaningful, he said, because “the community that was hit is facing some short-term real needs, and they’re going to be facing longer-term needs as well.”

The rabbi emphasized that 100 percent of all disaster-relief donations will be provided to those in need. “Members of our local community have come forward and will cover all the administrative costs for us, so that anyone wishing to help those struck by this disaster can know that everything they give goes to those afflicted.”

Goldman advised that that anyone interested in making a donation can do so at the Chabad disaster relief web site.

It did this by exhorting its American followers to demand that the democratically elected Israeli leadership say out loud what J Street wants it to say.

J Street cued up from U.S. secretary of state John Kerry’s efforts to launch yet another initiative aimed at achieving peace between Israel and its Arab Palestinian neighbors.

But it then takes what it wants to be true, asserts it as if there is no other truth, and demands that Americans get aggressive with the Israeli government to make a public commitment to J Street’s view of reality, rather than what the Israeli government knows is reality.

Here’s the sleight of hand in J Street’s email:

The basis of any such effort, of course, has to be a two-state solution — an independent Palestine existing in peace and security alongside Israel. But is this the policy of the government of Israel?

Some members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s governing coalition are openly stating not only that they do not personally believe in a two-state solution but that the two-state solution is not official government policy. They wrangled about it publicly in a parliamentary committee meeting this week.

Member of Knesset and former Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) noted “substantial divides inside the government” on the question.

And MK Orit Struck (Jewish Home) came right out and said “two states for two peoples is not the government’s official position … it is perhaps Netanyahu’s position… but has not been accepted as the government’s position.”

J Street subtly takes what it says is a basis for a solution and converts it into the solution. In contrast, Israeli leadership is committed to having the goal of the peace process be peace. Such a position is apparently an affront to J Street’s worldview.

It is especially chutzpadik to demand that the Israeli government bend its knee to J Street and declare its support for the creation of a Palestinian state at this time of profound unrest in the Middle East.

This is a singularly dangerous time in Middle East history.  The terrorist-driven Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda and its affiliates are on the ascent.  The closest thing to a moderate Arab Palestinian leader is Mahmoud Abbas whose term as president expired almost 5 years ago.  Abbas routinely and publicly lionizes current and ancient terrorists and frequently admits, although mostly in Arabic,  that he is not committed to peace with Israel.

And Mahmoud Abbas is on record that not one Jew will be allowed to live and breathe in any Palestinian State.  So what exactly is it that J Street is demanding?

J Street’s letter imperiously casts anyone who disagrees with its vision of a perfect Middle East – one with a Palestinian State (whether or not there is peace) – as a roadblock to peace.  The hubris is dazzling.

For there to be any hope of progress, the Israeli government must state unequivocally that support for a two-state solution is a core principle of its foreign policy – as it has been under every Prime Minister since Yitzhak Rabin.

A simple declarative statement by Netanyahu or by Israel’s US ambassador Michael Oren would dispel these doubts immediately. They need to speak out now.

Adding still more urgency to its demand, J Street includes a quote from MK Ronen Hoffman, “how is it possible to expect the Palestinians to enter negotiations when part of our government opposes a Palestinian state?”

And yet, no demand is made of any Arab Palestinian leader to commit to peace with Israel.

Why isn’t J Street’s question turned around? Shouldn’t supporters of Israel logically ask this question, instead: “How is it possible to expect the Israeli government to enter negotiations with Arab Palestinian leaders when there is overwhelming evidence that few if any of the leadership supports peace with the Jewish State of Israel?”

J Street ends its May 22 email pooh-poohing the idea that mere talks between the parties is useful. Again it asserts its own position as if it were ultimate truth: “But what’s needed isn’t talk, it’s a resolution of this conflict and that will only happen if both sides are clearly committed to reaching the same goal: a two-state solution.”

Peace Now was thrilled at the unprecedented involvement in Israel’s domestic affair’s while nationalists were aghast at the implied pressure on Israel judges to approve the Peace Now appeal.

The United States considers a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria an international issue, but to actually attend a local court hearing, especially one initiated by the Peace Now organization, is implicit support for the leftwing group and could affect the court’s verdict.

It is clear that the embassy official, Andrew Schut, was not on an exercise in civics 101.

His appearance at the hearing, although he did not make any comments, comes three weeks after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry personally called Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, to complain about Israel’s recent decision to consider recognizing four Jewish communities in Samaria instead of destroying them.

The United States justifies its interference in anything concerning the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

How far can the American government plant delegates in Israel’s system to force its own policies on Israel?

Perhaps next week the Obama administration will send a representative to sit on a Knesset committee discussing Judea and Samaria.

The latest chutzpah is an escalation of a policy that is aimed at removing Jews from Judea and Samaria and areas of Jerusalem where the Palestinian Authority wants sovereignty.

It started out in a much more subtle form.

Twenty years ago, when I was in charge of security in the community where I live in the southern Hevron Hills, an elderly couple – immigrants from South Africa who converted to Judaism at a relatively late age in life – moved a small housing unit to a deserted and barren hill across from the community where I live.

That was around 1993, after the Reagan administration backed the Madrid Conference that developed into what has been misnamed as the peace process.

One evening, I received a phone call from the U.S. Embassy.

“Hi, there,” said the friendly voice. After exchanging a few pleasantries that I started my journalism career not far from his home town in the Blue Ridge Mountains, he said, “Our satellite noticed that one of those ‘caravans’ on the hill, referring to a small three-room and pre-fab trailer home without wheels.

“I was just wondering where they get their water en electricity,” continued the good ‘ol boy from down south. “Do y’all provide them with that? he asked.

I usually am not at a loss for words, but I was flabbergasted that the U.S. Embassy would call me – at night, no less – about a lonely hill.   I eventually sputtered out that I did not have much information for him.

If the American people, even the leftists, knew how deeply their government is involved into building up an Arab-only presence in Judea and Samaria and “eastern Jerusalem, they would be screaming their lungs out.

Around three years ago, when I was writing for Arutz Sheva, a Jewish Press blogger, whose name I will keep anonymous, called me up one day with a shocking story.

She had bought some old file cabinets from the U.S. Embassy in an auction. When she brought them home, she found some of the drawers were filled to the gills with documents and letters from the U.S. Information Agency that exposed the American government’s attempts to undermine a Jewish presence and to help the Palestinian Authority create a “Palestinian” culture.

Given the history of the State Department’s disgust for  Jews living where the administration wants Arabs, and only Arabs, to live, Schut’s appearance at a Supreme Court is not surprising.

Peace Now chairman Yariv Oppenheimer was ecstatic.

He explicitly stated that he understood Schut’s presence at the hearing as a silent but clear statement to warn Israel to think twice before recognizing the outposts in question.

And although the word ”outpost” conjures up a few wild-eyed radicals living in a circle of wagons, Givat Assaf is a community of more than 20 families working and living like every other normal person in the world.  They live on land that was purchased from Arabs, but like all such purchases, Peace Now insists that the Arab sale was a forgery.

Miriam spoke disparagingly about Moshe Rabbeinu. Because of this, she contracted tzaras, and for seven days she was sent outside the camp of Israel.

Rashi explains how these events unfolded. Miriam had been standing next to Moshe’s wife, Tziporah, when they heard that two men were prophesying in the camp. Tziporah exclaimed, “Woe to the wives of these men! Now their husbands will separate from them, as my husband did from me.” When Miriam heard this, she went to Aaron and said, “We are also prophets. We don’t separate from our spouses. Why should our brother Moshe be different?”

For this statement, Miriam was punished. Rashi concludes from this incident that if Miriam, who didn’t intend any harm to Moshe, was so severely rebuked, surely one who intends to disparage his friend will be punished.

This Rashi is difficult to understand. What was Miriam’s transgression? She witnessed her brother doing something that in her estimation was wrong. She didn’t go blabbing the news all over town. She went directly to spiritual giant, the Kohen Gadol, Moshe’s brother Aaron, to ask for his advice. If she was correct and Moshe was acting improperly, then Aaron would validate her assessment. If she was wrong, he would correct her. Her intentions were pure. Her actions were discreet. Where was her wrongdoing?

The answer to this question is based on understanding what the Torah considers slander. The Rambam explains that the definition of lashon hara is “Words that hurt, words that damage.” Whether damaging a man’s reputation, harming his career, or spoiling his standing in the community – they are words that cause harm.

There are, however, times when lashon hara is permitted. If someone speaks for a constructive purpose and that speech meets exact Torah guidelines, then it is a mitzvah. In that case, the report isn’t considered disparaging. Quite the opposite, since we are obligated to protect our fellow Jews from harm, sometimes we must inform others of what we know. But that is the point: Torah law defines what constitutes slander and what is a mitzvah. The line between the two is often very thin.

The Chofetz Chaim writes that for the telling of disparaging information to be permissible, a person must have first-hand knowledge of the facts, and there can be no room for misinterpretation or for error. If there is another possible explanation that shows the act in a different light, then he is forbidden to speak.

Miriam’s Transgression

This seems to be the answer to Rashi. Hashem rebuked Miriam and Aaron both, saying, “Why did you suspect my servant, Moshe? Moshe was on such a lofty level that you should have realized what he did was justified and proper. You should have judged him favorably. Because you judged him incorrectly, you mistook his intentions and determined his actions to be improper. He is my servant, loyal and obedient, pure and untainted. You should have realized that he is in a different league than any other man, and you should have judged him favorably.”

That was Miriam’s transgression. She miscalculated. Everything she did after that was correct, but it was all based on her error. Her mistake was in her initial assessment, which then led to her to slander her brother unintentionally. But unintentional slander is slander nevertheless.

This Rashi teaches us a vital concept. How many times do we hear people say, “This isn’t lashon hara; it’s l’toeles [for a constructive purpose],” or, “About a person like him, it’s a mitzvah to talk.” And they are correct. If according to the halacha this is “a constructive purpose,” or if by Torah standards this man is a rasha, then it is a mitzvah to repeat what happened. But if not, it’s a sin. And that’s the question – is it or isn’t it?

And so we have to ask ourselves how certain we are that what we’re saying meets the Torah’s definition of a “constructive purpose.” Do we know what the Torah’s requirements are to consider a person a rasha? And even more, how many times is our conclusion deeply colored by our own hurt feelings, or by a grudge that we bear, or some other bias blinding us to the truth?

On the occasion of Mr. Scherr’s twentieth wedding anniversary, two of his older, married nephews came to visit him. Shlomo had a comfortable job while Dan was in a difficult financial state. The two congratulated their uncle and wished him many more years of blessed marriage. Mr. Scherr took out some drink and they shared a l’chaim together.

Mr. Scherr was in a good mood. A grin spread across his face. “Come back tomorrow and I’ll give you each a check for ten grand,” he said to his two nephews. “Ten and ten is twenty, just like the years of our harmonious marriage!”

“Thanks Uncle Sam,” Dan and Shlomo said. “That’s really nice of you.” They walked out happily, each dreaming how they might spend the sudden windfall.

The following day, Shlomo and Dan returned to receive the checks. They were ushered into Mr. Scherr’s office. After talking a little, Shlomo said, “You told us yesterday that each of us would receive ten thousand dollars.”

“I know, but when I reviewed my accounts last night, I saw this was a bit much,” said Mr. Scherr apologetically. “And what about the other married nieces and nephews when they hear about this? I’m going to have to cut it down to three thousand each.”

“That’s a big problem,” complained Dan. “We had no idea how we were going to cover the kids’ summer programs, and were hoping to use this!”

“But I only said I was going to give it to you,” said Mr. Scherr. “I didn’t confirm it with any contract, handshake, or other means of kinyan, act of acquisition.”

“But what about upholding your word,” said Shlomo. “You’re known from your business dealings to be a man of your word. Once you’ve said something – you’ve said it!”

“I think this is a little different,” said Mr. Scherr. “This is not a mutual business agreement; it’s all from the good of my heart. It was nice of me to offer you anything in the first place.”

“What’s the difference?” asked Dan. “A word is a word whether it’s a gift or a business deal.”

“It feels different to me,” said Mr. Scherr.

“I heard that you started attending a Business Halacha shiur with Rabbi Dayan,” said Shlomo. “I wonder what he would have to say about this!”

“I wonder also,” said Mr. Scherr. “I’ve got a great idea! Why don’t you join me this week and we can ask him?”

Shlomo and Dan both agreed to attend the shiur.

After the shiur the three went over to Rabbi Dayan. Mr. Scherr asked: “Am I required to uphold my commitment to give each nephew ten grand?”

“You are required to give Dan the full ten thousand,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “but can retract from giving Shlomo if you feel the need.”

“That doesn’t seem fair,” objected Shlomo. “Why is that?”

“For any transaction to be legally binding, it is necessary that there be an appropriate kinyan; verbal agreements alone are, in general, not legally enforceable,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “However, a person is expected to uphold even his verbal commitments. If he does not do so, he is called ‘untrustworty’ – mechusar amana [C.M. 204:7]. In certain situations there is even a formal reproach imposed upon who retracts, ‘mi shepara.’ ” (C.M. 204:1, 4)

“Does this apply equally to gifts?” asked Mr. Scherr.

“In regard to gifts, since they are one-sided, there is a difference between a small gift and a large gift,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “When a person commits to a small gift, the recipient fully expects that the donor will provide the gift. Therefore, if he retracts, the donor is called, ‘untrustworthy.’ However, if the person committed to a large gift, the recipient remains with an element of doubt whether the donor will, in fact, carry through. Therefore, the donor is not considered ‘untrustworthy’ if he retracts [C.M. 204:8; 249:1]. It goes without saying, though, that a person should not speak deceitfully and say something he is not sincere about when he says it.” (Pischei Choshen, Kinyanim 15:4[4])

The Gemara asks whether branches of a tree growing along a wall can serve as a natural ladder to create a pesach – a portal – enabling two separate courtyards that abut the wall to join in an eruv. If they can, the Gemara asks further whether they still can if these branches belong to an asheirah tree (which were worshipped by idolaters).

The Invisible Lion

R. Chisda maintains that an asheirah tree can serve as a pesach even though the Torah (Devarim 7:5, 12:3) forbids deriving benefit from it (which means that it is biblically prohibited to use it as a ladder to scale a wall). R. Chisda likens this asheirah pesach to a lion crouched near a doorway preventing passage through the door. He reasons that even though it is forbidden to use the asheirah pesach, it is a pesach nonetheless, just like a doorway with a lion standing in it is considered a pesach despite the danger (impossibility?) of using the doorway.

R. Chisda limits his reasoning to prohibitions (like benefiting from an asheirah tree) that are unrelated to Shabbos. However, if a Shabbos-related issur prevents passage through the doorway or over the wall, then the courtyards cannot join in an eruv. Therefore, R. Chisda says that an ordinary tree cannot serve as a pesach because climbing trees is a Shabbos-related issur. One may not climb trees (Eruvin 100a) lest one forget and break off a branch and violate the melachah of plowing or reaping (Shabbos 107b, 108a based on Shemos 34:21).

Two Issurim

The Ritva (ad loc.) points out that climbing an asheirah tree on Shabbos involves two issurim: a) the issur of benefiting from avodah zarah and b) the rabbinic ban against climbing trees on Shabbos. Hence, the Ritva asks why R. Chisda ignores the Shabbos-related issur of climbing trees when validating a pesach created by an asheirah tree.

Where Detached

The Ritva answers that the Gemara is referring to an asheirah tree that is detached from the ground, and the issur of climbing trees does not apply to a detached tree (because if one were to break off a branch from a detached tree one would not violate the melachah of kotzer).

It Transcends Shabbos

Alternatively, Rabbi Akiva Eger argues that the rabbinic issur to climb trees on Shabbos does not apply to an asheirah tree (even when it is attached to the ground). He explains that we are not concerned that someone will accidentally break off a branch from such a tree on Shabbos since he knows that the Torah forbids him from deriving benefit from asheirah trees (even during the week) due to the issur of avodah zarah. Therefore, the only issur involved in climbing an asheirah tree on Shabbos is benefiting from avodah zarah, which is not a Shabbos-related issur.

The importance of the caucus on organ harvesting in China, sponsored recently by the Liberal Lobby in the Knesset, cannot be exaggerated. On the surface, the caucus’s topic seems odd. Knesset members and other VIPs were called together to discuss horrors being perpetrated by the Communist regime in China against what the government there calls “regime opponents.”

Hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens in China are imprisoned in camps and tortured in the most inhuman ways – and worst of all, their organs are harvested while they are still alive and sold for transplants throughout the world. Apparently the human bodies in the grotesque Body Show, recently exhibited in the Holy Land, was also supplied by these prisoners.

“You don’t have any more issues left here in Israel?” many people asked when we began publicizing the event.

“You don’t have anybody but China to start up with?”

“You don’t understand that you are harming Israeli interests? And what do you think, anyway? That anybody among the billion Chinese really cares what exactly you are talking about in the Knesset?”

It is not about the Chinese. It is about us, and how we perceive the essence of the Jewish nation and the return to Zion.

We have become so accustomed to the moral finger wagging in our direction, and for being blamed by holier-than-thou nations the world over for all sorts of “ethical lapses.” We have become so accustomed to the leftists in Israel who join the chorus that we haven’t even thought of the possibility that perhaps just the opposite is true. Perhaps the moral compass of the entire world is the People of the Bible; the nation that brought the world faith in the One God; the nation that, on the foundation of its belief in God, heralded the message of liberty for all mankind. We haven’t dared to think that the message of justice and liberty does not emanate from The Hague – but from Jerusalem. Despite the fact that deep in its consciousness humanity recognizes and even expects to hear this message from Zion, the Israelis have become grasshoppers in their own eyes – and thus, in the eyes of the world. This is the root of the condemnations and the relentless pressure brought to bear on Israel.

In other words, when you don’t fulfill your universal ethical role somebody else usurps it and you turn from the judge into the judged. If there is no construction being allowed today in Jerusalem, it is because Jerusalem is not fulfilling its universal role. If we are being pressured to apologize to Turkey and pay remands to the families of their dead and to those wounded from the Mavi Marmara incident, it is because when it was uncomfortable for us, we ignored our universal ethical role and did not take a stand against Turkey’s denial of the Armenian holocaust.

In explaining the demonization of Israel to Professor Ze’ev Tzachor, British intellectuals said, “We dreamed of a place where the new Book of Books would be written in preparation for the redemption of the world, for you, after all, are a treasured nation. The world had expectations, and now look what you have done.” (From an interview with Meir Uziel in Makor Rishon.)

The Chinese were very displeased with our Knesset caucus. They put pressure on me and on other Knesset members in an attempt to torpedo the conference. But they did not succeed. Things that may be difficult for Israelis to understand in Israel are easily understood in China. While Communists do not believe in God, essentially making everyone there slaves (China is one giant prison camp) they do have a long tradition of spirituality. They perfectly understand the value of the “treasured nation” status of the Jews. An ethical stand that emanates from the parliament of the People of the Book is less financially troubling than a similar stand coming from European parliaments. But its ethical weight is much greater – and the Chinese understand that.

Knesset members from across the political spectrum – Right and Left, haredi and secular – honored the caucus with their presence. Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky and Rabbis Uri Cherki and Elyakim Levanon spoke at the event. The audience heard shocking testimony from a survivor of those camps and watched filmed testimony on what takes place there.

In this week’s parshah we read about the individuals who were tamei and thus could not bring the korban Pesach. They approached Moshe Rabbeinu and asked him whether there was anything they could do to bring the korban. Ultimately, Hashem told Moshe that they should bring a korban a month after Pesach, on the 14th of Iyar.

The wording of the pasuk that describes when they first came before Moshe is: “Vayomeru ha’anashim ha’heimah – and these men spoke.” The Sifri says that we derive from the word “ha’heimah – these” that only the one with the question should ask the question. Seemingly, the Sifri is requiring that one ask a question himself; one should not send the question through another person. However, this explanation is very difficult to understand. Is one not allowed to send a question through another person?

The Panim Yafos explains the Sifri with the following different approach: these men were tamei because, according to one opinion, they were carrying Yosef’s aron. The Gemara in Shabbos 93a says that when several people carry a zav only the one who is holding the majority of the zav becomes tamei. The others remain tahor. This is because they are merely aiding him in the act of carrying, which does not render one tamei. But in this case it was not clear who was carrying the majority of the aron. Therefore it was a safek as to which one of the men was tamei.

Generally, when there is a safek as to which one of several men (more than three) became tamei the halacha states that they should all be tahor. This is based on the halacha of safek tumah, b’rishus ha’rabim tahor. If a safek regarding tumah occurs in a place where there are three or more people, we render the safek tahor. Therefore these men should have been tahor, since the safek occurred in a place where there were more than three people. However, since these men all came together to ask about their status, Moshe Rabbeinu had to rule that they were tamei. The reason for this: had each person come individually to ask about his status, all would have been deemed tahor; when all of the men ask about their status together, they must all be rendered tamei. This is due to the fact that since one of them is surely tamei, we cannot render each one as tahor when they ask together. Thus, they must all be rendered as tamei misafek.

This halacha is drawn from the halacha of shnei sheveilim (two paths), in which one has tumah and the other does not. If two people walk the other down one path, they will both be portrayed as tahor. However, if both come to ask at the same time, they will be tamei. This is because they cannot both be tahor. Thus, they are both deemed tamei misafek.

However, Tosfos in Pesachim 10a says that the halacha that we render them tamei when they come to ask at the same time is only mi’de’rabbanan. Mi’de’oraisa, they would both be classified as tahor. Hence, the explanation of the Panim Yafos is difficult to understand since we are discussing a time period before the rabbanan decreed this halacha. So in Moshe Rabbeinu’s time, the halacha should have been that they were all tahor since they only had de’oraisa-level halachos.

I would like to suggest that although the time period that we are discussing is prior to the time that the rabbanan issued their decree, perhaps Moshe Rabbeinu was aware that one day this would become a rabbinic decree and thus Moshe adhered to it. We find a similar concept in Tosafos (Kiddushin 38a) whereby Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi that asks why, when the bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, they could not eat matzah made from chadash and apply the halacha of assei, doche lo sa’assei. Tosfos answers that there is a rabbinic decree prohibiting this because if one will eat one k’zayis, he may come to eat a second k’zayis. We cannot, therefore, apply the halacha of assei, doche lo sa’assei.

This time period was also before the rabbanan decreed their halachos; yet Tosfos seems to say that the bnei Yisrael nonetheless adhered to their decrees. This can be explained due to the belief that all of the decrees that the rabbanan made were given at Har Sinai – except that they were given as de’rabbanan halachos, and not to be treated the same as de’oraisa halachos. For example, in the case of a safek, a de’oraisa is treated stringently and a de’rabbanan is treated leniently.

Menachem
(Via E-Mail)

Answer: Last week we mentioned that Jacob prophetically blessed each of his 12 sons. Since Judah possessed the necessary qualities to lead his brothers, Jacob blessed him with the words (49:8-10), “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a scholar from among his descendants until Shiloh arrives, and his will be an assemblage of nations.”

Rashi explains that King David’s rule will continue until the arrival of Mashiach. Rashbam derives from the words “until Shiloh arrives” that the kingdom will be divided and writes that Jacob’s prediction only referred to the time of David until Rehaboam. However, Targum Yonatan b. Uziel states that the divine right of rule over Israel belongs exclusively to the House of David. We concluded with the question: If so, how could the first king of Israel, Saul, have come from the tribe of Benjamin?

* * * * *

Another question concerning Judah’s divine right to rule: In Parshat Vayechi (Genesis 49:16), Jacob blessed Dan as follows: “Dan yadin amo k’achad shivtei Yisrael – Dan shall judge his people like the one tribe of Israel.” Both the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 98:18) and Gemara (Sotah 10a) explain that Jacob was referring to Samson who judged (i.e., ruled over) his people. Jacob assumed that Samson would be the ultimate redeemer, Melech HaMoshiach – the King, the Messiah. Thus, the Midrash explains, when he foresaw Samson’s unfortunate downfall, he cried out, “Lishuatecha kiviti Hashem – I await your salvation, O L-rd” (ibid. 49:18).

Apparently, then, Jacob intended that the last monarch of the Jewish people come from Dan, not Judah. But what about Jacob’s earlier words, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah”?

Interestingly, while Targum Yonatan b. Uziel, Rashi, Ramban, and Klei Yakar all explain that Jacob was referring to Samson in the above-quoted verses, the Rashbam is sharply dismissive of their interpretation. He interprets the blessing as referring to the task of Dan. Due to their unusual strength, tribesmen of Dan (during the times of Moses and Joshua) would not only hold up the rear of the nation’s encampment, but also would defend their brethren from attackers.

Even if we follow the Rashbam’s explanation, problems with Jacob’s blessing to Judah remain. In Parshat Shemot (Exodus 3:16) G-d tells Moses to gather the elders of the Jewish people and say: “Hashem Elokei Avoteichem nir’ah ei’lay, Elokei Avraham Yitzchak v’Yaakov lemor pakod pakadeti etchem v’eit he’asuy lachem b’Mitzrayim – Hashem the G-d of your fathers appeared to me, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob said: I have surely remembered you and what is being done to you in Egypt.”

The phrase “pakod pakadeti etchem” defies an exact translation, but due to the doubling of the word pakod, which is translated as “remember” by Targum Onkelos, the phrase means something to the effect of surely remembered or truly remembered.

Rashi quotes a Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 5) that states: This hidden sign (the words “pakod yifkod”) was handed down as a tradition from Jacob to Joseph. Joseph, in turn, handed it to his brothers, and Asher, the son of Jacob, in turn, handed it to his daughter Serach who was still living at the time of the exodus (another Midrash relates that Jacob promised Serach eternal life – i.e., living a long life and eventually ascending to heaven without dying). The tradition was that anyone who comes and says to the Jewish people, “Pakod pakadeti etchem” is the true redeemer of the Jewish people. When Moses, therefore, came to the sages and used these exact words in introducing himself and his divine mission, they sought out Serach who confirmed that Moses was undoubtedly the redeemer sent by G-d.

My mother died as gently as she lived, while holding the book of Samuel in her hands and preparing for a weekly women’s shiur. I was asleep at the Avenue Plaza Hotel in Boro Park, Brooklyn, when my mommy left us, and was awakened to listen to the funeral proceedings taking place on the Mount of Olives just before Shabbos in Israel, on the 2nd of Iyar.

In her memory I would like to share the deepest understanding of the most glorious and majestic garment on earth – the tallis, our prayer shawl, and its connection to one’s life in this world.

Many years ago, in the hallway of Yeshiva Sh’or Yoshuv, the rosh hayeshiva, Rav Shlomo Freifeld, zt”l, walked over to me and, grasping my hand, said, “Shurin, c’mon, let’s learn some Gemara together!”

“Fine, what should we learn?” I asked.

He pulled out a Talmud Bavli Mesechta Berochos from a bookcase and randomly opened it. “Let’s learn this blatt; this page, its Torah, it’s the shining light of Hashem!”

The Gemara taught that when King David acquired an understanding of the five periods in one’s lifetime, he composed five songs – or chapters in Tehillim.

When King David understood death, the Gemara taught, he wrote Psalm 104, where the first verse tells us: Hashem, my God, You are very great. “Hod v’hadar lavashta” – glory and majesty are Your garments.

I was baffled and asked, “This is the pasuk we recite when we wrap our prayer shawls around our head before resting the tallis on our shoulders; what does this have to do with death?”

Rav Freifeld answered, “A person’s lifetime is a tallis being woven. Every breath, every decision, every deed a person does is another stitch being woven into his tallis. With death, the garment is completed. Then our Creator, so to speak, wears this garment, this tallis, which has just had its final stitch.”

A short time after learning this with Rav Freifeld, a young acquaintance from Brooklyn College, barely nineteen, died a tragic death. This woman had done something interesting: When a poet, a non-Jewish colleague of ours, was thinking of becoming Jewish, she bought him a large beautiful tallis.

After her funeral it became clear that the poet would not be converting, so I asked him if he would give me the tallis. I told him the girl’s Hebrew name was Bracha, which means blessing, and that I wanted to make a blessing on her tallis each morning, which would be a source of happiness for her in the upper world.

I received the tallis and for years I wore it, making many berochos in memory of this young girl named Bracha.

After it had gone through much wear and tear, my holy mother, of blessed memory, noticed its condition and said, “Dov, it’s time you bought a new tallis! The one you’re wearing is old and ripped.”

I didn’t answer, but soon afterward my mother surprised me with a brand new tallis. I kissed her and said, “Mamale, although the tallis I’ve used is very special to me, I accept yours and feel I must wear it for kibbud em, honoring one’s mother.”

When I returned home, Bracha’s tallis was gone. I looked everywhere but it was as if it had disappeared into thin air.

I wore my mother’s tallis for years, and it never seemed older than the day I received it. It always looked neat and sweet – like every chatchke in my mother’s Efrat cottage.

I spent time in my hotel room after her petirah reminiscing about my mother’s last days. She was so holy. I remembered how I had spent her last Pesach seder with her as she sang every word of the Haggadah. I told her to lift her cup for vi’he she’amda and for Hallel. Not one drop of wine left her cup even though she raised it on an angle. The wine simply refused to spill.

A reshut hayachid is an area of at least four by four tefachim (approximately 15 inches) square, enclosed by walls or other partitions that are at least ten tefachim, approximately three feet high. The usual form of a reshut hayachid is a house or a garden, but the term also includes a depression or an elevation of not less than the above dimensions in a public space, such as a ditch or a mound. A reshut hayachid may extend for miles in each direction. The partitions of a reshut hayachid can be natural, such as the canals surrounding the Hague in Holland, or even, as has been suggested, the cliffs surrounding all of the British Isle. Private ownership is not a requirement for a reshut hayachid and even a ditch of the described dimensions in a reshut harabim can constitute a reshut hayachid.

One of the more controversial aspects of the laws of eruvin – which has direct bearing upon how and if the construction of an eruv, as we know it, is possible – lies in the definition of a reshut harabim. Although there is a wide spectrum of opinions among the Rishonim, the generally accepted definition is as follows: A reshut harabim is an unroofed, public area or highway, open at both ends – mefulash – being at least sixteen amot (24 to 32 feet) wide, through which at least 600,000 people (equivalent to the counted male adult population of the Jewish encampment in the desert) might pass in one day.

Then too there is an area that qualifies neither as a reshut hayachid nor as a reshut harabim because it lacks one of the necessary conditions. Such a betwixt and between area is known as a karmelit.

In a typical city most streets are not mefulash, in that they do not cut through the entire city in a straight line from one end of the city to the other. Rather, they wind and curve so that they are always surrounded by walls and buildings on all three sides. Such streets that are portioned off on all three sides are considered by the Torah to be a reshut hayachid, in which carrying would be biblically permitted. The rabbis, however, fearing that people would not be able to distinguish between such streets and other streets that do qualify as a reshut harabim classify those streets as karmelit. Accordingly, they prohibit carrying in streets unless a halachically valid enclosure is positioned at the open end and an eruv ceremony is performed. The purpose of the eruv is to enclose the area in question, on all sides, so that it becomes a reshut hayachid, recognized as such by the rabbis.

If the area in question qualifies as a reshut harabim, it can only be converted into a reshut hayachid by installing real doors or gates at its perimeter, which, like the gates of Jerusalem of old, must be capable of being closed at night. If, however, the area in question is not a reshut harabim, but only a karmelit, then it may be converted into a reshut hayachid by simply constructing a form of a symbolic doorway known as a tzurat hapetach, which usually takes the form of two poles with a wire across the top, or some similar construction.

The halachic license to carry in a street enclosed by a symbolic doorway rather than by real doors that can be closed at night is based on the theory that most streets, as we know them today, are not in the category of reshuyot harabim. But if there is doubt whether a particular street is of such dimensions that it might qualify as a reshut harabim, then a potential biblical violation of carrying is involved and a tzurat hapetach may not be acceptable. Most modern tzurat hapetach eruvin utilize preexisting structures such as fences, walls, embankments, sides of buildings and long lines of overhead cables. Most gaps of up to ten amot do not disqualify an eruv, because they are considered entrances to the enclosure. Gaps in excess of ten amot do disqualify the eruv, but can be fixed by bridging them with a tzurat hapetach, such as overhead cables or strategically placed wire.

In his short video message, Mr. Weiner asked for forgiveness and a second chance. Yet the immediate conversation on social media was: is it the same old Anthony Weiner, known for his feisty speeches in Congress, or a new, polished but boring politician proving he’s been revised?

“Of all the candidates, Anthony Weiner has been on the front lines fighting Republicans the longest. That will appeal to Dem primary voters,” wrote @RussonPolitics.

“His chutzpah and grasp of middle class issues is sure to shake up the Dem Primary,” Councilman Eric Ulrich added.

On the other hand, some saw his strategy of being viewed as the boring buy as being a little too inauthentic. “I got bored halfway through Anthony Weiner’s debut campaign video,” Rosie Gray, a Buzzfeed reporter, wrote.

Nonetheless, whether it will take a week or two, the idea of a well known candidate jumping into the race when the field is crowded as it is, is bad news for Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson alike.

For Bill Thompson, who has yearned to end up in the runoff, a possible 3 way fight for the 2nd place might snatch away that prize from him. On the other hand, Bill de Blasio has the most to lose from a Weiner candidacy. Initially, Mr. de Blasio was relying on establishing himself as the only progressive alternative to Ms. Christine Quinn. By Mr. Weiner joining the race, not only must Mr. de Blasio fight his way into the runoff, he now has to split the anti-Quinn vote with another candidate.

Only time will tell if voters are willing to grant Mr. Weiner a second chance and whether Mr. de Blasio can build on the unions’ support as an expansion of his base, or he’ll be forced to hold on tight to any given support it to at least remain viable.

Meanwhile, a reminder of what Rep. Anthony Weiner used to look and sound like before the scandal clipped his political wings:

Yori Yanover contributed to this report.

“As the House sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), I am extremely disappointed that an amendment to ensure equal treatment for same-sex, bi-national couples was withheld, without a vote, during the Senate Judiciary Committee consideration of the immigration reform legislation. I applaud the leadership of Chairman Leahy, who was determined to–and did–offer an amendment that would allow LGBT families to stay together.

“Unfortunately, Senate Republicans made clear that they are unwilling to even consider ending the harsh discrimination that LGBT families face in our immigration process, and the disturbing decision to give in to their threats and fear-mongering has again let prejudice rule the day. Excluding LGBT couples cannot be reconciled with so-called ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform. Committed LGBT couples deserve better than the wanton cruelty that current law exacts, and the failure to even hold a vote both condemns thousands of loving families to more needless suffering and gives unfair cover to those unwilling to stand up for justice.

“Despite this setback, I will continue to press forward in our fight to get relief for these families. And I remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will do what’s right in the Windsor case, by overturning DOMA, and ending discrimination under federal immigration and other laws against legally married same-sex couples.”

Nadler, who first introduced the predecessor to UAFA, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, in 2000, has re-introduced a version of LGBT immigration equality legislation in each subsequent Congress. UAFA was reintroduced in this Congress on February 5, 2013, and currently has 130 House co-sponsors.

Answer: When something good occurs – when a person receives wonderful tidings or achieves great success – he might sing in response. That is a regular type of song.

“Az Yashir” was different. The Targum translates the words in “Az Yashir,” “This is my G-d and I will glorify Him,” as, “I will build Him a Mikdash…and I will serve Him.” This song was not an appreciation of the past but a commitment for the future. The Jewish people saw the future and sang because it looked so glorious.

This type of song – in appreciation of the future – made it “new” and unique.

Anthony Graziano of Lodi and Aakash Dalal of New Brunswick, both 21, were arrested after the northern New Jersey’s Bergen County bombings, one of which injured Beth El Congregation Rabbi Nosson Schuman.

The attackers hurled a firebomb at the family’s residential unit in the synagogue, setting fire to a bedroom.

Unfortunately, along with our aquatic lifestyle comes a grim distinction: Florida has more children under the age of five die from drowning than any other state in America. The hot days of summer are perfect for cooling off with a refreshing dip, and May and June are traditionally Florida’s deadliest months for this type of accident.

Drowning accidents are not restricted to any location. No community is safe from this scourge and we hear about such tragedies happening throughout the United States. Whether in the mountains or at the shore, in cities or in the country, parents, camp counselors and vacation facilities need to take heed and put safety measures in place.

Children should never be left unattended at the beach or pool. Even a few minutes of distraction can lead to disaster. Swimming devices like tubes or floats are not fail-safe. Little bodies can slip through or tumble off these contraptions. Adults should not be watching from the sidelines but be present in the pool.

Yes, a CPR-trained person should be in attendance any time a pool is in use, but the goal must be to keep a near drowning from ever happening. Even when a successful resuscitation takes place, oxygen deprivation can cause brain damage after five to seven minutes.

The best defense when it comes to potential catastrophe is making sure that children know how to swim from an early age.

Well-meaning parents want to give their children many opportunities. Youngsters are exposed to music lessons, karate, art classes, ballet, sports and gymnastics. Learning to swim should be a priority. The Talmud in Kiddushin advises parents to teach their child to swim. It can be a real life saver.

His office announced he will welcome U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at 10:15, and the American efforts to bring Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas together in direct talks will undoubtedly be at the top of the agenda.

Sarkozy will drop in for a discussion at 12:30, followed by British Foreign Secretary William Hague at 2:15 p.m.

Accommodations: All facilities are equipped with central air conditioning and campers are housed in luxurious bungalows that include a kitchen and fully-furnished living room.

The spacious shul and famous “shteeble” recreation room are fully equipped and carpeted. The cafeteria features such “little extras” as a fully stocked and serviced salad bar, juice bar and cereal bar.

Meals: All meals are prepared by Chef Nissan. The menu appeals to parents and children alike.

Learning Program: Original and Innovating learning curriculum geared toward the educational and spiritual needs and skills of the campers. Curricula topics from past years include: Yiddish Language, the 12 Pesukim, the Rebbe’s Mivtzoim in Halacha, Geulah Facts, and Davening with Pirush HaMilos. Many of the lessons are supported with innovative “hands-on” projects and weekly game shows.

Grounds and Activities: Tranquil lakes and tame wildlife form nature’s backdrop. Additional amenities include: outdoor Olympic-size swimming pool, basketball court, miniature golf-course, paved paths, biking trails, and professional-grade fields for all sports and activities, including beach volleyball – plus a 5,000 square foot air-conditioned indoor gym and state-of-the-art game room

The grounds are cared for by an independent professional licensed company, ensuring that everything is safe and properly maintained.

Trips and Outings: The camp is located a quick 30-minute drive to Florida’s major attractions, so campers enjoy many outings and field trips throughout the summer.

Campers: The prevailing culture of CGI Florida is legendary, imbued with the spirit of Ahavas Yisrael. Camp nurtures a warm chassidic and friendly atmosphere, one where every camper knows he counts and is cared for by staff and fellow campers alike.

Extra Curricular: For the past five years CGI Florida has focused and invested in many of innovative and exciting extra-curricular programs. They include:

*A Mishnayos Be’al (MBP) program that is the most anticipated part of camp. Campers grow and excel in their memorization of Torah, Mishnayos and Tanya in an exciting and user-friendly manner. A handbook with material in both Hebrew and English with general Jewish knowledge is available. Campers use the points they have earned over the summer to order seforim from an MBP Seforim Catalogue. The program culminates in a grand MBP Ceremony, which honors each camper forhis achievements. A full length article of the camp’s most recent celebration can be found online at http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=15913&alias=cgi-florida-presents-37-000-lines.

* A customized Tzivos Hashem program encompassing every camper’s daily experience, encouraging him to develop in all areas of life. Campers are challenged with daily and weekly missions and are promoted in rank as they tackle new responsibilities and commitments. Children leave camp motivated to continue in their growth beyond the summer months.

* A world-acclaimed “Rebbe-Card System” with carefully chosen themes provides new information and chassidishe knowledge. Many of the sets are used by other camps and schools around the world.

* A set of carefully chosen programs are geared to actualize talent and develop responsible leadership. These include: Ach Katan programs and games, themed carnivals run by campers, Bunk War competition, Interactive Game Shows, Creative Exhibitions, Visiting Day Choir – all augmented by the “staple diet” of CGI activities and projects.

Information & Registration: Camp Gan Israel Florida is open to boys ages 8-13. The 6-week summer program operates from July 2to August 11, with options to register for one or two sessions. For registration information or to browse through pictures and/or videos of previous summer sessions, visit www.cgiflorida.com.

Never.

Human language can never describe such pain. Always, this pain is private and incommunicable. Always, the unique inhumanity of all terror violence must be reduced to a more or less anesthetized inventory of numbered casualties. This reduction will include both the counted fatalities and the “merely wounded.”

Upon reflection, the limiting idea of hard or impenetrable boundaries between humans is not hard to understand. After all, everyone who is human has suffered physical pain. And everyone who has suffered will concur that bodily anguish not only defies language, but is also language-defiling and language-destroying.

Significantly, this inaccessibility of pain, this irremediable privacy of torment, can have markedly wider social and political consequences. For example, in the particular case of recurrent Palestinian terror bombings against Israelis, it has sometimes stood in the way of recognizing such cruel assaults as the visceral expression of sheer jihadist barbarism.

There is never, from the terrorist point of view, any persuasive expectation of being able to transform victims’ pain into influence or power. On the contrary, and also quite predictably, any resort to terrorist carnage and mayhem will stiffen even the most forgiving hearts. So why, then, do terrorists continue to enthusiastically inflict grievous pain upon innocents, gleefully tearing up their unprotected bodies without even a plausible hint of pragmatic benefit?

This is a key question. Are these criminals, whatever their personal and group motives, simply nihilistic, believing in certain distinct patterns of killing for their own sake? Have they merely exchanged one murderous playbook for another, now preferring to trade in Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz, for Bakunin, Fanon, and De Sade?

Here is a partial answer. Recalling that terrorism often is a perverse species of theatre, all terrorists, in precisely the same fashion as their intended audiences, are imprisoned by the stark limitations of language. Even for them, the pain experienced by one human body can never be shared with another. This is the case even if these bodies are closely related by blood, or by any other tangible and usual measures of racial, ethnic, or religious kinship.

In the final analysis, much as we might wish to deny it, the split between one’s own body and the body of another, is always firm and always absolute. Whatever we may be taught about empathy and compassion, the determinative membranes separating our individual bodies, one from the other, ultimately trump every formal instruction. These “membranes,” after all, are stubbornly and irreversibly impermeable.

Sometimes this split may allow even the most heinous infliction of harms to be viewed “objectively.” Here, especially where a fashionably popular political objective is invoked – as in the case of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Fatah or Hizbullah attacks on Israeli noncombatants – terror bombings can conveniently masquerade as “national liberation.”

For terrorist bombers and their supporters – whether suicide “martyrs” or the more long-distance kinds of killers who employ precision timing devices and who prefer not to die themselves (as was initially the case in Boston) – the violent death that they mete out to their victims is an abstraction. Doctrinally, it is always justified or rationalized, in the name of “political necessity,” or “citizen rights,” or “self-determination,” or “national liberation.” Nothing else needs to be said. Psychologically, if not jurisprudentially, these self-justifications always amount to a full “pardon.”

Physical pain within the human body can destroy not only ordinary language but can also bring about a hideous reversion to pre-language human sounds; that is, to those guttural moans and cries and whispers that are anterior to learned speech. While the victims of terror bombings writhe in agony, from the burns and the nails and the razor blades and the screws (and from shrapnel dipped lasciviously into rat poison), neither the public that must bear witness nor the murderers themselves can ever begin to know the real meaning of what is being suffered.