Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Korach No 1579: 3 Tammuz 5775 (20 June 2015)

AS SHABBAT APPROACHES Is it Good to Have a King or Not? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem

In the Haftorah for this week, Shmuel tries to strengthen the status of the King. "And Shmuel said to the people, Let us go to Gilgal, where we will renew the kingdom." [Shmuel I 11:14]. It seems that Shmuel has resigned himself to accept the will of the nation to appoint a king as their head, in spite of his objections when the people first turned to him (ibid, 8:6). It is therefore surprising to see that Shmuel still rebukes the people at this point, even at an event where he seems to support Shaul and gives him the title, "anointed by G-d" [12:3]. The rebuke, which is accompanied by a sign of thunder and rain in the season of the harvest, leads the people to cry out, "we have added on to our sins, by asking for a king for ourselves" [12:19].

Evidently Shmuel's intention is to create the proper awareness with respect to the government institutions. Anybody who prays for the appearance of the Kingdom of G-d has doubts about any other government authority. The Rebbe of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, expressed this doubt very well when he said that to establish any government, even a religious one, before the coming of the Mashiach, would be a revolt against the Kingdom of Heaven. While it is true that his words are not halachically valid with respect to the government of the State of Israel for the simple reason that we were commanded in the Torah to establish this government (see Ramban, commenting on the Sefer Hamitzvot, positive mitzva 4), such that in this case it is a mitzva and not a sin, there is a grain of truth in his approach – we must make sure that the government will not block the way to the Kingdom of Heaven but rather that it will be a reflection of this kingdom.

The events as they took place clarify the essence of the role of the prophet who accompanies a king - and this is to pray. "And the entire nation said to Shmuel, Pray for your slaves to your G-d, so that we will not die" [12:19]. The people do not see prayer as a request or as an expression of religious fervor, but as the exclusive prerogative of the prophet. Since he is the one who is familiar with G-d, it is his obligation to turn to Him, and then the prayer will be answered. As opposed to classic religious training, where the teacher tries to encourage his pupils to join in the prayers, Shmuel understands that since he is the prophet it is his job to pray. This position feeds the link to G-d for a society whose political situation blocks any direct Divine contact.

While the prophet does not fulfill the role of the King, it is his merit that allows the kingdom to exist. The presence of the prophets in the house of the King provides an element of criticism which keeps the path of the King in balance. Even at a time when there was no longer any prophecy in Yisrael, and even when the authoritative establishment was limited to the size of a community "vaad" – a local administrative committee – the halacha insists that it is necessary to have the agreement of an "important man" in order for the rules established by the community to have authority. Moral authority is what gives the political establishment a soul.

Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center, Jerusalem

*** A new book by Rabbi Cherki: "A Clear Viewpoint: The World and Man in the Teachings of Rav Kook" (in Hebrew). To order, phone: 050-5556775, or send mail to [email protected].

POINT OF VIEW One Boycott Deserves Another - by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute

"Every property that is banned will belong to you" [Bamidbar 18:14].

1 The Boycott is on You, Yisrael!

We have just experienced a threat of an economic boycott of Israel by the French company "Orange" (with its trademark of an "orange square"). As far as I can see this affair is over, it rose overnight and dissipated within a week, as a result of a threat of a counter-boycott based on international Jewish solidarity. Similarly, the threat of forcing Israel out of FIFA, the international soccer organization, has also been suppressed or at least delayed for the time being. The threat of academic boycotts is still floating around in universities and international conferences, but it seems that the publicity is much greater than the actual effect, and that they are not very important for the time being. There is also the matter of leading performers who refuse to appear in Israel (thank heaven...) in response to propaganda by anti-Israeli organizations, with support of the radical- traitorous left in Israel. These organizations have banded together in their anti-Israel activities under the BDS banner – boycott, divestment, sanctions.

Not everybody is aware that Israel surrendered to the European Union and now marks all the produce that comes from the settlements, which no longer has the same benefits as agricultural produce from the "original" Israel. About six months ago we were given the "news" that the Ministry of Agriculture sent to Europe a list of producers of milk from the Golan Heights and from the Jordan Valley (what does the new Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel have to say about this?). I assume that this is also linked to some activity by leftists in Israel. And let us not forget the infamy of the newspaper Haaretz, which published in the past lists of companies in Yehuda, the Shomron, and the Golan, with a call to boycott them.

Mending a Faulty Law

In order to fight such traitorous Israelis, a Boycott Law (2011) was passed in Israel, which prohibits calling for or actions "leading to instituting an economic, cultural, or academic boycott on Israel, on an institution of Israel, or on an area under its control." This law was promoted by the rightist side of the political spectrum, but the Knesset and the Supreme Court have joined forces to greatly water it down (could it be otherwise?). In the Knesset, it was made into a law that entails civil damages only and which does not include criminal action. The Supreme Court gave the law its (almost) final blow by striking down the clause that allows compensation without a need for proof of the amount of damage caused (such a clause exists, for example, in the laws against libel). Every child can understand that such a ruling is not purely legal but shows a desire to negate the nationalistic atmosphere of the law, since as we all know the Supreme Court, which we are discussing, represents nothing so much as the United Nations...

I can safely assume that nobody has ever been sued under the provisions of this law, and I predict that it will not happen – unless the law is amended to allow public institutions to accuse others based on the law and to bring class action suits, and unless the clause not requiring the damage to be specified is returned to the law. And here is a worthy challenge for the new and energetic Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, who recently spoke out against such boycotts as "a new brand of anti-Semitism." Such an amended law, if it has teeth in it, can act as a response to Israelites, spiritual heirs of Datan and Aviram, the ideological informers of the time of Moshe, who showed the way for apostates and informers throughout the exiles, up to the collaborators of today who sell their souls to the enemy.

Back to "The Elders of Zion"

However, what can we do about the other nations of the world, who want to boycott and ban us? The reply in economic and commercial terms is what we saw in the "Orange" affair. Institute one boycott in return for another, with support from the forces of the Jewish nation in the Diaspora. Remember how the Nazi anti-Semites distributed a counterfeit document, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which claimed that the Jews plan to take over the world, using the power of their money and their solidarity contacts. I

2 suggest that we "freshen" these "protocols" and make use of the power of the Jews, both financially and politically, to mount a boycott in reaction. This is not the first time that I have called out to strike out against the enemy by turning his own weapons against him. As in other realms, here too what is needed is cooperation at a government level, either open or covert (or even denied), together with representatives of new Jewish organizations, both antagonistic and polite at the same time. We must draft the wealthy people of the Jews ("the elders of Zion") to fight boycotts with counter-boycotts, and we can hope for Divine support. And this is a worthy challenge for the new and energetic Deputy Foreign Minister, Miri Regev, who is a seasoned warrior against those who would boycott us.

The same approach should be taken in the realm of legal action, without reference to economics: We must bring nuisance suits in the international court of justice in the Hague, in sports organizations, in academic halls, and in the realms of culture, art, and entertainment. The prominent NGO Shurat Hadin – the Israel Law Center – has had several impressive legal victories, and with a similar effort it should be possible to reduce or completely eradicate the threat of more boycotts.

An Exception – Religion and Culture

And here we come to one exception to all of the above: I am opposed to boycotts, either new initiatives or as counter measures, in issues related to religion (for example, boycotting Egged busses for running on Shabbat, or a bank which gives financial support to archeological excavations) or culture (plays which attack "sacred cows," "gay power," meetings with non- Orthodox groups, and so on). Such action is liable to be a boomerang, and it should not be used. The weapon of boycotting is for use only at the national level, mostly in a defensive mode. Any performer who refuses to appear in the "occupied territories" will immediately take notice if his audience has dwindled down to half of what it used to be.

LET YOUR WELLSPRINGS BURST FORTH Lubavitch – and Peres, Sharon, and Netanyahu - by Rabbi Moshe Shilat, Director of "The Torah of Chabad for Yeshiva Students"

This Shabbat, the third of Tammuz, is the date of the passing of the Rebbe of Lubavitch. The Rebbe was the leader of many regular people and also of great leaders, from all walks of life. Today we will relate some exact and interesting stories which are not very well-known, about the connection between the Rebbe and three public figures who are familiar to us all.

Shimon Peres – G-d will Help

On the eve of Rosh Hashanah 5745 (1984), Shimon Peres, who was the Prime Minister of the unity government in Israel, wrote a letter to the Rebbe. The Rebbe replied, thanking him for sending the plans of the government and blessing him for the new year. He wrote, "Specifically, you should have the merit to fulfill your role, which is a very responsible position, with perfection and success."

Peres replied: "We need a great deal of spiritual strength and the support of heaven." The Rebbe was reminded of a meeting that had taken place fifteen years before. "I remember very well what you said to me when we met face to face: (1) That your parents asked for a blessing from a Tzadik, a Rebbe, and that after this you were born. And I felt that you told me this with great inner joy and pride. (2) When we spoke at the time about the situation in the land, and I asked you, as a government Minister, about the serious events, your answer was, "G-d will help."

Ariel Sharon – Don't Go into Politics

The connection between the Rebbe and Arik Sharon was initiated by the Rebbe after the tragedy in the Sharon house when Arik's eleven-year-old son was killed by a bullet that was released from his father's gun while the boy played with it. This was after the Six Day War, and the Rebbe wrote a letter 3 of consolation that was long, deep, and embracing. In the introduction, the following appears: "You are widely known as a commander and a defender of our holy land and its dwellers, and as a person with noble spiritual traits. Let G-d lift His face up to you, and let you succeed in your activities, up to an unimaginable victory." At one point, Sharon came to meet the Rebbe for a very significant meeting that involved national security and the situation of Jews all over the world.

Two years later, when the way for Sharon to be appointed Israeli Chief of Staff was blocked, Sharon wanted to leave the IDF and move to politics. When he wrote to the Rebbe about this, the Rebbe replied with great urgency. Here is part of what he wrote: "In my opinion, your place is the IDF, where you will continue to succeed, with G-d's help... There is no reason for you to move over to another role, and certainly not in the realm of politics, even if it is as a government minister. This is not a proper role for you, and it will not utilize your skills and knowledge, rather the opposite is true." This shows the great danger that the Rebbe feared on the advent of Sharon's foray into politics.

Binyamin Netanyahu – Hasten the Coming of the Mashiach

The first and very special time when the Rebbe met Netanyahu, who was then the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, was in the middle of the Hakafot – dancing with the Torah scrolls – on Simchat Torah of 5744 (1983). The Rebbe spoke to Netanyahu for forty minutes, in front of thousands of surprised Chassidim. At the time, there was a dispute in Israel about whether to retreat from Lebanon after the Shalom Hagalil war, and the Rebbe spoke to Netanyahu about the dangers of a retreat. In that meeting, the Rebbe made the following famous statement: "You are going to the United Nations, where there is a hall filled with eternal falsehood, darkness, and pitch black. When you light a single candle of truth in great darkness, the dark is vanquished. Light up a candle of truth!" Netanyahu internalized this sentence and quoted it in the name of the Rebbe many times, including from the podium of the United Nations itself.

On the second of Iyar 5748 (1988), when Netanyahu left his position at the United Nations, he visited the Rebbe. He told the Rebbe that he would return to Eretz Yisrael and that he wanted to run for the Knesset. "I want to thank the Rebbe for the opportunity he gave me in the past few years to come and obtain spiritual help that you gave me and to the entire nation of Israel." The Rebbe replied, "I am still at the beginning of my actions, and you too are only at the beginning of your new task... You will have to cope with a hundred and nineteen other MK's. But we can be sure that this will not have an effect on you, since the Holy One, Blessed be He, is on your side. I give you my blessings for success."

In addition to these meetings and many others, there was some interesting correspondence between the Rebbe and Netanyahu. At their last meeting on Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5751 (1990), Netanyahu was the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel and the Rebbe said the following: "Various things have happened since we last met. But what was true in the past and still remains is that the Mashiach has not yet arrived, and you must do all you can to hasten his arrival." Netanyahu replied, "We are doing that." To which the Rebbi said: "However, it seems that it is not enough, since he has after all not come. Let us hope for good news, out of a feeling of happiness and a good heart."

FROM THE TREASURY OF CHASSIDIC STORIES Tobacco Boxes in the Courtyard of Kotzk - by Zev Kitzis, Kibbutz Hadati Yeshiva and Bar Ilan University

Recently, the book by Avraham Yehushua Heshel, "Kotzk – The Struggle for a Life of Truth," was translated into Hebrew (Dror Bondy, editor, published by Maggid). In the introduction to the book, which was written shortly before he passed away, Heshel writes about the Kotzk roots in his own soul. "For my entire life I have been hesitating whether to be a Chassid in the manner of the Baal Shem Tov or a Chassid following the path of the Rebbe from Kotzk" [pages 6-7]. The division between the optimistic, folk-centered, and

4 pleasant Chassidut as taught by the Baal Shem Tov and the cynical, dark, and tormented style of the Rebbe of Kotzk is a constant theme throughout the book and within Heshel's soul. The contrast between the two Chassidic masters – which was first put into words by the Chassidic author Aharon Marcus – becomes an unending struggle in Heshel's soul. However, as the editor so elegantly shows, Heshel himself saw this as harmonic perfection and as blessed balance.

In honor of this book, we will today concern ourselves with a recurring theme in many stories about Rebbe Mendel from Kotzk – a box of tobacco. In some of the stories this box of tobacco was the cause of great troubles in the courtyard of the Rebbe. One time, a student brought a magnificent box of this type (this is told about the man who would later become famous as Rabbi Yechiel of Gostinin), and the events that took place almost brought the merchant who sold him the box to become a pauper who would later curse the Rebbe. (See "Emet Ve'Emunah," edition of 5732, pages 100-101). Another time, a Russian general lost his tobacco box, which was decorated with diamonds, and he suspected one of the Chassidim of having taken it. The general almost forced the Rebbe to take an oath that he knew nothing about the affair, but in the end he was awestruck by the character of the Rebbe and he changed his mind about the oath. (Ibid.)

The Rebbe of Kotzk came to view the box of tobacco as a symbol of being occupied by secondary matters, of self-glorification, and a search for luxuries. The Rebbe saw with anger and bitterness how people chase after the empty odor of the tobacco. He started to harbor a suspicion that the Chassidim looked at him, the Rebbe, as a source for their happiness, or for a "wad of tobacco" – that is, as a source for cheap and temporary pleasure. The Rebbe always suspected that for these people he was no more than a very magnificent box of tobacco.

This point is illustrated in the best possible way by a story that Martin Buber heard from the collector of liturgical songs and Chassidic stories, Avraham Meir Haberman. Buber brings the story in his book, "Or Haganuz," page 406. According to the story, the Rebbe of Kotzk described himself as a "holy goat." He explained with an allegory:

* * * * * *

An elderly Jew lost his tobacco box on his way to the Beit Midrash. The box was made from the horn of a goat. He started to cry out, "Isn't it enough that we are in such a dark exile, that I also must lose this box? Woe is to me for having lost the tobacco box, which was made from the horn of a goat!"

And then the man met the holy goat. The holy goat wandered all over the earth, and the tips of his black horns reached the stars. When it heard the cries of the elderly Jew, it bent down to his level and it said, "you can cut off as much as you need from my horn to make a new box." And the old man did cut off what he needed and made a box, and he filled it with tobacco.

Then the man went to the Beit Midrash and offered to let everybody smell his tobacco. They smelled it over and over again, and whoever did so said, "This is wonderful! It must be because of the box. Where did it come from?" So the man told them about the kind holy goat.

And all the men went outside to look for the holy goat, which roamed the earth, and whose black horns touched the stars. And one man after another found the holy goat, and asked for permission to cut a piece of the horn. And the holy goat bent down and let them cut off enough to make a box. They made one box after another, and they filled them all with tobacco. The news of the tobacco boxes spread far and wide. And for every step that it took, the holy goat let a piece be cut off of its horn. And now, without any horns left, the holy goat continues to roam the earth.

* * * * * *

5 This is the cynical and desperate cry of the Rebbe, who refuses to become the vehicle for satisfying the desire for pleasure, even "spiritual" pleasure like tobacco. If he would comply with the requests of the people he would lose his strength, his horns, and his ability to break through the curtain of lies. Thus, in Kotzk it was possible to vanquish tobacco boxes. There, they cry out: Let us replace the deceitful odor of the tobacco boxes with a supervised view of reality.

A FAMILY NAMED "YISRAELI" The Exam - by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen, Director of the Or Etzion Institute – Publishing Torah Books of Quality

Yehuda's Story:

I looked at my school diary, and I found, "Wednesday: An English test."

Oh, boy! If there's anything I don't like, it's English! And why a test? There was no doubt in my mind that I would fail the test. How would I know all those hard words? Of course, we had learned them all in class, but who could remember all that complicated stuff?

I was very happy that Imma couldn't hear my thoughts, because I wasn't in the mood to be told that "if somebody applies himself and claims to have found an answer, you can believe him," and that the time had come to study very hard, and that since I was a good student I could do very well, along with a whole bunch of encouraging slogans. Actually, I don't do well in English, and that's the way it is!

With no other choice, I took out the workbook and my notebook, and I started to look them over. I tried to review the words and the rules that we had learned, until I couldn't look at them anymore. And then I put everything back into my bag.

Wednesday came. The English teacher came into class and with exaggerated importance took out the pages of the exam. We all sat there, trembling with fear, waiting to see the horrible test papers (at least, that was how I felt).

I started writing.

Luckily, with G-d's help, it wasn't that bad after all. The first thing I did was to read through the entire exam before answering any questions, and I felt that I knew some of the answers. I wrote down the answers that I knew, and then I went back to "work out" what had seemed to be harder. I was able to answer a few more questions, and this seemed to make me feel better, and I found more and more things that I could answer, even though I wasn't sure that the answers were perfect. This went on until the bell rang and stopped me in the middle. I handed in my paper with some blank spaces.

I left the classroom nervous and sweating after my big effort. I knew that I wouldn't get a high mark for English. Why did they think up this language anyway? And why should we have to learn all sorts of complex things that other people think are real words? Enough is enough! Let everybody learn Hebrew! I have heard that in the distant future, when the Mashiach comes, the main language in the world will be Hebrew. Boy, will that be fun! We will not have to learn English anymore, and maybe we will volunteer to teach our language to all the other children in the world. They will definitely have an easy time, since speaking Hebrew is so easy... Let the Mashiach come already, that's another reason to hope for him!

A few days later, the teacher gave us our test papers back. Just as I thought, I didn't do very well. All I got was a 70! I am not used to such low marks! I usually get at least a 90 on my tests! How could I have gotten only 70? I quickly folded up the paper and buried it deep in my bag. I was sorry to hear the teacher tell us to bring the paper back signed by our parents. That meant that I would have to show the embarrassing test paper to Imma or Abba.

6 With great trepidation, I took out the crumpled paper from my bag and I gave it to Imma to sign. I could almost hear all of her encouraging slogans.

"You got a 70 in an English test!" Did I imagine it, or did Imma sound happy with my mark? "What a good mark! Yehuda, very good!"

But I thought to myself, what does that mean? How could a 70 be called a good mark? What is she talking about? Imma saw my startled look, gave me a hug, and she said, "Yes, Yehuda, I really am happy. I know how hard English is for you, and even so you got a mark that is not so bad."

But I was still surprised. "Not bad? But it's only a 70!"

Imma said, "Well, it's true that in most subjects you get higher marks. But who says that you have to be just as good in all the subjects? One student does better in English, another is better in math, and a third one will only be good at sports. Does that mean that the first one is better than the others? Absolutely not! The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave every person different skills, and I am happy to see that you did quite well in English, even though it's not really your best subject..."

Somehow, when Imma said that I am not so good in English, it didn't sound like an insult. And then, I heard myself say, "So what does that mean? That I don't have to make a special effort in English, because no matter what I do I will not succeed with it?"

"Of course not," Imma said. "It means that you have to put in more of an effort. Work at it, spend more time, and you will get even better marks. What I said is that a reasonable mark is not necessarily 90 or 100. There are times when even a mark of 70 is good enough..."

Imma scribbled her signature on the page, and I put it back happily into my bag, so that I would be able to show the teacher that this time I had not done so bad!

***** NOW AVAILABLE: A new book by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen: "Adventures in the Rimonim Library" (in Hebrew). To order this new book and "The Yisraeli Family," in Hebrew, contact: 054-6340121.

(Note: The stories of the "Yisraeli" family are based on true events or on stories that could have been true.) Reactions and suggestions for stories: [email protected]

RESPONSA FOR OUR TIMES Building a Synagogue at the Highest Point of a City - by Rabbi Re'eim Hacohen, Rosh Yeshiva and Chief Rabbi, Otniel

Question: Is it an obligation to build a synagogue at the highest position in a city even if a lower site is more readily accessible and convenient for the population?

The Obligation to Build a Synagogue at a High Point

The Tosefta writes that there is an obligation to build a synagogue at the highest topographic point in the area:

"They (synagogues) must only be built at the highest point in the city, as is written, 'Call out from the tops of crowds' [Mishlei 1:21]." Tosefta Migillah 3:23].

In addition, in the Talmud it is written that the roof of the synagogue must be the highest roof in the city, and that private houses cannot be any higher:

"Rava Bar Mechasia said in the name of Rav Chama Bar Giora, in the name of Rav: Every city whose roofs are higher than that of the synagogue will in

7 the end be destroyed, as is written, 'to raise up the House of our G-d and to rebuild its ruins' [Ezra 9:9]." [Shabbat 11a].

The Rambam accepts both of these rulings as halacha (Hilchot Tefilla 11:2).

The verse brought as proof in the Talmud involves the Temple, but it also serves as a source for a local synagogue. The Maharik therefore concludes:

"This is because they are similar to each other, as is written, 'And I will be for them a minor Temple' [Yechezkel 11:16]. Even according to the one who says that the floors above the courtyard were not holy in our synagogues we must be more stringent since they are similar to the sanctuary, where the upper floors were holy" [Responsa 161].

Synagogues in Modern Cities

Through the years, many changes have taken place in the way cities are built and in building styles. Because of the high price of city land, houses are now built with multiple floors. We may well ask: Can apartment buildings be constructed with roofs that are higher than the roof of the local synagogue?

There are also cases where the highest place in the city is far from the center and is not readily accessible. Is it then permissible to build a synagogue in a relatively low place which is more accessible to the people?

The Meiri, in the tractate of Shabbat, discusses the first question, whether multiple floors can be build. He rules as follows: "This is also the rule when the building is high not as a sign of authority but in order to make a larger number of houses." This was quoted in the book Machazik Beracha (150:2). That is, in a place where the surrounding houses are built high for practical reasons there is no disrespect shown for the synagogue, and the matter is permitted. While Maharach Palagi (Sefer Chaim 45:6), his son Mahari Palagi (Yafeh Lalev 150:3), and Kaf Hachaim (150:23) all disagree with the words of the Meiri, Rav Ovadiah Yosef has written that their comments are not strong enough to override the ruling of the Meiri (Yavia Omer 29:3).

With respect to the second question, when the highest point in the city is hard to access, Yavetz writes in his book Mor U'ketzia on the Orach Chaim (150), as follows:

"We must study the issue of a synagogue built at the low level of a city which is at the foot of a mountain (such as in the community of Altuna), where some houses are built higher on the mountain and are therefore higher than the synagogue, even if the buildings themselves are smaller than the synagogue but their floor is higher than the floor of the synagogue. There are even times when the foundations of the buildings higher up the mountain are above the roof of the synagogue, even though it is very tall, more than any of the other buildings. I wonder if in these cases we must also raise up the roof of the synagogue so that it will be high up and above all the houses in the city... or perhaps not every high place is suitable for the synagogue, because for example it is not near the main dwelling place of the Jews (as is true of the place I mentioned)... And it is best for the synagogue to be in the middle of the community as much as possible (as was the case of the Tabernacle, where the people camped all around). And it is very expensive and difficult to demand that the community must raise its synagogue up so high that it will be higher than all the houses of the Jews, including those who live high up the mountain. And it seems to me that we can rule on the lenient side."

According to Mor U'ketzia, the most important factor is to determine a good place for a synagogue, and within this general criterion it is possible to apply such rules as the position and the height of the building. I spoke about this matter with Rabbi Neventzal, and he agreed that the matter of accessibility is a central condition for building a synagogue.

8 However, to our sorrow, in most places both rules are not kept, and it seems in my humble opinion that the people depend on the words of the Beit Yosef (254) in the name of Rabbi Yaacov Ben Chaviv:

"It seems to me that the synagogues in which we pray in the courtyards of the government of Turkey are similar to what the sages called the square of the city – that they do not have any sanctity, as they are randomly placed, and all of our dwellings in their houses, their courtyards, and their castles are temporary, rented by the month or by the year, and that they are not holy at all.

"And certainly the declaration of the Talmud does not apply, that a city whose roofs are too high will eventually be destroyed (Shabbat 11a), since when the Rambam wrote this law, 'that when a synagogue is built it should only be at the high point of the city,' he was referring to building a synagogue, which means to construct it as a permanent structure. And in our times with this government, we do not have permission to plan a permanent structure for a synagogue, and we certainly do not have permission to build it. And we must of necessity hide in houses that are low down, and "our voices are not heard" because of the dangers involved. Under these circumstances, we will not protest even if there is a dwelling on a floor above the place where we pray, as is a common custom, on condition that the people act in a pure way in the houses above the synagogue."

However, these words of Rabbi Yaacov Ben Chaviv were written about the conditions in the exile, but today we have been privileged to live in Eretz Yisrael.

Summary and Conclusions

In times of great need, in order to provide good accessibility, we can build a synagogue in a place that is not at the highest point in a city. But in advance, when a city is being planned, it is best to choose a place for the synagogue that is both accessible and on a high place. Ignoring these considerations in town planning reflects an exilic mentality, and this must be mended, so that the two laws discussed above from the Tosefta and from the Talmud will be taken into account in a proper way. In this way, we will sanctify the name of G-d in our minor Temples, which derive their sanctity from the holy Temple itself.

NATURE AND THE TORAH PORTION Salt - by Dr. Moshe Raanan, Herzog College and the Jerusalem College for Women

"All the contributions of holy material which Bnei Yisrael give to G-d have I provided to you and your sons and daughters with you as an eternal law, it is an eternal covenant of salt before G-d for you and for your offspring together with you." [Bamidbar 18:19].

In our article for the Torah portion of Va'etchanan 5774 (issue number 1536) we discussed the complex characteristics of fire, specifically its benefits as opposed to the damage it can cause. The salt which is mentioned in this week's portion can also be viewed in the same way.

The Good and the Bad

The following appears in the Midrash: "'It is an eternal covenant of salt' – The verse describes a covenant of salt with Aharon. It is an eternal covenant related to staying fresh, in that it does not develop worms and it does not spoil, and even beyond this it keeps other materials fresh." [Pesikta Zutrata, Korach]. And as Rashi writes, "'An eternal covenant' – Like the eternal covenant with salt, which never spoils."

And evidently for this reason salt has been given such a prominent status in the bringing of the sacrifices. "Sprinkle salt on all of your Mincha Sacrifices, and do not destroy the salt of your G-d's covenant from each Mincha. Bring salt on all of your sacrifices." [Vayikra 2:13]. The use of salt as a symbol has been incorporated, for example, into the customs of

9 eating bread with every meal and immersing an egg in salt water during the Pesach Seder.

On the other hand, salt is a symbol of destruction and desolation, and the English name of the sea which has the highest salt concentration is "the Dead Sea." A description of the desolation of the land is as follows: "Sulfur and salt burn away the entire land, nothing can be planted and nothing will grow, and no grass will grow there. It is like the upheaval of Sedom and Amorah..." [Devarim 29:22]. "He transforms fruitful land into a salty waste because of the evil of its inhabitants" [Tehillim 107:34].

The Proper Dosage

In a way similar to fire, the contrast between these two attitudes toward salt can be explained in terms of the context, the amount, and timing. We have been taught, "One who is chosen to lead the prayers should at first refuse, and if he does not do so he can be compared to food that is prepared without salt. But if he refuses too forcefully he is like food ruined by too much salt..." [Berachot 34a].

An example of the dual nature of salt can be seen in the effect it has on living creatures and plants. Common salt (sodium chloride – NaCl) is needed for the proper functioning of the body. The sodium ion (Na+) is necessary because it provides a balance between acid and base in the body, regulates the amount of liquid and blood pressure, and is necessary for the transfer of signals in the nerves. A loss of salt in the body because of sweating, vomiting, or passing too much urine can lead to a reduced level of salt, with symptoms of weakness and spasms. In extreme cases this can even lead to death. The chlorine ion (Cl-) is used to form hydrochloric acid in the stomach, which is necessary for digestion.

On the other hand, exaggerated use of salt, which is common in cooking in the west, can lead to problems such as high blood pressure, the formation of kidney stones, and other problematic symptoms. For this reason some people use low-sodium salt.

Because of the physiological need for salt, it is used as seasoning in food. A person's sense of taste usually "forces" him or her to ingest the right amount of salt. Salt is also used as a preservative in food preparation in view of its ability to prevent the action of undesirable microbes. This allows meat to be preserved for long times and for pickling of vegetables and fruits. Salt can also be used as a disinfectant and in the treatment of a throat infection. Salt is also used to draw out the blood from meat during the process of kashering, and this "drawing out" capability is why it can kill germs. In ancient times, salt was considered very expensive, and it was sometimes used as a method of payment. Its precious character and its high price can be seen from the fact that a sack of salt was given to the soldiers of Rome as a reward for their services, called salarium (where "sal" refers to the salt). And this is the source of the word "salary" in European languages.

Lessepsian Migration

There is a need for an exact measured amount of salt that can be found in the distribution of plants and animal life. There is a direct relationship between the concentration of salt in the ground and the appearance of desert flora and agriculture. In salty land there are typical plants which have "learned" how to cope with high concentrations of salt. The concentration of salt in the earth establishes the mixture of species, and it is easy to differentiate between the populations of "sweet" water and sea water. Sea animals typically react to very small changes in the concentration of salt. This phenomenon can be seen in events that took place with the opening of the Suez Canal. Ever since the Canal was opened in 1869, hundreds of sea creatures crossed over from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea (including fish and invertebrates such as crabs).

The phenomenon is called Lessepsian migration, named for the engineer Ferdinand Lesseps, who designed the Canal. Many of the species became

10 dominant in the Mediterranean Sea and some even suppressed the native species. Some of these fish even have commercial value. As opposed to the widespread Lessepsian migration, the phenomenon of anti-Lessepsian migration, in the opposite direction – from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea – is negligible. The reason for the difference between the two directions is due to the different salinity of the two oceans. The salinity of the Mediterranean Sea is 3.9%, while in the Red Sea it is about 4.2%. This tiny difference of 0.3% is enough to have a dramatic influence on the ability of different species to cross the Bitter Lakes which are part of the Suez Canal. These lakes have a higher salinity than that of the seas at the ends of the Canal, and therefore species from the Red Sea, which are used to higher concentrations of salt, have a better chance of surviving the salty obstacle in their path.

For more information in Hebrew and for pictures, and to regularly receive articles about plants and animals linked to the Daf Yomi, write e-mail to: [email protected]

HOLY AND SECULAR The Demand for Modesty in the Knesset Building - by Rabbi Amichai Gordin, Yeshivat Har Etzion

Summary of the previous article: In my last article (Behaalotecha, issue 1577), I wrote about the educational skills of Phil Morris. He did not give in to the boys who played on his football team. He demanded from them some limits and some commitment to obligations. Decades later, one of those boys, David Blatt, declared that Morris had been the most profound educational figure in his life.

Morris demanded that David trim his long hair. "His message was that he had no problem with my long hair, but that if I wanted to be part of something big and if it mattered to me, then I would have to accept the rules and the values of the team. That was a critical moment for me, because I had talent but I had no direction and no special meaning. Morris helped me understand what was important in my relationship to sports and to life in general."

We noted in the article that at times we as teachers become confused between our absolute and unequivocal obligation to love each and every student and the simple fact that they are not really obligated to love us. We must never become too occupied with making the students love us and refrain from any complaints. Together with the love that we show them, we must establish limits, rules, and values.

At the end of the article we asked why so many secular schools demand that the students adhere to a dress code while in our schools this is not very common. Can't we say to the students in our schools what Phil Morris said to young David Blatt? "We have no problem with the way you dress, but if you want to be part of this school you must dress in a specific way."

* * * * * *

Not surprisingly, that last part got many reactions from our readers. They wrote me: "Do you really have no problems with the way the students dress? Is the only problem with immodest clothing the fact that it does not comply with the standards of the school?"

The answer to these excellent questions stands on two "legs." The first leg is related to the educational technique of one of the best principals of the schools, Tzvi Neeman. The second leg is related to the dual function of clothing and to the difference between the "halachot of modesty" and a "dress code."

* * * * * *

The first element: "Respectful authority" - "Warmth and love should not be contrary to clear demands and solid boundaries." In the school where he is the principal, Tzvi Neeman developed a concept of "respectful authority." Together with the NGO "Education for life," Tzvi and his teachers developed 11 a model where they show respect for their students, show their interest in them, and take care of them, but at the same time they have clear and stable demands from them.

Tzvi says, "I am not a magician. Anybody who tries in a serious and truthful way to combine full authority with respect and total love can expect to achieve impressive results."

In the dilemma between the loving and embracing teacher and the one who demonstrates his authority, Tzvi Neeman chose to hold the stick at both ends at once. He wants teachers to be both embracing and authoritative. To the bitter end. In both directions, without any compromise.

One of the main foundations of the method of "respectful authority" is never to blame anybody, and never to put them to shame. Respectful authority makes demands without giving in at all, but at the same time without upsetting the student and accusing him of any guilt. Saying "It is shameful to see the way you dress" shows authority but is disrespectful. Using the approach of "respectful authority," we would say, "I appreciate and respect you, but I am sorry to say that you cannot come into our school dressed like that."

* * * * * *

The second element: The difference between the laws of modesty and a dress code – Teachers are not required to enforce the halachot of modesty. It goes without saying that they should teach and explain the laws of modesty in dressing. But whether the students – boys or girls – should be forced to abide by the laws depends very much on the specific school.

A "dress code" is different. This is a respectful way in which a person should dress when he or she comes to a respected place. At the entrance to the Knesset there is an unequivocal demand, as follows: "Entry into the Knesset Building is in appropriate clothing only. Entry in inappropriate clothing will not be permitted: undershirts, short pants, three-quarter length pants, torn pants, clogs..."

In the lobby of a hotel, people do not move around wearing only a bathing suit (and that goes for men too). People who work in a bank do not appear for work in a tee-shirt. When a student appears in school, he or she must show respect. One must wear appropriate clothing in school.

The dress code that must be enforced on anybody who enters a school is meant first and foremost to have us show respect for the teaching and educational accomplishments of the school. Usually, the dress code also solves possible problems related to modesty. But this is a byproduct. It is also reasonable to include in the dress code items that are not immodest but are not appropriate for the school environment. "We have no problem with clogs, but if you want to be part of our school, there is a specific way that you must dress."

For reactions and comments: [email protected]

THE TABLE OF THE KINGS The Last Meal - by Bar-on Dasberg

In each article in this series we deal with some aspect of a single chapter of the book of Melachim.

(Melachim I 17)

The Prophet Eliyahu did not make long speeches. He passed his messages on through actions. Instead of giving a sermon against the prophets of Baal, the god of rain, Eliyahu stopped the rain for three years. We can say that the following three actions from this chapter in Melachim can also teach us something about the spiritual atmosphere of the time.

"The concept of water can only refer to Torah." Therefore the stream of water represents the continuation of the Torah. Eliyahu, the last prophet of 12 G-d who remained, goes to a stream. But the stream is in the process of drying out, for Eliyahu will not live forever. Eliyahu therefore sees the need to find a way for the message to continue.

Eliyahu meets a widow and her son who are planning to eat their final meal and then die. But Eliyahu promises, "the jug of flour will not come to an end and the flask of oil will not run out until the day that G-d sends rain down to the face of the earth" [Melachim I 17:14]. He does not promise them wealth. Until the end of the drought they will always have only their final meal. If the rain and the water represent the Torah, then in this case too Eliyahu is referring to continued faith in G-d. The faith will not come to an end, and even in difficult times there will always remain one final meal, until "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of G-d, like water covers the sea" [Yeshayahu 11:9]. In the meantime, Eliyahu himself continues to represent the final meal.

(We will write about bringing the child back to life when we discuss Melachim II, Chapter 4.)

* * * My book "Katzar V'Lashulchan," a collection of articles that appeared in this bulletin, has just been published (in Hebrew). It can be found in the Steimatzky bookshops.

RIDDLE OF THE WEEK by Yoav Shelosberg, Director of "Quiz and Experience"

Korach They appear first, The head of the tribe is also first. He who reads first is missing from the beginning. What is this?

The answer for last week, the Torah portion of Shelach. The riddle was: The threat against the two of them which did not take place will occur at the end of the Torah portion.

The answer: - The threat was that the whole community wanted to stone Yehoshua and Kalev. "And the whole community said that they would stone them" [Bamidbar 14:10]. - It did happen at the end of the Torah portion, when the man who chopped down trees on Shabbat was stoned. "And Bnei Yisrael were in the desert, and they found a man chopping down trees on Shabbat... And the entire community took him out of the camp and stoned him, and he died." [15:32-36].

* * * * * *

Do you have a bar/bat mitzva coming up? Are you looking for a special quiz? To order: www.hidonim.com e-mail: [email protected]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices of the National Religious Party. Translated by: Moshe Goldberg To subscribe: http://www.zomet.org.il/eng/?pg=subscribe&CategoryID=165 Visit the Zomet Institute web site: http://www.zomet.org.il Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the link between modern technology and halacha at: [email protected] Or: Phone: +972-2-9931442; FAX: +972-2-9931889 (Attention: Dan Marans) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

13