This week's Haftarah begins with the return of the Shechina – the holy
Presence – to Zion and with the significance of this process for mankind:
"Sing and be happy, daughter of Zion, for I am coming, and I will dwell within you – this is what G-d says. And many nations will join together with
G-d on that day." [Zecharia 2:14-15]. The end of the Haftarah describes the
Shechina as an image of a Menorah, similar to the one in the Temple. The proximity of the two images is taken by the sages as proof that the Menorah will serve as testimony for all of humanity that the Shechina dwells within
Bnei Yisrael.
It is true that the Menorah is placed outside of the Holy of Holies, such that at first glance it would seem that it is at a lower level of sanctity than the Ark of the Covenant, where the Torah is kept. This corresponds to the notion that the nation of Yisrael, including the appearance of the
Shechina within it, is of minor importance when compared to the Torah.
However, Rav Kook explains that this is only true from an external point of view, but that from an internal viewpoint – since the Torah was given for the sake of Yisrael and Yisrael preceded the Torah – the Menorah is indeed holier than the Ark. "The Menorah encompasses the sanctity of the soul of
Yisrael on its own, which at first glance might seem external as compared to the holiness of the Torah in the Holy of Holies. However, the truth is that the Menorah spreads its light for everybody. And this is the secret of the testimony given by Yisrael, but it can also light up the outside." [Shemona
Kevatzim 8:157].
We can thus conclude that the sanctity of the nation is of necessity of a universal nature. Superficially, we might think that it is possible to separate between the self-holiness of the nation and its universal outreach, and that influencing the other nations is nothing more than a relatively low level which stems from the sanctity of Yisrael. But this is not true. The fact that Yisrael keeps itself separate is meant to serve the goal of having
"all the nations of the earth blessed through you" [Bereishit 12:3]. But since "a prisoner cannot free himself from prison" [Berachot 5b], it is necessary for one who wants to redeem his friend to remain separate from him. And that is the reason why Bnei Yisrael remain separate from the other nations.
Yisrael also appears in the Haftarah as one who should be emulated by the other nations. We are the first nation in all of history that reached a status of "a nation of G-d," and all the other nations should learn from us, just like all the other brothers learn from the firstborn. "And many nations will join together with G-d on that day, and they will be a nation for me."
In all of history, only the nation of Yisrael was privileged to have collective sanctity, which encompassed the aspects of both nationality and politics. The other nations only had examples of holy individuals, on the level of morals and religion, but in the future they will also have the merits of collective sanctity. And that is why we will not accept converts in the days of the Mashiach (Yevamot 24b), because it will no longer be necessary for a person to break away from his or her nation in order to achieve collective sanctity.
It is specifically the success of the universal mission which lifts Yisrael up to higher levels, as the priests of all the other nations. "And I will dwell within you... And G-d will take Yehuda as His portion on the holy land, and He will choose Jerusalem again" [Zecharia 2:14,16].
1

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 ourim.yaara@gmail.com
.
"And Yehoshua declared... My Master, Moshe, put them in prison! And Moshe said to him... If only all of G-d's nation would be prophets" [Bamidbar
11:28-29].
From media reports: Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, is being invited to the Council of the Chief Rabbinate in order to determine whether his term of office should be extended beyond his current age of 75, as is required by the relevant regulations. In the background there is a desire/request by several members of the Council to have him leave his position (that is: to fire him) because of his viewpoint and his position about issues of religion, society, and the state. Examples are the subjects of conversion, the status of women, and his participation in conferences with Christians, among other things.
Retiring at the Age of Eighty
Here are some basic facts about this matter, before we get into my opinion:
"According to a formal ordinance (5735-1974), the term of a municipal Chief
Rabbi ends when he reaches the age of 75. However, the Council of the Chief
Rabbinate is allowed to extend his term until the age of 80. In 2007 a new ruling was instituted (which is valid only for appointments from that date on) that a municipal Chief Rabbi will only serve until the age of 70, and that the Council of the Chief Rabbinate can extend this twice for five more years, until the age of 80. In practice, the Council of the Chief Rabbinate automatically extends the term of the rabbis, such that rabbis who were appointed after 2007 serve until the age of 70, rabbis who were appointed between the years 1974-2007 serve until the age of 80, and rabbis who were appointed before 1974 serve for the rest of their lives." [From: Eitan
Yarden and Ariel Finkelstein, "The Appointment of Municipal Chief Rabbis in
Israel," The Institute for Strategic Zionism, Kislev 5774]. In case this is not clear to any of my readers, Rabbi Riskin was appointed many years before
2007.
I can also add something from my own personal knowledge. There are quite a few municipal Chief Rabbis who continue to serve even though they are more than 80 years old. Among them are some who have physical limitations. I can also add a bit of "non-knowledge" that I know from my own experience: There is no known case of an active rabbi whose term was not extended , and as far as I know no rabbi was ever asked to appear before the Council of the Chief
Rabbinate to justify his request for an extension (unless the rabbi chose to come on his own initiative). There can be no doubt, and this is a clear "onthe-table" factor, that this entire issue is a result of a war of faith and opinions , and a case of abusing administrative power to use as a "weapon" in this battle.
The Measure of a Rabbi
It is no secret that there are differences of opinion among the rabbis of
Yisrael in matters related to worldview, halacha, education, behavior, and whatever else you want to add (the same is true for the heads of yeshivot,
Chassidic rebbes, and those who disseminate Torah, faith, and morality to
2

the general public). There are quite often disputes in matters of halacha
(including such subjects as kashrut, Shabbat, family purity, and almost anything else you can think of). If the Chief Rabbinate will include considerations of these matters in judging whether to extend the term of a rabbi, it will lead to nothing less than the demise of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Whoever was acceptable before reaching the age of his "extended service" is acceptable for the additional five years too!
In fact, from my personal acquaintance of the two Chief Rabbis of Israel, the President of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate, Rabbi David Lau, and the President of the Rabbinical Courts, Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, as men who are moderate and reasonable, I cannot even imagine that they would lead a discussion (and certainly not make a decision not to extend the term) based on the beliefs, the outlook, and the halachic decisions of a rabbi who enters their offices because it is necessary to extend his term of office.
The Chief Rabbis, who have demonstrated their wisdom, will never get caught up in such a pitfall, no matter how many unwise rabbis and functionaries are busy breathing down their necks. And if they do get into this fray, it will serve as an example of drawing the swords in a "religious war" along the lines of Chareidim versus liberals, with all the possible levels in between.
It is true that one of the Chief Rabbis declared, and rightfully so, that
"We will not serve as a rubber stamp" for decisions brought to them. That is, if they were given a mandate to extend a term of office beyond the normal limit, such approval should not be automatic. This is a worthy and commendable statement, but its ethical implementation depends on three conditions: (1) Complete equality , for everybody involved! (2) Establishing criteria and standard procedures for the parameters that will be checked.
(3) To begin applying the new standards from the next "case," after taking care of the matter of Rabbi Riskin. I have no doubt that Rabbi Riskin will be happy for the merit that has come his way to be instrumental in formulating new objective criteria. In addition to medical approval (which is required for other jobs too) it is also worthwhile to check whether a rabbi is "liked by his community." (Mordechai was "Approved by a large number of his brothers" [Esther 10:3]. How can this be checked?) There should also be a summary of his activities in spreading Torah, educational institutions, charitable endeavors, and religious services. I fear that if the criterion for a passing grade in these matters will be based on the record of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, very few people indeed will be able to compete with him and follow in his place...
Eldad and Meidad who prophesied "in the camp," as is quoted at the beginning of this article, demonstrated their independent thinking and challenged
Moshe's leadership. But he showed exemplary restraint and blessed them, that all the others should follow in their footsteps. The one word "in the camp" appears three times in this passage and "the camp" one more time. My heart tells me that this is a strong hint that these two men were deeply involved and "liked by the community..."
There is an ancient Chabad-Chassidic tradition to study " Chatat " every day – a portion from the Chumash , from Tehillim , and from the Tanya . The portion studied in the Chumash is the relevant section of the current Torah portion
– the first section on Sunday, the second on Monday, and so on, together with Rashi's commentary. The portion of Tehillim is according to the division of Tehillim into the days of the month. And in the Tanya what is studied is a short section according to an annual division of the text.
This study program includes both written and oral Torah (Rashi), prayers from Tehillim, and also spiritual sustenance from the Tanya. The Rebbe of
3

Lubavitch strongly encouraged people to put this program into practice. He viewed it as something that was relevant for the entire nation of Yisrael and as a tool for the blessings of G-d in many realms.
The Chumash – Main Headlines
The Elderly Rebbe taught his disciples the concept of "living with time" – not only to study but to look for insights and to "live" the Torah portion, to color the week with the hues of the Torah portion, viewing it like the main headlines in a newspaper. The daily section of the weekly portion is linked to the specific day on which it is read, and if we have merits we will understand the connection, either consciously or subconsciously.
Rashi's commentary, which is an abstract of the Midrashim of the sages on the verse, links the oral and the written Torah. In addition to the simple interpretations that are included in Rashi's commentary, it can be shown that it involves wonderful secrets. The Elderly Rebbe said, "The commentary of Rashi on the Chumash is the wine of the Torah. It opens the heart and reveals the essence of love and fear."
Tehillim – Not only in Times of Stress
The Book of Tehillim, written by King David, is on one hand a prayer of strength, power, and victory, and on the other hand a prayer for a poor person, with words of beseeching and softness. It includes revelations of love and of fear. All the innermost depths of the soul and its uncertainties are poured out in songs and pleas that only King David was able to express for all of us.
A close relationship to the book of Tehillim has encompassed our entire nation throughout all the generations. Everybody reads from Tehillim and wants to read more. In times of stress, heaven forbid, the book of Tehillim opens up by itself, as it were, and a person reads from it with his entire heart. In our daily lives, however, it is important for us to set aside time for the Tehillim. By reciting it according to its monthly division, we have the merit of obtaining a daily dose, neither too long (as in the weekly subdivision of Tehillim) nor too short (such as one or two chapters at the end of the daily prayers). Rather, this is a "respectable section," and in this way we finish the entire book once a month.
The Rebbe Yosef Yitzchak from Lubavitch actively promoted the reciting of
Tehillim in this way among all the sectors of Yisrael. He explained that this program "has internal intentions that are relevant for the entire community of Yisrael in earthly matters – children, health, and livelihood - and also in spiritual matters - in the light of the dew, in an abundance of blessings, in achieving success, in salvation, and in redemption."
Reciting Tehillim regularly brings to perfection and to a combination of two realms: Torah and prayer. Tehillim is one of the books of the Tanach, one of the twenty-four holy books. In reciting Tehillim Yisrael is credited as if they studied the depths of the laws of nega'im (blemishes) and ritual impurity by contact with the dead, but on the other hand it is completely dedicated to prayer, Divine service, and praise of G-d.
The Tanya – for the Enjoyment
The Tanya is the first Chassidic book to have been written by its author as a book. It is not a collection of ideas and insights but rather consists of a complete thesis. In their letters of approval of the book, friends of the author, who were students of the Maggid of Mezeritch, wrote that now
"Yisrael will be happy with the revelation of his holy words." In this sentence, "Yisrael" refers to the Baal Shem Tov, and the Tanya elucidates his methods and explains what Chassidut emphasizes: joy and love of the nation of Yisrael, the unity of G-d, and Divine personal guidance; the path
4

of loving G-d and fearing Him; the approach to prayer and to Torah; and recognition of the two souls and how to cope with them. Daily study of the
Tanya provides a daily spiritual link to renewal in service of G-d, which is the main new insight of the past three hundred years. This is the worldview of Chassidut, which bubbles out in all directions, while it awakens and livens up the joy of the service of G-d.
Full study of the Tanya should not take more than four years at a rate of one hour a day. But finishing this program leaves a desire for a much larger portion.
Many Chassidic stories exist about the wedding in the city of Zhlobin, at the marriage of the grandchildren of Rebbe Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev and
Rebbe Shneur Zalman of Ladi. This was a rare opportunity for the Chassidim to see their two great rabbis together. The wedding thus became an important gathering of many Chassidim, and the event is famous as "The Great Wedding of Zhlobin."
At the height of the festivities, the two newly-related rabbis – Rebbe Levi
Yitzchak and Rebbe Shneur Zalman – joined together for a reception. They sat side by side, and in front of each one there was a long line of disciples who wanted to greet them. However, in spite of the great friendship the two rabbis had for each other, their meeting sharpened the strong differences between the two men. A number of stories, especially from the traditions of
Chabad, are records of conversations between the two rabbis. These summaries show that Rebbe Levi Yitzchak demonstrated a desire for open spiritualism, an approach that opposes revealed reality and wants to break out and make changes. The author of the Tanya, Rebbe Shneur Zalman, on the other hand, was more accommodating towards physical reality and its limits. And he went even further – Rebbe Shneur Zalman's statements do not accept an unequivocal hierarchy between the physical and the spiritual, and they suggest that even physical reality can be viewed as a revelation of the Divine Shechina.
Just look what happened when the engagement agreement (the " tena'im ") was signed. It was written in the document, which was prepared in the summer of
5567 (1807), that the wedding would take place in Zhlobin. But when Rabbi
Levi Yitzchak saw the document, he tore it up and asked that the following be written: "The wedding will take place, G-d willing, in Jerusalem with
Mazal Tov. If, heaven forbid, the Mashiach will not arrive this year, the wedding will take place in Zhlobin..." (Ehrlich, Rebbe Levi Yitzchak, page
47).
The strong desire of Rebbe Levi Yitzchak to see the redemption, or at least some higher level revelation, here and now, can also be seen in other events that took place during the wedding. For example, at the time when the Grace
After Meals was recited, according to Chabad tradition, Rebbe Levi Yitzchak was surprised to see that Rebbe Shneur Zalman's son recited the " zimun " that introduced the blessings without any visible sign of excitement or devotion, as he had expected. The Elderly Rebbe (Shneur Zalman) explained that this was an example of devotion in the "hidden world" – in an internal and unrevealed fashion. "Internally he was filled with love" (see Shir Hashirim
3:10) but that it was not visible externally. (Kinder, Awesome Stories, page
18).
We will look in more detail at another story which highlights the difference between the two great men. As is told in various versions, during their meeting the two Tzadikim reached an entrance which was not large enough for both of them to pass through together. Neither one was willing to go first.
In the end Rebbe Levi Yitzchak declared, "Let's go straight!" – that is, let us go through the wall. But Rebbe Shneur Zalman refused, and he proposed a
5

different solution – "Let us widen the entrance." (Stories of the Ramach, page 126; Yachad Kula Kedusha, page 128). This remarkable dialogue shows the gap between the two men. At first glance, the two proposals are not so different from each other. In a way both men suggested that the "wall should be broken," since widening the entrance also entails breaking the existing wall. However, in the end there is a very large difference between the two proposals. Rebbe Levi Yitzchak wants to ignore the real world by fighting against it or by going beyond the physical limitations. Rebbe Sheur Zalman is also ready to break the wall, but he wants to do so as an act of
"expansion" – by making the entrance wider, allowing a more harmonious and cooperative existence between the two sides of the wall.
To a great extent, the proposal of Rebbe Shneur Zalman to enlarge the opening is relevant to the specific situation which led the two sides to meet – that is, to the wedding. In a wedding two different sides meet – a bride and a groom; male and female; one family and the other; and so on. The link between two separate and even opposite sides makes it necessary in general to cope with various possible pitfalls. To make opposites compatible
– as is true for the differences between the two Tzadikim in our story – requires that a wall must be broken. When this is done properly, such a break can create a new spiritual openness and a broader and more harmonious approach than existed before.
Let me end with the words of Kadya Molodovsky (in her Yiddish poem, "Efen Di
Toyer" – English lyrics by Ayelet Rose Gottlieb):
"Open the gate, open it wide
Through it a string of gold will pass.
A father, a mother,
A brother, a sister,
A bride and a groom,
On a light carriage."
Naama's Story
Rrring... There was a phone call. Imma rushed to the phone and picked it up.
"Shalom, yes who is it? Oh, the mother of Rinati, from Tamar's kindergarten.
Sure, of course. Why not? Okay, then, tomorrow after kindergarten, until five o'clock."
And Imma turned to my sister. "Tamar, my dear, Rinati will come home with you from kindergarten!"
"Wow!" Tamar jumped for joy. "Wonderful! We can play together, and I can show her all of our stuff, and the dolls, and even my bed. We can play all day long!"
And I said to myself, "Just great!"
* * * * * *
The next day Tamar came home with a happy shout. Two steps behind her there was a shy little girl. She had her eyes down to the ground, and she could barely see where she was going.
Tamar went straight to her room, and Rinati followed her. Rinati sat down on the bed, still wearing her backpack. Tamar took out a doll and showed it to her guest. "Look how cute she is. Her name is Rina! She has curls, and her hair can be made into a ponytail! Here, let's give her something to eat."
6

Tamar took out a small plate from her closet and put it in front of the doll. "Rina, have something to eat. Here is some rice. And here is some meat. And you can also have some kugel!"
Tamar kept on feeding the doll for a long time, and Rinati continued sitting quietly on the bed. She still had her backpack on.
Tamar said, "Isn't this fun, to be together?" She didn't wait for an answer, and she took out her teddy bear from the closet. She sat it down next to
Rina, and she said, "And now we have Rina and the teddy. Let's make a birthday party for Aunt Rinati! Can we make believe that it's your birthday,
Rinati? And Rinati nodded her head slightly, still quiet. Tamar went on,
"Okay, here we go, children. Let's all dance for the birthday! Take each other's hands, and let's dance!" With one hand she took the doll and with the other one she took the teddy, and she started to dance wildly in front of her guest. "Happy birthday! Today is Rinati's birthday! Put a crown on her head, it's her birthday!"
After Tamar (and probably the dolls too) got tired of celebrating an imaginary birthday, Tamar threw them to the side, and she said to Rinati,
"Would you like to play with some blocks?"
I didn't hear any answer, but Tamar ran and brought out some blocks, and she started to build something. "You see, Rinati, here we put a yellow block, and then we add a blue one. And now let's add a few red ones. And there it is – a tower! It's the king's castle! And the queen lives there too!"
Tamar kept on playing by herself, while her friend remained quiet and stayed shy. After an hour or two she finally put her backpack down next to her.
When Tamar suggested that they play a game of Memory, Rinati didn't quite reply, but she did get up and join the game.
Netanel tried to talk to Rinati a bit, but she simply didn't answer. A little while later I realized that I had not heard her voice at all. The truth is that at one point I was very sorry for her. I figured that her parents had to go away for a while, and that because of this she had been sent to play with a friend from her kindergarten who she didn't really know.
For her sake, I hoped that this nightmare of hers would end quickly...
But Tamar didn't seem to mind at all. She kept on with her fulltime job as a hostess, and she didn't pay much attention to the fact that her honorable guest didn't react much to what she did.
In the end, five o'clock came. The doorbell rang, and a woman was standing there – evidently Rinati's mother. Rinati heard her mother's voice. She shouted, "Imma!" and ran to her with great joy. It seems she could talk after all...
"Shalom, my dear. How was it here?"
"It was wonderful," Rinati said, with great enthusiasm. "We played, we talked, and Tamar brought me all sorts of things. And her brother even spoke to me! When can I come here again?"
***** NOW AVAILABLE: A new book by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen: "Adventures in the
Rimonim Library." 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: yikhat@gmail.com
7

Question: During the eighth year, when the fruits which began to grow in the seventh year are free everybody to take, is the owner of the land required to bring the first fruits – the bikurim – to the Temple?
Bringing Bikurim from Ownerless Land
In the passage describing bikurim in the Torah portion of Ki Tavo, it is written, "You shall take from the first of the fruits of the earth, which you bring from your land " [Devarim 26:2]. Similarly, in the end of the portion of Mishpatim, it is written, "The first fruits of your land shall you bring to the House of your G-d" [Shemot 34:26]. In the beginning of the tractate of Bikurim the sages derived from this verse that a person is not required to bring bikurim from fruits that do not belong to him. "Since it is written 'the first fruits of your land' it applies only to what grows on your own land." In the seventh year every owner of a field is required to give the fruit away freely to all comers. We may therefore ask if these fruits are included in the requirement of "first fruits of your land ."
Does Shemitta Fruit belong to Anybody?
In the Midrash, it is written:
"'In the seventh year you shall abandon it' [Shemot 23:11] – Why does the
Torah say this? It cannot be so that we will feed the poor people, because then I would take it into my home and feed them. Rather, it is written that on the seventh year I will abandon it. Thus, in principle we should make holes in the fences to allow everybody free access, but the sages said not to do so in order not to interfere with the normal way of the world."
[Mechilta Mishpatim 23].
This implies that a person is not allowed to distribute the fruit to the poor people as is the custom of one who owns a field, but he must relinquish ownership of the field and allow them to take from it as they see fit. This is also the ruling of the Rambam:
"It is a positive mitzva to abandon everything that grows on the land in the seventh year, as is written, 'in the seventh year you shall abandon it.' And anybody who locks his vineyard or puts a fence around his field in Shemitta has refused to observe a positive mitzva. And this is also true if he gathers all of his fruits into his home. Rather, he should relinquish everything, and allow everybody equal access everyplace, as is written, 'Let the paupers of your nation eat' [Shemot 23:11]." [Hilchot Shevi'it 4:25].
Later rabbis disagree whether fruits that belong to a Gentile (but were then processed in the final stages by a Jew) are under the obligation of taking off teruma and maaser. At first glance, the same law would apply to fruit from the year of Shemitta. According to Avkat Rochel (24), the meaning of the command to relinquish ownership of the fruit is that it still belongs to the owner but that he has been commanded to declare them " hefker " – and give up on his ownership. Therefore if a person ignores the mitzva and does not make such a declaration the fruit continues to belong to him, but he is under an obligation to relinquish the ownership. Therefore, if he did not declare them "hefker" he still owns them and he is obligated to set aside teruma and maaser as usual. On the other hand, the Mabit feels (volume 1,
11) that the relinquishing of ownership is "a law of the King" such that even if a person violates the law and does not make a declaration his fruits are hefker and are not obligated by the laws of teruma and maaser.
All of this is relevant for one who does not give up his ownership of the field. However, if a person does observe the command and gives up his
8

ownership we might assume that all of his property is hefker (whether this has been done directly by heaven or if the owner has taken the proper action), and we can assume that there is no obligation of bikurim. However, the Maharam Shik feels (Mitzva 91) that according to Avkat Rochel since the fruit originally belonged to the owner he must offer bikurim from them, and it is not hard to understand his reasoning for this opinion.
Which Ownership is Important for Bikurim – the Land or the Fruit?
Up to now we have made an implicit assumption that the laws of bringing bikurim from land that is hefker are the same as the laws of teruma and maaser from such land. However, perhaps we should differentiate between the two cases, since as we have seen the source for not bringing bikurim from fruits that do not belong to a person is the verse, "the beginning of the fruits of your land ." Therefore, for Shemitta we must investigate whether what matters is the ownership of the land and not the ownership of the fruit. With respect to the status of the land during Shemitta, it is written in the Mishna that if a person takes a vow prohibiting his friend from deriving any benefit from his land during Shemitta – even though the fruit is not his during Shemitta, the friend is not allowed to enter the field since the land itself continues to belong to the original owner.
Such reasoning which implies an obligation to bring bikurim from Shemitta fruits is explicitly brought by Rashi in his commentary on the Torah: "'The first fruits of your land' – Shemitta too is obligated by bikurim, and that is why in this verse too it is written, the first fruits of your land"
[Shemot 23:19]. The words of Rashi are quoted by the Tashbetz (247) and Or
Sameyach (Maaser Sheni 9:2). However, the commentators of Rashi, Re'eim and
Gur Aryeh , who feel that the criterion for bikurim is the status of the fruit and not the status of the land, give a modified version of Rashi's text. The Chazon Ish used complex reasoning, and he wrote that Rashi was referring to fruit from the sixth and not the seventh year (Orlah 11:18).
Or Hachaim feels (Ki Tavo) that the Torah brought an innovation, hinting with the words "that which your G-d is giving to you " that since G-d retains control over the land, there is no obligation of bikurim for fruit grown on
Shemitta:
"'That which your G-d is giving to you' – That is, since G-d left Himself a portion of the land, during the Shemitta year... He therefore gave His good word that bikurim is a command that is only relevant during the six years, but that there is no bikurim for the Shemitta year, since the land does not belong to the owner but is hefker for everybody."
On the other hand, it is reasonable to accept the view of Rashi, that the
"giving" is defined by the status of the land, as is written in Responsa
Chevel Nachalato (7:39). Since the owner has a right to gather food for three meals for himself from the land, he should be treated the same way as one who relinquished ownership on his land and then took it back into his possession – and he brings bikurim and reads the relevant passage of the
Torah in Ki Tavo. Even if we say that "giving" refers to the fruit, it is still written with respect to Shemitta, "Let the Shabbat of the land be for you to eat" [Vayikra 25:6], and the owner is allowed to collect an amount needed for three meals, as noted, because in the end the man has both land and fruits. The fact that one who sold the fruit and bought it back brings bikurim and reads the passage from the Torah can be seen in the Rambam
(Hilchot Bikurim 2:14), based on the Talmud Yerushalmi (1:8). The Minchat
Chinuch agrees (81) that the Rambam and Rashi both agree.
Conclusion
Even though in my humble opinion the opinion of Rashi is reasonable, the great rabbis of recent generations maintain their doubts. Since to our great misfortune this halacha is not yet meant for practical application, we have
9

not yet been given any holy guidance in this matter. Let us pray that the
Temple will be rebuilt soon, and that then it will be necessary to make a decision about this halacha.
"And the manna was like a seed of coriander, and its appearance was like the shine of a crystal. The nation wandered around and gathered it, and they ground it in a mill and crushed it in a mortar, and they made it into cakes.
And its taste was like dough kneaded in oil." [Bamidbar 11:7-8].
Before we get into a discussion of the miracle of the manna, it is important to address one important issue that comes up whenever we try to explain a miraculous phenomenon in natural terms. At first glance such scientific explanations might be seen as minimizing the importance of the miracle, which is viewed as a supernatural phenomenon. Many great men of Yisrael dealt with this difficulty during different eras, but we will look at the words of the Ramban, who compared the miracles of the manna and of the bringing of the quails: "It appears to me that the miraculous character of the manna was indeed very great. For the quails were brought from the sea by a wind which carried them in a natural way, but the manna was created just for them at that point in time, as a new creation in heaven, similar to the
Creation of the world. And that is what is meant by the statement that the manna was created during the hours of twilight of the Creation." Below, we will first discuss the approach of those who see the manna as a "natural phenomenon" and then we will look at the viewpoint that the manna was a "new creation."
Manna as a Natural Phenomenon
Evidently the first attempt to describe the manna as a continuous natural process appears in the writings of Josephus Flavius ( Kadmoniyot Hayehudim
4:1,6). After he brings the story of the miracle as it appears in the Torah, he adds: "Until today, that entire area is saturated with rain similar to what G-d sent at the time, in order to give life (to the Hebrews) and to be kind to Moshe." The first Christian pilgrims (in the thirteenth century) told of an ancient tradition among the monks of "Mount Sinai" that the manna on the tamarisk trees in the desert is the manna which Bnei Yisrael ate in the desert. Later, the pilgrim Bernhard von Breidenbach (1440-1497) wrote that the manna was created in the depths of Sinai even in his time, but only during the months August to September. The monks and the Bedouins collected it and sold it to pilgrims. Drops of its liquid hang early in the morning on grass, stones, and branches of trees, and after it is gathered it solidifies into lumps. Heating over a fire or by the sun can once again liquefy it. It has a very sweet taste, like honey. According to Breidenbach, he and his fellow pilgrims bought many lumps of manna.
The first scientific report of how the manna is created was written by C. G.
Ehrenberg (1795-1876). He included drawings of the organism responsible for the creation of manna, but because of the low quality of the drawings it was only a hundred years later that S. Bodenheimer was able to decipher what he meant. He explained that these are drawings of the tamarisk manna scale, an insect of the species Trabutina mannipara. Bodenheimer toured around Sinai and found two species of scale insects that produce honey-dew which is called "manna" in Arabic. Honey-dew is excreted by the insects, which get their nourishment from the capillaries that carry the photosynthesis products from the leaves towards the roots of the plant. The Bedouins, who eagerly collect the material which drips from the tamarisk trees, call it
" man a-samma " – manna from heaven. Insects and especially ants are drawn to this sweet material and they collect it in their nests.
10

Manna as a Miraculous Phenomenon
However, in spite of the close match between some of the verses that describe the manna and the physical properties of the "honey-dew," there are a number of problems with this identification. Ibn Ezra voices very strong objections against identifying the manna as the honey-dew produced by scale insects:
"Let the name of Chevi rot, after he said that the manna is what is called
'ternjabin' in Persian, 'man' in Arabic, and 'manna' in other languages, for there are many difficult questions about this. One is that we can see that it does not come down in the Sinai Desert today, since after all we know where the mountain is located. And I saw this, which is similar to the manna, in the Kingdom of Altzachir (Alcazar), and it comes down in the months of Nissan and Iyar and not during any other months. In addition, it does not melt when placed in the sun. Also, it does not spoil overnight. And it is not hard, and it is therefore not necessary to crush it in a mortar in order to make cakes. In addition, it does melt when put on the tongue. Also, it does not satiate an animal, but it can be used for medical purposes. In addition, on Fridays a double portion was deposited in the desert, and it did not fall on Shabbat, and it fell only in the places where the nation was camped. And, according to the straightforward interpretation of the verses it crossed the Jordan River with them and it did not stop falling until the middle of the month of Nissan." [Commentary on Shemot 16:13].
We can add to his comments that according to the description in the Torah the manna disappeared when the temperature rose in the morning because it melted, but what Bodenheimer observed is that what caused the material to disappear is the action of ants and other insects, which gather the lumps of
"manna." (Note that Ibn Ezra also wrote that the material does not melt.)
We can add other points which might convince us to accept the approach of the Ramban, who wrote, as quoted above, that "the manna was created just for them at that point in time, as a new creation in heaven." The description of the manna as a daily source of food during the whole journey of Bnei Yisrael in the desert could not simply refer to honey-dew, since it does not include all the essential nutrients, other than sugar. In addition, the excretion of the honey-dew by the insects is seasonal and is limited strictly to the summer months. The total amount of honey-dew that is produced in the entire expanse of the Sinai Desert has been estimated to be several hundred kilograms, and this is definitely not enough to feed "six hundred thousand" people who left Egypt. A. Danin suggests that the reason honey-dew was identified as the manna is related to nineteenth century Moslem commentators in Persia, who wrote about the story of the manna which appears in the Torah and in the Koran, and that they assumed it was related to a phenomenon with which they were familiar.
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: raananmoshe1@gmail.com
"Who posted the article?" the students rightfully wanted to know. An article about an American basketball player who went on the court to play with a temperature of 38.5 degrees (that is, 101.3 F) didn't seem to be the right thing to appear on the bulletin board of the yeshiva. One of the students put his hand out to tear the article down, when he suddenly noticed a line that was added anonymously by the hand of the person who had hung up the article.
11

Here is what was written in the tiny handwriting that could only belong to the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein: "If Michael Jordon can go on the court to play with a high fever, then we can also come to our Beit Midrash even if we have a headache."
In the following, we will try to follow the way of thinking of our mentor and to learn a lesson about good habits from the best basketball league in the world.
* * * * * *
The first few months that David Blatt was the coach of the team known as the
Cleveland Cavaliers were very difficult for him. The team went through an embarrassing period with a string of losses. "Blatt lacks leadership, and our patience is beginning to wear thin." That is what the American sports writers said. "It is not clear whether the players have any respect for him, they appear confused. Their body language is terrible."
Back in Israel the criticism was much sharper. "The illusion of the great accomplishments of David Blatt in Cleveland is beginning to disappear," one senior analyst wrote. "Their star player James LeBron was against the idea from the beginning... Blatt's leap from coaching a team in Israel to a senior team in the NBA is completely illogical..."
The boldest comment came from an analyst at Galei Tzahal, the IDF station, who claimed that the running feud between Blatt and LeBron had already come to an end. "In the United States everybody already knows that LeBron will make sure that Blatt will be fired. It is impossible to fight against the best player in the world. I am sorry to say that it is not a matter of a few weeks or days, it will take only a few hours."
* * * * * *
However, the rest is well known. Five months later, David Blatt lifted the championship cup of the east coast of the best league in the world high above his head, after his team trounced their tough opponents by a score of
4:0. In spite of the deadly criticism, in spite of the pride and ploys of
James LeBron, in spite of mistakes due to inexperience that almost led to a loss in a critical game – in spite of everything, Blatt won the day.
What is the secret of this man, who didn't crack in the toughest and most embarrassing moments? Part of the answer was revealed by Blatt in a closed session where he appeared in the Jewish Community Center in Akron, Ohio.
Blatt said that the man who had the greatest influence on his professional career was Phil Morris, who was David's coach in high school.
* * * * * *
"I had hair growing down to my shoulders, and he told me to cut if off. 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."
Blatt is very thankful to the man who demanded from him discipline and a commitment. Decades later, Blatt remembered the man, who was not afraid to make it clear to the youths around him that there are rules and obligations.
The man who had the greatest influence on Blatt's career is the man who taught him that there are laws and that there is discipline.
* * * * * *
12

I am sorry to say that the way the religious educational system appears today I am afraid that if David Blatt were studying in this system today he would not have gone very far – certainly not to the Cleveland Cavaliers. Our system takes care to caress, to hug, and to encompass all the young men and women (which is indeed very important!), but it forgets its additional role, that of setting limits. We are afraid to make demands of our children. We are thus forgetting an important part of our appointed task.
Why is it that in many nonreligious schools there is a dress code, but not in our schools? Why can't we tell a young boy or girl what Phil Morris said to the boy David Blatt? "The way you dress doesn't matter to me, but if you want to be part of our school you must dress in a specific way!"
We must differentiate between our absolute and total obligation to love and take care of our students and the simple fact that they are not really obligated to love us. We are too involved in an effort to make sure the students will love us and will not register any complaints, and not enough in the need to set limits for them, to make rules and teach them values.
The sad news is that all of this works backwards. If in order to make sure that the students will not be angry with us we will never make any demands on them, they will really be angry with us. Not today, but ten years from now. Only if we continue to love our students and to make demands from them without any fear of how they will react, will they in the end appreciate and love us.
For reactions and comments: benkodesh@gmail.com
In each article in this series we deal with some aspect of a single chapter of the book of Melachim.
(Melachim I 16)
The King of Kuzar tried to set a trap for the " chaver ," the Jewish wise man.
He asked how it could be that the nation of Yisrael, which was praised so highly by the chaver, could commit the sin of the Golden Calf right after the momentous events at Mount Sinai. The King knew that if the chaver would play down the importance of the sin it would be hard for him to explain why the nation was given such a harsh punishment.
The chaver explained that the intention of the people was to serve G-d, but that they did this in an erroneous way. In this way the chaver got himself out of the trap and was able to pass on an important message: Somebody whose
"intentions are desirable but whose actions are not desirable" might well be a great person, but in reality this is the source of sin.
This was indeed a brilliant reply, but we might ask: What source is there in the Tanach that teaches us that when they created the Calf the people wanted to serve G-d?
We can find this source in this week's chapter. The calf can be compared to the calf that was made by Yeravam, which led to the sins of the generations that followed him. Only when we see that Achav serves the idol, the Baal, do we begin to understand that there are two different levels of sin – one is distorted service of G-d through calves, and the other and lower level is to directly serve Baal.
Just as the sin of Yeravam is a parallel to the sin of the Golden Calf, so the sin of worshipping Baal by Achav is parallel to the sin at Baal Peor.
13

And in the next chapter we will meet Eliyahu, who is compared to Pinchas. We will meet the two men who fought against the Baal.
* * * 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.
Behaalotecha
Two that appear in this week's Torah portion
Also appear in the Prophets and in the Writings
Who are they?
Answers for last week, Nasso. The question was: What she says twice after a curse we say once at the end of a blessing. What is it?
The answer is: the word "Amen."
- A woman who is suspected of adultery replies to the Kohen who curses her by saying Amen twice: "And the Kohen will make the woman swear with the oath of a curse... And the cursed water will enter your intestines to distend the stomach and to collapse the thigh. And the woman will reply, Amen, Amen ."
[Bamidbar 5:21-22].
- We respond to every blessing that is recited with the word " Amen ."
* * * * * *
Do you have a bar/bat mitzva coming up? Are you looking for a special quiz?
To order: www.hidonim.com
e-mail: info@hidonim.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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: zomet@netvision.net.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-9931442; FAX: +972-2-9931889 (Attention: Dan Marans)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14