I assume that the relationship between Israel and Turkey will occupy us for the near future. The current Prime Minister of Turkey has drawn his country into giving enthusiastic support for the Palestinians, thereby in effect declaring that his country is an enemy of Israel. For the moment, the controversy between Israel and Turkey centers on the flotilla which attempted to break the Israeli naval blockade of the terrorist entity in Azza. The attempt to penetrate the blockade was thwarted by an IDF commando unit. Nine Turkish citizens were killed During the operation, eight of them who declared that they were members of an organization that openly supports terrorism.

A United Nations committee has just published a report which justifies the blockade on Azza, but which also demands an apology and compensation from Israel for the use of exaggerated force in taking over the provocative ships.

For the time being, our Prime Minister supports the position of the Foreign Minister – that we have nothing for which to apologize, and that we have the same right of defending ourselves as all other countries. The following is written in support of this approach, in spite of political and security-minded voices in Israel to the contrary, even from people who are prominent in the government. They seem to feel something along the lines of such statements as: "Let us make some sort of apology, as long as it will put the subject in the past. It is a pity to lose diplomatic, military, and economic relations with an important country in our area because of a one-time event. We have something to lose in the international arena as opposed to the stubborn and vengeful approach of the Turks. We should be smart and not try to appear right." And so on...

However, I assume that I am voicing the opinion of the vast majority of the Israeli public, who feel that if we are right – and we indeed are right! – we must not degrade our national pride and the truth of our security in order to placate the neighborhood bully, even if the subject involves political and economic interests. This is certainly true with respect to the Turks, whose Prime Minister has evidently entered a phase of irrational anti-Israeli activity but who has not succeeded in dragging his nation after him (at least according to Israeli tourists who have been there). In addition, Turkey prides itself on being a democratic and secular country, and it cannot afford to appear in the world as a defender of Islam. I am therefore quite sure that the threatening and critical attitude of the Turkish Prime Minister is nothing more than a personal whim which will fade away with time.

Any surrender to this whim, even an apology couched in very diplomatic terms, will draw after it more and more apologies and greater strikes against us. This is similar to the world of crime, which strikes out at the heads of the weak, the defeated ones, and the downtrodden. Our Foreign Minister has aptly and openly expressed this position, and we can only send him our support.

Similarly, we must not set foot into the international court in the Hague or in any other international judicial institution. In fact, Israel should be the leaders of a move, to "shout out" in every international forum and at every opportunity, that there is a dire need to update and upgrade the international treaties in the face of international terrorism, especially that which stems from the monstrous approach of Islam. The time for the diplomacy of the nineteenth and even the twentieth century is over. We are living in the era of globalization, and this includes the world of the terrorists.

     * * * * * *

And this is a good point to remember the (relatively) good relationship between world Jewry and the Turkish Jewish population and the Turkish government – both during the Turkish era and in more modern times.

"The kindness of youth" can be seen in the era when the Turkish Ottoman Empire opened its gates to welcome the refugees from Spain. In the Middle Ages and in most of the modern times the Jews of Turkey did not suffer from persecution or from restrictive laws. Just the opposite – they had economic freedom, and they held official positions, taking part in the broad range of officials in the Ottoman Empire. For generation after generation, the rabbis of Turkey enriched the Torah literature, and the volumes of responsa from Istanbul and Izmir fill large spaces in the Jewish bookshelf.

The Ottoman era in Eretz Yisrael, until the British conquest of 1917, is remembered as a time of new development, construction, building of an infrastructure, and devoid of enslavement. The Zionist movement owes the Ottoman Empire a vote of thanks for its support during the early days of pioneering settlement. Another kindness that will be remembered forever is the fact that the Holocaust skipped over the Jews of Turkey, due to the policies of the Turkish government, in spite of the fact that Turkey cooperated with the Nazis. The Jews of Greece and Saloniki were destroyed in the Holocaust, but their nearby neighbors, across the border in Turkey, were saved.

One "Turkish affair" which darkens the history of the Jews in the land reaches out all the way to Azza. This is the issue of the "Mashiach" Shabtai Tzvi and the "prophet" from Azza, Natan. The two men joined forces, in a complex relationship where it was not clear who was the leader and who was the disciple, and they succeeded in instigating a disaster for the Jews in their generation (in the middle of the seventeenth century). The flowering of mysticism at the time, and the opening of mystic studies to the level of "Kabbalah for the masses" and "courtyard masters of the Kabbalah" led to the rotten fruit of a false messiah, which ended in no less than the prophet's conversion to Islam. The prophet who gave him support also lost his status, and the man from Azza moved to Turkey, Greece, Italy, and the Balkans. He was put to rest in Macedonia. In my opinion, this unfortunate chapter in our history was nurtured by the atmosphere of the traditional Turkish tolerance towards its Jews.

"If a man has a rebellious son who does not listen to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother..." [Devarim 21:18]. What does the unique term "sorer u'moreh" mean. Exactly what does the phrase "the voice of his father and the voice of his mother" mean?

In the Talmud we are told about the process of the creation of a new child: "There are three partners in the creation of a new person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, the father, and the mother. The father provides the white material from which the bones and the brain in the head are formed. The mother provides the red material from which skin and flesh are made, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, supplies the spirit and the soul." [Nida 31a]. This can be taken in a straightforward way to imply that the Almighty provides the soul, while the parents build up the "garment" for the soul: The mother is the source of the material element, the body, while the father is the source of the spiritual side, related to the Torah.

However, the task of the parents is not really limited only to the physical body. "Listen, my son, to the morals of your father, and do not abandon the Torah of your mother" [Mishlei 1:8]. It is the responsibility of the father to teach the child Torah, here described as "the morals of your father." The mother teaches proper behavior, which is called "the Torah of the mother." Thus, the "sorer" is a person who rebels against the morals of the father (similar to the word "mussar"). And "moreh" is a person who does not listen to the "Torah" of the mother – that is, to her teachings. In summary, a Ben Sorer U'Moreh follows neither the formal Torah nor proper codes of human behavior.

The above model is based on a division of labor between the father and the mother. The father teaches the Torah and the mitzvot. The mother, on the other hand, teaches proper behavior, and all of this is included in the physical elements provided by the mother. This then implies that the role of the mother was relevant before the onset of time, since as we know "derech Eretz" – proper natural behavior – preceded the Torah. Rabbi Chaim Vital wrote that the Torah did not give direct commands about behavioral traits since they are the human basis for the Torah, and it is impossible to build up the level of the Torah without first having a basis of natural morality. The sages see a hint of this in the Torah in the verse, "This is what you should say to the House of Yaacov" – referring to the women – "and tell the children of Yisrael" – referring to the men [Shemot 19:3]. "Thus, the women who are righteous are the first ones to provide material merits, so that the child will then be ready to achieve the intellect of the Torah" [Maharal].

With respect to the rebellious son, we have been taught, "If his mother and father are not equal in their voices, in their appearance, and in their height, the child is not declared a 'sorer u'moreh.'" [Sanhedrin 71a]. When the parents are not coordinated in matters of education and each one speaks in a different voice, it is no surprise that their son is a rebel. When the parents do not live in peace and if they do not show respect for each other, the children will feel a negative influence. Such a son is therefore not punished.

In addition, when the mother and father are impatient with their own parents, we should not be surprised to see that the children treat their mother and father the same way. A story is told about a father who had no patience to sit with his own father to eat. He gave his father a wooden bowl so that it would never be able to break, and he made him sit in the corner of the room. One day the father saw his young son carving something out of a piece of wood, and he asked the boy what he was doing. The answer was, "I am making a bowl for when you grow old..."

 

"One who learns even one letter from his colleague must show him respect. This is seen from King David, who learned only two things from Achitofel" [Avot 6:3]. How can a person be taught only a single letter?

King David had a problem. "David said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: How long will the people criticize me and claim that I have a blemish in my family? They say that I am descended from Ruth, the Moavite, and it is written, 'Let no Amonite or Moavite join the community of G-d' [Devarim 23:4]." [Ruth Rabba 8:1]. But three generations before that, Boaz had already ruled that this verse refers to a man from these nations and not to a woman (Ruth Rabba 5:3). Why was David still troubled by this rumor? Why does the Talmud teach us that the argument about women from Moav and Amon still existed in the days of David?

Evidently, in the area of the hills of Chevron, the descendents of Kalev objected to David, from the descendents of Nachshon, and they refused to accept the ruling of Boaz and his followers (for example: this would include the people of Zif and Naval from the Carmel). And then Achitofel from Gilon (southern Chevron hills) came and accepted the earlier ruling, based on a single missing letter, "tav": the Torah law referred to "Moavi" (a man) and not to "Moavit" (a woman). This paved the way for the establishment of the Kingdom of David.

A good way to judge a known rabbinical figure is to look at his works with a perspective of the passing generations. We should ask such questions as: Is his name known to everybody even after he passed away? Does his spiritual guidance serve as a path that people have continued to follow for many years?

An interesting example of this concept can be seen in the book "Dor Revi'i" (Fourth Generation), written by Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glazer, who was the rabbi of the city of Kloizenberg for forty-two years. Dor Revi'i is a wide-ranging book on the tractate of Chulin. To explain the name of the book, he wrote: "It is because I am the first one in the fourth generation from the Chatam Sofer, and I bear his name. I hope he will not be ashamed of me or of my Torah." That is, the author is the oldest great-grandson of the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Glazer was the son of the Chatam Sofer's daughter's daughter). Rabbi Glazer did not have the privilege of meeting the Chatam Sofer, but he was named for him. Thus the name, Fourth Generation, notes his relationship to the famous rabbi. Rabbi Glazer was recognized as a Torah genius from an early age. When he was nine years old, he attended lessons given in his grandfather's yeshiva. In order to prevent him from showing pride over this fact, his father would often tell him that his success in study was the result of his family history. He was the descendant of generations of Torah scholars who labored hard to study the Torah, and this made it easy for him. Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glazer joined the Mizrachi movement. Near the end of his life he moved to Jerusalem, where he passed away in 5685 (1925).

Rabbi Glazer's approach to study emphasized honest logic and a sense of criticism, and he stayed far away from "pilpul," hair-splitting analysis. In this, he followed his great-grandfathers lead. He writes about himself, "I have faith in the words of a faithful righteous man, a man who was great for the fearing Jews, a pillar of teaching in the previous generation, my great-grandfather, the holy author of the Chatam Sofer... His soul was upset by the twisted path others took... explaining the words of the earlier rabbis in a way that is far removed from simple logic, saying in fact that the right side is on the left side."

As an example of the clear way that he thought, we will take the issue of religion and science.

One of the main issues within the broad range of questions about the relationship between Torah and science – and whether they are compatible or not – involves animals that are listed in the Mishna in the beginning of the third chapter of Chulin as unkosher ("tareif" – when an animal has sustained an injury that will definitely lead to its death). The Mishna gives a detailed list of eighteen injuries which make the animal unfit to eat and ends with a common definition that fits them all: "Here is the general rule: Anything that cannot live with such an injury is unkosher" [Chulin 42a]. Any injury sustained by an animal such that it cannot continue to live makes it unfit to eat, even if it was slaughtered according to the halacha.

Among the specific injuries that appear in the Mishna are such examples as a hole in the food pipe, a hole in the lung, and so on. Today it is well known that some of the injuries listed are not life-threatening at all. Today operations are performed on the food pipe, on the intestines, and even on the lungs without any fear for the lives of the patients. People donate entire lobes of their lungs to be implanted in the bodies of their dear ones who have an injury in their lungs, because it has been shown that the level of danger to the donor is very low. The question that can be asked is: How can halacha and scientific reality be reconciled? There are two different approaches to this dilemma which were already proposed by the early commentators, and it seems that these two approaches can still be found today. One approach is that of the Rashba in his Responsa, while the other is that of the Rambam in his book of law. One approach is not to test the words of the sages with scientific tools and to accept their statements at face value. Those who hold the other approach, on the other hand, accept that the medical and scientific knowledge that we have today indeed contradicts what we were taught by the sages, but that the halacha is not to be changed, for various reasons. (See a comprehensive discussion of this issue in the book by Rabbi Neria Gutal, Natural Changes in Halacha, Book 1, Chapter 4).

Rabbi Avraham Korman discusses such questions in his books analyzing halacha and reality. In a visit to the Rambam Library, he showed me the correct approach of Rabbi Shmuel Glazer, in the introduction to Dor Revi'i. His main point is that there are indeed differences between what is known to halacha and physical reality but we are still obligated to abide by the halachic rulings. "If a generation living after the Mishna was sealed finds that the authors of the Mishna made a mistake and if a generation after the Talmud was sealed finds that the authors of the Talmud made a mistake, we can only continue to abide by the laws as agreed upon by the earlier rabbis, whether they are lenient or stringent. As is written in the Chinuch, it is better for us to accept a mistake in a single halacha than to destroy the entire edifice of halacha. Even if the original was based on natural science or other general wisdom, we cannot change what was accepted as halacha in the Mishna or the Talmud."

In short, the book Dor Revi'i continues in the tradition of logical study as was taught by the Chatam Sofer.

A Beautiful Captive:

He will in the end hate her... As is written in the following passage, 'If a man has two wives...' [Devarim 21:15]. And in the end she will give birth to a rebellious son. That is why the two passages are next to each other." [Rashi].

     * * * * * *

I was always very interested in the Torah portion of Ki Teitzei. Is this because of the impressive collection of mitzvot that it has (seventy-two mitzvot, the highest number of any weekly portion) or perhaps is it because this was my bar mitzva portion? I do not know.

In spite of the large number of mitzvot, the logic of their sequence has always been something of a mystery to me. For years I searched for some sort of structure and a logical sequence in the Torah portion. The only thing that I came up with is the note by Rashi quoted above. He explains that the mitzvot are in a sequence set by association, where one passage has some logical connection to the next. Of course, this reply by Rashi only made me wonder more. What Rashi did was not to give us a logical structure but rather a continuum of separate related events.

     * * * * * *

IDF Standing Orders – From Air Force Order 2.0101 – "The Obligation to carry a personal weapon and to guard over it"

The following soldiers are required to carry a military personal weapon:
Any member of the land forces, every soldier who serves or while on active duty passes through the area of Yehuda and the Shomron and other areas which will be in standing order 1/1.002 – "The obligation to carry a personal weapon and guard over it" – under the conditions established in this standing order. For the purposes of this clause, a soldier who is allowed to carry a personal weapon is one... who has been ordered in writing to carry a military personal weapon by an officer of a rank of at least colonel...

A release from the obligation to carry a military personal weapon:
This applies to a soldier who is on leave, except for the following cases: An officer from his unit of at least colonel has commanded otherwise; or a soldier who is in the land forces...

The way to carry personal weapons:
A soldier will carry a personal weapon, except for a pistol a described below, in accordance with the regulations of the Ground Arm with respect to safety. The weapon should be held in a "crosswise" position during administrative motion, and in front of the body while moving in a military camp...

From the Battalion Commander roll call, somewhere in the south of Israel:
"You have not shaved as you should have. The top blanket should be folded. You have rust on the back end of the firing pin. Your shoes are not shined. You are not standing straight. Why isn't the 'events calendar' updated? Why is the fourth magazine for your rifle missing? Your canteen has not been filled. Why isn't the garbage in its proper place? Put a new plastic cover on your personal bandage."

     * * * * * *

The IDF standing orders and the complaints of the Battalion Commander, only small parts of which were quoted above, have something in common. They are both a collection of comments and commands. But there is also a remarkable difference between the two. The standing orders are organized in a logical sequence. Anybody who wants to find out about a specific command can easily find the relevant place and read what he wants to know. Everything is organized and logical.

However, the commander's orders are disorganized, with a sequence based on associative thought. The commander inspected his soldiers and gave his commands based on what he found. An order about shaving might appear next to an order about care of a weapon. An order about the handling of garbage might appear together with an order about the care of personal bandages.

     * * * * * *

Why does the Torah in this week's portion follow the system of the Battalion Commander and not that of the standing orders of the IDF, which are organized in a logical sequence? Why are the commands in the Torah in an associative sequence and not a strictly logical one?

The answer to the above question is very simple. A set of standing orders has many benefits, but it also has one huge fault. The standing orders are detailed, clear, and in sequence, but they are not connected to any specific real case. They exist in their own world, with a very weak link to reality. Aside from lawyers and a small number of annoying perfectionists among the soldiers, nobody ever really looks at them.

I have served in the army and in the reserves for the last twenty years. Until I sat down to write this article, I never looked at the IDF standing orders. None of the soldiers, from the private in boot camp to the Chief of Staff, are familiar with the "Orders of the General Staff." We obey the commands given us by the Battalion Commander at roll call. Our source for the army orders is the Battalion Commander and not the Orders of the General Staff.

The collection of mitzvot in this week's Torah portion is similar to the commands of the Battalion Commander. The Torah is not an idealized system that is far removed from reality. It is a living Torah. The Torah presents us with a way to live that is holy and is better for us. The commandments are organized in response to events, because the Torah is closely linked to reality and its objective is to raise the real world to a higher level. The Torah is not sitting somewhere in a disconnected ivory tower next to the lonely Orders of the General Staff.

 

We are in the middle of Elul, the month of mercy and prayer. This is a good time for self reckoning, to check ourselves from a spiritual point of view, and to mend whatever must be fixed. The process of repentance is long and wearying, and it can lead to despair. Where should we start? How will we be able to change? Is it possible at all to change other things or ourselves?

Is there a figure in the Tanach which can serve as a model for such a process? Who can provide us with inspiration and encourage us to fix what we have spoiled and to advance in our spiritual world? We often see King David as one who "established the process of repentance" [Moed Katan 16b], but could it be that his brand of repentance is at too high a level for us?

A Surprising Model for Repentance

The sages talk about a different model for the subject of repentance, one that is quite remarkable: Achav, the King of Yisrael!

Achav appears as a model figure in a key liturgical poem on the subject of repentance:
"The son of Omri burst forth from the bounds of the world with evil
He desired idols of the trees of the Asheira and added crimes to his sins.
You tore apart his conviction when he repented from his sins
He was given mercy as one who confessed and abandoned his way, and he received Your help."
["Horeita Derech Teshuva," Selichot for Tzom Gedalia].

Why did the poet choose such a problematic figure?

Achav is considered one of the most evil kings of Yisrael. "And Achav continued to make G-d angry... more than all the kings of Yisrael who lived before him" [Melachim I 16:33]. Achav built altars for idol worship throughout his kingdom and made the worship of Baal a state ritual. He built a "House of Baal" in the capital city of Yisrael in the Shomron as a replacement for the Temple in Jerusalem.

Achav gave his wife Izevel a free hand to operate in the kingdom, and he allowed her to impose the values of her city of Tzidon. Izevel brought the three most serious sins into the kingdom of Yisrael. She imported Baal and the Asheira trees (idol worship). She was involved in illicit sex, as is seen from the interpretation of the verse, "And the harlots washed in it" [Melachim I 22:38] – "Achav was a cold man, and his wife Izevel made him two statues of harlots on his chariot so that he would look at them and become warm" [Sanhedrin 9b]. She was also a champion of "free love" – "To the harlots of your mother Izevel and her many types of sorcery" [Melachim II 9:22]. Izevel did not believe either in the sanctity of human life. She was a murderer, both in her religious wars against the prophets of G-d and in the way she had Navot killed because of her lust for wealth.

How and when did Achav repent? And was it true repentance?

After Izevel killed Navot and called for Achav to take possession of his field, Eliyahu came to Achav with a dire prophecy of punishment for him and for his entire house. "I will cut off from Achav all male descendents" [Melachim I 21:21]. When Achav heard this harsh prophecy, he was not apathetic. "And when Achav heard these words, he tore his clothing and put on sackcloth and fasted. And he lay down in sackcloth and moved slowly." [21:27]. It seems that the king's reaction was very intense and remarkable. But is it really so? After all, is this not reminiscent of the extreme repentance of the people of Ninveh, which was merely an external phenomenon? "And they declared a fast and they put on sackcloth, from the biggest to the smallest" [Yona 3:5].

Another prophet indeed raves against such repentance: "Is this a fast which I would choose, a day when a person afflicts his soul? Should a man bend his head like a fishhook and distribute sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast and a day acceptable to G-d?" [Yeshayahu 58:5].

Changing the Daily Routine

There is a disagreement about the true meaning of Achav's repentance:

"He tortured his soul with fasting, and he would rise up before the Holy One, Blessed be He, in prayer and supplication. And this shows the power of teshuva. Others say: If he would normally eat in the third hour of the day, he ate in the sixth hour, and if he would normally eat in the sixth hour of the day, he ate in the third hour." [Yalkut Shimoni].

These represent two opposite views. According to the first description, Achav experienced a deep and meaningful process. It included acknowledging the sin, self mortification, regret, and prayer. The second opinion gives a picture of minor and symbolic acts, such as changing the regular times of meals.

But whether we accept the first or the second of the above explanations, it is clear that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was duly "impressed" by Achav's actions. "And the Word of G-d came to Eliyahu the Tishbi saying: Did you see that Achav surrendered to me?" And the Almighty even delayed the punishment. "I will not bring about the evil in his days... In the days of his son I will bring the evil to his house." [Melachim I 21:29].

G-d's reaction is easy to understand as long as we accept the first opinion in the above Midrash. But how can we agree with the acceptance of the repentance if this was an external act, such as simply moving the schedules for meal times?

This can teach us that repentance is not necessarily a sharp revolutionary step. It is not always necessary to transform our entire life style. Even as small a step as a change in normal routine, a small step in the correct direction, can have great significance on the way to mending the situation and repenting. A symbolic change in meal times by Achav left a lasting impression in heaven, so much so that this change was considered "surrendering" to G-d.

Evidently this type of action is what the sages meant when they said, "Give Me an opening the size of the eye of a needle, and I will open it as wide as the entrance to the Temple courtyard" (see Shir Hashirim Rabba 5:3).

As we have seen, the Talmud explains that "Ashrei" is important because it is in alphabetical sequence and because it includes the verse, "Open Your hand" [Tehillim 145:8], to provide for all creatures. Is this verse still so central to our prayers in modern times, when there is often an abundance of food and when the main problems of a livelihood no longer revolve around the question of food?

When a person reaches economic stability – general satisfaction, a good house, available money – there is a real danger that he may forget G-d and declare, "My own power and the strength of my hand have given me all of this wealth" [Devarim 8:17]. At such a point, it is necessary to have constant reminders that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is the one "who gives you the strength to acquire wealth" [8:18].

Thus, the verse, "Open Your hand," while important for a person who is having difficulty with earning a livelihood, is even more important for a person who already has a livelihood. (It is vital in this case to remember that the wealth is not guaranteed without G-d's help even if a person is very rich and has many possessions.)

In the previous article we emphasized that one of the main points of Pesukei D'Zimra and Ashrei in particular is Divine royalty. But this in itself is not anywhere near as important as noting how dependent we are on the King! The kingdom will be truly exalted when we recognize the authority that the King has over us.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, provides us with a livelihood in a natural way. In this way mankind improves the world and at the same time achieves his livelihood through a process of labor and effort. We do not receive anything as a free gift. We must constantly repeat to ourselves that the Almighty is the one who opens His hand and gives us food and a livelihood in general. It is the Holy One, Blessed be He, who makes sure to provide the needs of all the creatures.

As a result of these considerations, it is important to think about the meaning of the prayer while reciting Ashrei, and if a person did not have the proper intentions he should repeat the verse, "Open Your hand," at another point in Pesukei D'Zimra. Somebody who forgot to do this throughout Pesukei D'Zimra should recite the verse with proper intentions the second time Ashrei is recited, after the Amida prayer. (See Yavia Omer Volume 6, 5-6; Ben Ish Chai Vayigash 12 – based on Rav Saadia Gaon, who gives this as the reason that Ashrei is recited three times a day: the person will have the proper intentions at least one time during the day.) The Mishna Berura implies that after the end of the morning prayers one should repeat starting with the verse "Open Your hand" until the end of Ashrei.

The Importance of the Alphabetical Sequence

Arranging the verses of the Psalm in alphabetical order is an indication of perfection and completeness. It is a hint of a situation which encompasses the whole world, all of reality, the entire universe. This Psalm is an expression of the royalty of G-d and the way that He watches over all of His creatures. The alphabetical sequence indicates that the Divine Kingdom rules over everything, that the kingdom of G-d appears in every part of reality. Even things that appear to us to be part of nature or that we think we control – everything is in reality His Kingdom.

This idea can be seen in the words of Rav Kook:

"The praise linked to the alphabetical sequence shows a faith in the renewal of the world and that the Almighty created His world using the letters of the holy Torah. And, in order to contradict the apostates, who say that 'G-d has abandoned the earth,' it is necessary to add to the faith in creation the belief of Divine supervision. And 'Open Your hand' refers to Divine guidance." [Olat Re'iya volume 1, page 225].

The Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world using the alphabet. It is a symbol of the perfection of the world. The verse, "Open Your hand," adds the concept that the Almighty not only created the world but continues to guide it, is involved in it, and supports it.

We can conclude that the verse "Open Your hand and supply the needs of every living creature" and the alphabetical sequence taken together provide enhancement for a single concept: establishing the Divine Kingdom! These elements appear explicitly in other Psalms but the advantage of the alphabetical sequence and the verse "Open Your hand" is that we not only mention the Divine Kingdom but we also emphasize and elucidate these factors. The alphabetical sequence emphasizes that the perfection of G-d appears in every element of reality. The verse "Open Your hand" reminds us every day that our livelihood is provided by G-d, and that everything we possess has come to us from Him, including all the elements that seem to be
the result of our own wisdom and success – everything comes from G-d!

* I want to compliment Tirza Frankel for her article on the subject of the responsibility of parents for educating their children and the fact that the teachers serve as their messengers. The teachers are indeed worthy of all of our thanks and praise, at least most of them. But I am sorry to say, as a parent of children in the system in the present and in the past, that more than once I have encountered teachers who have forgotten that they are acting as messengers for the parents. Every comment or attempt to have an influence or – G-d forbid – to criticize the teacher was met with disdain or was completely ignored. Any success was credited to them, and any failure was to be blamed on the parents. Thus, the parents are not the only ones responsible, and there is a good reason for parents to search for the best place for their children.
     (Arik Cramer)

* To Bar-On Dasberg: The criticism of the joy at the moment that the glass is broken during a marriage ceremony is not related to the singing of the verse, "If I forget you, Jerusalem." Rather, it is directed towards the spontaneous eruption of the onlookers with cries of "Mazal tov!" Such an outburst is not a reaction to shattering G-d's "cup of anger" but stems from the mistaken impression that breaking the glass is similar to the giving of the ring – an integral part of the marriage ceremony. It would not surprise me to learn that the mistake stems from imitating nonreligious marriage ceremonies, where the groom is cheered for showing his manhood by his success in shattering the glass.
     (Meir Cohen, Haifa)

(Comments refer to last week's issue of Shabbat-B'Shabbato – they must be sent to Zomet Institute, in Hebrew, by Sunday morning at the latest.)

This is a story that took place at a time when the Jews of Morocco had begun to flow in large numbers to our land. As is well known, it is a privilege for a Jew to be buried in Eretz Yisrael, and the people who came wanted to bring with them the bones of several righteous men who were buried in Morocco. The authorities there would destroy cemeteries now and then in order to make room for new buildings, and the Jews tried with all their might to rescue the graves of their relatives, and especially those of great men of our nation. The problem was that the Moroccan Moslems also felt that the graves of the righteous men were holy, and if they had known about the plans to move the remains they would have caused great harm to the Jews and even desecrated the remaining Jewish graves. In order to avoid such tragic events, the Jews acted in strictest secrecy. They removed the bones from the graves at night and hid them in different types of packaging. They would then smuggle them to Eretz Yisrael, making use of very unusual routes.

And so it was that a young man, Chaim Pinto, found himself carrying a black and very heavy suitcase. He went by boat to France and from there by train to another way station from where he would be able to get to Eretz Yisrael without very stringent checking at the border.

On the train, Chaim saw that Shabbat was approaching. The train stopped at a small French village, and Chaim realized that he would not be able to get to the next stop before Shabbat. What should he do? Where would he be able to spend Shabbat? With very little time left to decide, Chaim got off the train without knowing where he would go. The train station would be closed down at midnight. He did not know anybody in the village, and the people around him did not know about any nearby Jewish community. With no other options and with a heavy heart, he checked the suitcase into the luggage storage of the station. He went outside and recited the evening prayers while sitting on a nearby bench. He had no idea where he would go from there.

Suddenly, he heard a voice in the dark, behind him. "Chaim?" He turned around, surprised. It took him a long time until he was able to identify the woman who had spoken to him. It was Rosa (not her real name), who had lived in his own town in Morocco many years before. As a young girl she had fallen in love with a Gentile and married him. Her family and the entire community rejected her, and she left the town with her Gentile husband. Nobody had seen or heard from her since.

Rosa quickly understood Chaim's situation, and she invited him to come to her house and spend Shabbat there. The house is very close, she told him, not more than half an hour ride on the local trolley... He politely refused, but Rosa was not about to give up on this mitzva which had suddenly appeared before her. She begged him to come with her. When she understood that he would not ride on Shabbat, she suggested that she would accompany him, and they walked to her house. He accepted, and the two of them went on foot for about two or three hours, until they reached Rosa's home. Her husband, who was with her, made a face but did not say anything, and he took the trolley home.

During Shabbat, Rosa made her guest feel at home. She remembered some things from her childhood, and she gave him only fruit and vegetables to eat, while she spoke to him about various matters. Her husband, on the other hand, almost completely ignored Chaim. When Shabbat was over, Chaim thankfully left the family, continued on his way, and finally arrived in Eretz Yisrael with his precious burden.

Many years passed. Rabbi Chaim Pinto became famous (today he is a rabbi in Kiryat Malachi and in Ashdod). Many people come to him to receive his blessings and to ask him for advice. One day, a woman came to see him. She looked like a religious woman, modestly dressed, with a kind look on her face.

"Don't you recognize me, Rabbi?" the woman asked. "I am Rosa. Many things happened to me in my life, but the turning point was that Shabbat which you spent in my house. After you left, my husband began to show his anger. He shouted, 'What are you doing, bringing a filthy Jew here as a guest? Haven't you abandoned your stupid traditions yet?' I tried to defend myself and to explain that all I did was to help a man in distress, but my husband would not listen. I will not go into detail, but the end of the matter was that the events of that day led to our separation and to my return to Judaism. Today I am married to a religious Jew, and we have decided to move to Israel and live here..."

The merits of the righteous men protected this woman, helped rekindle the spark of Judaism in her heart, and helped her to repent fully for her actions.

Question: What is the essence of the mitzva of teshuva (repentance)?

Answer: After describing the punishment of exile as a result of the sin of idol worship, the Torah describes the return to G-d. "When you feel distress... You will return to your G-d and listen to His voice" [Devarim 4:30]. The concept of repentance and the return to Eretz Yisrael is also described later on: "And it will happen, when all of these things happen to you... And you will return to your own heart... And you will return to your G-d and listen to His voice... And you will return and listen to G-d's voice..." [30:1-3]. "For you will return to your G-d with all your heart and all your soul. For this mitzva... is not beyond you and not far away from you." [30:10-11].

In his commentary, the Ramban explains that the phrase "this mitzva" is a reference to repentance. The Torah adds, "For it is close to you... it is in the power of your mouth and your heart to do it" [30:14]. The Ramban notes as follows: "They should confess their sins and the sins of their fathers with their mouths, and in their hearts they should return to G-d, and they should accept the Torah on this day in order to observe it during the following generations." Ba'al Haturim, Abarbanel, and Sforno agree with this interpretation.

In his list of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Laws of Repentance, the Rambam writes that there is "one positive mitzva – that a sinner should repent from his sin before G-d and confess." This seems to imply that the Rambam also feels that repentance is a mitzva. But it contradicts what he writes at the beginning of the book of laws itself: "With respect to every mitzva in the Torah, if a person violates any one of them... When he repents from his sin he is required to confess before G-d... And this confession is a positive mitzva." That is, the repentance itself is not the mitzva but only the confession. The verses that the Ramban explains as a command to repent are explained by the Rambam as a promise for the future (Hilchot Teshuva 7). Minchat Chinuch and others feel that the Rambam disagrees with the Ramban – that the Rambam feels that the confession is the essence of the mitzva, and that the act of repentance is a description of the situation but not a mitzva in itself. This approach seems to be supported by the words of the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot (73): "He has commanded us to confess our sins that we have committed before G-d and to describe them as part of our repentance. And that is the act of confession."

However, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik disagrees (based on the words of his father, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik). He proves that according to the Rambam a mitzva of repentance does indeed exist. He has several proofs for this. In the list of mitzvot quoted above repentance does appear as a mitzva. And even when the Rambam explains the verses quoted above as a promise, he writes, "All the prophets gave a command about repentance" [Hilchot Teshuva 7:5]. He also writes, "Therefore everybody is commanded to repent and to confess on Yom Kippur" [2:7]. Rabbi Soloveitchik explains this apparent discrepancy in a deeply analytic way typical of the learning style of Brisk: He says that the Rambam's count is related to the "observation" of the mitzvot while in his code of laws the Rambam is referring to the "action" of the mitzva. That is, repentance is an integral part of the mitzva of confession, and there can be no confession without repentance.

It would seem that the way Rabbi Soloveitchik differentiates between observing the mitzvot and the description of the mitzva can be applied to other laws too. For example, it is relevant to what Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook wrote in the last chapter of his book about Shemitta (Shabbat Ha'aretz) with respect to the mitzva of Shemitta. Rav Kook discusses the apparent contradiction in the words of the Rambam in his count of the mitzvot, "that the land should rest from its labor during Shemitta," as opposed to what he wrote in Hilchot Shevi'it, "There is a positive mitzva to rest in the seventh year." Rav Kook explains in his precise language that in the list of mitzvot the Rambam is involved in the "description" of the mitzva, while in his book of halacha the Rambam is describing the actions involved in the mitzva. That is why in the list of mitzvot the Rambam emphasizes the land while the emphasis in the halacha is the human action. A similar distinction applies to the words of the Rambam about prayer. In the list of mitzvot the Rambam writes that we must "worship G-d every day by praying," while the mitzva given at the beginning of the halacha is "to pray every day."

Evidently this is more than a semantic difference, and it is meant to convey the two simultaneous elements of a mitzva – describing it in abstract terms and also the specific actions that are required. With respect to teshuva, we can see that the Rambam demands from mankind and from society as a whole to be in a constant spiritual process of repentance, keeping in mind all the time that the way to accomplish this is by reciting the confession. We note that in his book, Orot Hateshuva, Rav Kook viewed repentance as a process of return to G-d even if no sins have been committed.