If you shecht with a light saber, is the animal kosher?

If you shecht an animal with a light saber is it kosher? asked by Elder Of Ziyon actually has a legitimate answer.

Chaim Casper answers on Mail Jewish

A serious answer would be no. While on one hand the light saber
would have no p'gamim (nicks), on the other hand how would you
check the knife? B'dikah of the knife by running your hand down the blade is an integral part of the process.

Secondly, does the light saber burn/heat (i.e. cook) the flesh as it cuts
through the simanim (the majority of the esophogus and the trachea)? If it does, the meat would be traife as it is being cooked before it is
slaughtered.

B'virkat Torah
Chaim Casper

The main point is that the "blade" has no "mamashus" [physical existence]. In
"real" terms, it would be like using a laser beam, rather than a blade, to
create the slice. The original question in the daf yomi of Fourth of July -
Chulin 8a (appropriate isn't it) was that if someone heats a blade to a white
heat and uses it, is it valid? The question is whether the blade cuts the flesh
before or after the heat causes the flesh to separate in front of it. Since Rav
Zeira rules that the blade is what starts the cut and the incision spreads as it
is cut, the burn of the the heat is not considered as if it was burning the
trachea and esophagus before the slaughter.

In the case of a laser (or light saber) the flesh is vaporized rather
than cut. Thus, it would be treated as if it was "burned" rather than
slaughtered, which would make it a neveilah.

Another point is that the wound is cauterized as it is made. For
example, when Luke Skywalker lost his hand to the strike of Darth
Vader's light saber, the wound was cauterized as it was made and did
not bleed. In the dapim for the beginning of Chapter two of Chullin
(27 - 29), we see that the blood must flow freely. In fact, Rebbi
Yehuda says in the mishna that even if he slaughters a bird correctly,
it is not kosher until he cuts the major blood vessels. We also see a
similar law involving chaya [non-domesticated animals] or kodshei
beheima [domesticated animals brought on the altar] in the discussion
in the gemoro.

This means that if the cut was cauterized as it was made so that the
blood could not flow, it might not be a valid shechita [slaughter].

The halacha of the flesh immediately at the place of the cut is
different. However, that would be a subject for a different post.
I would continue the logic of the heated blade from 8A as well. Since
the gemora does not mention the idea of "cooked before being
kashered", it seems that it does not consider that a problem.

The Daf Yomi for 27 Tammuz 5771 (29 July), Chulin 33A, actually deals with the
case of what happens if the wound is cauterized as the animal is
slaughtered. It says that in a non-sacred case, the animal is still kosher
even if the blood does not come out of the blood vessels. This means that
the case of the heated knife mentioned earlier (which is similar to the case
of the light saber or laser), which cauterizes the wound as it is cut, would
still be kosher.

An animal slaughtered for a sacrifice (kodshim) is different as the blood
must be received in a bowl for sprinkling on the altar. In the case of a
chaya (non-domestic animal) or bird, while the blood must be covered,
apparently it does not require the blood to spill out. A bird must have the
blood vessels severed, but as in the case of the superheated knife, it seems
that they can be cauterized shut as long as the cut is made by the blade.

Thus, it appears that the only reason the chullin (non-sacred) animal would
be non-kosher is that the "blade" cuts by burning or vaporizing what it "touches" rather than by cutting.

As I said above, the gemora states that it is because the blade actually cuts
rather than burns that a white hot knife is kosher.

Another point is that if you consider the "blade" as moving bits of plasma, it can be considered as if it is an infinitely "long" virtual "blade" that is always moving in one direction. As a result, the shochet would not have to move it at all by manipulating it like a knife. Similarly, shooting a laser beam would be similar to shechting by shooting an arrow with an infinitely long sharp blade, even though it appears stationary to the human eye. Each photon is a moving part of the "blade". Of course since the photon does not have mamashus, it is like a fire that burns rather than a blade that cuts and makes the animal a tereifah.

Korach was an example of a modern politician

One of the phony arguments used by Korach to attempt to trigger his revolt was to tell the "story" of a poor widow. This is actually like the story of the "poor children" who were put in front of the cameras to try to get Obamacare passed.

There was a widow with two small children who owned a plot of land

This story was being told shortly after the sin of the spies and after the בני ישראל had been condemned to wander in the dessert for forty years. However, noone could have actually owned land at that point. Any land in Egypt had that might have been under the control of the slaves would have been abandoned when they left. The land of Israel had not yet been entered so that the "widow" could not own land that had not yet been distributed.


In fact, even if it was meant to be set after the entry and settlement in the land it could not have been true. The land would have been inherited by her children and not by the widow. She could at most have been the administrator of her husband's estate. However, the people who died in the desert were those who were already at least 20 years old at the time of the spies. No man who was younger than twenty at the time of the spies died.  However, even if the children had been born just before the entry into the land, by the time the seven years of conquest and the seven years of distribution were over, the "children" would have been old enough to take over their inheritance.

When she went to plow the land, Moshe appeared and reminded her that she was forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey together (kilayim).

Since he pretends that Moshe appeared and gave her the law, the incident must have occurred before they entered the land. However, besides the fact that they did not have land to sow while they were in the desert (which is why they were eating the manna), this law did not take effect until fourteen years after Moshe died and they first entered the land. In any case, she was not a "poor" widow considering what she was able to do.

When she went to sow the land, Moshe again appeared and told her that she could not plant a multiple seeds together (kilayim).

 Again the story has the problems mentioned above. Besides which we see that this is a wealthy widow and the "little field" is not so little since multiple crops could be sown.

At the harvest, Moshe reminded her of the laws of לקטת שככה ופעה (Leket, Shikchah, and Peah) which must be left for the poor. When it came time to store the produce Aharon appeared and demanded the levitical and priestly gifts of מעשר and תרומה (the tithe and the priestly portion).

Now we see Aharon entering the story even though he died before Moshe and before the entry into the land. Again the laws are described even though they could not have taken effect yet.

We also see that even if they had not taken effect, the laws announced for the benefit of the poor are treated as if they were unjust. Everyone was still wandering in the desert so that they could not have had a field to plant and till and harvest. They were still eating the daily manna so that they would not have needed the portions of the harvest that were set aside for the poor.

Besides that, the Levite and Priest cannot demand "their" portion of the grain. The owner of the grain, while required to give the portion, is able to choose which Levite or Priest is to receive the sacred portion.

In despair, she sold the land and bought two sheep for the wool, milk, and lambs. When the first lambs were born, Aharon appeared and demanded the first born of each sheep (בכור) When shearing time came, he appeared and demanded his portion (ראשית הגז - the first of the shearing).

Again we see the falsity from the actual words of the story. A כהן is forbidden to demand the required presents because the owner is allowed to choose whichever priest is to receive these "gifts".

We see that this widow was actually a very mean spirited person. She could not stand to enjoy her crop as long as any one else benefited. Just because she was reminded that the poor people or the Levite or Priest who had no other form of income were to get a portion of her crop, she sold the field so that no one would benefit.

Actually, the land was not hers, but her children's and by now they would have been old enough to claim the property. They would also have been required to make sure that she was supported, not just by the laws of the כתובה, but by the laws of honoring their mother. Even if she had the right to sell the field, she could only have sold it until the יובל (Yoveil - fifty year mark).

Consider also the price she supposedly got for the field. A field would have gone for more than the price of two female sheep that had never given birth. Had she bought fully grown sheep, of proven fertility and already giving milk, they would not have been subject to the law of the first born. What does this say about her character. She had to get rid of the field at once even if she had to sell it at a loss and she could not bring herself to buy anything that might have been of benefit to someone else in the past.

Notice how Korach carefully avoids bringing up the fact that she had no ram in order to impregnate the sheep. Thus, it is as if the lambs that were born appeared miraculously.

Of course, since she did not exist, this says more about Korach's character (who made her up) than the widow's.

Again in despair, she slaughtered the sheep, and Aharon appeared again and demanded the shoulder, the jaw, and the stomach in accordance with the laws of the Shelamim sacrifice.

Note again the fact that the "widow" could not bear to have any use out of something that someone else had benefited from. Now that the sheep had given birth, and the first shearing had been completed, they were no longer subject to the requirements of Priestly gifts. In spite of that, she could not allow herself to keep them even though she would have an income from now on and the flock would continue to increase (Assuming that the invisible rams continue to impregnate the sheep).

Korach silently changes the rules so that she has to give the priestly gifts for the slaughtered sheep just as in the time in the desert. The Children of Israel would not have noticed this as this was the situation that they were used to. All meat slaughtered for food were handled as a Shelamim sacrifice. Korach ignored the fact that once the land was entered, the people were allowed to slaughter and eat the meat separately and no longer required to bring all slaughtered animals to the altar.

In despair again, she declares the meat "cherem" or "hekdesh" so that no one can get any use out of it. Aharon appears again, claims the meat for the sanctuary and she is left with nothing.

Again she cannot bear to touch something that any one else has gotten benefit from. Instead of eating the meat, and getting a full meal (or meals) out of it, she attempts to make it totally unusable by anyone. Again, Korach attempts to make the law appear to be harsh and destructive. Just because she appears to have forgotten that the Priests eat from that which has been sanctified (because they have no other source of income), he pretends that she is being harmed in some way.

Note that he again changes the rules so that instead of eating the meat of the Shelamim sacrifice as required, she treats it as non sacred meat that can be made sacred. Also note that the ox and the donkey and the ram that appeared when they were needed to be part of the story have disappeared.

This is the way modern politicians attempt to bring up a story in order to convince people that their pet projects need to be passed. Similarly, when the politicians were trying to pass Obamacare, they claimed that children would be unable to get the drugs that they need even though the examples that they used actually were fully covered by current health insurance or were given the drugs free by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In fact, it is only because of the laws that have been passed as a result of these stories that people find themselves in trouble.

Korach is an example of the modern day politician and used his false story to try to put himself in a position of power. He acted in the same way that Al Gore has acted with respect to "global warming" and his story is just as true.

Another interesting point about this is that it shows that Korach was like Bilam. He was greedy, and arrogant. This "widow" shows the characteristics of Bilam in refusing to allow any one else to benefit from something that is "hers".

Why use the meraglim to determine a minyon

The talmud says that we learn that a nbhi is ten men because the תורה uses the term עדה (community) to refer to the 10 meraglim. One the other hand, סדום was not saved because there were not ten righteous people in the town. Similarly, Noach had to be saved as an individual because (with מתושלת who died just before the flood) there were only 9 people who could be counted. However, the question is raised, why was the halacha derived from the bad circumstance and not the good circumstance.

It appears that the point the Torah is making is that we do not notice the circumstances of things appearing to continue as "normal" but only when there is a major change in the world. Had the meraglim failed to discourage the בני ישראל, they would have entered the land and the entire incident might have been ignored or merely glossed over. Similarly, only when the count for good failed and the punishment brought down do we notice what happened. Thus, we can only see the use of ten as a "community" when the bad community actually causes something to occur or the lack of the ten causes the punishment not to be delayed.

Another point that we see is that while Hashem told Noach to start building the Ark while there were nine people (Noach, his wife, three sons, their wives, and מתושלת), the flood itself only came about after מתושלת died and there were only 8 left. Similarly, Lot only had a theoretical 8 people as well. That is, Lot, his wife, his two unmarried daughters, two son-in-law (from the plural used) and those daughters.. It appears that when it comes to saving people and judging righteousness, Hashem will count himself as part of the עדה, but when it comes the wickedness, the evil people are on their own. This is like the description of free will. If someone insists on "going bad", Hashem will allow him to go on the path that he has chosen. If someone tries to do good, Hashem will help him.

Blessings and Curses

An interesting contrast occurs between the blessings and the curses of Parshas Bechukosai. It starts out

אם בחקתי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אותם

26:3 If you follow My decrees observe (or guard) my commandments and do them

On the other hand, the curses start ou

ואם לא תשמעו לי ולא תעשו את כל המצות האלה

ואם בחקתי תמאסו ואם את משפטי תנעל נפשכם לבלתי עשות את כל מצותי להפרכם את בריתי

26:14 If you will not listen (refuse to listen is the implication) to Me, and you will not do all these commandments

 26:15 If you will despise My decrees and your souls reject (lock out) My laws, in order to (deliberately) not do all My commandments, so that you annul My covenant.

As we see, the blessings and the cursesw come about because of a set of deliberate actions. It is not that a person is "happening" to act in a certain way or is negligent or "forgettiing", but that a person must explicitly decide what path to go on. The original people who rejected Hashem explicitly decided that they would go against the commandments of the Torah and would refuse to listen to Hashem. People would not eat nonkosher food because it happened to be cheaper or was available, but would deliberately buy nonKosher food  even when Kosher food was available. The Socialist Workers would deliberately schedule their dinner/dance for Yom Kippur. THis is what causes the curses to start.

Later on, once they have brought the curses on themselves, we see that continuing to act with "indifference" (בקרי) will cause the curses to continue. Once someone has started down the wrong path, it takes a positive action to break away and return to the right path. This is the tragedy of the descendants of those who started the breakaway cults. They are raised in the mistakes of their anscestors and no longer know what they must do to stop the curses that their forebears have left them and return to the blessings that are their heritage.

Their is a statement attributed to a soldier in the Yom Kippur War

"My father knew how to pray and refused to do so. I want to pray but do not know how to"

This is what we need to learn how to do in order to regain the blessings that are our heritage.

Peace?

The blessing of נחקתי seems to have a contradiction in it. The pasuk says (26:6)

ונתתי שלום בארץ ושכבתם ואין מחריד והשכתי חיה רעה מן הארץ וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם

ורדפתם את אויביכם ונפלו לפניכם לחרב

And I will give peace in the land, and lie down with nooned to make you afraid, and I will cause wild animals to be banished from the land and a sword will not cross your land.

You will pursue your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword.

This seems to say that peace will first be the blessing of peace, then the wild animals will be chased away, and then the sword will not "cross over" the land. Rashi says that this means that this means that even a "friendly" nation will not cross over Israel to attack an enemy on the other side. This is what happened with Pharoah Necho and King Yoshiah. The king thought that Israel was worthy of this blessing and tried to stop Pharoah from crossing to fight Babylonia. He was wrong and got killed for his trouble.

Only then does the bracha say that Israel will fight and defeat its enemies. How can this be? Wouldn't peace come about in the reverse order? First destroy the enemies, then have even "friendly" armies no longer use the land as a base, then not have to worry about wild animals, and only then full "peace"?

The meforshim say that the peace that occurs is actually an internal peace. A peace that is between the various groups of Jews and within each individual Jew. Only when this occurs, will criminals not longer be around to cause people to worry about being burglarized or mugged. Only thewill the wild animals withdraw from the land to no longer menace the nation and allow the Jews to live in safety. Once this happens, then armies will no longer fell free to march through the land even if their original intent is to just pass beyond to destroy their own enemies.

This is similar to the blessing of peace that Hashem gave Pinchas after he killed Zimri ben Salu and Kozbi bas Tzur. The medrash says that he was the kohen that went out witht the army to fight Midyan after the plague of Ba'al Pe'or. The medrash says that he was the one who killed Bil'am.

In actuality, we see that only when a person finds peace within himself and שלימות (wholeness) can the effect of this peace spread out into the world around him. A person who is at peace is then capable of making piece with its neighboring  communities. Only then will the blessing of the time of Adam be reinstated so that the wild animals will stay away.

Friendly nations will be affected so that they will not attempt to use Israel as a military base to attack others.

However, we see that the enemies of the Jews will still not learn the lesson that they should have and will still continue to attack us. This is like Amalek after the Exodus. In spite of all the miracles and the plagues, they still insisted on attacking. Later on, the only thing that they learned was to disguise themselves so that Bnei Yisrael could not pray by name to defeat them. They thought that if they disguised themselves so that Bnei Yisrael prayed using the wrong name, they could fool Hashem. They found out that they were wrong. This is why the bracha of chasing the enemies is the end of that sequence.

And you shall proclaim "Liberty"

The word "dror" (דרור) is a unique word in the Torah and appears only in Parsha Behar (25:10) at the declaration of the Yovel.While it is translated as "liberty", we should consider what meaning it might have.In the gemarah in maseches Beitzah or in Meseches osh Hashanah, we see the term applied to a "tzipor dror" as a bird that cannot normally be "captured" by being closed in a house or the bird that is freed as part of the purification rites of the metzora ("leper"). The commentaries discuss what kind of bird this is. Rashi actually gives two answers. On answer is that it will continue flying and keep itself from getting caught. Another explanation that he gives is that it will find any opening that might occur and fly out. There are those that say that it is unable to survive in captivity. Others that it is capable of living anywhere that it finds itself and will "break free" whenever it can. That is, it will not be like the canary that will not leave the cage even if the cage door is left open, but will always work to make itself free.

The gemara in Rosh Hashana 9b says that the word is related to דיירא (dwelling place) and means someone who is subject to noone's will but his own. He chooses his own place of residence and will make his living wherever he finds himself. He will refuse to subjugate himself to anyone.

The פני יהושוע points out that the pasuk say לכל ישביה (all its inhabitants). This means that even if a person is a slave owner, he is not considered "free" unless the entire society is free. As long as there are those who are slaves, he himself cannot be considered free. That is why we have the saying

כל הקונה עבד כקונה אדון לעצמו

Whoever purchases a slave, it is as if he  has obtained a master  for himself

Therefore, it is only when the slaves are set free that we can say that the inhabitants of the land are free.

Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch shows the usage of the bird as one that does not allow itself to be tamed but makes its nest in a human house just as if it was an open field or wild forest. It uses the term מרור דרור, pure myrrh. It uses the word as a legal term, דררא דממונה which is explained as a situation that requires a decision of the court even thought he parties involved have not brought the question to the court. He then declares that the basic meaning is "to follow a natural trend". That is, the "dror" is something that follows its intrinsic nature and does not allow itself to be coerced into being "adulterated" in any way.

We see therefore, that the declaration of freedom is not only a responsibility of sending out the slaves into "freedom", but the responsibility of a person to make himself free to follow the nature that Hashem gave him. This is why we regard it as a requirement to serve Hashem. During the Yovel year one cannot continue to be a "slave" to the land but must follow the laws of shmita.

Can a Kohen marry the widow of a nonKohen?

In the haftorah of Parshas Emor, the navi Yechezkel speaks about the Bais Hamikdash after the coming of the mashiach. The gemarah states that the book of Yechezkel was almost rejected as part of the canon because a number of points in this section appeared to contradict the Torah. One of the points that appears to contradict the law of the Torah is pasuk 44:22 which ends:

כי אם בתולות מזרע בית ישראל והאלמנה אשר תהיה אלמנה מכהן יקחו

This is translated by many commentators (such as the Art Scroll Chumash) as

only virgins of the seed of Israel; but a widow who is only a widow, some Kohanim may take.

This  means that a regular Kohen may marry a widow even though the Kohen Gadol (high priest) may not.

However, when looking at the Hebrew, it appears as if the translation should read:

Only a virgin from the seed of Israel and a widow of a Kohen may they take.

This changes the meaning of the sentence completely and appears to  contradict the Torah law that a regular Kohen may marry a widow. However, I have found a possibility that allows this statement to stand as translated in the second way. A widow can either have children or not have children. If she has not had children, then she is subject to yibum (marrying her brother-in-law) or Chalitza (equivalent to divorce). For a Kohen to marry the widow of a nonKohen, she must have undergone Chalitza. By rabbinic law a woman who has gone through Chalitza is treated as if she were a divorcee and is forbidden to marry a Kohen. Thus the widow of a nonKohen must have children if she is to be allowed to marry a Kohen. However, these children are not Kohanim and are forbidden to eat terumah even though their mother (who is now the wife of a Kohen) would be allowed to eat terumah. Similarly, any children the mother would have are now Kohanim and could eat terumah.

Is this a problem? Perhaps it can be considered like a child who has an allergy and cannot eat the same food as the other children in the family. However, this really is not the same as a child can understand the necessity to stay away from some food in order to not get sick. Terumah on the other hand is a spirituel matter and the child could wind up eating it, even accidentally. The mother could wind up putting it in front of all the children who would then eat it.

We actually see this situation in parshas Emor (Vayikra 22:13)

ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וזרע אין לה ושבה אל בית אביה נכנעוריה מלחם אביה תאכל וכל זר לא יאכל בו

And a Kohen's daughter who is widowed or divorced and has no children may return to her father's house as in her youth, she may eat from her father's food, but no "stranger" (nonKohen) may eat from it.

 The commentaries point out that one of the reasons for this is that she could wind up feeding her children terumah. This is forbidden since they are not Kohanim. Rashi also points out, that as long as she has children who are not Kohanim, she is considered part of a family of nonKohanim. This would be the source of the rabbinic enactment describe by Yechezkel forbidding the widow of a nonKohem who has children from marrying a Kohen. This is like the enactment forbidding a Kohen from marrying a woman who has undergone Chalitzah just like he is forbidden to marry a divorcee.

This allows the sentence in Yechezkel to be read in a straight forward manner and to mean that a Kohen may only marry the widow of another Kohen.

Calf vs. Spies

Rav Yair Kahn at Yesiva Har Etzion discusses the difference between the Cheit Ha'aigel and Chet Hameraglim. In both cases Hashem was going to destroy the Bnai Yisrael until Moshe Rabbeinu begged him to forgive them. However, in the case of the aigel, he was able to continue until Hashem agreed to continue with the people and take them into Eretz Yisroel. Even though every punishment that we would undergo in the future would include part of the punishment for that chet, we were still forgiven and Hashem explicitly says, וסלחתי כדבריך.  On the other hand, after the Chet Hameraglim, Moshe Rabbeinu is unable to continue and the entire generation is condemned to death. The only "leniency" is that Hashem allows them to die naturally over the course of the next 38 years rather than killing them all at once.


One would think that the idol worship of the calf would be more serious than being panicking and attempting to run away when being faced by war. Rav Kahn points out that the Chet Ha'aigel was not really a rebellion against Hashem, but was an attempt to replace the missing Moshe Rabbeinu (whom they thought was dead after 40 days on the mountain) with another representative. On the other hand, the Chet Hameraglim was a complete rebellion against Hashem and an attempt to totally reject Hashem's purpose for Bnei Yisroel.


Another aspect actually ties into the reason that Avraham Avinu sent Eliezer to his family to get Rivkah as a wife for Yitzchak rather than take a woman from the Canaanim. Both groups were idol worshipers. However, the family of Bethuel were idol worshipers because of an error in analysis. The Canaanim were idol worshipers because of a basic flaw in their makeup.


Similarly, the Chet Ha'aigel was an error in analysis. Only 3,000 out of 600,000 actually worshiped the aigel and were punished by death. The rest fell prey to the mistake that caused them to believe that they were just setting up a representation of Hashem to help them. Their bsic desire was to be closer to Hashem and follow what they thought was His will. The meraglim on the other hand fell prey to a basic flaw in character. They insisted on putting their own wishes, desires, and fears ahead of the explicitly stated commands of Hashem. We see this in a number of places in the story. From the very beginning when they said that "we appeared to them as grasshoppers and so we were in our own eyes", to the end when the "acknowledged" their mistake by attempting to go up an conquer Eretz Canaan even though Hashem told them not to. Even their "atonement" was actually a rebellion against Hashem.


Rabbi Kahn points out that the difference between the two sins is also shown in the tragedies of the fast days that were instituted on those days. The Chet Ha'aigel occurred on Shiv'a Asar B'Tamuz, while the Chet Hameraglim was on Tish'a B'Av. It was the Chet Hameraglim that triggered the final destruction and the full mourning. The tragedies that occurred on Shiv'a Asar B'Tamuz were things that could be forgiven and recovered from. The destruction of Tish'a B'Av was final and could only be endured. As Rabbi Kahn says

The reason that the fast of Tisha Be-Av is observed in such a unique way is because it does not commemorate a calamity that can be removed through prayer and repentance; it is rooted in historical events that led to a gezeira (decree) that could not be changed. The meraglim episode led to the decree that the generation would perish in the wilderness. Later in history, the Temples were destroyed on Tisha Be-Av. Prayer and repentance could no longer prevent the destruction. It already was too late.   

As opposed to calamity, a gezera cannot be removed. It expresses not Divine Providence, but rather the distancing of the Divine Presence and God "hiding His face," as it were. "R. Elazar said: Since the day on which the Temple was destroyed, there is a wall of iron that stands between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven" (Berakhot 32b). The reaction to a gezera is not prayer, but rather mourning and surrender to God's inscrutable will:  "And R. Elazar said: Since the day on which the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer are locked" (ibid.).

The seventeenth of Tammuz, despite the five tragic events which took place on that day, is defined as a day of calamity. It is true that on this date the first set of tablets were shattered, but following prayer on the part of Moshe Rabbeinu and teshuva on the part of the nation, we merited to receive the second luchot. On this date, the walls of Jerusalem were indeed breached, and the enemies stood ready to enter, and it was therefore a time of calamity for the Jewish nation, since the destruction had not yet occurred. But on Tisha Be-Av, a tragic decree had already been issued. Despite Moshe's entreaties, the attempts to mitigate the sharpness of the decree, the attempt to repent and continue on to Eretz Yisrael was futile and reached its tragic conclusion at Chorma (Bamidbar 14:45). 

Why Moshe Rabbeinu is not in Parshas Tetzaveh

Many meforshim discuss the reason why Parshas Tetzaveh is the "only" parsha (since his birth) that Moshe's name is not mentioned. Technically, his name is also not mentioned in eikev, r'ei, and shoftim. However, those three parshios are quotes of Moshe Rabbeinu's final speech. As a result, they would not be able to have his name in them, as a person does not normally speak of himself, by name, in the third person (Bob Dole notwithstanding). The meforshim connect this with Moshe's request to be "erased from the Torah" if Hashem would not forgive the Jewish people for the sin of the aigel hazahav (golden calf). However, the question still remains, why was this parsha chosen.

Since the request was given in Parshas Ki Sisa, next week, this parsha is the last occasion prior to the next reading of the request for it to be honored. This shows Hashem's reluctance to actually remove Moshe from the narrative.However, there are other reasons for doing so. Rabbi Sorotzkin points out that this parsha is the one that is always read during the week of Moshe's birthday and yahrtzeit (death anniversary) and as such contrasts with the situation in "other religions" which connect all their observances and holidays to the founder's life and death. Instead, the very lack of a celebration or mention of Moshe's name at this time shows that the important events are those of the Torah and the establishment of service of Hashem.

Another point is that it shows the humility of Moshe Rabbeinu in that he joyfully withdrew to allow his brother, Aharon, to be fully recognized as the Kohen Gadol and acknowledge his full authority over the spiritual realm. Indeed, Rabbi Sacks points out that this is a necessary occurrence for there to be a valid and lasting society. As he says in this week's Covenant and Conversation

There is though a deeper message, the principle of the separation of powers, which opposes the concentration of leadership into one person or institution. All human authority needs checks and balances if it is not to become corrupt. In particular, political and religious leadership, keter malkhut and keter kehunah, should never be combined. Moses wore the crowns of political and prophetic leadership, Aaron that of priesthood. The division allowed each to be a check on the other.

 Thus, it is a necessary factor for the existence of the nation of Israel.

Moses must show the people – and Aaron himself – that he has the humility, the tzimtzum, the power of self-effacement, needed to make space for someone else to share in the leadership of the people, someone whose strengths are not yours, whose role is different from yours, someone who may be more popular, closer to the people, than you are – as in fact Aaron turned out to be.

Lehavdil: in 2005 the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin published an influential book about Abraham Lincoln entitled Team of Rivals. In it she tells the story of how Lincoln appointed to his cabinet the three men who had opposed him as candidate for the Republican party leadership. William Henry Seward, who had been expected to win, eventually said of him that “his magnanimity is almost superhuman . . . the President is the best of us.” It takes a special kind of character to make space for those whom one is entitled to see as rivals. Early on, Aaron showed that character in relation to Moses, and now Moses is called on to show it to Aaron.

True leadership involves humility and magnanimity. The smaller the ego, the greater the leader. That’s what Moses showed in the parsha that does not mention his name.

I could bring up the modern politicians who have shown the reverse trait so that we know what problems that they have caused. This is true not only in the United States, but also in the State of Israel. I will not mention specific names but we all know who they are and what they have done.

Another point can connect this parsha with Parshas Zachor. Just as we must erase the memory of Amalek, we also "erase" the memory of Moshe Rabbeinu who fought Amalek. Just as the Mishkan was created as a communal effort, so too is the fight against Amalek a communal effort. Thus, we do not "remember" the individual who gave us the basis for the mishkan but we show it as a full communal effort. with the Kohanim becoming the representatives of the people. The bigdei kehunah show this status. The Kohen Gadol is not specifically Aharon but whoever is in that office will show the greatness that Hashem has assigned to the office. Just as Aharon took over the office from Moshe, so too will each of his successors take over the office and be responsible for the generation in which he serves.

How is Tetzaveh connected with Korach

Rabbi Sorotzkin's Insights in Torah writes about the meil (coat or jacket) that the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) wore. This garment is made completely of tcheiles.  When Korach rebelled, one of the two questions that he asked was whether a four cornered garment made all of tcheiles requires tztzis. In fact, the Minchas Chinuch states that the meil was just such a four cornered garment. The Kohen Gadol was not required to put tzitzis on the meil even though it was required under normal circumstances. This is similar to the avnet (belt) which was made of sha'atnez and would be forbidden in any garment other than the uniform of the Kohen. We see from this that the answer is that any other garment made all of tcheiles would require tzitzis.

It is Interesting to consider the reason that things that are forbidden in "normal life" are required as part of the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash.Other examples are the karbanos (sacrifices) which involve a number of forbidden melachos normally forbidden on Shabbos (such as slaughtering animals).

How to ask for Tzedaka - Parshas Terumah

Rabbi Horowitz raised an interesting point at Shalosh Seudos for Parsha Terumah (which included the Shevah Brochos for the daughter of a member of our shul). The pasuk that starts Parshas Terumah is

ויקחו לי תרומה

מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו

תקחו את תרומתי

וזאת התרומה ...

ועשו לי מקדש

ושכנתי בתוכם

1. Take for me Terumah
2. From every man whose heart motivates him
3. Take My Termah
4. This is the Terumah that you should take (followed by details of the 13 types of items) ...
5. And make for Me a Mishkan
6. So that I might dwell among them.  

Rabbi Horowitz pointed out that when requesting money for a particular purpose, the normal course of events is to explain the purpose of the request first. Then we get the entire justification showing what is needed and how it will be expended. Only then do we get the plea for the money. The question is, why do we first get the request (in three different forms), followed by the exact details, and only at the end do we have the purpose of the expense, followed by the justification for that expense.

Rabbi Horowitz compared this to the question as to why the Chashmonaim needed to search for pure uncontaminated olive oil when they rededicated the Bais HaMikdash. Halachically, they could have used the tamei oil since there was no other oil available. The Avnei Nezer points out that when starting a new endeavor, one does so in the best way possible. This sets the foundation for the entire enterprise and enables it to be built up properly. This is like the education of a child. It ensures that the child will grow properly and continue to develop in the right path. The rabbi then spoke about the Choson and Kala and how the foundations that have been set by their families will affect the "bayis neeman beYisrael" that they are now in the process of building.

The Aish HaTorah printout speaks about the three languages of giving that are shown here. The first is for those who give lishmah, for the purest of motives. The reason that they give tzedakah is for love of Hashm. The second motive speaks about those people who feel sorry  for the poor person that they are supporting or who are enthusiastic about the particular cause that the money will go to. THe third category is those who are embarassed to be seen not giving or who regard the money as a "tax" that they are required to give. In any case, the money is to be accepted without inquiring into the motives of the giver. The giver is appreciated for his actions and the project will end up causing the final benefit to the community as a whole.

I have seem commentaries pointing out that the most miniscule misstep at the beginning of a project can lead to major catastrophe down the road. A fraction of a degree of the proper course can result in missing the target by a massive amount after having traled a great distance. Imagine two radii of a circle. One can step from one to another easily at the beginning. However, they can end up millions of miles apart.

Update: Rabbi Sorotzkin made an interesting point. Why was the building of the mikdash accomplished through donations, while the upkeep required the tax of the Chatzi Shekel? This shows that human nature has not changed. People are willing to donate lavishly for many causes as long as the result is something visible. However, the necessary upkeep and maintenance cannot be left to donations. Rabbi Sorotzkin mentioned a major meeting of the great rabbis of Europe to get funds for the Lithuanian Yeshivos. Someone asked how com Rabbi Meir Shapiro of Lublin was able to raise so much money for his yeshiva? Rabbi Sorotzkin pointed at that once the yeshivah was built, Rabbi Shapiro would have just as much trouble raising the money for the needed food and upkeep as all the others (and that is what happened). Even Hashem could not rely on voluntary donations for the upkeep.

Justice and Judgement

While going over some of the internet writeups on Parshas Yisro, I came across the question of why the Torah says that Moshe Rabbeinu listened to Yisro's advice, but does not explicitly say that he first asked Hashem about what to do. A number of meforshim say that of course he asked Hashem first, but the pshat seems to imply that he took Yisro's advice - with a significant modification - immediately. The internet comment that I saw brought up an interesting point regarding the actual performance of justice in a society. Up until that point, Moshe Rabbeinu judged like a king in his court. The Bnei Yisrael would come to him for judgment and he would give his opinion. Any difficulties would be settled by his asking Hashem. If any subordinate judges existed, they would guess "what would Moshe say?". If they the parties did not accept that, they would take it up the line to Moshe. This is the way things were done in the days of absolute monarchs. The law was whatever the king decreed. Indeed, that is the origin of the word "court" as the location of judgement and the seat of justice.

Yisro's insight was that this was not the proper way to handle the cause of justice in a society. It is true that Moshe Rabbeinu was the quintessential navi and was able to judge using the divine revelation. Of course he knew exactly what Hashem wanted him to say and would therefore judge correctly. However, he was only one person. He could not rely on others to read his mind and "know" what he would have said. When the next leader took (Joshua) over, or the judges who would lead after that, how could he be sure that the would continue properly in the way that he had mapped out?  Yisro knew that this was not what Hashem wanted. In order to ensure that the torah was kept, a uniform system of justice had to be established. That is why he suggested setting up a hierarchy of judges at all levels of society to teach, and enforce the laws of the torah. This would ensure that the laws of society would be uniform and not subject to the whim of any individual, no matter how pious, not even Moshe Rabbeinu.

This is why Moshe Rabbeinu was able to enthusiastically and immediately endorse his father-in-law's suggestion. The laws of the society were indeed based on an objective and lasting source, the torah. No matter who was sitting in the judges seat, the law was uniform and enforced uniformly. It did not matter who was the plaintiff or the defendant or even the judge. The law was as Hashem had given it. Indeed, the principle from then on was "lo bashamayim hi" (it is not in heaven), so that when laws were forgotten after the death of Moshe, Hashem could not give them again by divine revelation. When Rabbi Eliezer disputed with the rabbis, he could not succeed in his arguments even when a bas kol (divine voice) declared that he was correct. Anyone who claimed to have received a revelation that any part of the the torah had been changed was subject to the death penalty as a "false prophet" by definition.

The significant difference between the original suggestion and the way Moshe implemented it is also explained by this. Yisro originally said, leave the "little" cases to the judges and have them bring you the "big" cases. Moshe Rabbeinu said, bring the "difficult" (or complicated) cases to me no matter how "small" they might appear (with the implication that he could ask Hashem to explain them). This indeed sets up the ability for future courts to analyze and make a "good" determination in the future.

Of course, Moshe Rabbeinu probably intended this from the beginning. However, as long as he was the only source, it appeared that he was judging each case individually (like a king) and not from the general principles set down in the Torah. The methodology showed that judgement comes from the Torah and is based on principle.

This also explains a similar development of another point regarding the reaction of Bnei Yisrael to the giving of the torah as explained by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of England. Next week (in Mishpatim) we have the famous statement "na'aseh venishmah" (we will do and we will listen). However there are two other places where a similar statement is made. In Yisro (Shmos 19:8) we see the statement

 ויענו כל העם יחדו ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה

The entire people responded together and said, "Everything that Hashem has spoken we shall do".

 The difference is that here, the sentence shows everyone responding as a single unit. In Mishpatim (Shmos 24:3), the actual sentence is

 ויאמרו כל הדברים אשר דבר ה' נעשה

... they said, "Everything that Hashem has said, we will do and we will obey"

 We see that the unity of the first sentence is missing. This is deliberate. In action, the nation is one and the judges would all be working from the same set of laws. However,  as far as studying and understanding, everyone will reach his own level and follow his individual tendencies in understanding the meanings of the laws. "There are seventy facets to the torah". Some people can appreciate the torah through logic and develop his connection to Hashem like Yisro, who studied "all the world's religions" in order to appreciate the truth that Hashem has given us. Others learn by hearing the stories of the mystics and miracle workers of teh past in order learn of the path that they must follow. Some people will be drawn in by the "Torah Codes" while others would find that there is no meaning for them in that area. However, in the end, we will all be one people, following one Torah, and growing in our knowledge and appreciation of the path that Hashem has set for us to reach the goal that Hashem has placed before us.

The medrash speaks of everyone in a circle around Hashem pointing to the center and saying "This is Hashem" This is the legacy of Yisro and the result of the advice that he gave to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Rabbi Shlomo Porter of Etz Chaim in Baltimore points out the necessity of this type of justice. Rather than summarize and give my own explanation, I will quote his email.

Torah Portion: Mishpatim - The Parsha begins with a short introduction, “And these are the ordinances that you shall place before them.”  The Parsha continues on with a comprehensive system of laws governing human rights and responsibilities from the ethical treatment of slaves to not cursing a leader.  These laws were all given at Mt. Sinai and are considered Mitzvos-Divine Commandments that not only govern Jewish society but, in truth, shape us into a holy nation with a unique relationship to The Creator and the rest of the nations of the world.

Rashi, the preeminent Torah commentator, quotes a Talmudic insight about the phrase, “place before them”.  Why doesn’t it say “teach the” or “inform them” instead of “place before them.”

The Talmud answers that G-d wanted to teach Moshe that he should not teach the Jewish people just to parrot back the laws.  He had to place the laws before them like a set table; a Shulchan Aruch, in order that they could sit down and eat right away.  How so?  He needed to tell them the reasons and principles that could help them apply the laws to other cases.  This is called the Taamim.

Taamim has two meanings: reason and tasty.  Reason to the mind is like taste to the palate.  Both give us pleasure and make the object enjoyable.  The pleasure of knowing why is more enjoyable than a good tasty steak.  There are teachers who can give us the facts of Torah, but the ones we gain the most from are the teachers that give us a “Geshmack,” the pleasure, in learning Torah, who make it a truly enjoyable experience.

Moshe had to teach the Jews to enjoy the Torah.  Part and parcel of the mitzva of learning Torah is to enjoy the wisdom of The Creator.   Just as one gets attached to those whose company we enjoy, so we get closer to The Creator and his Torah by really enjoying and having pleasure out of Jewish living and learning.

In the Morning Service we say a special blessing on learning Torah.  “Please G-d make the words of Torah sweet in our mouths and the mouths of our children and all the children of the Jewish people.”

When Torah is a pleasure to us then our children will continue to seek out this same “candy.”  They will pass on this unique “candy” to their children and all future generations.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Shlomo Porter

Vayishlach - Diplomacy vs. Appeasement

An interesting point in Vayishlach follows from my earlier post about the difference bwetween malachim and avodim. Vayishlach starts with Yaakov sending malachim to Eisav. This leads to a machlokes about whether these are "real angels" or messengers. Later one, he sends bribes to Eisav. However, the people bringing these "gifts" to Eisav are described as "avodim". This shows that initially, he sends "people" who are capable of reacting intelligently to what they will find and will be able to use their knowledge of the principles being maintained to continue. When he attempts to appease Eisav, he sends avodim who know exactly what they are meant to do and will be unable to do anything other than deliver the gifts. In modern day politics, we se that people attempting to appease the villains and dictators of the world are making the mistake of sending avodim, who are incapable of independant action, when they should be sending malachim, who would know what is correct and be able to act properly.

Chasdei Hashem - Thanks for what You have done

Every day we say in the שמונה עשריה

מלד עוזר ומושיע ומגן

Melech Ozer Umoshiah umagen

King, helper, savior, Shield

These terms describe the various types of ישועה (salvation) that Hashem causes in this world.

1. Hashem saves us from a danger that we, not only do not see coming, but do not even find out about after we have been saved. The story is told about the minister of the Tsar (before the Russian Revolution) who commented to a Rabbi (paraphrase), "If you knew about the decrees that we discussed that were never implemented, you would really be scared".
2. We see the problem coming, but we see a possible way out via our own actions. Hashem saves us by allowing our השתדלות (attempted actions) to appear to succeed. This is a difficult thing to actually feel proper thanks for because we are subject to the temptation to think כחי ועוצם ידי (my strength and actions) caused the salvation. This is like Chanukah and the survival of the State of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
3. We see the problem coming and do not see any way out. Any action on our part apparently makes things worse. Nothing that we do or try to do helps in the slightest. We are in the position of "Pearl Pureheart tied to the train tracks by Snidely Whiplash" watching the train bearing down on her. This is the actual position of the Jewish people in the world today. While Hashm has saved us, we have undergone the suffering and terror of the events that precede the salvation. It is like someone who (chas veshalom - G0d forbid) is told that he is suffering from an incurable and terminal disease, only to have a miraculous cure. While we can appreciate the salvation and be able to give thanks, we have still had to live through the suffering first.
4. Hashem brings the salvation and after we are saved we find out about what we have been saved from and how bad it could have been. This is what happened to me and what I have to give thanks for. I did not know beforehand what was happening and did not know what could have happened. Only after it was all over did I find out what the problem was and how bad it could have been.

I had an EKG as a result of a routine prep test, before undergoing a normal followup colonoscopy  that looked somewhat abnormal. The doctor sent me to a cardiologist who took another one that also looked abnormal. He said to go ahead with the colonoscopy but scheduled an echo-cardiagram and stress test on Veterans' Day (Thursday). Before I got home from the stress test, he called the house and told me to check into the hospital for an angiogram and stent placement Friday morning. Since I would have to stay in the hospital for 24 hours and be discharged in the middle of Shabbos, I considered waiting until Monday morning. I had had no symptoms, no chest pains, no shortness of breath - it seemed that there was time. However, my primary care physician said to go in at once. When I woke up, the doctor said that my Lower Anterior Descending Artery (LAD) had been 99% blocked. However, it was only later in the week when my wife printed out a description of this type of blockage (known as a Widow Maker) that I could truly understand what Hashem did by orchestrating the events so that I could get the stent put in in time. There is a person who postponed his cardiologist appointment from Friday to Monday and did not survive to see the cardiologist.

With thanks to Hashem for all that he has done for me and for arranging events as He did.

Vayeitze - Lavan & Yaakov - "gifts" and "wages"

An interesting difference between Bethuel and Lavan occurs in their relationship to the wedding of their daughters. Eliezer gave Rivkah's families fruits and other gifts from Eretz Canaan but did not really provide a "dowry". Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch points out that the gifts that he gave the family are more on the order of the gifts that a guest will bring his host nowadays when he is invited for a meal. The gold, clothing, and jewelry were given to Rivakah.

When Yaakov wanted to marry Rachel, Lavan demanded a full seven years of work. The only concession that he made was that after he tricked Yaakov by "giving" him Leah, he allowed Yaakov to marry Rachel as well on the promise for another seven years of work. He realized that the work that Yaakov (unlike Lavan) was actually trustworthy and would provid full value for his work. In fact, the previous seven years of work had been so profitable, that it really was worth both daughters.

Another point is that Lavan constantly refers to what he pays Yaakov as a "gift", pretending to be "generous". Notice that after the  first month, Lavan says

ויאמר לבן ליעקב הכי אחי אתה ועבדתני חנם

And Lavan said to Yaakov, "Because you are my close relative (brother) should you (continue to) work for me for free?"

We see that even during this first month he worked so well, that Lavan was afraid that he might lose him if he did not pay him.

Notice that even in this case, Lavan does not speak in terms of Yaakov "earning" the right to marry Rachel, but in terms of "giving" her to him. Additionally, he attempts to minimize the deal by saying

ויאמר לבן טוב תתי לך מתתי אותה לאיש אחר

(I suppose that) it is better to give her to you (a close relative) than some random stranger.

 When Yaakov finished the seven years, he realized that if he did not say anything, Lavan would keep things going as they were and never "give" him Rachel. If Yaakov had delayed, Lavan would have said, "I was just waiting for you to say something" and would have gotten the extra work for "free". As a result, Yaakov has to say

ויאמר יעקב אל לבן הבה את אשתי כי מלאו ימי

Then Yaakov said to Lavan, "Bring my wife for the days are completed"

Yaakov knew that he had to express things in terms of Rachel already being his wife or Lavan would have tried some other trick.

After the second seven years are up, Yaakov knows that he can't just quit and go off on his own. Lavan would raise a fuss. As a result, he has to get Lavan to officially acknowledge that he has completely fulfilled his obligations. As a result, he says,

,תנה לי את נשי ואאת ילדי אשרעבדתי אתך בהן ואלכה כי אתה ידעת את עבדתי אשר עבדתיך

Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you and I will go, for you know the toil that I have served for you.

 Note that the term used is עבודה an not מלאכה. Yaakov has been treated like a slave to "toil" like a slave and not "work" like a free man for an actual purpose (see the earlier post on the difference). At this point (assuming that he has spent 14 years at the Yeshivah of Shem and Ever), Yaakov is 91 years old, with 11 children and is just starting out to support his family. Even here, Lavan tries to denigrate the work that he has done and the worth of that he has accomplished.

נחשתי ויברכני ה בגללך ויאמר נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה

I have a superstitious feeling that Hashem has blessed me for your sake. And he said, OK tell me what you want to call your "salary" and I will give it to you.

Yaakov has  to go into detail about how this is complete baloney. He has worked hard and everything that Lavan has is the result of Hashem blessing Lavan because of the way that Yaakov has worked, not because of some superstitious idea of magic.

ויאמר מה אתן לך ויאמר לא אתן מאומה אם תעשה לי הדבר הזה אשובה ארעה צאנך אשמר

And he said, what should I give you? And Yaakov said, Don't give me anything, if you will do this, I will shepherd your flock and guard it.

In other words, Yaakov says, you will not be giving me anything. I will take care of your sheep, on the condition that matters are set up in such a way that I automatically get my wages without your having to provide them. You cannot be trusted to pay, so let us set up the deal so that you never get anything going through you.

This is actually the way things are happening nowadays with the State of Israel. All Israel wants is to be allowed to exist and earn its own way in the world. The nations of the world, on the other hand, pretend that Israel should be grateful for even being allowed to survive and that everything that it gets is a "gift".

In the end, Yaakov has to sneak away in order to keep what he has earned over the past decades, and Lavan is only prevented from stealing it by  the direct threat of Hashem. Even than, he pretends that he is being magnanimous. Hashem tells him "Be careful lest you speak either good or evil to him". That is, when the nations of the world pretend to speak "good" to Israel, it is really an attempt to destroy us. Lavan is just like the United Nations, and the so called "Human Rights Commission".

Nature vs. Nurture

One of the first questions that comes up in Parshas Toldos is the meanining of the first pasuk.

אלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהםת אברהם הוליד את יצחקץ

These are the offspring of Yitzchak son of Avraham, Avraham fathered Yitzchak.

 There are those, such as רש"י who connect this with the incident in G'ror when Avimelech kidnapped Sarah. The mockers of that generation pretended that Avrohom was "too old" to father a son with a women ten years yonger than him (since Sarah was only 90). Rashi quotes the Medrash that Hashem made Yitzchak resemble Avraham exactly so that he would be shown to be Avrohom's son. However, there is an alternate explanation.

Rabbi Silbur explained that this is similar to the description of Aharon's sons as the sons of "Aharon and Moshe". That is, a student is also his teacher's "son". Yitzchak was not only the "physical" child of Avrohom, but also the spiritual heir as well. Avrohom was the teacher who formed his son's spiritual and mental being. This enabled Yitzchak to continue the development of what would become the "Children of Israel" and fom the second leg of the triplet that would support us.

We say that the world is supported by three "legs': Torah, Avodah, and Gemilus Chasadim. We also say that the three patriarchs each exemplified a different trait.

Avrohom - Chesed or Midas Harachamim (emotionalism)
Yitzchak - Gevurah or Midas Hadin (rationality or logic)
Yaakov - Emes or Torah - the ability to meld the two traits into a whole that allows life to continue.

We are told that Yishmael and Eisav took the trait of their fathers (Chesed [emotionalism] and Gevurah logic]) and attempted to make them the cornerstone of their being without balancing it with other traits. As a result, they became flawed and could not be accepted as part of the line of descent that would become "Hashem'People". Avraham who had the trait of Chesed married Sarah who exhibited Gevurah when it was needed. The child of chesed (Yitzchak) was gevurah and he married Rivkah who exhibited the trait of Chesed so that he too was able to maintain a balance. He was able to absorb the teaching of his father and apply it to his life, becoming the second of the "three stranded rope" that would not break.

"Rabbi Scroll" points out that where Avrohom had many students, Yitzchak had just one, Yaakov. Yaakov had to absorb the traits of his father and his grandfather (who taught him until he was 15). He too had to learn to balnce and control the traits that he inherited from his parents.

Another point that needs to be made is that the Torah is very careful at the points which it uses the term "Toldos" regarding a person. The creation of the universe, Adam, Noach, Terach, Yitzchak. These are the significant break points in history.

Another point that we see is that Yitzchok and Yaakov brought back into the family the traits of Nachar and Haran Avrohom's brothers, sinc Milkah, Nachar's wife was the daughter of Haran. Similarly, we have the medrash that Iskah, Haran's other daughter, was Sarah. Thus, Yischak was actually the culmination of the line of Terach, and Yaakov was the full manifestion of the development of this line. When Yaakov married Leah and Rachel, he created the final  aspect of this line. We see this in the other lines that are mentioned, as each of the final product has 12 children. For example, consider Nachar who had 8 children by his wife and 4 by his concubine, similar to Yaakov who had 8 children by his wives and four by the maid servants.

Avrohom and Yitzchak had children that inherited their "nature" but failed to absorb the "nurture" and continue the teachings. Avraham had to reject Yishmael so that he could properly bring up Yitzchak to follow him. THere is a medrash that Yitzchak was afraid that Eisav was "too red" and that circumcision would be a health hazard. As a result, he planned to wait until he was 13 years old, like Yishmael, before giving him a bris milah. At that point, Eisav refused, thereby making himself ineligible for continuing the line of Avraham. Yitzchok married Rivkah so that he would be able to balance his trait of Gevurah with his father's (and his wifes's) trait of Chesed. Yaakov absorbed both traits and married Rachel and Leah so that he was able to balance the "Olam Haemes" with the ability to live among the world as it is (as his wives managed to do).

We see therefore, that to succeed, me must balance "nature" and "nurture" and attempt to avoid the problems that giving too much emphasis to eother might cause.

"Angels" and "Work"

Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch has a number of interesting writeups on the relationships between words and their meaning. This shabbos, our rabbi brought up the relationship between מלאך (Malach - Angel or messenger) and מלאכה (Melacha - work). This is the way that Hebrew connects words to the noun that applies to them. Consider the piyut on יום כפור, that starts הנה כחומר, as an example of seeing how the noun is created from the מפעיל, the causative usage.

In Parshas Vayera, the meforshim say that the reason that three מלאכים came to אברהם and only two continued on to סדום to save לוט was that a מלאך only exists for as long as its task (מלאכה) has not yet been accomplished. Once the job is done, the מלאך  no longer exists.  Similarly, we can connect the 39 מלאכות of שבת to the person doing them and to the definition as those things being done for the משכן. Similarly, the word מלאכה is used when speaking of the "work" that השם "did" creating the world. We see that this term is used for a task that is directly connected to the person doing the job.

This is opposed to the word עבודה which seems to be used for work that is imposed from without and is meant as "service". For example, a person who does עבודה is an עבד which is normally translated as "slave" or "servant". This means that instead of being something that is intrinsic to the being (מלאכה performed by a מלאך), this עבודה is an external task that is assigned by a "master". The being performing the עבודה is totally separate from the "work" being done. As a result, a מלאך cannot do עבודה as its "work" is intrinsic to its being. This means that animals, lacking free will, and created to work only according to the natural laws set up by השם can only do עבודה. A human being, created by השם, with both aspects of the universe, and with the free will to choose between them, can perform מלאכת or עבודה, . An example is seen in Parshas Bereishis (פרק 2: פסוק 15) where the purpose of אדם being in גן עדן is "לעבדה ולשמרה".

Avrohom in Geror

A post on mail Jewish asked

In Parshat Lech-Lecha, we read about the incident where Avram and Sarai are driven from Cana'an because of a famine and go to live in Egypt. In order to protect Avram's life, they declare themselves as brother and sister.

Several of the commentators, especially the Ramban, state that Avram erred in this matter because he left Cana'an without G-d's command, and thereby risked Sarai's life and honor. (The Ramban also sees the Egyptian exile of Avraham's descendents as a punishment for this sin.)

But what about the additional sin of putting Sarai (a married women) in a position where she might have martyred herself and not submit to gilui arayot (a severe illicit relationship). Here, we can probably say that before receiving the Torah, the rule that requires martyrdom instead of gilui arayot does not apply.

Now we move to Parshat Vayera, and this time we read of a more puzzling incident where Avraham and Sara go to live in Grar, and again adopt the "brother and sister" story. But this time, there was no famine that drove them away from Eilonai-Mamrei! (Rashi says that one of the reasons for the move was to distant themselves from Lot, who became infamous because of his relationships with his daughters.) Of course, Sara was taken to King Avimelech's house. Sara was ultimately saved from being violated only because of G-d's intervention.

Since there was no famine in Cana'an, what was Avraham's justification for moving to Grar, and then using the "brother and sister" story again? (This was against Sara's will, according to Rashi.) The dangers were very real and no justification is stated in the Torah. In fact, during G-d's dealings with Avimelech, Avimelech is shown to be a tzadik and Avraham is not shown in that light.

Later, during the confrontation between Avraham and Avimelech, Avraham excuses his behavior by saying "I thought there was no fear of G-d in this place, and I expected to be killed because of my wife". So why did he come to Grar?

So how do we explain Avraham's behavior in this incident?

There are are several different questions being asked that need to be dealt with.

Even those who fault Avraham for going to Mitzrayim, do not fault him for going to Grar. Yitzchak was forbidden to leave Eretz Canaan as a result of the Akeidah, but Hashem told him (in Toldos) specifically to stay in Grar. Thus, Grar was not outside of Canaan and there was nothing wrong with that. The only problem was the trick that Avrohom used. As Avraham tells Avimelech, this trick was actually necessary and part of their normal behavior. It is only brought up in the Torah when the king (who was the only one who could get away with violating Avraham's rights as the "brother" of an unmarried woman) actually took the "sister" in order to make her part of her harem.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (among others) points out that this trick was designed to save the two of them from the general population of the city state. As Rav Hirsch says,(as translated in the Judaica Press edition) in Vayera chapter 20 pasuk 2.

"... unmarried virgins must have been much safer amongst the people than married women. It seems to have been only princes that unmarried strangers had reason to fear. And actually it was again only a king that dared to take her, and who later on has no scruples in admitting it."

Avimelech, in fact, is wrong even though he *thinks* that he is innocent. When Hashem "speaks" to him, Avimelech says

בתם לבבי ובנקיון כפי עשיתי 

in the innocence of my heart and the integrity of my hands I did this

However, when Hashem responds, he says

גם אני ידעתי כי בתם לבבך עשית זאת

I know that you thought that you were acting innocently (my translation)

 We see that Hashem acknowledges that Avimelech thought that he was right, but tells him that not only was he wrong, but he needs to get Avrohom to pray for him or he would die as a result of what he did

ויתפלל בעדך וחיה And he will pray for you and you will live

 Thus we see that Avimelech was deserving of death for the abuse of power. Note that Avimelech does not dispute the fact that Avrohom used the trick on everyone else. He is just upset that Avrohom did not let him know what was going on. Indeed, Avimelech in Toldos tells Yitzchak

כמעט שכב אחד העם את אשתך

One  of the people might have "taken" your wife (in "nicer" language)

Rashi points out that this means he himself might have taken her. In fact, Avimelech there has to explicitly warn the people not to "touch" either Yitzchak or Rivkah, even though Eisav was already grown (and according to some meforshim) running the family "defense forces". Avimelech in Vayera did not dare let Avraham stay in the city itself. He couched his "request" that Avraham leave in nicer language by telling him that he was free to settle wherever in the land under his (Avimelech's) control that he wanted to.

Difference between תולדות אדם and תולדות שם

The list of generations in פרק ה בראשית  for תולדות אדם and the list of generations in פרק יא נח for תולדות שם is that there is an extra פסוק in בראשית. The standard in בראשית is as follows:

1. X lived for m years and fathered Y
2.  X lived n years after fathering Y and fathered sons and daughters.
3.  All the years of X's life were m+n years, and he died.

The standard in נח is just the first two פסוקים. What is the reason for the difference between them?

The obvious difference between the two may be the fact that the ten generations until נח ends with the destruction of the world in the מבול. The ten generations from נח to אברהם ends with the reestablishment of belief in Hashem and the beginning of what will become the Jewish people.

This is discussed in a number of places. Rabbi Munk references רבינו בחיי. It is also discussed in ספורנו and כלי יקר and אור החיים as well as Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin's אזנים לתורה (Insights in the Torah). The difference is connected to the the fact that the ten generations from אדם to נח lead to the end of the world and the מבול. On the other hand, the ten generations from נח to אברהם leads to the birth of אברהם אבינו. Rabbi Munk points out that this is the beginning of the development of the world that will end with the coming of the משיח.

Rabbi Sorotzkin says that the extra פסוק is to point out that this is actually a praise of the people who are listed as it emphasizes that they died natural deaths and were not punished by being killed in the flood. This is similar to the explanation given when בנות צלפחד explain that their father "died in the desert" in order to show that he was not part of those who died because of the rebellion of Korach or one of the other explicit punishments for the various sins. As רבינו נחיי says, there is no need for the third pasuk since the flood was over and we would no longer need to emphasize the fact of "natural" death.

An alternate answer given by Rabbi Sorotzkin (and others) compares the deaths in the מבול to the death of יואב. The גמרא states the the extra phrase "he died" means that he did not leave any children.  The מבול can be considered the complete destruction of the world, and נח, far from being an "heir" of his ancestors. can be considered a "new creation". Thus, everything that happened before has been wiped out and is "dead".

The first death explicitly given in the genealogical table between נח and אברהם was פלג (Peleg) who died in 1996, the year of the dispersion. At that time אברהם was 48 years old. Thus all of his ancestors were alive, not only at his birth, but for the significant occurrence that ended that stage of existence. The Medrash says that Avrohom's brother הרן was the first person to die while his father was still alive, and by implication, he would have been the first person to die since the flood. As a result, the medrash of the כבשן האש had to have occurred while נמרוד still controlled the "civilized" world before the dispersion. This means the the actual major event of the age, the refusal of אברהם to succumb to the idolatry of his age and the initial revolt that led to מתן תורה and will lead to ימות המשיח, occurred while every link in the generational chain was still alive.

The final end of the generations also shows the difference between נח and אברהם. אברהם tried his best to save the world, and whether he succeeded or not,  as with his brother or with סדום, the attempt still allowed the world to continue and led to life. The names show the difference between them. נח basically sat back, did what Hashem told him and left it at that. While he was saved, the entire world died and it was as if he was a new creation starting from scratch. אברהם worked and strove and not only became the "father" of the future, but was able to keep his ancestors alive as well.

How the calendar might look with a Sanhedrin

It is an interesting exercise to attempt to compare what the Sanhedrin might announce to the calculated calendar that we use

While the molad is announced in terms of Jerusalem Solar Time, the tables below are shown in terms of Israeli clock time, based of the time zone (UTC +2). This allows the announced molad to be compared to the actual astronomical conjunction. The announced molad is based on the average calculated lunar cycle.

For the actual conjunction, sunset, and moonset times, I used the time charts at Time and Date along with a guess at visibility based on .6 of the time between sunset and moonset.
I assumed the Sanhedrin magically came into existence in time to declare Cheshvan because I did not want to deal with Rosh Hashannah of this year.

I also took the calculated Molad (Solar Time in Yerushalayim) and converted it to the Israeli Time Zone (UTC + 2) Clock Time as explained by Torah Tidbits in Yerushalayim. For example, the 5770 table gives the time as the Rambam declares it, as we currently announce it, and accordint to Israeli Clock Time. Thus, the time being shown is clock time rather than the actual announced time. This difference is based on the fact that noon in Solar Time (as used in the announced molad) is approximately 11:40 AM by the clock.

The point is to show what the effects would be with the various possibilities as the year progresses. I left out Rosh Hashanna because it seems that when you get a "two day" situation, Rosh Hashanna becomes Tishrei 1 and 2 rather than Elul 30 and Tishrei 1. The reason being that the entire idea of two days is based on the waiting for the declaration and the way korbanos are handled. Since Rosh Hashanna starts as soon as the declaration is made and everywhere in the country treats it as two days mishum safek, it is possible that the way we handle the same situation with every other month would be different. In any case, the entire set of comments was to show how the differences would propagate through the year.

Calculated Molad chart for the year 5770

Month	Date	Israel Time	Rosh Chodesh
Cheshvan	Sunday, October 18, 2009	11:10 PM IST	Sun/Mon Oct 18/19
Kislev	Tuesday, November 17, 2009	11:54 AM IST	Tue/Wed Nov 17/18
Teves	Thursday, December 17, 2009	12:39 AM IST	Fri, Dec 18
Shvat	Friday, January 15, 2010	1:23 PM IST	Sha Jan 16
Adar	Sunday, February 14, 2010	2:07 PM IST	Sun/Mon Feb 14/15
Nisan	Monday, March 15, 2010	2:51 PM IST	Tue, Mar 16
Iyar	Wednesday, April 14, 2010	4:35 AM IDT	Wed/Thu Apr 14/15
Sivan	Thursday, May 13, 2010	5:19 PM IDT	Fri May 14, 2010
Tamuz	Saturday, June 12, 2010	6:03 AM IDT	Sha/Sun Jun 12/13
Av	Sunday, July 11, 2010	6:47 PM IDT	Mon, Jul 12
Elul	Tuesday, August 10, 2010	7:31 AM IDT	Tue/Wed Aug 10/11

This table shows the actual (astronomical) time of the new moon (conjunction) in Israel Time. This can be gotten from a number of tables, such as the Naval Observatory time showed in the previous posting.

Astronomical Conjunction chart for 5770

Month	Date	Israel Time
Cheshvan	Sunday, October 18, 2009	7:33 AM IST
Kislev	Monday, November 16, 2009	9:14 PM IST
Teves	Wed, December 16, 2009	12:39 AM IST
Shvat	Friday, January 15, 2010	1:23 PM IST
Adar	Sunday, February 14, 2010	2:07 PM IST
Nisan	Monday, March 15, 2010	2:51 PM IST
Iyar	Wednesday, April 14, 2010	4:35 AM IDT
Sivan	Friday, May 14, 2010	5:19 PM IDT
Tamuz	Saturday, June 12, 2010	6:03 AM IDT
Av	Sunday, July 11, 2010	6:47 PM IDT
Elul	Tuesday, August 10, 2010	7:31 AM IDT

Calculated Average Molad chart for the year 5771

Month	Day	Molad	Israel Clock Time	Rosh Chodesh
Cheshvan	30 Tishri 5771 Fri 8 Oct 2010	08:20:02 AM	7:59 AM IST	Fri/Sha Oct 8/9
Kislev	30 Cheshvan 5771 Sat 6 Nov 2010	09:04:03 PM	8:43 PM IST	Sun/Mon Nov 7/8
Teves	29 Kislev 5771 Mon 6 Dec 2010	09:48:04 AM	9:27 AM IST	Tue/Wed Dec 7/8
Shvat	29 Teves 5771 Tue 4 Jan 2011	10:32:05 PM	10:11 PM IST	Thu Jan 6
Adar I	29 Shevat 5771 Thu Feb 3 2011	11:16:06 AM	10:55 AM IST	Fri/Sha Feb 4/5
Adar II	28 Adar A 5771 Fri March 4 2011	12:00:07 AM	11:39 PM IST	Sun/Mon Mar 6/7
Nisan	28 Adar B 5771 Sun April 3 2011	12:44:08 PM	1:23 AM IDT	Tue Apr 5
Iyar	29 Nisan 5771 Mon May 3 2011	01:28:09 AM	2:08 AM IDT	Wed/Thu May 4/5
Sivan	28 Iyar 5771 Wed June 1 2011	02:12:10 PM	2:52 PM IDT	Fri June 3
Tamuz	29 Sivan 5771 Fri July 1 2011	02:56:11 AM	3:36 AM IDT	Sha/Sun July 2/3
Av	28 Tamuz 5771 Sat July 30 2011	03:40:12 PM	4:20 PM IDT	Mon Aug 1
Elul	29 Av 5771 Mon Aug 29 2011	04:24:13 AM	5:04 AM IDT	Tue/Wed Aug 30/31

Dr. Roy Hoffman of the Israel new Moon Society has said that  

The best time to see the crescent Moon, according to my research ("Observing the new Moon" R. E. Hoffman, Monthly Notes Roy. Astron. Soc., 340, 1039-1051 (2003).), is 0.6 of the time between Sunset and Moonset. The first crescent Moon appears between 15 and 55 hours after the true conjunction.

He has published predictions of possible first sightings of the new moon at

You can download my predictions for the next year at http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/nmr/foo/handouts/5771e.pdf, and for last year at http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/nmr/foo/handouts/5770e.pdf

Some of these estimates show that the moon would definitely not be visible to the naked eye at that time.

I should point that that as Dr. Hoffman says

 I do not publish calendars based on sightings because we are commanded to use our calculated calendar until a recognized Sanhedrin rules otherwise. If you do publish such a calendar, it is more than likely that a few individuals will follow it in contradiction to the halakhah.

Rosh Hashanna of 5772 will be Thu/Fri Sept 29/30

The actual conjunction and the possible “first visibility” list is shown below.

Note that the first visibility range is delayed because the first date is October 8, 5:16 PM – 5:26 PM. This is probably too short a time to actually see the moon. The following month, the first moonrise is at 4:45 PM which is less than ten hours. If the moon is seen on or before day 29 of the month, then the Sanhedrin would be able to declare the next day Rosh Chodesh and the previous month would be a 29 day month. Otherwise, the previous day would be a two day Rosh Chodesh by default. This occurs for Chesvan and Kislev. Note that Teves has two possibilities. If witnesses see the moon at the first available date (Dec 6), then Dec 7 would be the only day of Rosh Chodesh, unlike the calculated calendar which has two days. This would make the fast of Asara B'Teves occur one day earlier, Thursday, December 16, instead of Friday, December 17. This would also affect the declaration of the month of Shvat. Since it is the middle of the rainy season, it is very probable that the witnesses would miss the first sighting of the moon, forcing Teves to have tw days of Rosh Chodesh, just like the calculated calendar.

If Teves only had one day of Rosh Chodesh (December 7), then January 5 would be day number 30 of that month. This would force Shvat to have a two day Rosh Chodesh and would bring it back in sync with the calculated calendar.

Adar II now has two possibilities again because of the end of the rainy season. It is also possible that it would be missed because of the early time within the rang that the visibility occurs (19 hours 18 minutes). If it were visible, the Sanhedrin might deliberately not hold court because it would force Purim to occur on Shabbos. This affects Nisan, just as Teves did Shvat.

Note that Daylight Savings Time in Israel starts April 2. Thus, All time from April on are in Daylight Savings Time.

Nisan now has three possibilities because of the tw possibilities of Adar II. If Adar II had only one day Rosh Chodesh, then Nisan is forced to have two days Rosh Chodesh and comes back into sync with the calculated calendar. This is the same situation as if Adar II had two days Rosh Chodesh and the witnesses saw the moon in time for Nisan to have one day Rosh Chodesh. It is probable that they would see it as the moon would be 26 hours old. If they do not see it, Nisan has two days Rosh Chodesh and Pesach becomes Wednesday April 20 instead of Tuesday April 19. This is a significant effect and shows why we need the calendar to be precise. This also shows the reason for two days of Yom Tov in Chutz La'Aretz.

Iyar can now be either a one day or two day Rosh Chodesh depending on what had happened with Nisan (assuming that the witnesses do see the moon at the designated time. If they miss the moon, it would of course be forced to be a two day Rosh Chodesh.

Because Shavuos is defined as being counted from Pesach, the date would have been defined by what happened to Nisan.

Had Iyar had a single day of Rosh Chodesh, June 2 would have been the thirtieth day of the month forcing two days of Rosh Chodesh whether the moon was seen or not. If there had been two days of Rosh Chodesh, it would have again depended on whether or not the moon had been seen. This would set up three possibilities.

This sets up three possibilities for Sivan, but the first of Sivan woul occur on either June 3 or 4. This leads to Tamuz having one or two days Rosh Chodesh, but in either case, the first of the month is July 3. This brings it back in sync with the calculated calendar.

Av can now have one or two days Rosh Chodesh, meaning that Tisha B'Av can be on August 9 or 10.

While the moon on the day of the conjunction of Elul (Aug 29) may be visible, the time interval is only two minutes so it would probably be too close to the sun. If we assume that the second interval is seen, then the first of Elul is on the same day in either case. This allows Rosh Hashana to start as expected by the calculated calendar. On the other hand, if that day is not seen, Elul starts even later and causes a problem with Rosh Hashana because Elul 29 is pushed forward to September 29.

The Conjunction for Rosh Hashana 5772 is September 27 at 2:09 Am, with a possible visibility at 6:45 PM on September 28 (40 h 36 m moon age). This is Elul 29 according to the analysis above, which would make Rosh Hashanna occur on September 29 and 30. This is the same as determined by the calculated calendar.

Conjunction chart for the year 5771

Month	Conjunction	Visibility Range	“best Time” (.6 of way)	Rosh Chodesh
Cheshvan	Thu, Oct 7, 2010 8:44 PM IST	Oct 9 5:14 – 6:10 PM	5:47 PM 45 h 3 m	Fri/Sha Oct 8/9
Kislev	Sat, Nov 6, 2010 6:52 AM IST	Nov 7 4:45 – 5:36 PM	5:15 PM 34 h 23 m	Sun/Mon Nov 7/8
Teves	Sun, Dec 5, 2010 7:36 PM IST	Dec 6 4:35 – 5:14 PM	4:58 PM 21 h 22 m	Tue Dec 7
Teves	Sun, Dec 5, 2010 7:36 PM IST	Dec 7 4:35 – 6:16 PM	5:35 PM 46 h 50 m	Tue/Wed Dec 7/8
Shvat	Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:03 AM IST	Jan 4 4:48 – 5:00 PM	4:55 PM 5 h 52 m	Too early to see
Shvat	Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:03 AM IST	Jan 5 4:49 – 5:59 PM	5:31 PM 30 h 28 m	Wed/Thu Jan 5/6
Shvat	Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:03 AM IST	Jan 5 4:49 – 5:59 PM	5:31 PM 30 h 28 m	Thu Jan 6
Adar I	Thu, Feb 3, 2011 4:31 AM IST	Feb 3 5:15 – 5:45 PM	5:33 PM 13 h 2 m	Too early to see
Adar I	Thu, Feb 3, 2011 4:31 AM IST	Feb 4 5:16 – 6:39 PM	6:15 PM 13 h 44 m	Fri/Sha Feb 4/5
Adar II	Fri, Mar 4, 2011 10:46 PM IST	Mar 5 5:40 – 6:20 PM	6:04 19 h 18 m	Sun Mar 6
Adar II	Fri, Mar 4, 2011 10:46 PM IST	Mar 6 5:40 – 7:13	6:35 PM 43 h 49 m	Sun/Mon Mar 6/7
Nisan	Sun, Apr 3, 2011 5:32 PM IDT	April 4 7:00 – 7:57 PM	7:34 PM 26 h 2 m	Mon/Tue Apr 4/5
Nisan	Sun, Apr 3, 2011 5:32 PM IDT	April 4 7:00 – 7:57 PM	7:34 PM 26 h 2 m	Tue Apr 5
Nisan	Sun, Apr 3, 2011 5:32 PM IDT	April 5 7:01 – 8:52 PM	7:37 PM 50 hours 5 m	Tue/Wed Apr 5/6
Iyar	Tue, May 3, 2011 9:51 AM IDT	May 3 7:20 – 7:42 PM	7:33 PM 9 h 42 m	Too early to see
Iyar	Tue, May 3, 2011 9:51 AM IDT	May 4 7:21 – 8:39	8:07 PM 34 h 16 m	Wed/Thu May 4/5
Iyar	Tue, May 3, 2011 9:51 AM IDT	May 4 7:21 – 8:39	8:07 PM 34 h 16 m	Wed May 4
Sivan	Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:03 AM IDT	Jun 2 7:40 – 8:21 PM	8:04 PM 20 h 1 m	Thu/Fri June 2/3
Sivan	Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:03 AM IDT	Jun 2 7:40 – 8:21 PM	8:04 PM 20 h 1 m	Fri June 3
Sivan	Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:03 AM IDT	Jun 3 7:40 – 9:12 PM	8:35 PM 44 h 32 m	Fri/Sha June 3/4
Tamuz	Fri, Jul 1, 2011 11:54 AM IDT	July 2 7:49 – 8:39	8:19 PM 32 h 25 m	Sha/Sun July 2/3
Tamuz	Fri, Jul 1, 2011 11:54 AM IDT	July 2 7:49 – 8:39	8:19 PM 32 h 25 m	Sun July 3
Av	Sat, Jul 30, 2011 9:40 PM IDT	July 31 7:37 – 7:55 PM	7:47 PM 22h 7 m	Mon Aug 1
Av	Sat, Jul 30, 2011 9:40 PM IDT	Aug 1 7:36 – 8:32 PM	8:09 PM 46 h 29 m	Mon/Tue Aug 1/2
Elul	Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:04 AM	Aug 30 7:06 – 7:42	7:27 PM 37 h 23 m	Tue/Wed Aug 30/31
Elul	Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:04 AM	Aug 30 7:06 – 7:42	7:27 PM 37 h 23 m	Wed Aug 31