יום שישי, 30 במאי 2014

הקול נמצא, אך צריך לדעת להקשיב לו - The Voice is present, but you have to be able to hear it

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בסוף פרשת נשא שנקרא מחר, מופיעה הטייה מעניינת ומשונה (במדבר ז, פט):
 "וּבְבֹא משֶׁה אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו."
הקול אינו מופנה למשה, הוא נמצא בעולם; יש מי שמסוגל לשמוע אותו ולהקשיב לו, ויש מי שאינו שומע את הקול. ואולי משה מצליח לשמוע את הקול, כי הוא בא אל "אוהל מועד". יתכן שזה מלמד אותנו שכדי לשמוע את הקול, צריך לבוא אל "אוהל מועד", כלומר מתוך רצון להיוועד, להיפגש ולהקשיב והנכונות הזאת מאפשרת לנו לשמוע ולהקשיב הצורה רגישה לקולות השונים.
שבת שלום וחודש טוב לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 








Dear Family and Friends,
At the end of the Torah Section we'll read tomorrow, we meet a strange form of the verb "לדבר": I checked a few English translations as well as the Vulgata (Latin translation) and noticed that they overlooked that very special form; it says מִדַּבֵּרwich means that the Divine Voice didn't speak directly with Moshe, but there was a VOICE present in the "Tent of Reunion" and Moshe was able to listen to that voice. Maybe this teaches us that in order to be able to hear that Voice, you have to enter "the Tent of Reunion", which means that you come with an attitude of encounter, enabling you to listen with empathy and sensitivity.
Shabbat Shalom and Hodesh Tov to all.
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com  


יום רביעי, 28 במאי 2014

And from the wilderness to mattanah
Pinchas Leiser
,Among the reasons suggested for the Torah being given in the wilderness is one found in the Midrash Tanchuma (Hukkat 21): "Why was the Torah given in the wilderness? Because were it to have been given in the land [of Israel], that tribe within whose area it was given would claim primacy, saying, "We should be the first [to read from the Torah scroll]". Therefore was it given in the wilderness, so that all have equal rights to the Torah."
The Talmud (Eruvin 54a) offers a different derashaone which relates to the humility required of one who studies the Talmud. "And from the wilderness to Mattanah" - if one allows himself to be treated as a wilderness on which everyone treads, his study will be retained by him, otherwise it will not". [Mattanah, name of a location, also means 'a gift'].
The Talmud follows this derasha with a story about Rava, son of R. Yosef bar Hama who had come to pacify R. Yosef:
R. Yosef had a grievance against Rava son of R. Yosef B. Hama [and therefore they did not meet]. When the eve of the Day of Atonement approached the latter thought, 'I shall go and pacify him'. Proceeding to R. Yosef's house, he found his [R. Yosef's] attendant mixing a cup of wine for him. 'Give it to me', Rava said to him, 'and I will mix it'. He gave it to him and the latter duly mixed it. As R. Yosef [who was blind and could not see his guest) tasted it, he remarked: 'This mixing is like that of Rava son of R. Yosef b. Hama'. 'I am here', Rava answered. 'Do not sit down upon your legs', said R. Josef said to him, 'before you have explained to me these verses. What is the purport of the Scriptural text: "And from the wilderness to Mattanah"? 'If', the other replied, 'a man allows himself to be treated as the wilderness upon which everybody treads, the Torah will be given to him as an inheritance...
It seems to me that through this story and the midrashim in the Talmud and the Tanhuma, the Sages are teaching us something about the qualification for receiving Torah, and also about the proper awareness required of the Torah student, he who desires to experience Mattan Torah - the giving of the Torah - in his life today.
The renewal of the relationship between Rava and R. Yosef was made possible through Rava's readiness to mix the wine for R. Yosef in place of the latter's attendant, and R. Yosef understood the hint. It could be that the literary choice of the mixing of the wine as a symbol of the reconciliation is related to the dream of the chief cupbearer who won reprieve from Pharaoh, but here R. Yosef wants Rava to make a clear statement: The Torah is given as an inheritance to one who is prepared to forgo his honor, to one who is willing to make concessions in order to come closer to the other. Rava's dershacontinues:
'And from Mattanah to Nahaliel', and as soon as he is the inheritance of God, he rises to greatness, since it says: 'And from Nahaliel to Bamoth'. But if he is haughty, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles him, as it says: 'And from Bamoth to the valley'. If, however, he repents, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises him, as it says: 'Every valley shall be lifted up.'
Humility and concession enable receiving the Torah as a gift, but this Torah, given as a gift, also makes possible the experiencing of revelation. Unfortunately, one who is privileged to experience revelation is susceptible to psychological intoxication, becoming prideful of his status; distance is created between Man and the Holy One, blessed be He, and only Man's return to a state of open-mindedness and humility can facilitate reconciliation and communication.
This pendulum reminds us of another Talmudic tale (BavliTaanit 20a-b) concerning R. Shimon son of R. Elazar (or perhaps R. Elazar, son of R. Shimon):
Our Rabbis have taught: A man should always be gentle as the reed and never as rigid the cedar. Once R. Elazar son of R. Simeon was coming from Migdal Gedor, from the house of his teacher, and he was riding leisurely on his donkey by the riverside and was feeling happy and elated because he had studied much Torah.
There chanced to meet him an exceedingly ugly man who greeted him, 'Peace upon you, Sir'. He, however, did not return the salutation but instead said to him, 'Raka [empty one], how ugly you are. Are all your fellow citizens as ugly as you are?' The man replied: 'I do not know, but go and tell the craftsman who made me, "How ugly is the vessel which you have made". When R. Elazar realized that he had done wrong he dismounted and prostrated himself before the man and said to him, 'I submit myself to you, forgive me'. The man replied: 'I will not forgive you until you go to the craftsman who made me and say to him, "How ugly is the vessel which you have made".' He [R. Elazar] walked behind him until he reached his native city. When his fellow citizens came out to meet him greeting him with the words, 'Peace be upon you O Teacher, O Master,' the man asked them, 'Whom are you addressing thus'? They replied, 'The man who is walking behind you.' Thereupon he exclaimed: 'If this man is a teacher, may there not be any more like him in Israel'! The people then asked him: 'Why'? He replied: 'Such and such a thing has he done to me. They said to him: 'Nevertheless, forgive him, for he is a man greatly learned in the Torah.' The man replied: 'For you sakes I will forgive him, but only on the condition that he does not act in the same manner in the future.; Immediately R. Elazar son of R. Shimeon entered [the Beth Hamidrash] and expounded thus, A man should always be gentle as the reed and let him never be rigid as the cedar. And for this reason the reed merited that from it should be made a pen for the writing of Law, Tephillin and Mezuzoth.
R. Elazar son of R. Shimeon [variant reading - 'R. Shimeon son of R. Elazar'] achieved greatness because of Torah study, but this greatness does not immunize one against superciliousness, arrogance and belittlement of the other, and the other (the ugly man in our story) whom the Tosaphists - on the basis of a text in Tractate Derech Eretz - identify as Elijah, represents the word of God distancing itself from him because of his pride and his arrogance and his rudeness. Only the intervention of the residents of R. Elazar's town, who consider him a beloved and admired teacher, facilitates the forgiveness of the 'other'. As a result of this encounter, R. Elazar learnt and taught the lesson of humility; the Torah can be written only with 'a pen made of reed', i.e., with gentleness and with humbleness.
The author of Midrash Tanhuma adds another level: There can be no territorial, tribal or ethnic monopoly on the Torah. The Torah was given in a location belonging to all men, and therefore, as R. Meir taught (BavliBava Kama 38a), no person or nation can claim ownership of the Torah:
From where do we learn than even a gentile who studies Torah is like a High Priest? Scripture teaches 'Which man shall and live in them' - it does not say Priests, Levites and Israelites, but man, thus you learn that even a gentile who studies Torah is like a High Priest.
Of course we cannot ignore midrashot which stress the unique connection existing between the Jewish people and the Torah, including the midrash which describes the nations' refusal to accept the Torah, but perhaps it is this unique connection in particular which obliges us to take seriously the mishna in Tractate Sanhedrin (4, 5):
For this reason was man created alone, to teach you that whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world.4 furthermore, [he was created alone] for the sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours, and that the minim41 might not say, there are many ruling powers in heaven; again, to proclaim the greatness of the holy one, blessed be he: for if a man strikes many coins from one mould, they all resemble one another, but the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned every man in the stamp of the first man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obliged to say: 'The world was created for my sake.'
Absolute inherent equality exists between human beings, because man was created singly, and we are all children of one man, and this principle demands of us humility and open-mindedness. It leads us through a wilderness journey to the recognition that the Torah which we received as an inheritance and which we can receive anew as a gift does not tolerate haughtiness or discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic community, class or nationality. May it be His wish that we merit also as a people in our land to receive the wilderness Torah of humility which respects every person created in the image ofGod.
Pinchas Leiser is the editor of Shabbat Shalom

יום שישי, 23 במאי 2014

מההר למדבר -From Mount Sinai to the Desert

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
עדיין בפרשות האחרונות של ספר ויקרא, התנהל הקשר בין ה' לבין משה על "הר סיני".
מעתה אנחנו מתחילים לקרוא את ספר במדבר וההתגלות תתקיים באוהל מועד, שהא חלק  מהמשכן שנבנה בידי אדם.
ואולי מעבר זה מ"ההר" ל"מדבר" מבטא את הרעיון ששההתגלות  אינה מתקיימת  בשמים, או על הר ; עלינו לחולל אותה במעשינו, והיא מתרחשת במדבר (למי שעושה עצמו מדבר),  במקום שאינו שייך לאף אחד ולכולם. גם ירושלים לא נצחלקה לשבטים. 
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 



Dear Family and Friends,
Last week, in the last Torah section of Vayikra,  we read about G-d speaking to Moshe on the Mount of Sinai.
From now on, after we'll start reading the book of Bemidbar, the Revelation and Interaction between G-d and Moshe will always be in the Desert, in the Tent of Meeting (Ohel Moed), which is part of the Tabernacle, a human construction.
Maybe this transition reflects the idea that from now on, Spirituality becomes more and more a human endeavor; it's not more "In Heaven" or on a Mountain; we have to do something about it, but it has to be in the "Desert", a place that belongs to everybody and to nobody.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie,and Family 
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 


Shabbat Shalom from the Leiser family

יום רביעי, 21 במאי 2014

Jerusalem of Gold

Jerusalem of gold... at her heart a wall"
Observations and hope
On Yom Ha'atzmaut 5727, a young singer named Shuli Natan took the stage. Hers was the first performance of the song Yerushalayim shel Zahav - "Jerusalem of Gold," which Naomi Shemer had written a short time earlier.
Like other songs, this song entered into history in part because it touched upon emotional and nostalgic motifs. It is impossible to know what might have become of the song if the Six Day War had not followed quickly upon the heels of its debut, or if that war had been limited to Israel's southern or northern borders.
I recall meeting a rather elderly Jew, someone from the same town as my late mother, z"l, soon after that war's conclusion. He said that the extra verse should not have been added after the war, that it would have been better to leave it as an authentic expression of yearning and longing. At the time I listened to his words, but I am not sure I understood him completely.
Today, 47 years after that war, after all the People Israel both in Israel and abroad were stirred by Rabbi Goren z"l's blast of the shofar and Motta Gur z"l announcement, "The Temple Mount is in our hands," it seems that worldly-wise Jew may have known what he was talking about. If we will have to choose between the two versions of the song, which shall we choose? Have we really "returned to the water cisterns"? And what of "the market square"?
The phrase "at her heart a wall" is especially interesting and thought-provoking. There is a tangible wall surrounding the Old City; it is thanks to that wall that we read the Meggilah on the 15th of Adar, as in Shushan, "So that the Land of Israel will be remembered in connection with this miracle" (as RaMBaM states in Hilkhot Megillah). However, it seems that Naomi Shemer was principally referring to another wall; after all, the complete line reads: "The city which sits lonely, at her heart a wall." That line takes us back to Lamentations: Lonely sits the city once great with people.
The wall is found, then, at the heart of the city which sits "lonely." Is it the wall which divides the city's heart?
The heart is the origin of human emotion, but it is also the source of reason. Regarding the Tabernacle we read: and I have granted wisdom to the hearts of all the wise (Shemot 31:6), and RaMBaM (Guide for the Perplexed 1:39) uses the term "heart" in the sense of "thought" or "knowledge."
Thus, the city sits lonely with conflicting opinions and a heart divided by a wall. After the Six Day War, all or most of us thought or hoped that the city had been united and that the tangible wall would become a place where we could stroll, a place connecting the city's different parts. It seems that we were mistaken in that regard. Apparently, a city's walls cannot be taken down through war. Perhaps other directions must be taken in order to speak to the heart of the city and to the hearts of its inhabitants and in order to genuinely unite the city. Perhaps we also need to care for the city's neglected areas and for the welfare of their residents.
Perhaps, in these days, all this seems like a dream. Perhaps the city is presently "captivated by her dreams." That, however, is no reason to stop dreaming and hoping for the city's unification, regardless of whatever diplomatic or municipal solution may be arrived at. May we be granted in our own days to see a city united together, a city that that makes all of its inhabitants into friends.


יום רביעי, 14 במאי 2014

מלחמה היא צרה


"וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם" - אפילו חרב של שלום.

פנחס לייזר

הרמב"ם, במשנה תורה, (הלכות תעניות ב, ד)  פוסק שצריך להתריע ולהתענות על המלחמה (על החרב), וזה לשונו:
"על  החרב,  כיצד?  אפילו  חרב  של  שלום,  כגון שערכו מלחמה  גויים עם גויים ועברו במקום ישראל, אף על פי שאין ביניהם ובין ישראל מלחמה, הרי זו צרה ומתענין [ומתריעין] עליה שנאמר: (ויקרא כ"ו) "וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם" מכלל, שראיית המלחמה צרה"
הביטוי המעניין "חרב של שלום" מקורו בספרות חז"ל (תוספתא תענית פ"ב, ה"י; בבלי תענית כ"ב, ע"א) והוא ביטוי המתאר מלחמה של "גויים עם גויים" המתרחשת לעינינו ושעצם ראייתה היא צרה לנו, ולכן ברכה היא לנו כאשר לא נהיה מעורבים בכל דרך שהיא, גם עקיפה, במלחמה מעין זו, כפירוש רש"י בעקבות הספרא: "וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם:  (תורת כהנים) אין צריך לומר שלא יבאו למלחמה,   אלא   אפילו   לעבור   דרך  ארצכם  ממדינה למדינה ".
חז"ל, בתוספתא תענית ובתלמודים, מדגימים את המושג "חרב של שלום" על-ידי סיפורו של פרעה נכה (דברי הימים ב', ל"ה) המבקש ממלך יהודה "הצדיק" יאשיהו לעבור בארצו, כדי להלחם בנבוכדנאצר, כאשר הוא מצהיר במפורש :"מה לי ולך, מלך יהודה, לא עליך אתה היום,כי אל בית מלחמתי" (דברי הימים שם, כ"א), כלומר; אין לי כל כוונה להלחם בך. יאשיהו, לעומת זאת, מאמין שביכלתו לנצח את פרעה נכה, עובד האלילים, אך הסיפור מסתיים במפלתו הטראגית של יאשיהו, וכך מתוארת מפלה זו בלשון הגמרא (בבלי תענית כ"ב, ע"ב): "וירו הירים למלך   יאשיהו   ויאמר   המלך  לעבדיו  העבירוני  כי החליתי מאד" מאי "כי החליתי מאד"? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב:  מלמד  שעשו כל גופו ככברה." ואז, מתמודדת הגמרא עם שאלת ענישתו של יאשיהו, על אף היותו צדיק, וכך לשון הגמרא: " אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני  אמר רבי (יוחנן) [יונתן] מפני מה נענש יאשיהו? מפני  שהיה  לו  לימלך  בירמיהו,  ולא  נמלך. מאי דרש? {ויקרא   כ"ו} "וחרב   לא  תעבור  בארצכם"  מאי  חרב? אילימא (אם תאמר)  חרב  שאינה  של שלום, והכתיב "ונתתי שלום בארץ"  אלא  אפילו  של  שלום, והוא  אינו יודע שאין דורו  דומה  יפה."
לכאורה, משתמש יאשיהו בדרשה המקובלת על חז"ל כברכה המובטחת  שאפילו "חרב של שלום" לא תעבור בארצנו, ולכן מרשה לעצמו לצאת למלחמה, ללא התייעצות בירמיהו הנביא ובוטח בנצחונו נגד פרעה, עובד האלילים, כי הרי מובטח לנו, עובדי ה' , "כי ה' אלוקיכם ההולך עמכם להלחם באויביכם ולהושיע אתכם...". הגמרא מציינת כאן שתי סיבות למפלתו של יאשיהו:
-"שהיה לו לימלך בירמיהו, ולא נמלך"
- "והוא אינו יודע שאין דורו דומה יפה"
הסיבה הראשונה יכולה להתפרש כמעין "עקיפת סמכות" או כקבלת החלטות על-ידי המלך "שלא על-פי הנהלים המקובלים". אך, דומני שהסיבה השניה (אינו יודע וכו..) שופכת אור אחר גם על הסיבה הראשונה ולכן,אולי יש כאן בעצם רק סיבה אחת, מורכבת, למפלתו של יאשיהו.
נראה לי שהגמרא מלמדת אותנו פרק חשוב בקבלת החלטות פוליטיות שיש להן היבטים מוסריים ורוחניים. היא אומרת לנו שרצוי, בעת קבלות החלטות מעין אלו, להיוועץ בסמכות מוסרית ורוחנית בלתי-תלויה, המסוגלת להפריד בין שיקולים פוליטיים ושיקולים רוחניים.
למלך, למנהיג הפוליטי, אפילו אם הוא צדיק,  קשה לעשות הפרדה זו ויש סכנה גדולה שהאינטרס הפוליטי יסנוור אותו וששיקולו ה"רוחני" יהיה מושפע משיקולים אחרים המשתמשים ברוחניות, כדי להצדיק כל החלטה.
סוגיית יחסי הגומלין בין הנביא והמלך, בין עולם המוסר והרוח, שחייב להיות בלתי-תלוי, לבין העולם המעשי, הפוליטי, המחייב לעתים קבלת החלטות לא קלות היא מורכבת ביותר.
מי יתן ונשכיל, בדורנו, לבנות זיקה חיובית ומפרה יותר בין מערכות אלו ויקויים בנו:

"ונתתי שלום בארץ, ושכבתם ואין מחריד... וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם" אפילו "חרב של שלום", שראיית המלחמה צרה, כדברי הרמב"ם.

יום שישי, 9 במאי 2014

כי לי הארץ - The Land is Mine

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
לדעתי, המילים המכוננות בפרשת בהר שנקרא מחר הן "כי לי הארץ, כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי". הפנמת הרעיון שאין לאף אדם, לאף קבוצה, ולאף עם  בעלות" על דבר בעולם (ק"ו על  בני אדם), כמה ימים אחרי שחגגנו את עצמאותנו ואת ריבונותנו והפנמת הרעיון שכולנו "גרים ותושבים" עשויות להוביל אותנו לצניעות, לשמיטת האחיזה הכוחנית, לחתירה חברה צודקת, חומלת ושוחרת שלום.
שבת  שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

Dear Family and Friends,
"The Earth(Land) is Mine" are maybe the most powerful words we'll read in the Torah-section tomorrow.
Maybe these words teach us that we don't really possess anything and understanding this, especially after we celebrated our Independence a few days ago. Understanding that we are temporary residents may teach us modesty and may lead us to to strive towards a just,  empathetic, peace-oriented society
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com

יום רביעי, 7 במאי 2014

And You Shall Dwell Securely In Your Land”
Pinchas Leiser

A few days  ago, we celebrated Israel’s  Independence Day. In another  2 weeks  hence, we will observe “Jerusalem Day”, which marks a central signpost in the history of the State—The Six Day War.
We cannot deny the fact that the existence of the State of Israel and the accessibility of historically significant sites instilled in every Jew a sense of pride and security. Similarly, the announcement thirty-nine years ago that “The Temple Mount is in our hands!” generated an atmosphere of exaltation in Israel and in the Diaspora.
It seems to me that it is still too early, historically speaking, to evaluate the import of these events for future generations. It seems to me that it is not within our power to decipher the plans of the Holy One regarding ‘Geulat Yisrael”—the Redemption of Israel—and the Messianic Era. This is in contrast to those theological approaches that try to read certain signs as predictive of the End of Days and to extreme Ultra-Orthodox doctrine that considers the establishment of the State of Israel to be a rebellion against the Holy One, Blessed Be He.
From this point of view, the issue of security vis a vis our living in the land is certainly relevant. Does there really exist an unconditional promise that “we shall dwell securely in our land”, a kind of  ‘divine insurance policy’?
The two parashot read this Shabbat  and next Shabbat relate to the subject of the “security” of living in this land, but the word root “b.t.ch.” appears for the first time in the story of the massacre of the inhabitants of Shechem at the hands of Shimon and Levi:
And it was upon the third day, when they were still hurting, that the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, took each his sword and came upon the town (feeling) secure (“betach”), and slaughtered every male.” (Bereishit. 34:25).
On the other hand, in parashot “Behar” and “U’behukotai”, the promise is that we shall dwell “la-vetach” (securely) in your land.
“You are to observe my laws, my regulations you are to keep, and observe them, that you may be settled on the land securely (la-vetach) . . . That the land may give forth its fruit and that you may eat to fullness, and you will dwell securely (la-betach) on it.” (Lev. 25:18, 19)
“ And your threshing will overtake the vintage, and the vintage will overtake the sowing, and you will eat your bread to the full, and you will dwell securely (la-vetach) in your land.” (Ibid, 26:5).
In contrast to our parasha, in Parashat Re-eh the security promised Israel is denoted by the word “betach”, without the prefix ‘la.
“And you shall cross the Jordan and dwell in the land that the Lord your God is about to grant you in estate and He will give you abiding haven from all your enemies around, and you shall dwell securely (‘betach’). (Deut. 12:10).
Is there significance in the difference between “betach” and “la-betach”? Yet more, can scrutiny of the difference assist us in understanding the divine promise of security for our land?
Our commentators differ in their understanding of the word “betach” in the Shechem massacre narrative:
Rashi attributes the sense of security to the sons of Yaakov:
“Betach—for they were hurting. The Midrash Agaddah says: They relied upon the strength of the old man.”
According to first explanation, the brothers’ sense of security was a result of their advantage over the recently circumcised people of Shechem. According the Midrashic explication, their sense of security flowed from the power of Father Avraham’s prayer.
On the other hand, many plain-reading explicators (Onkelos, Rashbam, Shadal, and Reggio) ascribe the sense of security to the people of Shechem. In the words of Shadal:
And they came upon the city in security (betach)”: It (the town) was dwelling securely, and similarly every appearance of  ‘betach’ in Scripture refers to the inhabitants (Rashbam), and so translated Onkelos ‘that they dwelled in security’. And similarly the Jerusalem Targum, “who were living in security”, but Rashi and the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 80, 9) applied betach to Shimon and Levi”.
The inhabitants of Shechem felt secure; Was the sense of security a product of excessive complacency, typical of people dwelling in their city, on their land? Or can it be explained by the trust they had developed towards Yaakov and his family who had promised them “to be a single people’ provided they circumcise every male? In any case, in retrospect it was clear that their trust was unfounded.
With regard to the wording in Parashat Re’eh, the Netziv, in “Haamek Davar”, explains:
And you shall dwell securely (betach) -- you shall not be terrified by the demons and evil spirits which are found in the desert, and therefore, “. . . the place . . .” 
According to this explanation, the text is talking about the sense of security felt by a people living in its land, who do not fear the uncertainty that typifies life in the desert.
Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also seems to take this approach:
In truth, the meaning is tranquility (menucha) – and he shall leave them (alone), and the portion (nachala) – and you will dwell in security.
It is therefore possible that a people dwelling in its land, having defeated its enemies, feels a basic sense of security. This feeling derives from the very act of dwelling on the land that provides the inhabitants with a sense of rootedness. This natural feeling is not unique to any specific nation; it is the lot of every people that lives upon—and has roots in—its land. “And you shall dwell in security” can be understood as considering the tie to the land as something natural and self-understood.
As already noted, in contrast to “And you shall dwell securely (betach) which appears in both the Shechem narrative and in the Book of Devarim, in Parashat Behar and Bechukotai we find “And you shall dwell securely (la-vetach)”.
If we follow in the footsteps of Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (quoted on the first page of this issue) we can read verses 17-19 as a single unit:
Verse 17 prohibits deceit—which the Rabbis explain as referring to verbal deceit in particular.
Verse 18 is to be read as a single unit; the dwelling securely (la-vetach) is defined by the manner of our dwelling in the land, i.e., by our behavior on it and towards it. From these verses, and from all the verses of these parashot, it is clear that we are dealing here not with an unconditional promise, but with a covenant.
It is possible that the natural, worldly, sense of “dwelling securely” is necessary as a first stage of connection to a land. In this sense we are no different from any nation dwelling on its land that needs minimal stability in order to feel secure. There were long periods in Jewish history when this natural feeling was denied us, and, in general, the existence of the State of Israel transformed significantly the sense of security of Jews throughout the world. Unfortunately Jews abroad are occasionally harmed because of their identification with the State of Israel, but this does not contradict the different existential feeling.
Together with this, “to dwell securely (la-vetach)” is not something to be taken for granted, something that happens automatically. The promise “And you shall dwell on your land securely (la-vetach)” is contingent upon compliance with the covenant and is in large part dependent upon the manner in which we conduct our life in the land. Are we not enslaved by the land or to any other property? Do we forget that they are not in our complete ownership (“For the land is mine, for you are strangers and sojourners with me”)? Do we remember not to cheat our fellows and the stranger? Are we careful not to lend usuriously? Are we conscious of the rights of workers, or are we perhaps tempted to maintain a class of slaves?
Does there exist proper balance between the efforts invested in creation of a sense of dwelling “betach”, and the facing up to the challenge of dwelling “la’vetach” in our land?


Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.

יום שישי, 2 במאי 2014

ספירה וסיפור On counting the Omer and Accountability

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בפרשת אמור, שנקרא מחר, מופיעה המצווה של ספירת העומר, המחברת בין חג הפסח לחג השבועות. תקופה זו, מעבר למשמעותה עבור החקלאי, מבטאת אולי את הרעיון שהשחרור מעבדות הוא תהליך המוביל לעיצוב זהות של עם בוגר ואחראי המחויב ליעוד של "אור לגויים". ואולי יש להתייחס למילה "וסְפַרתֶּם" ולנקדה "וְסִפַּרְתֶּם"; כלומר, להתייחס לכל יום כאל סיפור ובעתות אלו, להכיר בכך שיש לנו מדינה עצמאית. לא הקמנו בה חברת מופת צודקת (עדיין) אך אולי רצוי שבכל יום ובוודאי בעת הזאת נספר לעצמנו את הסיפור הציוני ונשאל את עצמנו האם הוא  צועד לכיוון של חברה מתוקנת יותר.
שבת שלום וחג עצמאות שמח
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

Dear Family and Friends,
Counting the Omer is one of the Mitzvot in our Parasha. This Mitzvah connects between Pessach and Shavuot. Maybe this teaches us that Freedom has to lead us to a higher moral level and a liberated people should be committed to be mature and responsible; Or LaGoyim - A light for the  Nations.  At a more existential level, we may acknowledge and celebrate the very special Gift of an Independent Jewish State, but also ask us  every day and especially in this period if the Israeli Society is committed to the Vision of a society based on justice, empathy and human rights.
Shabbat Shalom & Chag Atzmaut Sameach
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com