Parshat Beshallach

from “Revenge”
by HaRav Meir Kahane, ZT”L HY”D

http://www.kahane.org/ParshaMeir/hanuka.htm#besh

This is the key to understanding why G-d was more angry at Amalek than at any other nation. Other nations going out to war against Israel profane G-d’s name indirectly, for by fighting G-d’s people, they make it clear that they are unafraid of G-d, and such a profanation cannot be atoned. Yet their deed cannot equal that of nations which start with an open declaration (like Goliath) against G-d. This was the awful sin of Amalek, regarding which it said (Ex. 17:16),

“The hand is on G-d’s throne. The L-rd shall be at war with Amalek for all generations.” Our sages comment (Mechilta, Beshalach, Mesechta DeAmalek, parshah 2), “R. Elazar HaModai says, ‘G-d swore by His throne that He would not leave a single descendant of Amalek under heaven. No one would say, “This camel belongs to Amalek”, or, “This sheep belongs to Amalek.”‘” Our sages also comment (Pesikta Rabbati, Ch. 12): “‘The hand is on G-d’s throne’: R. Levi said in the name of R. Chama of the school of R. Chaninah, ‘So to speak, as long as Amalek’s offspring are on earth, G-d’s name is not complete [In the verse, "G-d" is represented by the short form "yud-kei], neither is His throne complete [represented by "kes" rather than "kisei"]. Once Amalek’s seed is uprooted, G-d’s throne is complete and His name is complete’. King David said, ‘Enemy! the waste places are come to an end forever, and the cities which you did uproot, their very memorial is perished’ (Ps. 9:7). What follows? ‘But the L-rd is enthroned forever. He has established His throne for judgment’”.

Amalek set out to annihilate Israel, as our sages said (Tanchuma Yashan, Yitro 4), “Why was it called ‘Amalek’? Because it is “am lak”, ‘the nation that licks’.Amalek set out to lap up Israel’s blood like a dog.”

Amalek came first, paving the way for all the other nations. As our sages said (Tanchuma, Ki Tetze 9): “‘When they encountered you on the way’ (Deut. 25:18): The Rabbis say, ‘They encountered you’ [karcha] - Amalek cooled you off [hikrecha] for others.’ R. Chunia said, ‘What is this like? A boiling tub of water in which no living thing could immerse itself. One wicked soul came and jumped in, and although he was scalded, he cooled it off for the others. Here, too, when Israel left Egypt, G-d split the sea for them and the Egyptians sank in its midst, and the fear of Israel befell all the nations: ‘Edom’s chiefs were frightened’ (Ex. 15:15). When Amalek attacked them, although they received their due at Israel’s hand, they still cooled Israel off for the nations of the world.’”

Even more than this, however, Amalek came openly to insult G-d and blot out His name. Mechilta (Ibid., parshah 1) comments regarding (Ex. 17:8), “Amalek arrived”: “Amalek came openly. In all their other attacks they came in stealth… but not here.’ Their insolence added emphasis to their public profanation of G-d’s name. Tanchuma, Ki Tetze, 9, teaches: “What did the Amalekites do? They would cut off Israel’s foreskins and throw them upward, saying, ‘This is what You chose. Take it!’ This is the meaning of (Ps. 79:12): “The shame they heaped upon You, O L-rd”.

Amalek’s sin was in the insolent, open war they started against G-d, in response to which G-d decreed (Ex. 17:14), “I will totally obliterate [macho emche] Amalek’s memory from under the heavens.” Mechilta (Ibid., parshah 2) comments that the double expression for “obliterate” refers to G-d’s blotting them out both on earth and in the World-to-Come.

Amalek attacked G-d’s throne, as our sages said (Tanchuma, Ki Tetze, 11): “One verse reads, ‘You must obliterate the memory of Amalek’ (Deut. 25:19), and another reads: ‘I will totally obliterate the memory of Amalek’ (Ex. 17:14). How can the two verses coexist? Until Amalek attacked G-d’s throne, Israel were commanded to obliterate them. Henceforth, however, G-d said He would do so Himself. “Can flesh and blood attack G-d’s throne? Rather, because they destroyed Jerusalem, of which it says (Jer. 3:17), ‘At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the L-rd,’ G-d said He would obliterate them.

Amalek’s sin is the waging of brazen warfare against G-d, as they did when Israel left Egypt. Yet when any other nation, as well, curses and fights G-d,Amalek’s sin clings to them and they become like Amalek. Thus, although Amalek, the nation, did not destroy Jerusalem, our sages say that Jerusalem’s destruction constituted Amalek attacking G-d’s throne. This teaches that whoever attacks G-d’s throne is called Amalek. We must understand and remember this principle for our own times. [Below we shall see how Jerusalem's destruction, apart from anything else, constituted open, deliberate profanation of G-d's name, especially in the way the enemy (i.e., Titus, blasphemed inside the Holy of Holies].

G-d established a principle that as long as Israel possesses a sovereign government with the power to blot out Amalek’s memory, it is a mitzvah and duty for them to do so. For this reason our sages said (Sifri, Re’eh, 67):

“Israel were commanded regarding three mitzvot for when they entered the Land: to appoint a king, build the Temple and destroy Amalek’s seed. I would not know which one comes first if not for Scripture saying, ‘The hand is on G-d’s throne. The L-rd shall be at war with Amalek for all generations’ (Ex. 17:16). As long as a king sits on G-d’s throne we destroy Amalek’s seed. How do we know that “G-d’s throne” refers to a king? It says (I Chronicles 29:23), ‘Solomon sat on G-d’s throne to reign.”

Only after the Temple was destroyed and Israel were exiled from their land and their state, and no longer had the chance to blot out Amalek’s memory, did G-d say that henceforth, He would Himself blot out any Amalek that dared to confront Him. [We must understand that today, with G-d kindly having restored our land and sovereignty, we must once more share with Him in blottig out Amalek if its existence is clear to us.

Parashat Bo

The Plain Jewish Truth
By Rabbi Nachman Kahana

http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/parashat_bo_the_plain_jewish_truth/

I am writing in advance of this week’s visit by Mr. George Bush, the President of the United States, to the Holy Land on the first stop of his Middle East tour of the region’s capitals. The professed purpose of the visit is to create an alliance of “moderate” Arab states (like Saudi Arabia) against the “Islamic Fascist” state of Iran.

It is more than rumored, that the condition put forward by these Arab states to even consider such an alliance is the dismembering of the State of Israel, limb by limb, acre by acre, Jewish home by Jewish home.

This week’s divrei Torah, on the background of the Parasha, is dedicated to our esteemed guest and to his hosts - the government of Israel.

The parasha is called “BO” (come) because HaShem commanded Moshe to “come” to Paro and state God’s case for freeing the Jewish nation; but it also alludes to our times and contains instructions of how we are to behave.

1- “BO” is an acrostic of the protagonists, Bush-Olmert - proving again that man’s actions and their times are inscribed in our holy Torah.

2- One might question the opening thrust of Moshe’s dialogue with Paro, which Moshe was commanded (or chose) to voice in their first meeting. It appears from the pesukim that Moshe said immediately to Paro, and extremely undiplomaticly, dictated to him “shelach et ami ve’ya’avduni” - send my people out in order that they may worship me.

Did it not appear to Moshe that such a direct maneuver might be self defeating, when approaching the absolute monarch of the world’s super-power who believes in his divine infallibility!

Might it not have been more effective to begin by telling Paro of the immorality of slavery, and if that would not work then pull out the “anti-Semitic” accusation trump card?

In other words, why did Moshe not face Paro on the moral, historical, or political level?

I suggest, that Moshe actually considered these approaches, but rejected them.

If Moshe would have accused Paro of anti-Semitism, Paro could retort, “My enslavement of the Jewish people has nothing to do with race, because I enslave many other peoples” (when the Jews left Egypt, Moshe took with him the ayrev rav, the mixed multitude of other peoples who were freed at the time.)

And if Moshe would have accused Paro of violating the innate right of people to be free, Paro could answer, “Moshe, you should be the last person to raise this issue. For who was it who introduced slavery to Egypt if not Yosef, the Jew, when he bought the Egyptian people in return for food? (end of Parshat Va’yi’gash)-

After considering the various approaches, Moshe concludes that the only viable way to treat Paro is not on the political, ethical, historical or moral arenas, but the true, pure spiritual Godly message, “shelach et ami ve’ya;avduni.”

In our time, when our secular leaders meet with their counterparts or the media, they raise the issue of Israel’s legitimacy based on the Shoah, or that we were here 2000 years ago, or on the fact that Eretz Yisrael was a wasteland waiting to be developed, or on the Bible.

However, the Moslem world counters all our claims.

The suffering of the Jews in the Shoah, was perpetrated by European nations, and it should be remedied by them. Why do the poor Palestinians have to pay the price for Auschwitz?

The Jews were here 2000 years ago, but that was long ago, and indeed Islam has been in Eretz Yisrael for the last 1300 years.

The fact that the land was under-developed does not permit “foreigners” to occupy it.

The Bible? The Saudi representative to the UN, once answered the claim of our representative that our land deed to the Holy Land is the Bible by retorting that the Bible has many other issues, such as Shabbat and Kashrut. He then looked to our representation and said,. “Mr.—- I know that you do not observe your sabbath nor do you observe the laws of kashrut. And you have no right to selectively choose from the Bible what is convenient for you, while you dismiss that which is not.”

What remains is the lesson we learn from Moshe Rabbeinu - do not meet the enemy on HIS terms, but speak your truth.

To our welcome guest, the President of the United States, and to his administration and to all Americans, a small voice from Yerushalayim calls out.

The Creator and Master of all, chose the Jewish nation at Mount Sinai from all other peoples of the world. As a sign of the covenant, He gave His people two eternal gifts - the Torah and the Land Of Israel.

The seven Noachide laws which were presented to the Gentiles of the world are: the prohibitions against murder, illicit sexual relations, idolatry, the dismembering of a live animal, the cursing of God, stealing, and the positive commandment to establish cultures based on moral laws.

In our unhappy history, the gentiles, descendants of Eisav and Yishmael, (Christianity and Islam) are guilty of violating six of the seven laws vis a vis the Jewish nation.

They murdered us; coerced us with illicit relations, forced their idols upon us, cursed our God, stole our possessions and dictated immoral laws upon us.

Mr. President, if you force or convince our government to relinquish parts of our holy land, you and our government will have violated the seventh law - do not dismember a living entity.

Historically, nations suffer calamities because of the errors of their leaders. Recent examples in the U.S. may include natural disasters like huge fires which destroyed thousands of homes, hurricanes which devastated cities, and droughts over large areas of the nation as well as financial bankruptcy, unemployment and inflation. Foreign wars which drain the nation of its fiscal resources and of its best young men and create national debts in the trillions of dollars are obvious examples.

When the President will be here, several English speaking rabbis, including myself, will meet with the media. The rabbis, who will be “PR spokesmen” were invited to attend a meeting to hear the advice of a media “expert” to prepare them for the sharp attacks of the biased media. I did not attend that meeting, even though I will be meeting the media. For me the matter is very simple. I will voice the first Rashi of the Torah, that HaShem who created the world, and is its absolute master, gave the land between the Euphrates and the Nile Rivers to the Jewish nation. There it begins and there it ends. The plain Jewish truth.

No negotiations. No compromise. But only the precedent set by our father Ya’akov before meeting Eisav - with one difference.

Ya’akov equipped himself in three ways (parashat Va’yish’lach): prayer, gifts of livestock and preparations for war.

For us, two of the three suffice: prayer and gifts, because our gifts to the modern Amalek is our preparations for war.

Hebrew - Module 1, Lesson 13

For every Jew it is mandatory to learn Hebrew, but this is also a very good think for gentiles. Actually, righteous gentiles seem to be more willing to fulfill this commandment than the Jews themselves! Hopefully, this blog will be a good place to start for both Jews and gentiles.

The first module of our course is dedicated to the development of basic conversational skills. Enjoy!
Lesson 13

Parashat Vaera

Two Promises: One Fulfilled, One Not Yet Fulfilled (6:3)
By Rav Elchanan Samet
Translated by Kaeren Fish

http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/14vaera.htm

A. “THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE FOREFATHERS KNEW THIS NAME”

(6:2) “And God spoke to Moshe and said to him, I am God (YKVK).
(3) And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Yaakov as Kel-Shakkai, but My name YKVK I did not make known to them.”

Endless commentaries have attempted to explain the latter verse, but its mystery has not yet been solved. A “simple” reading would seem to suggest that this Divine statement reveals some of God’s different names, with a distinction being made between two periods: to the forefathers God revealed Himself by the name “Kel-Shakkai,” but He was not known to them as YKVK. Now, on the other hand, with the time drawing close for redemption, God reveals Himself to Moshe with this latter name – as we see at the beginning of the utterance, in verse 2: “I am YKVK.”

This explanation presents a great difficulty: the name YKVK (the “Tetragrammaton,” in which, due to reverence, we have substituted a K for an H) appears more than a hundred times in Sefer Bereishit, not only in relation to the forefathers, but also relating to the world as a whole and to individuals such as Adam, Kayin, Hevel, Noach, etc. The name is used not only in the narrative, but also in the language of various speakers – including God’s own utterances to both Avraham and Yaakov. The following are some examples:
NOAH: (9:26) “And he said: Blessed is YKVK, the God of Shem…”
AVRAHAM: (14:20) “…I lift up my hands to YKVK, the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth…”
GOD TO AVRAHAM: (15:7) “And He said to him: I AM YKVK, Who brought you out of Ur Kasdim…”
GOD TO YAAKOV: (28:13) “I AM YKVK, the God of Avraham your father, and the God of Yitzchak…”

Ibn Ezra, in his Long Commentary on our verse, quotes the Karaite sage Yeshu’a ben Yehuda:
“And Yeshu’a says: Avraham and Yaakov did not know this name; only Moshe wrote [the Torah] thus.”
In other words, the WRITING of Sefer Bereishit took place after God’s revelation by this name to Moshe, and Moshe then made use of this name in writing the Sefer – even in places where the various speakers actually made use of different names. Ibn Ezra himself rejects this explanation:
“Yeshu’a is not correct, for how could Moshe write a name that God had not mentioned? There can be no doubt that the forefathers knew this name…”

Ibn Ezra’s claim is correct: from the verse under discussion we see that there is some fundamental importance (although we may not understand it) to the distinction between the different periods of God’s revelation, and if the name YKVK was indeed revealed for the first time only to Moshe in Egypt, then how could he not have taken care to maintain this distinction in writing Sefer Bereishit? In fact, it is not only in the words of the various speakers in Bereishit that the name should not have been used, but even the narrative itself should have avoided use of this name.

B. WHICH PROMISES WERE MADE IN SEFER BEREISHIT WITH THE NAME KEL-SHAKKAI, AND WHICH WITH “I AM YKVK”?

A brief comment by the Ba’al Ha-Turim here will assist us in progressing towards a satisfying solution: “‘And I appeared to Avraham and to Yitzchak and to Yaakov as “Kel-Shakkai,” but My name YKVK…’ – meaning, with these two names I appeared to them; WITH THE NAME YKVK I PROMISED TO SETTLE THEM IN THE LAND SAFELY, WHILE WITH THE NAME KEL-SHAKKAI I PROMISED THEM THAT I WOULD MAKE THEM NUMEROUS, for this name concerns offspring.”

R. Yaakov Ba’al Ha-Turim appears to be following the example of Rashbam, who interprets the verse not in accordance with its traditional cantillation and not in accordance with the literal meaning: “And I appeared to Avraham… as Kel-Shakkai and My name YKVK; I was not known to them.” This interpretation does not sit well at all. But the importance of the Ba’al Ha-Turim’s explanation lies in its distinction between two types of promises that God made to the forefathers, in each of which God presented Himself by one of the two names in our verse. This distinction is developed by Chagai Misgav-Moskowitz (”The Third Slogan – A Study of the Beginning of Parashat Vaera,” Megadim 7, Shevat 5749): “God was revealed to the forefathers on many occasions. Most revelations involved no name and no identification: ‘Go forth from your land, from your birthplace and from your father’s house’ (Bereishit 12:1); ‘Lift up your eyes and see from the place where you are’ (13:14); ‘Do not fear, Avram’ (15:1); etc. These [revelations] concerned various issues: the promise of seed, the promise of protection, the promise of the land, and various instructions.

Two of the revelations came with the name Kel-Shakkai. One was to Avraham (Bereishit 17:1), ‘I am Kel-Shakkai; walk before Me and be pefect,’ and it concerned the multiplying of his seed after Yishmael, and the giving of the land to the multitudinous offspring of Avraham. The covenant is accompanied with a deed – berit mila (circumcision). The second such revelation was to Yaakov (28:3): ‘And Kel-Shakkai will bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you,’ and it concerns again the multiplying of seed and the giving of the land to the numerous descendants. Thus, THE BLESSING OF KEL-SHAKKAI IS PARTICULAR TO BEING FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLYING, AND THE PROMISE OF THE LAND THAT RESULTS FROM IT.

Two other revelations come with the statement, ‘I am YKVK.’ One is to Avraham, and it is the heading of the Berit Bein Ha-betarim (15:7 onwards): ‘And He said to him: I AM YKVK who took you out of Ur Kasdim TO GIVE YOU THIS LAND AS AN INHERITANCE.’ The crux of the covenant is particularly related to the Egyptian exile and its results, whose introduction and conclusion – and thus its purpose and essence – is Eretz Yisrael. HERE AVRAHAM IS PROMISED THE LAND INDEPENDENTLY, NOT STEMMING FROM THE BLESSING OF SEED, and God makes this promise by His name – ‘I am YKVK.’ The second revelation of this type is where God is revealed to Yaakov and repeats this theme, again on the brink of an exile (28:13): ‘I AM YKVK, the God of Avraham your father and the God of Yitzchak; THE LAND UPON WHICH YOU ARE LYING I SHALL GIVE TO YOU, AND TO YOUR DESCENDANTS.’ Again this is a promise of protection in exile, with its framework and content being THE PROMISE OF THE LAND, AGAIN WITH PRINCIPAL STATUS, WITH THE BLESSEING OF SEED ACCOMPANYING IT. This time, too, God attaches His name to the promise.

We find that God is revealed to the forefathers through two names. He appears to them as Kel-Shakkai and promises great progeny, and He appears to them as ‘I am YKVK’ promising the land as an inheritance. Thus what God tells Moshe [now, concerning the redemption from Egypt] becomes clearer… AS KEL-SHAKKAI I PROMISED SEED, and I fulfilled this, and the seed has multiplied greatly and become great. AND IN THE NAME YKVK I ALSO PROMISED, BUT I HAVE NOT YET FULFILLED; the nation is still exiled and is not yet in its land.”

Misgav interprets the first portion of verse 3 in the same way as Cassuto does (without mentioning him). His innovation, though, is that he interprets the second part of the verse, too, as a hint to certain specific promises of God in Sefer Bereishit – the promises of the land transmitted to Avraham and to Yaakov through “I am YKVK.”

Thus, my understanding of the words “but [by] My name YKVK I was not known to them” does not follow Rashi and Cassuto, who take them to mean, “I was not known to them with the attribute expressed in My name, YKVK – as the One Who fulfills all My promises.” Rather, I interpret as follows: “I was not known to them in the fulfillment of the specific promise made through My name, YKVK – i.e., the promise of the land.” The distinction between the two names in our verse is therefore based not on their assumed etymology, nor on any philosophical-theological assumptions, but rather on the very clear distinction between the styles of the different promises givento the forefathers in Sefer Bereishit.

The two principal promises given to the forefathers, surrounding which God maintains His dialogue with them throughout Sefer Bereishit, are the promise of the land and the promise of seed. The two covenants that God makes with Avraham (and which He repeats to Yitzchak and Yaakov) are divided accordingly: Berit Bein Ha-betarim concerns the promise of the land, while berit mila concerns the promise of seed. But in each covenant there is also mention of the other half of the promise, for a simple reason: the value of the promise of the land is dependent on it being given to the descendants of the forefathers; a land without their seed had no value. On the other hand, the value of the promise of seed depends on them having a land; of what value is it to have a great nation if they will be wanderers in a land that is not theirs? Therefore, neither promise can be made without any mention at all of the other. But it is quite easy to discern, in each case, which aspect of the promise is the principal one and which is secondary. The wording and the order, as well as the relative weight of each aspect, leave no doubt in this regard.

Just as God made two covenants with Avraham, so He was revealed in two principal revelations to Yaakov, both in Beit El: the first took place as he was leaving Eretz Yisrael (chapter 28), where God appears to him for the first time in the dream of the ladder, and promises the land to him and his descendants (and the promise of seed is attached). Upon his return from Charan to Beit El, God appears to him again (chapter 35) and promises to make him fruitful and numerous (and the promise of the land is attached). The order of the promises made to Yaakov is the same as the order of the covenants made between God and Avraham: first the land, then the offspring.

C. THE RELATION OF EACH NAME TO ITS ATTENDANT PROMISE

On the basis of this objective distinction between the revelations of God to Avraham and Yaakov using the name Kel-Shakkai, where the focus is the promise of seed, and the revelations to them using the name YKVK, where the promise of the land is the focus, we may raise the following question: what is the connection between each of these names and the nature of the promise that is associated specifically with that name? The answer to this question is not vital to our understanding of the verse under discussion, for the intention of the verse and its meaning are now clear to us: the verse uses the two names only as a pointer to the two covenants that God made with the forefathers in Sefer Bereishit.

If we were to deal with the name Kel-Shakkai only in the contexts in which it appears in Sefer Bereishit (and in our verse), we may have sought a connection between it and similar roots that are related to fertility. Indeed, some such connections have been proposed. But these fail to explain the many appearances of this name in Sefer Iyov (as well as in other places in Tanakh), in varied contexts. The discussion therefore lies beyond the bounds of our present study. Nevertheless, Cassuto’s conclusion (in Encyclopedia Mikra’it 1:290-2) is that this name describes God as Master of the natural forces.

A discussion of the name YKVK, which appears 6823 times in Tanakh, similarly lies beyond the limits of this study. However, we may note two points concerning this name, which may be related. a) In Tanakh, the name YKVK is the name unique to the God of Israel; and b) it appears that the root of the name is H-V-Y, such that it refers to Divine revelation in the dimension of time. It is through the name YKVK that God is revealed as the ruler of human history and as realizing His plan within that realm. He is the God who directs the human reality and is involved in the events of a person’s life as well as in the history of mankind; He is the God Who has a plan concerning how historical time is played out.

A Divinity that created the world and that exerted an influence upon it was known also to the pagan nations, but the concept that this unique God was also the ruler of human history was an innovation that characterized Israelite faith and the whole purpose of the Torah. For this reason the name YKVK is the name unique to the God of Israel. Accordingly, we may now understand why the promise of fertility was given to the forefathers through the name Kel-Shakkai, Master of the natural forces, while the promise of the land was given through the name YKVK. The promise of seed is related to the natural processes of fertility. However, the giving of the land is related to historical processes: changes in social orders, taking one nation out from amongst another, a great all-encompassing human plan in which the God of history is revealed – the God of Israel, known as YKVK.

D. “I WAS NOT KNOWN TO THEM”

The words “U-shemi YKVK lo nodati lahem” (”By My name YKVK I was not known to them,” or “I did not make Myself known to them”) contain a linguistic difficulty which has not been addressed thus far: “nodati” is an intransitive verb, which cannot refer to a direct object. The verse should have read either, “shemi lo hodati” (I did not make My name known to them), or “shemi lo noda” (My name was not known). Ibn Ezra solves the problem as follows: “This is a grammatical rule: there are words that refer to themselves and also draw others to themselves; the same applies to letters … Such is the case with the letter ‘bet:’ [the 'bet' in the phrase] ‘be-Kel-Shakkai’ (BY the name Kel-Shakkai) carries over to the next phrase, as if the text had said, ‘bi-shemi YKVK lo nodati’ (BY My name YKVK I was not known to them).” In other words, the letter “bet” that appears in the first portion of the verse, before the name Kel-Shakkai, refers also to the second part of the verse, as a prefix to the words “My name YKVK.” Thus it is as if the text reads, “And by My name YKVK I was not known to them” (such that the intransitive verb “nodati” has an indirect object, as is proper). Ibn Ezra’s explanation is adopted by several other commentators.

We may perhaps add that the “drawing” in our verse is two-sided: the word “shemi” (My name) is likewise drawn from the second half of the verse to the first, meaning that the verse is an abbreviated formulation of the full meaning as follows: “And I appeared to Avraham… by [My name] Kel-Shakkai, but [by] My name YKVK I was not known to them.” According to this explanation, we can say that this characteristic of our verse – i.e., that it contains a prefix or word that “refers to itself and also draws others to itself,” in both directions – exists in a broader sense than the one discussed thus far.

“I appeared” (va-era) means “I was revealed in prophecy,” while “I was not known” (lo nodati) means, as Rashi explains, “I was not actually known.” (Thus, the two verbs do not oppose each other, as some wished to explain the verse.) On this basis we may understand that “And I appeared (va-era)… as Kel-Shakkai” should be completed as follows: “And what I promised, when I appeared using this name, I have fulfilled.” In other words, through the name Kel-Shakkai I APPEARED AND I ALSO WAS KNOWN (for I fulfilled that promise). But through the name YKVK I APPEARED THOUGH I WAS NOT KNOWN (for I did not fulfill that promise yet). The connection between the two parts of the verse is therefore double: there is comparison (parallel), created by the fact that the verb “I appeared” (va-era) refers also to the second part of the verse as it stands, and there is a contrast created by the fact that “I was not known” (lo nodati) refers also to the first part of the verse through contrast: by the name Kel-Shakkai I was indeed known.

Our verse is therefore an abbreviated formulation of the full meaning as follows: “AND I APPEARED to Avraham… by My name Kel-Shakkai (and I was also KNOWN TO THEM by this name), but by My name YKVK (although I appeared to them using this name) – I was NOT KNOWN to them.”

E. THE WATERSHED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTS OF SEFER SHEMOT

This being the case, verse 3 fits in well with God’s monologue as a whole, and it is quite clear how it belongs to the first portion, which deals with God’s promise to the forefathers. The paraphrase of our verse is: “I promised the forefathers seed, and I fulfilled; I promised them the land, and I have not fulfilled.” Does this first portion of the verse add anything to our understanding of the speech, according to this interpretation? Is not the fist part of verse 3 (”And I appeared to Avraham… as Kel-Shakkai…”) foreign to the subject of the monologue, which focuses on the need to fulfill God’s promise to GIVE THE LAND to the forefathers and their descendants?

In fact, the opposite is true: this interpretation enhances the function of verse 3 at the beginning of God’s monologue. In my previous shiur on parashat Vaera (http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/14vaera.htm) I noted that at the beginning of the parasha we find ourselves at a watershed in Sefer Shemot: we are between the conclusion of the slavery, at the climax of its severity, and the beginning of the battle of the exodus from that slavery. Before the process of redemption begins, we find this speech as a “declaration of intent” on the part of God concerning the process. It explains the basis of the redemption in the promise made to the forefathers, and the redemption’s ultimate purpose as being the fulfillment of that promise.

But the first portion of Sefer Shemot, until the beginning of our parasha, describes not only the slavery; at the beginning of our Sefer we find a description of the wondrous multiplication of Bnei Yisrael, which motivates Pharaoh to enslave them. This means that even the story of his decrees at the beginning of Sefer Shemot is in fact the story of the fulfillment of God’s promise to the forefathers that He would make their seed numerous. In chapter 1 of Sefer Shemot, God becomes “known” to Bnei Yisrael as “Kel-Shakkai” – despite the hiding of His face and their great suffering.

Before the stage of battle with Pharaoh and Egypt begins – the stage of redemption - we find first this Divine declaration of intent. But it would not be proper or just for the declaration to emphasize only what had NOT been done, and that needed to be done now: the fulfillment of the promise to the forefathers concerning the land. Just like a person who finds himself at a crossroads before embarking on a new chapter in his life, as he weighs up what he has achieved in his life thus far and what he intends to do from now onwards in this new chapter, so God in His speech opens with a sort of balance-sheet summarizing what has been done to date in His broad-scoped and multi-generation plan, as opposed to what still needs to be done from now on. What God promised to the forefathers when He appeared to them as Kel-Shakkai – that He would multiply their seed greatly – He has already fulfilled; what remains now to be fulfilled is the other aspect of the promise to the forefathers, and the fulfillment of that aspect – the promise of the land – is the main subject of the rest of the speech.

Prime-minister’s Signature Needed In Order To Build A Dog-house In Israel

It seems that the astonishing policy adopted by the Israeli government towards its own citizens living in Samaria and Judea, which implies bureaucratic hurdles beyond imagination for the simplest improvements to their living conditions, has just reached a new low.

MK Eldad Calls for Civil Disobedience
by Yoni Kempinski

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124789

(IsraelNN.com) The “Save the Land and Nation” rabbis’ organization held an emergency session Tuesday night in Tel Aviv to discuss the upcoming visit of U.S. President George W. Bush in Israel.

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) called on the listeners to carry out civil disobedience, following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s declaration that no building be carried out in the eastern parts of united Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, without his approval.

“Two days ago,” he told the audience, “Olmert sent a letter to the Ministers of Defense, Housing and Agriculture determining that no one can build a house, expand a community or apartment, or even plan expansions [in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria] without his permission! Prime Minister Olmert is doing something that wasn’t even done in the time of the British Mandate – Olmert wants a family with eight kids living in an apartment to ask him permission to expand a balcony – and he will say no!”

“My precious Jews,” Eldad said, “thanks to Olmert we now have an opportunity to practice civil disobedience – we WILL build – we will build everywhere – rooms, apartments, houses, synagogues, Yeshivas, and schools! We will build everywhere… He thinks he’ll apprehend several criminals? 250 thousand Jews will declare – WE are criminals – our crime is the building of the land of Israel! We’ll see what he’ll do with 250 thousand criminals!”

“These days we hear that a ministerial committee is gathering to redefine the term ‘blood on their hands’,” Eldad continued, “And I say – there is blood on the hands of Olmert and members of his government, the blood of these precious soldiers are on the hands of those who released terrorists, gave them weapons and armored vehicles as goodwill gestures!”

Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe, Head of “Save the Land and the Nation” said: “This gathering is intended to make it clear to the public that we are facing a serious danger due to the government’s actions. We have a government that cooperates with the enemy, the Palestinian enemy that wants to destroy Israel. The government of Israel is supplying them with money and weapons, releasing murderers… We came to warn and discuss how we can prevent this, G-d forbid, holocaust that the government is bringing on us.”

Rabbi Wolpe added: “Bush is a non-Jew who is pressuring Israel to do what he would never do in America … In America he is fighting against terrorists!,” Wolpe added. “Today we are recruiting volunteers who will distribute a personal commitment form for soldiers in which the commit to serve the nation on our land but never, G-d forbid, to take part in any action against their brothers – any action of expulsion from the land of Israel.”

“Today,” he said, “we are recruiting volunteers who will distribute a personal commitment form for soldiers in which the commit to serve the nation on our land but never, G-d forbid, to take part in any action against their brothers – any action of expulsion from the land of Israel.”

Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi of Kiryat Arba, said: “I want to tell this holy crowd that we have returned to our land and we must strengthen our love of the land, act against the uprooting of any community, against the uprooting of any hilltop community… The nation of Israel is returning to its land according to G-d’s commandment, and based on its historical national right – there is no room for any other national entity in this land!”

Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia And Spain Will Not Recognize Kosovo As An Independent State

Romania Will Not Recognize Kosovo As An Independent State
by Anca Aldea, Delia Zahareanu

http://www.jurnalul.ro/articole/112221/romania-will-not-recognize-kosovo-as-an-independent-state

The heads of state and government of the 27 European Union member states debated yesterday [December 15th - European JTF] on a common EU strategy regarding the independence of the Kosovo region [...]. While other leaders in Brussels took a wait-and-see approach to not avoid provoking both Serbia – who is against the independence of its neighboring province – and Russia – who backs the Serbs, the Romanian prime-minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu begged to differ. He did so along Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia and Spain, who all stated they would not recognize the independence of the Kosovo province. “We shall not recognize the independence of Kosovo as we have our reserves regarding it,” said Tariceanu. [...]

President Traian Basescu showed a rare agreement with Tariceanu, stating that Romania’s stance at the UE summit “was constructive, European and defended the country’s national interest.” He also said Romania would take part in the EU mission in Kosovo to avoid signing treaties with a state it does not recognize, in case the region would go ahead and unilaterally proclaim its independence. A EU mission will be dispatched to Kosovo after Christmas, according to the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates.

Hebrew - Module 1, Lesson 12

For every Jew it is mandatory to learn Hebrew, but this is also a very good think for gentiles. Actually, righteous gentiles seem to be more willing to fulfill this commandment than the Jews themselves! Hopefully, this blog will be a good place to start for both Jews and gentiles.

The first module of our course is dedicated to the development of basic conversational skills. Enjoy!
Lesson 12

JTF on Kosovo

Hebrew - Module 1, Lesson 11

For every Jew it is mandatory to learn Hebrew, but this is also a very good think for gentiles. Actually, righteous gentiles seem to be more willing to fulfill this commandment than the Jews themselves! Hopefully, this blog will be a good place to start for both Jews and gentiles.

The first module of our course is dedicated to the development of basic conversational skills. Enjoy!
Lesson 11

A Romanian in Sweden-stan

From the testimony of a Romanian student, after three months of living in Stockholm:

“A few days after I arrived in Stockholm, I had to take the subway from Kungstradgarden to Ropsten and, therefore, change train at T-Centralen. This can be rather confusing for someone who had just come to Sweden for the first time. So, I tried to find out from which platform are the trains for Ropsten leaving. I was told to ask a subway official who, obviously, was a person from one of the third-world countries. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and I asked my question. He wasn’t able to understand a very simple statement in English. So, he called some other two characters (both with the same origin as himself and also “working” for the subway company - even though I have absolutely no idea what ever are they actually doing) and they had like a 15 min. conference, after which they asked me if I speak Arabic!!!

At that point I became furious, but I contained myself and I told them that I demand to speak to a Swedish person. Such people like them have an inferiority complex and they get pretty intimidated by Europeans who speak to them firmly. So, they called a Swedish lady and she showed me the right platform. It was that easy, but their evil Islamic “culture” makes people retarded. While I stayed in Stockholm, I could see such traces of Muslim “civilization” all over the place. Sadly, but Sweden might be one of the first countries to fall under the Islamic assault on Europe.”