THE FOLLOWING IS MOST OF THE INFORMATION AND ARTICLES FROM THE YEDIDYON, PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 2002

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION HALTED

By: Haim Watzman, Chairman, Planning Committee

We regret to announce that we have been compelled to halt construction of Kehilat Yedidya’s building due to lack of funds.

Work on the site ceased at the end of the summer, after completion of the exterior and much of the interior. At this point our funds were exhausted.

The remaining work to be done includes carpentry, electric and plumbing fixtures, painting, air conditioning systems, and other finishing work, and will require another $250,000. Another $200,000 beyond this will be required for furnishings.

We are profoundly disappointed that we have had to stop building, so close to the completion of our building. The construction halt will cause us additional expense and put off even longer our entry into the new home that we are in such need of.

We are, of course, most grateful to the friends and members who have given so generously to make our new home a reality and deeply regret that we cannot yet show them a completed building.

In the meantime, our Capital Campaign Committee is working hard to find additional funds. We hope that the break in construction will be a brief one, and that with the help of further generous donors we will be able to resume construction and complete the building in the coming year.

“Love Truth and Peace”, by Meesh Kossoy

“Originally there was no disagreement in Israel, only when the students of Hillel and Shammai who had not properly apprenticed increased, did disagreement multiply” (tSan 7:1, ySan. 1:4, 19c). Implicit in this tradition is that disagreement is a negative and unfortunate development in Jewish history. Serious disagreements undermine the ability of the Jewish People to function together as a single community, interfere with our basic abilities to eat and drink together, and marry one another. At the same time, some sources disagree with this characterization of disagreements. They portray disagreement positively, as a source of strength, and emphasize that disagreement and unity have always managed paradoxically to coexist amongst the Jewish people. Traditional sources map out how.

The Mishnah relates:

Bet Shammai permit the rivals (co-wives) to the brothers, but Bet Hillel prohibit. If they performed halitzah—Bet Shammai disqualify from the priesthood, but Bet Hillel allow. If they had submitted to yibum—Bet Shammai allow, but Bet Hillel disqualify. Even though these prohibit and these permit, these declare ineligible and these declare eligible, Bet Shammai did not refrain from marrying women of Bet Hillel, nor Bet Hillel from Bet Shammai. So too, in all matters of cleanness and uncleanness which these declared clean and these declared unclean, they did not refrain from relying on one another when preparing clean food. (mYev. 1:4, Trans. English Kehati)

The Mishnah is highly technical, but it is worth it to try to understand the basics. Both Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai agree that the mitzvah of yibum and halitzah is null and void which its performance would entail transgressing a prohibition of incest. For example, when the brother of the deceased is already married to the widow’s sister, if the brother would perform yibum, he would find himself married to two sisters. Since this is prohibited, there is no mitzvah of either yibum or halitzah.yibum, then all of them are. Bet Shammai disagrees and requires the other co-wives/rivals to perform either yibum or halitzah.

The delicate language of the Mishnah designating the wife as “eligible” or “ineligible” should not obscure just how much is at stake here. Since marrying one’s brother’s wife is normally incest and is permitted only in the unique case of the mitzvah of yibum, a couple performing the mitzvah of yibum when exempt are not performing an optional mitzvah, they are committing incest. The punishment for this act is karet and the children which result from such a union are considered mamzerim and thus prohibited from marrying other Jews. According to Bet Hillel, the children of people who follow the opinion of Bet Shammai and perform the mitzvah of yibum will be considered mamzerim. In short, this is a disagreement, which relates to the very fabric of society and has the potential of tearing the Jewish people in two. But the Mishnah tells us this was not the case—they continued to marry one another. The Tosefta (tYev. 1:11) adds that there were many more such disagreements between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, but that they not only continued to intermarry, but even “behaved with towards one another with affection and friendship, in order to fulfill the scriptural command ‘Love Truth and Peace’ (Zech. 8:19).”

The Mishnah describes a utopian reality of brotherly affection and commitment to the unity of the Jewish People in the face of colossal differences of opinion.  But how is this possible?  If Bet Hillel really believe that those practicing like Bet Shammai are mamzerim, how could they possible intermarry?  With so much at stake, how could they continue to treat each other with love and not argue violently for the correctness of their opinion?  And even if they did capitulate on their beliefs for the sake of peace, is this really praiseworthy?  To what extent can this be considered a fulfillment of the Divine command to love Truth as well as Peace? 

A simple reading of the Mishnah would seem to imply that they agreed to continue to intermarry with Bet Shammai even in situations which would otherwise be considered objectionable.   This is conceivable because even though Bet Hillel disagreed with Bet Shammai, they recognized that Bet Shammai’s opinion is nevertheless “the word of the Living G-d” (bEruv. 13b) and “good enough to rely upon in an emergency situation” (that is the unity of the Jewish people) (bShab. 45a, Eruv. 46a, and more).  Perhaps, one could even suggest that this utopian tolerance is a result of “proper apprenticing.”  

The Gemara (bYev. 14a-15a) adds four alternative ways in which the Jews could maintain their united stance without unduly compromising their varied beliefs.   Two of the suggestions are forms of accommodation which involve freedom of action.   Rabbi Yohanan Ben Nuri suggests (bYev. 15a) that both Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai should agree to give-in to the other side slightly by following the strictures of both opinions.   On the other hand, Rav suggests (bYev. 14a) that only Bet Shammai was expected to compromise since Bet Hillel was in the majority (and later also had the Divine Voice on its side).   Two alternative opinions suggest that both sides maintained complete freedom of practice, and that while the two sides intermarried generally, there were certain limitations in place.  According to Rabbi Shimon, they did not intermarry with those who had definitely acted against their opinion, but they were willing to marry those about whom there was merely a doubt that they had done so.  Shmuel goes beyond this.  He suggests that they remained willing to intermarry because Bet Shammai would always inform Bet Hillel if there was a woman that they could not marry according to their own beliefs.  Bet Hillel from their side was willing to trust Bet Shammai to communicate with them honestly despite the obvious incentive to cover up the potential stigma (no small matter as we know from modern times).  It was this trust and communication which allowed them to remain “unified” without either side feeling “religiously coerced.”

The Sages, in their approach to makhloket, have agreed to disagree: disputes must be tolerated without compromising the unity of the Jewish People.  Every one of the five suggestions considered above serves as a potential model for modern Jews fighting equally divisive battles.  What is essential is not so much the particular path in which we manage to navigate these conflicts, but the emphasis on the commitment at every juncture to treat one another with love and affection (or at least respect), and to remember to love both truth and peace.  The Sages turned every stone to find ways in which living together was possible while maintaining personal integrity.  If we do the same then rather than tear us apart as a nation, disagreements will serve as a source of strength in our continuing search for Truth.

This article is based on a shiur given at the Yedidya Tikun Leil Shavuot two years ago.   The shiur had its genesis in a class I heard by Dr. Vered Noam at a Women’s Torah Learning Conference in 1999.  D. Kraemer, Reading the Rabbis, 1996, 71-85 has also written a fine analysis of the sugyia.  On the topic of divisiveness dealt with in this sugyia, see Y. Gilat, Perakim beHishtalshalut haHalakhah, 1992, p. 161-180.

A FORUM FOR VENTING OR AN ELECTRONIC BEIT MIDRASH?

“…the principle of relating and giving a religious response to suffering of other people (even enemies) is important.” “I sometimes think we have the right to be angry with the Almighty for forcing us to build our redemption over the ruins of another people’s homeland.” “I’m an environmentalist but not a dogmatist.” “I was in favor of learning out the issue, discussing it, and—here, I will take a stand—finding an appropriate way of dealing with the complexity of our situation.” “Humanitarian and moral issues belong in the synagogue…and we must face them as a community.” “Since many…issues are both morally and existentially defining for our society in Israel, it is often extremely hard to retain a friendly tone. I want to thank the members of the kehilla for showing such restraint in writing…”

Where have all of these statements appeared? You guessed it—on De’ot Yedidya (opinions of Yedidya), the e-mail discussion list which serves as a kind of electronic Beit Midrash and even formed the basis for a Purimshpiel a few years back. Topics covered on the list have ranged from internal community issues such as using non-recyclable paper goods at Kiddush, adding more participation of women in the synagogue ritual, or rejoicing on Israel Independence Day while taking into account the plight of the Palestinian people, to general social and political issues in Israel, including the use of rubber bullets to put down demonstrations in the territories. Who is responsible for maintaining the high level of discussion on the list?

Orit Hershler Elgavi, a native of Amsterdam with excellent English, administers the list. Orit has lived in Israel for ten years, having studied at Bar-Ilan and Matan. She is doing an advanced degree in neurological science with Yedidya member Professor Shaul Hochstein, at the Hebrew University. She is married to Aharon, who was born in Rehovot and works in high-tech as an engineer. This “mixed marriage” (Sepharadi Sabra and Ashkenzai olah) has produced two sons: Yonatan, nearly 5, and Michael, almost six months old.

The concept for De’ot was developed a number of years ago, together with Joop Meijers, a fellow Dutchman. They felt that there were not enough venues in the community to deal in a deeper way with tough issues. People have conversations at Kiddush, but then they go home for lunch, and the discussion doesn’t necessarily continue. The e-mail list gives everyone an opportunity to be in on the conversation. Many synagogues both here and abroad have e-mail lists for announcements, but we don’t know of other communities in which they have institutionalized this kind of ideological debate.

According to Orit, “what is especially unusual is the high level of discussion.” She takes her role very seriously, asking some people to tone down statements that might appear offensive, helping others with editorial advice, or even approaching people to initiate responses, so that the discussion will truly be pluralistic and representative. She is happy to offer this kind of service to the community, because as she says, “Yedidya has provided us with a home away from home, a real community in which people take care of each other.” As someone once wrote in, “…Yedidya (and the De’ot Yedidya) may be one of the only places in Israel where political questions can be discussed openly, intelligently and more or less calmly.”

FROM THE MAILBOX

In May, we rejoiced together with Norman Guthartz and Lindsey Taylor-Guthartz at the Bat Mitzvah of their daughter Sarah. The family used to be members of Yedidya until moving to London, where they have tried to start a Yedidya-like community. Soon after the simcha, we received a lovely thank-you from them on e-mail, several excerpts from which we would like to share with you:

“…the tefillot were particularly intense, even stirring. The singing was even more powerful and enveloping than I recalled…Kehillat Yedidya, a community which has always encouraged open, respectful discussion…. Maybe we genuinely appreciate what the kehilla is about because we have been away from it for so long. But it’s worth reminding all our friends and those in this beautiful community about how well they have done during the past 20 years.”

Thank you, Norm, for your kind words and we wish you much success in your efforts to bring some change into your community there.

Upon hearing that I spent the last year studying in Israel, people tend to comment, "What a year you picked," and I have to agree. The next question is usually, "Were you scared?" I'll answer that no, I wasn't scared, and that although fear is present in the backs of their minds, Israeli citizens have no choice but to carry on with everyday life as they always have.

"Now they know what it's like," a child of American Olim said to me on September 11th. Perhaps Americans finally have learned fear. Only in Israel, however, have I found the separation of life and fear - a separation that allows life to continue, while bringing Jews who suddenly realize that they are in the same frightening situation and that each individual must fight for the safety of the nation, closer together.

True, no one wanted this year to be quite so eventful. I felt privileged, however, to be taking part in it. This was more than just an "Israel experience" for me: it was a preview, for when I return to Israel permanently.

Thank you to all the members of Yedidya - for your hospitality, for giving me opportunities to participate in the service, and for making me a part of the Kehilla for the second, but hopefully not the last, time around.

IN DEFERENCE TO A DREAM DEFERRED

“We made Aliyah in 2001, in deference to a dream deferred,” says Jenny Bayer, of Baka. Parts of their dream have unfortunately taken on a nightmarish quality, due to the terrorist incidents all around us, but so far, the Gamulka-Bayer family have settled in to the neighborhood, the community, their children’s schools, work, and so on, and are hoping that things will work out in the long run.

Jenny’s husband, Dani Gamulka, has served as a ba’al tefilla at Yedidya. A native of Montreal, Dani is a lawyer who commutes daily to a firm in Tel Aviv. Jenny grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The couple met while they were undergraduates at the University of Pennsylvania. They married right after college, and then came for a year of study in Israel. Dani was a Dorot Fellow, Jenny studied at Matan. That was the year of the Gulf war, 1990-1991. In an odd way, the trauma of that year cemented their connection with Israel, and they began to dream of raising a family in Jerusalem. When they went back to New York, Jenny taught in the Heschel School, while Dani trained as a lawyer at Columbia Law School. Jenny won a Wexner fellowship, which enabled her to do a double master’s degree—she received a master’s in art education at Columbia Teachers’ College, while simultaneously being the first student to do an MA in Jewish Art and Material Culture at JTS.

The young couple never gave up on their dream of returning. Dani was employed by a law firm that specializes in work with Israel. But, as Jenny says, “life interfered,” they got involved in their jobs, babies began to be born and, unfortunately, Jenny’s father z”l, passed away. Their dream of coming to Israel in the year 2000 got postponed—but not by much. In August of 2001, with three young children in tow, the family came back, moving into an apartment in Baka that had previously belonged to Michael and Jessica Kaz-Hoffman, another Yedidya family. The three blue-eyed children, Eliana, aged 8 (a pupil at the Evalina school,) Avi, 4 and a half, and Noam, 1, have acclimated well. Jenny says the family chose Baka because of friends and the gan of Efrata. She says that the children are the “true heroes” of this story, as they have excelled in their studies and made good friends.

On Simchat Torah of 1990, Dani and Jenny came to Yedidya for the first time. Judy Hurwich z”l gave Jenny a Sefer Torah to hold during the first Hakafa (Dani is a kohen.) When they came back to live here, it was important for her to find a community “with progressive attitudes, a good mechitza and good role models for my daughter.” She feels that Yedidya has been very welcoming to them and especially enjoys the opportunity little girls have of leading Yigdal at the end of the Friday evening service. Jenny’s younger brother has already made Aliyah and lives in Katamon and, since her other brother will also be coming next year, all three siblings will soon be together in Jerusalem.

What Jenny likes least about Yedidya is “the esthetics of where we daven.” (We couldn’t agree more and sincerely hope that this problem will be solved when we move into our new building.) In the meantime, the Gamulka-Bayer family is a family always on the lookout for new challenges. We can only hope that their challenges will be spiritual and cultural, and that all of us will be able to live safely, here in Jerusalem and in all of Israel.

ALYN CHARITY BIKE RIDE: “A GREAT EXPERIENCE”

From time to time, we like to bring to the attention of our readers interesting Tzedaka projects, especially when one or more Yedidya members are involved with them. One of these exciting projects is the annual bike ride to raise funds for the Alyn Hospital, the Center for Rehabilitation of Handicapped Children and Youth. For the last four years (the annual ride started five years ago,) Chaim Zlotogorski has been riding and raising impressive sums for the hospital.

In the first two years of the project, there were only four riders. They were joined for a while by a group from a Jewish Tzedaka group in London which supports a village for adults and teenagers with Down Syndrome. The money raised in those early years reached as high as $60,000. Two years ago, the British group pulled out because of fears about the security situation in Israel. This past year - 47 riders (43 from Israel, four from the US) managed to raise $280,000 for the hospital. The ride lasts for five days and generally covers about 450 kilometers throughout the country, mostly on the open road.

The group of riders is predominantly male, but there are always some women. It is heterogeneous with regard to age, background and religious observance, and there is even a daily minyan! Last year, tells Chaim, a father and son from the US marked the latter’s Bar Mitzvah on the trip, with the son reading Torah at the Monday morning service. The current minimum age of participation is 15, and Chaim’s son Yonatan has ridden with him for the past three years. Now that Yonatan’s brother David has “come of age”, he will be joining his father for the first time. Yehoshua, having just turned 13, is eagerly awaiting his first opportunity to join the ride. Chaim feels that the ride is wonderful for strengthening parent-child relationships and is a “great experience” in general.

When Chaim isn’t riding for Alyn, he works in computers and travels a great deal back and forth to the United States. He also is one of the most beloved ba’alei tefilla at Yedidya, especially on the High Holidays. His wife, Dina Wyshogrod, is a clinical psychologist.

Chaim adds that the riders have gotten some press coverage, including a piece in the National Geographic. For those of you who would like to participate in this year’s ride (October 27 - November 1, 2002), unfortunately by the time this issue goes to press, you will have missed the sign-up deadline. However, you certainly can participate by contributing to the fundraising drive. For further information, e-mail Chaim at herbzl@attglobal.net. We all wish Chaim and sons, the other Yedidya riders and all of the participants much success in the ride and, even more important, in raising money for the worthy cause of helping handicapped children.

MAZEL TOV LIST (AND SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS)

BIRTHS

Dvori Ross, on the birth of her twins

Becky Cohen-Keshet and  Benny Keshet, and grandparents Veronika and Yisrael Elliot Cohen and  Yehudit Keshet, on the birth of their daughter/granddaughter

Shoshana Baumgarten and Harry Cohen, on the birth of their daughter

Rena and Arnie Draiman, on the birth of their son

BNEI MITZVAH

Yael Luria, daughter of Mark and Gail Luria

Yehoshua Zlotogorski, son of Chaim Zlotogorski and Dina Wishograd

Sarah Guthartz, daughter of Norm and Lindsey Guthartz

Yoni Sher, son of Harvey Sher and Tzippy Sandler

Yochanan Oz, son of Dorit and Amitai Rudavsky Ben-Ami

Hovav Paller, son of Danny Paller and Rachel Freilich

Hartman

Lachmish

Avigayil Leonares, daughter of Baruch and Debbie Leonares

Uri Maeir, son of Aron and Adina Maeir

ENGAGEMENT

Steve Edell and Esther Susswein

CONDOLENCES

Jane Golbert, on the death of her mother

Asher Arbit, on the death of his father

Hersch Katz, on the death of his brother

Steven Edell, on the death of his father

Tony Movshovitz, on the death of her mother

Benjamin Wurzberger, on the death of his father

Yaakov Rosenberg, on the death of his mother

To the family and friends of member Morty Fuchs, z"l

SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Tanya Zion and her father Noam, on the publication of their book ‘”Sippurei Reisheet,” a modern commentary on Genesis, using art, philosophy and literature

Debbie Weissman, for being sent to Australia to be the principal speaker at the Jewish Education Network Conference in Melbourne

דרשת בר המצוה של יוני שר – פרשת בהעלותך, תשס"ב

ברצוני למנות כמה תכונות יוצאות דופן של משה שנלמדות בפרשה זו. האירוע הראשון בפרשה שמגלה תכונת אופי של משה הוא - תלונת בני ישראל ובקשתם לדגים, בצלים, שום, אבטיחים וחצילים. בעקבות בקשת בני ישראל , משה מתלונן לה' שאינו יכול לשאת את האחריות על כל העם - וכך הוא מתבטא , "אל אראה ברעתי." העניין תמוה, כי לא ברעה העומדת לקרות למשה מדובר. - רש"י מיישב את הקושי כך: משה היה צריך לומר "ברעתם", אך כדי לא להגיד או אפילו לרמוז לרעה שתבוא על ישראל, משה אומר "ברעתי".

ספורנו מרחיק לכת ואומר שמשה אינו מוכן להיות מנהיג העם, אם עקב מנהיגותו, ה' מביא רעה על ישראל. משה מגלה אחריות לעם, ואינו מוכן להיות גורם הרעה, ולכן נזהר בלשונו. תפקידו של מנהיג הוא בראש ובראשונה לדאוג למי שנמצא תחת אחריותו, ועל כן משה משתמש בלשון עקיפה.

בהמשך פרשת התאוות בני ישראל, אנו רואים שמשה שואל, "הצאן ובקר יישחט להם ומצא להם?" - וה' עונה לו, "היד ה' תקצר?" מפה נדמה שמשה רבנו מפקפק ביכולתו של ה', חס וחלילה. הספקות של משה מפתיעים במיוחד כי ה' אומר על משה "מכל ביתי נאמן הוא". אונקלוס מסביר שבני ישראל מתאווים, וכל כמות בשר לא תספק אותם כי הם תמיד ירצו יותר. ה' עונה שהוא יכול להשביע את תאוותם. -מכאן שלפי אונקלוס, משה אינו מפקפק בה', אלא רק בגבולות התאווה.

לפי רש"י, משה מבין מדברי ה' שבני ישראל ימותו או ייפגעו מרוב בשר, ושואל, "למה לתת להם בשר אם ימותו מזה?" - ה' משיב שאסור שבני ישראל יפקפקו ביכולת ה' גם אם יש מחיר לכך. לפי פירוש זה, משה אינו מפקפק בה', אלא דואג לעם.

לרמב"ן הסבר נוסף. - משה מבין מדברי ה' שאספקת הבשר לא תתרחש באורח ניסי, מכיוון מטבעו של נס הוא שכל מה שיוצא ממנו רק לטובה הוא, - ואילו אספקת הבשר לא תסתיים בטובה. לכן, משה מבקש לדעת, כיצד אפשר לספק כמות גדולה כל כך שלא באורח נס? - משה אינו מפקפק ביכולתו של ה', אלא רק מתעניין בפרטי הפעולה.

לפי ספורנו, משה אינו מעלה ספקות לגבי יכולתו של ה', אלא תוהה איך יצליח ה' להמאיס על ישראל מאכל תאווה, שהרי ממאכל תאווה, רוצים לאכול כמה שיותר, ולא נמאס.

לדברי פרשנים אלו, אנו רואים שמשה מראה לנו אידיאל של אמונה מושלמת. - פשט הכתוב רומז לנו על ניצוץ מובן לגמרי ואנושי לגמרי של ספק – האם ה' אמנם ימציא מתוך מדבר צחיח קייטרינג לאלפי איש? - אך הפרשנים דוחים הסבר טבעי זה מכל וכל, כי בעיניהם אדם כמשה לא היה נכשל בחוסר אימון בה', אפילו במצב זה.

יש מקרה נוסף שאני רוצה לדון בו. חובב, חותן משה, השיא בעבר עצה טובה למשה, ומשה קיבל אותה. במילים אחרות, אדם מבוגר ומנוסה ממשה הצליח לפתור בעיה שמשה בקושי היה מודע לה. -אנחנו עדים להרבה מקרים שבהם אדם חדש בעל רעיון מוצלח מאיים על המנהיג הקיים. אך משה אינו מאויים, ואף מציע ליתרו משרה קבועה. - משה מעלה את טובת העם מעל האינטרס האישי שלו.

במקרה אחר, מרים מדברת לשון הרע על אשתו של משה, ונענשת בצרעת. מי שמתפלל להחלמתה, הוא משה ולא אחר. אף על פי שמשה הוא זה הנפגע מלשון הרע של מרים, הוא זה שמתפלל עבורה. תפילתו הקצרה והמיוחדת זכתה לציון מיוחד של חז"ל. משה הוא אדם המבין ללב הזולת, גם כשכבודו שלו נפגע. בהזדמנות זו, ה' מסביר למרים ואהרון, וגם לנו, שמשה ענו מאוד.

"האיש משה עניו" זה המקום היחיד שבו נאמר משהו מפורש על משה. ישעיהו ליבוביץ מציין שאנו יודעים שמשה היה עניו בתחילת דרכו, אבל אחרי שה' עשה בידו את כל הנסים והמוראות, שהטילו פחד על כל העולם, מפתיע ומדהים לגלות שהוא עדיין נשאר עניו כפי שהיה בראשית דרכו.

בפרשת "בהעלותך", הפרשנים מעבירים לנו, דרך משה, אידיאל שיש לשאוף להגיע אליו. משה היה באמת קרוב לה' מכיוון שאופיו ומעשיו היו כל כך קרובים לשלמות. הוא היה מנהיג אחראי. הוא דאג לכבוד העם יותר מכבודו שלו. משה עלה מעל האינטרסים האישיים שלו כדי לעזור לזולת ואמונתו בה' הייתה שלמה. אלו תכונות ראויות וחשובות, שמהם כדאי לכולנו ללמוד.