Shabbathilsen fra Bergstien Shabbat Teruma ‫שבת תרומה‬ - ‫תשע״ג‬ fredag 15 . – lørdag 16. februar 2013 Shabbat (og kveldsbønn) begynner Morgenbønn Barnegudstjeneste Ettermiddagsbønn Shabbat slutter Denne shabbaten 16.50 ‫ו׳‬ ,‫זמן הדלקת נרות‬ ‫מנחה קבלת שבת וערבית‬ 9.00 ‫שחרית‬ 11.00 ‫תפילת ילדים‬ 12.55 18.15 ‫מנחה‬ ‫צאת השבת‬ Ukens avsnitt ‫פרשת השבוע‬ 2. MB 25.1-27.19 ‫שמות‬ Maftir 4. MB 28.9-28.15 ‫מפטיר‬ Haftara Jesaja 66.1-66.24 ‫ ישעיה‬:‫הפטרה‬ Forfatter av ukens Dvar Tora Denne uken er det kantor Rueven Sternlieb som har skrevet ukens Dvar Tora. I ukens avsnitt leser vi om instruksjonene Gud gir til Moses om hvordan tabernaklet skal bygges, i all sin prakt. Vi leser også de nøyaktige beskrivelsene av hvordan menoraen skal være, og hvordan arken skal se ut. Dvar Tora Av Reuven Sternlieb Overspending in the Temple? "An Etrog sold for $300!" scream the newspaper headlines, and everyone immediately says: isn't it better to buy a simple Etrog and give the rest of the money to charity? Such claims are often heard with regard to various hidurey Mitzvah – where one pays more to observe the same Mitzvah more extravagantly. But is it true? Is it really more of a waste to invest money on a mitzvah than on mitzvot than are bein adam lachavero – between man and his fellow man? In our Sedra we come across what seems to be an absurdity: G-d commands Moshe to build the Mishkan, the Tabernacle. On one hand, it is no more than a tent; on the other hand, many items in it are made out of pure gold. The two extremes of the Mishkan are somewhat strange. When King Shlomo builds the Temple, it is much more elevated, ravishing and extravagant. In his days, there is more of a correlation between the golden items inside the Temple and its general appearance. Is Shlomo's temple considered more spiritual? Does its extravagance truly elevate it? Or was the overspending in the Temple considered wasteful, and the same money would have been better spent on mitzvot between man and his fellow man? The Italian commentator Sforno, in his commentary on Parshat Pkudey (Shmot 38:24), says the following harsh words: " ‫ שהיה דבר מועט מאד בערך אל העושר שהיה‬,‫העיד על קצבת הזהב והכסף והנחושת שנכנסה במלאכת המשכן‬ ‫ויותר ממנו העושר שהיה בבנין הורדוס בבית ראשון‬. ‫ועם כל זה יותר התמיד מראה כבוד ה' במשכן של משה‬ ‫ ובזה הורה שלא קצבת העושר וגודל הבנין יהיו סבה‬.‫ ולא נראה כלל במקדש שני‬,‫ממה שהתמיד במקדש ראשון‬ ‫ אבל רוצה ה' את יריאיו ומעשיהם לשכנו בתוכם‬,‫"להשרות השכינה בישראל‬. "The amount of gold, silver and bronze used in the building of the Mishkan was much smaller in comparison with that of the First Temple, and even more went in to the one built by Herod. "And yet G-d was seen more often in Moshe's Mishkan than in the First Temple, and not at all in the Second Temple. And this goes to show us that the amount of wealth and size of the structure are not the reason for G-d's existence among Bnei Israel, it is their faith and good deeds that he requires to dwell among them". He goes on to say that the more extravagant the Temple was, the less holy it was. If we analyze the difference between the Mishkan and the First Temple, we will understand things better. The Mishkan and its items were built through donations given by the Bnei Israel: "‫"דַּ בֵּר אֶ ל ְּבנֵּי יִשְּ ָראֵּ ל ְּויִקְּחּו לִי תְּ רּומָה מֵּאֵּ ת כָל אִ יׁש אֲ ׁשֶ ר יִדְּ בֶּנּו לִבֹו תִ קְּחּו אֶ ת תְּ רּומָתִ י‬. Speak to the Bnei Israel that they may bring me an offering. From every man that gives it willingly with his heart you shall take my offering. Shlomo, on the other hand, taxes the people in order to build the Temple: "‫" ַּויַּעַּל ַּה ֶמלְֶך ׁשְּ ֹלמ ֹה מַּס ִמכָל יִשְּ ָראֵּ ל ַּויְּהִי ַּהמַּס ׁשְּ ֹלׁשִ ים אֶ לֶף אִ יׁש‬ And king Shlomo raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. The taxes were so heavy, that when Rehavam took the throne after his father, Shlomo, passed away, the People of Israel ask him to unburden them and lift some of the taxes: "‫"ָאבִ יָך ִה ְק ָׁשה אֶ ת ֻעלֵּנּו וְ אַ ָׁתה עַ ָׁתה הָׁ ֵּקל ֵּמ ֲעב ַֹדת ָאבִ יָך ַה ָׁק ָׁשה ּומֵּ עֻלוֹ הַ כָׁ בֵּ ד אֲ ֶשר נָׁתַ ן עָׁ לֵּינּו וְ נַעַ בְ ֶד ָׁך‬ Your father made our yoke grievous. Now, therefore, make you the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve you. One might say that this is the root of the difference between the Mishkan and the Temple. The Mishkan was built because the Bnei Israel wanted it, and reflected their financial status, whereas the Temple was built through harsh taxation that did not match up to the People's wishes. This explanation also sheds some light on the way the Hashmonaim, the Hasmoneans, conducted themselves when they returned to the Temple after it had been desecrated by the Greeks: ‫ חזרו והעשירו עשאום‬,‫ העשירו עשאום של כסף‬,‫ שפודין של ברזל היו וחופין בעץ‬... ;‫"כדרך שעשו בית חשמונאי‬ ‫"של זהב‬ In the manner of the House of Hashmonai; … there were iron rods covered in wood, and when they became wealthier they made them of silver, and when they became wealthier still they made them out of gold. The Hasmoneans were regular people and therefore took the People's financial status into consideration. They refrained from placing a financial burden on the People, and make the Menorah out of the material the People could afford at each stage. This is the right ratio between investing in Mitzvot but also investing in mitzvot shebein adam lachavero. One should be mindful of what the People want and are able to afford. And it seems this attitude should guide us in our ways. Baksiden Ukens vits Ukens person: Yair Lapid Dear Beloved Congregants, This week there will be no Ukens Vits. This is because I have been asked to issue an apology for last week’s Ukens Vits . Following the highly controversial joke last Shabbat, I’ve be strongly reprimanded by nearly every community member that I have met. The reason? Because the bear did not eat bread, just the poor man, so therefore should not have said “Ha’motzi lechem min Ha’aretz”. The bear should have said “Shehakol ne’hiyeh bidvaroh”. So dear congregants, here it is. I am sorry. I’m sorry for failing to observe that the bear did not get the bracha correct before eating the doomed man in the joke. I hope you can forgive me before Yom Kippur. It is nice to see the community exercising its scholarly skills to such an important subject. However, why stop there? After all, there are a whole host of chalachic questions that remain unanswered: How long should the bear wait before eating a dairy based dessert? Was the bear wearing a kippah and tzitzit? If the bear did not eat bread but then said hamozy, should it still have said Bichat Hamazon? If there were three bears would they have made a kosher zimmun for benching (assuming all the bears were male, Jewish, fully barmitva)? Can a bear be Jewish? Who would be brave enough to circumcise the bear? All important questions that I’m sure you can all provide me answers to in Kiddush. Shabbat Shalom. Bilde fra thetimes.co.uk Israel har nettopp gjennomført valg og til manges forundring dukket det opp en utfordrer til den sittende regjering. Yair Lapid syntes å komme fra nærmest ingensteder. Likevel vant hans parti Yesh Atid, ”Det finnes en fremtid” 19 seter i Knesset, noe som gjør partiet til det nest største etter dette valget. Hvem er så denne mannen.Yair Lapid ble født i Tel Aviv i 1963, hans far var journalist og hans mor forfatter. Selv har han en lang karriere bak seg som journalist i Maariv og Yedioth Ahronoth. Han er forfatter, har arbeidet som programleder og nyhetsanker i israelsk TV, er kjent som skuespiller og nå altså også som politiker. Han er gift med journalisten Lihi Lapid og sammen har de tre barn. Yair Lapid har lenge gjort seg bemerket i det israelske samfunn og i 2005 ble han stemt frem som den 36. største israeler gjennom tidene. Det var i januar 2012 at Lapid bekjentgjorde at han ville forlate journalistikken til fordel for politikken. Tre måneder senere, i april, registrerte han sitt parti, noe som skulle gjøre det mulig å delta i det forestående valget høsten 2012. Ulike politiske beslutninger samt en intervensjon fra høyesterett gjorde det imidlertid slik at valget først ble avholdt i 2013 og Lapids parti var sikret deltakelse. Meningsmålingene på forhånd var ikke oppsiktsvekkende, men resultatet ble en braksuksess. Lapid rettet gjennom hele sin valgkamp fokuset mot de innenrikspolitiske forhold. Han er dessuten en sterk tilhenger av å redusere privilegiene til de ultraortodokse og kreve deres deltakelse på arenaer i samfunnet der de pr idag ikke deltar. Når det gjelder forholdet til sine palestinske naboer ønsker han å gjenoppta fredsforhandlingene. Hans partis plattform er: ”To stater for to folk”. Han vil imidlertid bevare noen av de store bosetningsblokkene av sikkerhetshensyn, og i januar, rett før valget, sa han: ”Jeg tror ikke araberne vil ha fred. Jeg vil derfor bli kvitt dem ved å sette opp en mur mellom dem og oss slik at vi kan sikre en jødisk majoritet i Israel.” Vi følger spent med. Av Daniel Ellis Av Berit Reisel