From a member:

A little late, but wanted to share this anyway.

Rabbeinu Bahya on Exodus 21:24...

עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?
Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.
Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?”
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith.

This is so good, regarding this week's Parashah, Terumah. By Rabbi Jonathan Saks. It had me thinking about what all of us are building, here at A-T, a community, a family.

Why We Value What We Make
Terumah 5778

The behavioural economist Dan Ariely did a series of experiments on what is known as the IKEA effect, or “why we overvalue what we make.” The name comes, of course, from the store that sells self-assembly furniture. For practically-challenged people like me, putting an item of furniture together is usually like doing a giant jigsaw puzzle in which various pieces are missing, and others are in the wrong place. But in the end, even if the item is amateurish, we tend to feel a certain pride in it. We can say, “I made this,” even if someone else designed it, produced the pieces, and wrote the instructions. There is, about something in which we have invested our labour, a feeling like that expressed in Psalm 128: “When you eat the fruit of the labour of your hands, you will be happy, and it will go well with you.”[1]

Ariely wanted to test the reality and extent of this added value. So he got volunteers to make origami models by elaborate folding of paper. He then asked them how much they were prepared to pay to keep their own model. The average answer was 25 cents. He asked other people in the vicinity what they would be prepared to pay. The average answer was five cents. In other words, people were prepared to pay five times as much for something they had made themselves. His conclusions were: the effort that we put into something does not just change the object. It changes us and the way we evaluate that object. And the greater the labour, the greater the love for what we have made.[2]

This is part of what is happening in the long sequence about the building of the Sanctuary that begins in our parsha and continues, with few interruptions, to the end of the book. There is no comparison whatsoever between the Mishkan – the holy and the Holy of Holies – and something as secular as self-assembly furniture. But at a human level, there are psychological parallels.

The Mishkan was the first thing the Israelites made in the wilderness, and it marks a turning point in the Exodus narrative. Until now God had done all the work. He had struck Egypt with plagues. He had taken the people out to freedom. He had divided the sea and brought them across on dry land. He had given them food from heaven and water from a rock. And, with the exception of the Song at the Sea, the people had not appreciated it. They were ungrateful. They complained.

Now God instructed Moses to take the people through a role reversal. Instead of His doing things for them, He commanded them to make something for Him. This was not about God. God does not need a Sanctuary, a home on earth, for God is at home everywhere. As Isaiah said in His name: “Heaven is My throne and the earth My footstool. What house, then, can you will build for Me?” (Is. 66:1). This was about humans and their dignity, their self-respect.

With an extraordinary act of tzimtzum, self-limitation, God gave the Israelites the chance to make something with their own hands, something they would value because, collectively, they had made it. Everyone who was willing could contribute, from whatever they had: “gold, silver or bronze, blue, purple or crimson yarns, fine linen, goat hair, red-dyed ram skins, fine leather, acacia wood, oil for the lamp, balsam oils for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense,” jewels for the breastplate and so on. Some gave their labour and skills. Everyone had the opportunity to take part: women as well as men, the people as a whole, not just an elite.

For the first time God was asking them not just to follow His pillar of cloud and fire through the wilderness, or obey His laws, but to be active: to become builders and creators. And because it involved their work, energy and time, they invested something of themselves, individually and collectively, in it. To repeat Ariely’s point: We value what we create. The effort that we put into something does not just change the object. It changes us.

Few places in the Torah more powerfully embody Rabbi Yohanan saying that “Wherever you find God’s greatness, there you find His humility.”[3] God was giving the Israelites the dignity of being able to say, “I helped build a house for God.” The Creator of the universe was giving His people the chance to become creators also – not just of something physical and secular, but of something profoundly spiritual and sacred.

Hence the unusual Hebrew word for contribution, Terumah, which means not just something we give but something we lift up. The builders of the sanctuary lifted up their gift to God, and in the process of lifting, discovered that they themselves were lifted. God was giving them the chance to become “His partners in the work of creation,”[4] the highest characterisation ever given of the human condition.

This is a life-changing idea. The greatest gift we can give people is to give them the chance to create. This is the one gift that turns the recipient into a giver. It gives them dignity. It shows that we trust them, have faith in them, and believe they are capable of great things.

We no longer have a Sanctuary in space, but we do have Shabbat, the “sanctuary in time.”[5] Recently, a senior figure in the Church of England spent Shabbat with us in the Marble Arch Synagogue. He was with us for the full 25 hours, from Kabbalat Shabbat to Havdallah. He prayed with us, learned with us, ate with us, and sang with us.[6] “Why are you doing this?” I asked him. He replied, “One of the greatest gifts you Jews gave us Christians was the Sabbath. We are losing it. You are keeping it. I want to learn from you how you do it.”

The answer is simple. To be sure, it was God who at the dawn of time made the seventh day holy.[7] But it was the sages who, making “a fence around the law,” added many laws, customs and regulations to protect and preserve its spirit.[8] Almost every generation contributed something to the heritage of Shabbat, if only a new song, or even a new tune for old words. Not by accident do we speak of “making Shabbat.” The Jewish people did not create the day’s holiness but they did co-create its hadrat kodesh, its sacred beauty. Ariely’s point applies here as well: the greater the effort we put into something, the greater the love for what we have made.

Hence the life-changing lesson: if you want people to value something, get them to participate in creating it. Give them a challenge and give them responsibility. The effort we put into something does not just change the object: it changes us. The greater the labour, the greater the love for what we have made.

Shabbat Shalom,


[1] On the pleasures of physical work generally, especially craftsmanship, see Matthew Crawford, The Case for Working with your Hands, Viking, 2010; published in America as Shop Class as Soul Craft. Among the early Zionists there was a strong sense, best expressed by A. D. Gordon, that working on the land was itself a spiritual experience. Gordon was influenced here not only by Tanakh but also by the writings of Leo Tolstoy.

[2] Dan Ariely, The Upside of Irrationality, Harper, 2011, 83-106. His TED lecture on this subject can be seen at:


[3] Megilla 31a.

[4] Shabbat 10a, 119b.

[5] Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man, Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

[6] He was not, of course, obeying all the Shabbat laws: both Jews and Christians agree that these are imperatives for Jews alone.

[7] As opposed to the festivals, whose date is dependent on the calendar, that was determined by the Sanhedrin. This difference is reflected in the liturgy.

[8] Halakhically, this is the concept of Shevut, that Ramban saw as essentially biblical in origin.

LIFE-CHANGING IDEA #19
The effort you put into something does not just change the object:
it changes you. The greater the labour, the greater the love for what you have made.

Hello friends and family, I am back on A-T and Microsoft. I had been using my phone for everything but then I lost my phone charger (new one will be here on Wednesday) and when I tried to use my laptop, nothing would connect, I couldn't remember my passwords and even locked myself out of a few sites. However, @dave-howell and @clear-brewer I have everything all straightened out. They were so patient with me and I thank you gentlemen for your assistance.

So what have I missed! My young friends, have you all been working on your poetry? @caleb-jordan, @talitha-holland @tim-herrera @timothy-hadar-jordan @william-jordan @harmony-mccullar . Who am I missing? Just in case....

At the Threshold of the Book
BY EDMOND JABÈS
TRANSLATED BY ROSMARIE WALDROP
Mark the first page of the book with a red marker. For,
in the beginning, the wound is invisible.
- Reb Alcé

"What is going on behind this door?"

"A book is shedding its leaves."

"What is the story of the book?"

"Becoming aware of a scream."

"I saw rabbis go in."

"They are privileged readers. They come in small groups to give us their comments."

"Have they read the book?"

"They are reading it."

"Did they happen by for the fun of it?"

"They foresaw the book. They are prepared to encounter it."

"Do they know the characters?"

"They know our martyrs."

"Where is the book set?"

"In the book."

"Who are you?"

"I am the keeper of the house."

"Where do you come from?"

"I have wandered."

"Is Yukel your friend?"

"I am like Yukel."

"What is your lot?"

"To open the book."

"Are you in the book?"

"My place is at the threshold."

"What have you tried to learn?"

"I sometimes stop on the road to the sources and question the signs, the world of my ancestors."

"You examine recaptured words."

"The nights and mornings of the syllables which are mine, yes."

"Your mind is wandering."

"I have been wandering for two thousand years."

"I have trouble following you."

"I, too, have often tried to give up."

"Do we have a tale here?"

"My story has been told so many times."

"What is your story?"

"Ours, insofar as it is absent."

"I do not understand."

"Speaking tortures me."

"Where are you?"

"In what I say."

"What is your truth?"

"What lacerates me."

"And your salvation?"

"Forgetting what I said."

"May I come in? It is getting dark."

"In each word there burns a wick."

"May I come in? It is getting dark around my soul."

"It is dark around me, too."

"What can you do for me?"

"Your share of luck is in yourself."

"Writing for the sake of writing does nothing but show contempt."

"Man is a written bond and place."

"I hate what is said in place I have left behind."

"You trade in the future, which is immediately translated. What you have left is you without you."

"You oppose me to myself. How could I ever win this fight?"

"Defeat is the price agreed on."

"You are a Jew, and you talk like one."

"The four letters JUIF which designate my origin are your four fingers. You can use your thumb to crush me."

"You are a Jew, and you talk like one. But I am cold. It is dark. Let me come into the house."

"There is a lamp on my table. And the house is in the book."

"So I will live in the house after all."

"You will follow the book, whose every page is an abyss where the wing shines with the name."

Edmond Jabès. "At the Threshold of the Book" from From the Book to the Book © 1991 and reprinted by permission of Wesleyan University Press.

@eliyanah

From the book Advice:
Rabbi Nachman: ADVICE (LIKUTEY ETZOT) by Rabbi Nathan of Breslov

Eating

3) When a person attains perfect mastery of the Holy Tongue and guards the Holy Covenant in purity he has the power to stir up the sparks of the letters which exist throughout the Creation. All the pleasure he has from eating and drinking and other enjoyments comes only from the sparks of the letters. His heart is illumined and his face becomes so radiant that people are moved to return to God simply by seeing it. Everyone who looks at his face sees his own reflected there as if in a mirror —and sees, in contrast, how far sunk in darkness he is. Without a single word of preaching he will want to be released from his darkness —all through seeing this person’s face (19: 7-9).

This is so cool for this week's Parashah


Parashat Pinchas 25: 11 "Phineas the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the Kohen, turned back My anger from the Israelites when he zealously avenged Me in their midst, so that I did not destroy the Israelites in My vengeance."

Phineas

We read Parashat Pinchas and Parashat Matot during the Three Weeks, as these Torah portions reflect the themes of this time period. The destruction of the Temple began on the Seventeenth of Tammuz, when the Jews made the golden calf that concealed Divine Will. Phineas, through his zealotry for God, revealed Divine Will. Furthermore, Parashat Pinchas speaks of the sacrifices brought on the Festivals, which also reveal Divine Will by way of the miracles that occurred on those days.

Parashat Matot speaks of vows, which allow a person to single-handedly transform what is permitted into what is prohibited. This shows the power of free choice, which one can use to reveal God’s Will (Likutey Halakhot I, p. 290-146a).

Phineas…turned back My anger…so that I did not destroy the Israelites in My vengeance

The justice of man is harsher than that of Heaven. Therefore, when Phineas pursued Zimri, the Divine judgments ceased—not only against Zimri, who had instigated the evil, but against all of the Jews who had sinned. But Phineas actually did a great favor for the Jews, for he tricked the Divine judgments into thinking that he would exact even greater vengeance than they, and possibly even destroy the Jews altogether, God forbid. In fact, Phineas was a most compassionate person. His goal was not to destroy the entire nation, but only the instigator of the evil, which would be sufficient to turn away God's anger and bring an end to the Divine judgments. By assuming the mantle of vengeance, Phineas actually eased the judgments from the Jews, so that God could say, "I did not destroy the Jews in My vengeance." Phineas transformed ChaMaTI (חמתי, My anger) into MaChiTI (מחתי, I have wiped away), as in "I have wiped away your sins like a cloud" (Isaiah 44: 22) (Likutey Moharan I, 241).

Phineas…turned back My anger…Take a census of the entire Israelite community…The Land should be divided among these Phineas stood up and prayed (Psalms 106: 30).

Phineas effected compassion for the Jews with his prayers. One who arouses the power of prayer invokes the merit of the tzaddikim; their merit leads us to the Holy Land and allows for the revelation of the Act of Creation. Therefore the Torah’s description of Phineas’deed is immediately followed by the census of the Israelite families, whom God testifies are all tzaddikim (Rashi on Numbers 26: 5), which is immediately followed by the laws of inheriting the Land (Likutey Halakhot II, p. 24-13a). 25: 12

"Therefore say: 'Behold! I am giving him My covenant of peace.'" I am giving him My covenant of peace…a covenant of eternal priesthood


Originally, God intended to have the priesthood come from Shem. But because Shem blessed Abraham before blessing God (see Genesis 14: 19-20), the priesthood was taken from Shem and given to Abraham (Nedarim 32b). As a result of avenging Zimri’s immorality, Phineas attained the quality of “love" associated with Abraham. Love and peace are synonymous. Thus, Phineas attained the "covenant of peace…a covenant of eternal priesthood" (Likutey Moharan I, 34: 7; ibid., I, 34: 9).

I am giving him My covenant of peace... a covenant of eternal priesthood

Phineas was granted the priesthood because he avenged for God’s sake and revealed God’s Will. Avenging God's Will is considered charity, as it defeats the manifestation of other wills. Therefore Phineas was granted the priesthood, for the Kohen wears the priestly garments that reveal God’s Will (as in Exodus 28: 2) (Likutey Halakhot I, p. 290).

I am giving him My covenant of peace... a covenant of eternal priesthood

The priesthood represents peace, as the Kohanim offer the sacrifices that make peace between God and the Jewish people. This is especially true of the Kohen Gadol, whose devotions on Yom Kippur bring peace between God and the Jews, for He forgives their sins (Likutey Halakhot II, p. 169a). 26: 5


Reuben was Israel's firstborn. The descendants of Reuben were the Chanokhite family from Chanokh, the Paluite family from Palu. The Chanokhite family The other nations derided the Jews, saying: "How can these trace their lineage by their tribes? If the Egyptians ruled over their bodies, surely they controlled their wives, too!" To silence their claim, God added His Holy Name to their names—a hei (ה) on one side and a yod (י) on the other—to say: "I testify that they are the sons of their fathers!" (Rashi). This indicates that because the Jews guarded the covenant, God placed His Name upon them (Likutey Moharan I, 36: 6). Y-H( י-ה),

Rabbi Nachman's Torah

So amazing how Hashem guides out lives. I was looking for some orthopedic shoes and found a place called orthofeet.com. As is my habit I looked at the about part of their webpage and look what I found!!

Our Story
Orthofeet, Inc. was established in 1984 by Ron Bar and his brother Michael Bar. Ron Bar earned a doctorate in biomedical engineering from the Technion Israel Institute of Technology and Michael Bar earned a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the same institute. The real story of Orthofeet, however, lies in Ron Bar’s motivation for the business.

As a young soldier serving as a reserve during the Yom Kippur war of 1973 in Israel, Ron Bar lost his leg when his tank was hit with a missile. Out of this tragedy, Orthofeet was born. Ron saw early on that the traditional method of taking a cast of a patient’s foot was cumbersome, and often, inaccurate. After earning his degrees, he set out to design insoles, foot orthotics, and footwear that would make more sense to his condition and others with mobility issues. Ron’s brother, Michael, also joined him, adding his expertise as a mechanical engineer. Together, they came up with a method that would allow the orthotic to mold directly to the shape of the foot, using expandable polyurethane foam that is activated by water.

This patented orthotic allows for a more accurate and dynamic shaping to the contours of the foot, enhancing fit and comfort. In 2000, using its expertise in foot biomechanics and orthotics design, Orthofeet started a line of comfort orthopedic shoes, which combine attractive styling with innovative comfort features. Ron’s war tragedy led to what is today a very successful business that improves the lives of millions of customers worldwide.

So Eliyanah made me do it!! although I do have to admit that she could be related to this Frank Morris dude.....rofl

Last Updated Jan 24, 2018 10:56 AM EST
SAN FRANCISCO -- It is one of America's greatest mysteries: What happened to three men after they pulled off a daring prison break at Alcatraz in 1962? Only the worst criminals were sent to Alcatraz. And for 29 years, it was the most secure federal prison in the country -- surrounded by the cold, rough waters of the Pacific. But brothers John and Clarence Anglin and Frank Morris disappeared into the night and have never been found.
The men have become folklore -- fueled by Hollywood and popular shows. And in the last 55 years, theories about their fate have multiplied as new evidence surfaces.
A letter allegedly written by one of the escapees recently came to light. CBS San Francisco exclusively obtained it from a source.
"My name is John Anglin. I escape from Alcatraz in June 1962 with my brother Clarence and Frank Morris. I'm 83 years old and in bad shape. I have cancer. Yes we all made it that night but barely!"
The FBI says this is the most recent piece of evidence that forced the agency to reopen the iconic cold case. The letter was sent to the San Francisco Police Department's Richmond station in 2013.
"It's interesting, I mean it's obviously a very famous case here in San Francisco," said Jeff Harp, a security analyst for CBS San Francisco.


Harp spent 21 years with the FBI, but did not work directly on this case.
"As a law enforcement person I'd like to think that their escape attempt was not fruitful for them. Personally, as someone who swims in the bay, and we have a triathlon that goes on every year, and there's not a single person that doesn't make that swim," he added.
This past summer, CBS San Francisco got an exclusive tour of some never-before-seen parts of Alcatraz. After months of meticulous planning – on the night of June 11, 1962 – the trio of bank robbers squeezed through the vents in the back of their cells.
The FBI says they used a homemade drill made from a broken vacuum cleaner motor to widen the vents. Once they crawled through, they climbed up a network of pipes and plumbing in a commonly unguarded space.
They set up a secret workshop on the top of their cells, where they built and hid what they needed to escape. They eventually made it out through the ventilator that led them to the prison roof. They slid down the smokestack to the ground and launched their raft -- made of more than 50 raincoats. They also created life vests and wooden paddles.
The next morning, guards found dummy heads made of plaster, paper mache, paint and real human hair in their cells.
According to the letter, Frank died in 2008 and John's brother died three years later. The writer makes a deal -- "If you announce on TV that I will be promised to first go to jail for no more than a year and get medical attention, I will write back to let you know exactly where I am. This is no joke ..."
The U.S. Marshals, which is the sole agency investigating the case today, says the FBI lab examined the letter for fingerprints and DNA, and the handwriting.
The FBI's results were inconclusive.
"So that means yes, and it means no, so this leaves everything in limbo," said Harp.
The writer of the letter says he spent many years after his escape from Alcatraz living in Seattle. He also mentions that he lived in North Dakota for 8 years, and currently lives in Southern California.
In a statement to CBS San Francisco, the U.S. Marshals Service writes: "There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of them would have changed their lifestyle and became completely law abiding citizens after this escape."
"The Federal Bureau of Prisons say that they drowned once they got off of Alcatraz and their bodies were swept out to the Pacific Ocean -- end of story," said National Park Service Ranger John Cantwell.
New evidence presented in a 2015 History Channel special shows a photo allegedly showing escaped brothers John and Clarence Anglin in Brazil – 13 years after the great escape.
If the men are alive today, Frank Morris would be 90 years old and John and Clarence Anglin would be 86 and 87.
"I didn't believe that they made it, but that was because of what the officers were saying," said author Jolene Babyak.
Babyak was 15 years old and living on the island with her family when the men broke free.
Her father was the acting warden.
"I was awaken by the siren, which I had never heard before, so I wasn't really sure exactly what it was," she said.
She has since written several books on Alcatraz. CBS San Francisco showed her a copy of the letter.
"No evidence, lots of allegations, no real evidence, nothing you can follow up on," she said.
As for the U.S. Marshals, they tell CBS San Francisco they consider this lead closed with no merit.
"They're getting up there in age, someone knows, cause if they made it out they communicated with somebody, so somebody somewhere knows – that's still alive," added Harp.
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.