<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT VA'YERA - additional shiurim</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In Part Two of this week's
shiur, we present a six short<BR>'mini-shiurim' that discuss the Akeyda and
misc. topics in the<BR>Parasha.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PART I - THE AKEYDA -- A CONFLICT
BETWEEN IDEALS<BR> In the story of the Akeyda (Breishit
chapter 22), we find<BR>a conflict between two ideals. From the perspective
of<BR>'natural morality', there is probably nothing more detestable<BR>to man's
natural instinct that killing his own son, even more<BR>so his only son.
On the other hand, from the perspective of<BR>man's relationship with God, there
is nothing more compelling<BR>than the diligent fulfillment of a divine
command.<BR> In an ideal world, these two ideals should
never<BR>conflict, for how could God command man to perform an act that<BR>is
immoral? However, in the real world, individuals often<BR>face situations
where they are torn between his 'conscience'<BR>and his 'religion'. How should
one act in such situations?<BR> One could suggest a
resolution of this dilemma based on<BR>the special manner by which the Torah
tells the story of the<BR>Akeyda (chapter 22). On the one hand, God ["b'shem
Elokim"]<BR>commands Avraham to offer his only son Yitzchak. Avraham,
a<BR>devout servant of God, diligently follows God's command, even<BR>though
this must have been one of the most difficult moments<BR>of his life. In this
manner, God tests Avraham's faith (see<BR>22:1). However, it is impossible that
God could truly make<BR>such a demand. Therefore, at the last minute, He sends
a<BR>"malach" [b'shem Havaya/ see 22:11] to stop
him.<BR> Was Avraham correct in his behavior? Should he
have not<BR>questioned God's command, just as he had questioned
God's<BR>decision to destroy Sedom?<BR> There is no easy
answer to this question. In fact,<BR>hundreds of articles and commentaries have
been written that<BR>deal with this question, and even though they are all based
on<BR>the same narrative, many of them reach very different<BR>conclusion - and
for a very simple reason! The story of the<BR>Akeyda does not provide us with
enough details to arrive at a<BR>concrete
conclusion.<BR> One could suggest that this Biblical
ambiguity may be<BR>deliberate, for the Torah's intention may be that we do
not<BR>resolve this conflict, rather we must ponder it. In fact, it<BR>is
rather amazing how one very short but dramatic narrative<BR>(about ten psukim)
has sparked hundreds of philosophical<BR>debates over centuries. [This is the
beauty of the Bible.]<BR> In other words, it is
important that we are internally<BR>torn by this conflict, and make every effort
to resolve it,<BR>while recognizing that ultimately a divine command could
not<BR>be immoral.<BR> This conflict becomes more acute
when we face a situation<BR>when is not so clear precisely what God's command
is, and when<BR>it is not so clear what is considered moral or immoral.
When<BR>those situations arise, not only must we ponder, we must also<BR>pray
that God send a "malach" to help guide us in the
proper<BR>direction.<BR> =======</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PART TWO - YIRAT ELOKIM & 'NATURAL
MORALITY'<BR> Undoubtedly, the climax of the Akeyda
takes place in<BR>22:12, when God's angel tells Avraham not to harm his
child.<BR>However, this pasuk includes a very interesting phrase - "ki<BR>ya'rey
Elokim ata...", which may relate directly to our above<BR>discussion. To
explain how, let's first take a careful look<BR>at that pasuk:<BR> "And he
[God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy - don't do<BR> anything to him,
for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata -<BR> 'that' you fear Elokim, and
you have not withheld your only<BR> son from Me"<BR>
[See 22:12 / Note in the various English translations and<BR>
commentaries the unclarity whether this "malach" is<BR>
talking on behalf of himself or if it's a direct comment<BR>
from God.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> According to the
'simplest' understanding of this pasuk,<BR>the word "ki" should be translated
'that'. In other words,<BR>Avraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son
[the final clause<BR>of this pasuk] proved to God that Avraham was indeed a
"ya'rey<BR>Elokim" [the middle clause]. The use of God's Name - Elokim -<BR>also
appears to make sense, for it was "shem Elokim" in 22:1<BR>that first commanded
Avraham to offer his son.<BR> However, there is a small
problem with this<BR>interpretation. First of all, this suggests that before
the<BR>Akeyda, God had doubted if Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim"; yet<BR>there
doesn't seem to be any reason for this doubt. [Unless<BR>one explains that
this test was due to God's anger to the<BR>covenant that Avraham had just made
with Avimelech, see this<BR>amazing ('right wing') Rashbam on
22:1!]<BR> Furthermore, this phrase "yirat Elokim" is
found several<BR>other times in Chumash, but with a very different meaning.
The<BR>best example is found in Parshat Va'yera itself, in the story<BR>when
Avimelech takes Avraham's wife Sarah (see 20:1-18).<BR>Recall the reason that
Avraham tells Avimelech, explaining why<BR>he had to lie about Sarah's true
identity, and note the phrase<BR>"yirat Elokim":<BR> "And Avraham said:
for I had assumed that there was no YIRAT<BR> ELOKIM in this place, and
they would kill me in order to<BR> take my wife" (see 20:11)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Obviously, Avraham did not
expect that Avimelech and his<BR>people were 'Jewish', i.e. God had never spoken
to them, nor<BR>had He given them any commandments. Clearly, when
Avraham<BR>mentions YIRAT ELOKIM, he must be referring to the basic<BR>'moral
behavior' expected of any just society. As can be<BR>proven from the story
of the Flood, this 'natural morality'<BR>(i.e. not to kill or steal etc. /see
the last five of the Ten<BR>Commandments!) does not require a divine
command. Rather it<BR>is God's expectation from mankind.<BR> [Why
nonetheless God decided to include them in the Ten<BR> Commandments is a
very interesting topic, but not for now.<BR> However, I do suggest that
you note the conclusion of<BR> Rashbam's interpretation to Breishit 26:5
in this regard.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Another example is found
in the story of Yosef and his<BR>brothers; when Yosef, pretending to be an
Egyptian, explains<BR>to his brothers why he will not leave them all in
jail. After<BR>first jailing them, he changes his mind after three
days,<BR>allowing them to go home to bring back their brother so that<BR>they
can prove their innocence. Note how Yosef introduces<BR>this 'change of
mind' by saying: "et ha'Elokim ani ya'rey"<BR>(see 42:18 and its
context!).<BR> But Yosef says this to his brothers
pretending to be an<BR>Egyptian! Surely he wouldn't 'blow his cover' by hinting
to<BR>the fact that he is Jewish. Clearly, here as well, the phrase<BR>"yirat
Elokim" relates to a concept of 'natural morality'.<BR>Yosef, acting as an
important Egyptian official, wants to<BR>impress upon his brothers that he is
acting in a just manner.<BR> The following other
examples also include this phrase,<BR>and each one also relates to some standard
of 'moral'<BR>behavior:<BR> Shmot 1:21 - re: the
midwives killing the male babies<BR> Shmot 18:21 -
re: Yitro's advice re: the appt. of judges<BR>
Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the Amalek.
]<BR> [Please review these
before continuing.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Based on these examples,
it seems that the phrase "yirat<BR>Elokim" in Chumash refers exclusively to some
type of 'moral'<BR>behavior. If so, then we would expect it to carry a
similar<BR>meaning in the pasuk that we are discussing (i.e. Breishit<BR>22:12,
the key pasuk of the Akeyda).<BR> However, it would be
difficult to explain our pasuk at<BR>the Akeyda in this manner, for Avraham did
what appears to be<BR>exactly the opposite, i.e. he followed a divine command
that<BR>contradicts 'natural morality' (see discussion in Part
One,<BR>above).<BR> Why would the fact that Avraham is
willing to sacrifice<BR>his son make him a "ya'rey Elokim" - in the Biblical
sense of<BR>this phrase?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The simplest answer would
be to say that this instance is<BR>an exception, because the Akeyda began with a
direct command,<BR>given by Elokim, that Avraham take his son (see
22:1).<BR> However, one could suggest a rather daring
interpretation<BR>that would be consistent with the meaning of "yirat
Elokim"<BR>elsewhere in Sefer Breishit. To do so, we must reconsider
our<BR>translation of the Hebrew word "ki" in 22:12, i.e. in "ata<BR>yadati, KI
yarey Elokim ata, v'lo cha'sachta et bincha
et<BR>yechidecha<BR> mi'meni".<BR> Instead of
translating "ki" as 'that', one could use an<BR>alternate meaning of "ki" =
'even though'! [As in Shmot 34:9<BR>- "ki am keshe oref hu", and Shmot
13:17 "ki karov hu" - see<BR>Ibn Ezra on that pasuk for other
examples.]<BR> If so, then this pasuk would be emphasizing precisely
the<BR>point that we discussed in Part One, i.e. - EVEN THOUGH<BR>Avraham was a
"ya'rey Elokim", he overcame his 'moral<BR>conscience' in order to follow a
divine command. Thus, we<BR>could translate the pasuk as follows:<BR> "And
he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy - don't do<BR> anything to him,
for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata -<BR> EVEN THOUGH you are a YAREY
ELOKIM, you did not withhold<BR> your only son from
Me."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Specifically because
Avraham was a man of such a high<BR>moral nature, this test was most difficult
for him.<BR>Nevertheless, his commitment to follow a divine
command<BR>prevailed!<BR> In reward, God now promises
Avraham with an 'oath' (see<BR>22:16) that he shall never break His covenant
with them (even<BR>should Bnei Yisrael sin), as explained by Ramban and Radak
on<BR>22:16, and as we will now discuss in Part Three.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PART THREE - THE
OATH<BR> At the conclusion of the Akeyda, God affirms
His promise<BR>to Avraham Avinu one more time concerning the future of
his<BR>offspring (see 22:15-19). Note however, that the when God<BR>first
explains why He is making this oath in 22:16, He<BR>explains specifically
because "lo chasachta et bincha" - that<BR>Avraham did not hold back his son -
and NOT because he was a<BR>"yarey Elokim". This provides additional
support to our<BR>discussion in Part Two (above).<BR> In
this oath (see 22:16-19), we find the repetition of<BR>themes from Brit Bein
ha'btarim such as "kochvei ha'shayamyim"<BR>and "yerusha", as well as a
repetition of God's original<BR>blessing to Avraham from the beginning of Lech
L'cha.<BR> It is interesting to note that this blessing
relates (as<BR>does "brit bein ha'btarim") to our relationship with God as
a<BR>Nation, and our future conquest of the land of Israel<BR>("v'yirash zaracha
et shaar oyvav" - your offspring will<BR>conquer the gates of its enemies/ see
22:17). It is<BR>specifically in this context that Bnei Yisrael will later
face<BR>this moral conflict as discussed in Part I.<BR>
However, the most special aspect of this blessing is the<BR>"shvuah" - the oath
that God makes that He will indeed fulfill<BR>this promise. See Ramban &
Radak on 22:16, noting their<BR>explanation how this oath takes God's commitment
to His<BR>covenant one step higher. Now, no matter how unfaithful
Bnei<BR>Yisrael may be in the future, even though God will have the<BR>right to
punish them, He will never break His covenant with<BR>them and they will always
remain His special nation.<BR> With this in mind, it is
interesting to note that the<BR>story in Chumash that precedes the Akeyda also
relates to a<BR>covenant and an oath (see 21:22-34). Recall how
Avimelech<BR>approaches Avraham to enter into a covenant, while
Avraham<BR>insists that Avimelech must remain honest in relation to the<BR>wells
that his servants had stolen.<BR> At the conclusion of
that agreement, as Avraham now gains<BR>the respect of the local sovereign
power, we find once again<BR>how Avraham 'call out in God's Name'.
Foreshadowing the time<BR>period of David and Shlomo, Avraham is now in a
position where<BR>he can successfully represent God before the other nations
of<BR>the world.<BR> That setting provides a signficant
backdrop for Avraham<BR>Avinu's ultimate test at the Akeyda.<BR>====<BR>MISC
TOPICS -<BR> [Relating once again to Sdom vs. Avraham
Avinu]<BR>PART FOUR - YEDA & YI'UD<BR> In the shiur
we sent out yesterday, we discussed the<BR>importance of 18:18-19, showing how
God's goal for the nation<BR>of Avraham would come true through the
establishment of a<BR>society characterized by "tzedaka
u'mishpat".<BR> Recall how that pasuk began with "ki
y'DAATIV", which<BR>implies to KNOW, but the key word carried a deeper
meaning<BR>throughout the entire narrative of Lot being saved from
Sdom.<BR>[Note also the use of the word "rah" (and "tov") as well as<BR>"l'daat"
in 19:7-9. This may (and should) point to a thematic<BR>connection between the
events in Sdom and the story of Adam in<BR>Gan Eden where we find the "etz
ha'DAAT TOV v'RAH. Note also<BR>how God is described by "shem Ha'vayah" in both
stories.]<BR> In relation to the translation of the
pasuk itself - "Ki<BR>YeDA'ATIV lema'an asher yetzaveh et banav... ve-shamru
derekh<BR>Hashem la'assot TZEDAKA u-MISHPAT....." (18:19), in our shiur<BR>we
translated "yeda'ativ" as "I have singled him out." The<BR>term literally
translates as, "I have 'known him.' This<BR>meaning, however, seems out of place
in this context. If it<BR>simply means that God 'knows' that Bnei Yisrael will
do<BR>"tzedek u-mishpat," how does Hashem 'know' this? What<BR>guarantee
is there that Avraham's children will keep this<BR>mitzvah more than anyone
else? Is there no bechira chofshit -<BR>freedom of choice to do good or
bad?<BR> (Further troubling is the usage of the construction<BR>
"yeda'ativ," rather than the expected, "yeda'ati" - see<BR> mefarshim al
atar.)<BR>In answer to this question, Rav Yoel bin Nun explained in a<BR>shiur
several years ago that the word "yeda'ativ" should be<BR>understood not as
'yeda' - to know - but rather as "ye'ud"<BR>(switching the last two letters as
in keves-kesev;<BR>salma-simla). Ye'ud (a similar shoresh) means
designation,<BR>being singled out for a specific purpose, a raison d'etre,
a<BR>destiny. Thus, "yeda'ativ" here should be read not as,
"God<BR>knows..." but rather, "God set them aside for the purpose...<BR>(that
they keep tzedaka and mishpat)." The point is not that<BR>God KNOWS that
bnei Avraham will do tzedaka & mishpat, but<BR>that God chose Avraham in
ORDER that his children will do<BR>tzedaka & mishpat!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>====<BR>PART FIVE - TOLDOT
TERACH<BR> Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the
birth of<BR>Yitzchak, but also of several other grandchildren and
great-<BR>grandchildren of Terach, such as the twelve children of<BR>Nachor, and
the two children/grandchildren of Lot. [See<BR>19:30-38,
22:20-24.]<BR> These stories form an integral part
of Sefer Breishit<BR>for technically speaking, Parshat Va'yera is still under
the<BR>title of TOLDOT TERACH (see 11:27 with TOLDOT SHEM (see 11:10<BR>and our
shiur on Parshat Noach).<BR> [It is interesting to note when considering
11:26-32 that we<BR> find a 'header' - "ayleh toldot Terach," but we never
find<BR> the expression: "ayleh toldot Avraham" throughout Sefer<BR>
Breishit, even though we do find "ayleh toldot Yitzchak<BR> (25:19), and
"ayleh toldot Yaakov" (37:2). This may relate<BR> to Avram's name change,
so there can't be TOLDOT AVRAM when<BR> he is first introduced, since
AVRAM as AVRAM never has<BR> children from Sarah! This may also explain
the need for the<BR> additional phrase "Avraham holid et Yizchak" in
25:19!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Furthermore, many (female)
descendants of Terach later<BR>'weave' their way back into the family of Avraham
Avinu, such<BR>as Rivka, Nachor's granddaughter, and her brother
Lavan's<BR>daughters Rachel & Leah. [See also part five below in
regard<BR>to Ruth from Moab.]<BR> [Recall that Terach was the first
'zionist', i.e. it was his<BR> idea to attempt aliyah to eretz Canaan
(even though he never<BR> made it). It may have been in that
zchut!]<BR>[Note also the number (and type) of wives and children born
to<BR>Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot does this bring to<BR>mind? [8 + 4
!]<BR> Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve
children [8 + 4] ?<BR>=====</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PART SIX / 'MITZAR' - A sad but fitting
ending<BR> As Lot escapes from Sdom, a somewhat
peculiar<BR>conversation ensues between him and the angel concerning the<BR>city
of TZOAR. What is it all about?<BR> For those of you who
don't remember, here's a quick<BR>recap:<BR> After
taking Lot out of Sdom, the "malachim" instruct Lot<BR>to run away 'up to the
mountain' ["he'hara hi'malet" /see<BR>19:17]. Lot defers, claiming that 'up in
the mountain' poses<BR>potential danger. He requests that instead the angels
spare<BR>one city, which will serve as a "MITZAR," a small place of<BR>refuge.
The Torah then informs us that this is why the city is<BR>named TZOAR (see
19:17-22).<BR> Why do we need to hear about all
this?<BR> To appreciate this story, we must return to
the first<BR>reference to Sedom in Chumash. When Avraham and Lot decide<BR>that
the time had come to part ways, Lot decides to move to<BR>the KIKAR HA'YARDEN
(the region of Sdom), rather than the<BR>mountain range of Canaan, where Avraham
resided.<BR> Recall from our shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha
that Lot's<BR>choice reflected his preference of the 'good-life' in
KIKAR<BR>HA'YARDEN (where the abundant water supply alleviated the need<BR>to
rely upon God's provision of water) over Avraham's<BR>lifestyle in the MOUNTAINS
(where one depends upon rainfall<BR>for his water
supply).<BR> Let's take a closer look at the key pasuk
of that<BR>narrative. [I recommend you read this pasuk in the original<BR>Hebrew
to note its key phrases. Pay particular attention to<BR>the word
"kol"]:<BR> "And Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw KOL KIKAR HA'YARDEN
-<BR> the ENTIRE Jordan River Valley - that it was FULL of<BR>
water... like God's Garden, like the land of Egypt, UP UNTIL<BR> TZOAR."
(13:10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The final phrase of this
pasuk - BO'ACHA TZOAR - appears<BR>superfluous. Why must we know the exact spot
where the KIKAR<BR>ends?<BR> When we consider the origin
of the city's name - TZOAR -<BR>from the story of Lot's flight from Sdom, this
short phrase<BR>takes on a whole new meaning. The Torah appears to be taking
a<BR>cynical 'jibe' at Lot. He wanted EVERYTHING - "et KOL Kikar<BR>Ha'Yarden"
[see also 13:11: "And Lot chose for himself KOL<BR>KIKAR HA'YARDEN..."], and
thus chose to settle in Sdom. But<BR>when it's all over, Lot finds himself
begging the "malachim"<BR>for a small hideaway - a MITZAR (the city to be named
TZOAR).<BR>Lot wants EVERYTHING - KOL Kikar ha'Yarden - and ends up
with<BR>'next to nothing' - BO'ACHA TZOAR! [Thanks to Danny
Berlin<BR>- ish Karmei Tzur - for this insight.]<BR>
With this background we can better understand Lot's<BR>conversation with the
"malachim" when he flees from Sdom. Note<BR>their original instruction to
Lot:<BR> "And it came to pass when they had brought them out [of<BR>
Sdom], they told him: Escape for your life, do not look<BR> behind you, do
not stay behind B'KOL HA'KIKAR. Rather, run<BR> away to the MOUNTAIN, lest
you be consumed." (19:17)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Once again, the Torah
establishes a direct CONTRAST<BR>between KIKAR HA'YARDEN and the MOUNTAIN. Lot
is commanded to<BR>return to the MOUNTAIN - to the area of Avraham, from where
he<BR>never have left in the first place. Lot, however, refuses to<BR>return. He
knows that if he returns to the mountain, he will<BR>not be able to 'survive'
living in the shadow of Avraham<BR>Avinu. He will no longer be the righteous
among the wicked,<BR>but rather the wicked among the righteous. He therefore
begs<BR>them for a refuge:<BR> "And Lot begged them - please no. Behold if
I have found<BR> favor in your eyes...I cannot run away to the MOUNTAIN,
lest<BR> some evil will take me and I die. [Rather,] there is a
city<BR> nearby [at the edge of Kikar ha'Yarden] and it is MITZAR -
a<BR> little one. Let me escape there and my SOUL will<BR>
live...[They concede to Lot's request,] and that city was<BR> therefore
named TZOAR. Then the sun rose over the land and<BR> Lot arrived in
TZOAR..." (see 19:18-24)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Finally, after Sdom and
the other cities of the KIKAR are<BR>destroyed, Lot changes his mind. He decides
to leave TZOAR and<BR>settle with his daughters in the MOUNTAINS (see
19:25-30).<BR>However, instead of reuniting with Avraham, they HIDE AWAY in<BR>a
CAVE. The rest is history - i.e. the history of AMON & MOAV,<BR>whose
descendants have not even the common decency to offer<BR>bread & water to Am
Yisrael (their kinsman) as they pass Moav<BR>on their way from Egypt to Eretz
Canaan (see Devarim 23:4-5).<BR>It's no coincidence that they never learn the
lesson of<BR>"hachnasat orchim" - welcoming guests. Sdom was destroyed,
but<BR>unfortunately, its 'legacy' continued.<BR> One
spark of good does, however, come forth from Moav.<BR>Ruth the Moabite joins the
tribe of Judah - through an act of<BR>"chessed" (see Megillat Rut) - and she
becomes the great-<BR>grandmother of David ben Yishai, the king of
Israel.<BR>Predictably, Sefer Shmuel summarizes his reign as follows:<BR>
"And David reigned over all of Israel, and David performed<BR> MISHPAT and
TZEDAKA for his entire
nation."<BR>
(see Shmuel 8:15)<BR> [Recall that David had earlier hidden
out in a CAVE in<BR> the area of the Dead Sea (Ein Gedi),
where he performed<BR> an act of "chessed" by not injuring
Shaul - see I Shmuel<BR> 24:1-15; note especially 24:12-15!
See also Yirmiyahu<BR> 22:1-5!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Malchut David constitutes
the "tikun" for the descendants<BR>of Lot: his kingdom was characterized by the
performance of<BR>TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - the antithesis of Sdom.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>