Parashat Lech Lecha

Parashat Lech Lecha

Heshvan 11 ~ October 27, 2012

by Alex Hart

On the theme of characterization, here in Lech Lecha, we are presented with a man whose ‘life is broken’ (“Studies in the Weekly Parshah”, Rabbi Yehudah Nachshoni)

Avram follows G-d’s instructions to abandon everything; his ancestral home, family, life as he knows it. He sets out on a mission and no longer has a point of reference, not even a geographical reference; he has only his own moral compass. Avram is reliant on G-d’s words; those promising him, quite literally, fame and fortune.  And this is our progenitor. Some cynics might say, “the man’s lost it. He has taken off into the wilderness with a campervan. He’s a missionary!”

As our forefather, the man with whom it all begins, surely we can wish for an individual from whom to learn; someone we could set on a pedestal yet still be within our reach, someone to emulate, yet with whom to find some similarity, some common ground; it doesn’t appear that way.  According to Rashi, 8 of Avram’s 10 trials occur in this parsha, each more monumental than the last and so very little that matches our everyday lives the prism through which we view our hero skews our perspective. An action-packed parsha with so much to think about but with a brief pause, our lead can be brought into focus.

I found inspiration in  י:יד בראשית. The context is a period of war between the four kings and the five kings of the region, the latter of whom had taken Lot, Avram’s nephew, captive. This is the very first example of the halacha of pidyon shivuyim and, with the return of Gilad Shalit, this time last year, has had enormous coverage in recent weeks. Avram takes up arms in order to rescue Lot, having formed a coalition with the four kings and his own merry band of 318 men.  Avram had recently separated from Lot יג:ט)) why would he embroil himself in a battle? Moshe Halbertal, a philosophy professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem helps provide an answer which transcends time: “Those things are in the DNA of the culture, it’s a sentiment that can’t be measured in exact legal or judicial terms. It plays a role in those moments of perplexity. You fall back on your basic identity. As a Jew, as an Israeli, what do I do?” (New York Times of October 21, 2011) Our protagonist is not so far removed after all.

Looking out for Lot is one of three examples in which we see Avram seemingly take unilateral action based on instinct. He proves himself forewarned based simply on a gut feel. Of the 3, it is in this example that is totally without fanfare.

Chronologically speaking, the first example of the 3 is Avram’s strategy before arriving in Egypt. (יב:יב) He anticipates that the Egyptians, upon seeing Sarah, will presume that she is bounty, with scant regard for another man’s ‘possessions’. A modern day explanation of Avram’s strategy comes from Gilad Sharon, being interviewed in advance of his recent book’s publication, ‘Ariel Sharon: The Life of a Leader’, he quotes his parents: “If you’re invited to dinner with the queen, you’d better know your table manners,”. (Plus ça change?!) Avram therefore quietly advises Sarah to anticipate the scenario and to pretend to be his sister and follow along without a stir. Instead it is Pharaoh who expresses utter consternation at Avram ( יט-יח:יב) “Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say that she was your sister so that I should take her to myself as a wife?” It seems Pharaoh dislikes having his lack of mores on display.

The final example is that with Avram’s exchange with Bera, King of Sodom, one of the four kings post victory. Bera, in trying to express his gratitude to Avram for freeing his people, presents our forefather with gifts. Avram refuses most vociferously( כג:יד). Raising his hands to heaven, he says, (and this is the source for the מצוות of tefillin and that of techelet) “Neither from a thread to a shoe lace, nor will I take from whatever is yours, so that you should not say, 'I have made Abram wealthy.” This outburst appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, most unlike the Avram we’ve seen to date. Previously, it may have been noted that our character assesses the situation before him with a quiet confidence, contemplatively apprising himself of what runs through others’ core, which is best demonstrated in their treatment of others. What caused Avram to react in such a manner? We are given to understand that Bera hadn’t fought. He had hidden in a cave throughout the unrest, putting his people in danger and ahead of himself. Avram reads the King’s character and in no way does he wish to be associated. Stating abhorrence in such a manner can leave little doubt with any bystander.  

Avram is only after a peaceful life in which to serve G-d. He was content and settled before being told of Lot’s abduction (Sforno on יח:יג). He had been non-confrontational when separating himself from Lot and his shepherds who were proving themselves dishonest and, in the pursuit of happiness, he had uprooted his family in search of a place to settle. Here in Lech Lecha, we are introduced to some dastardly characters, demonstrating jealously, lust, greed and the poisonous association with those that do not have basic moral upstanding, leading to disquiet Avram’s soul.

To be taken with integrity, consistency is required, using an outburst of emotion sparingly, if at all, in order to make the desired impact. That consistency needs to run, like techelet, throughout. Be it the tone of voice, the rhetoric used, the opinions themselves, it’s the prism through which one represents oneself. Here in the parsha, Avram is looking for the mental quiet in order to serve G-d and it seemed that our protagonist was very much out of our reach. With each of these examples though, Avram demonstrates the maxim: ﬠומד  דﬠ לפני אתה מי  and wishes only to walk humbly before G-d, no pedestal required.

Parashat Noach

Parashat Noach
Heshvan 4, 5772
by Michal Kohane

נח איש צדיק תמים... את האלו-הים התהלך נח

“Noah was a righteous, wholesome mensch… he walked in G-d’s company”, this is how we’re introduced to Noah (Genesis 6:9) after we’re already told that he found favor in G-d’s eyes, and we must wonder: What is wrong with this idealistic picture of a righteous, wholesome mensch who walks with G-d ? Why did G-d wait another 10 generations till Abraham for us to have our first patriarch? Why no Noah?

According to Rabbi Moshe Alshech (known as the Alshich Hakadosh (the Holy), a prominent rabbi, preacher, and biblical commentator in the latter part of the 16th century), Noah was indeed righteous but not a “Jewish righteous”. He is one who walked in G-d’s company, but a real tzadik, righteous person, walks with people. G-d may guide us how to act but our peers are humans. Noah’s righteousness was selfish. When G-d told him to build an ark because He “has had it” with this world, we don’t hear Noah arguing; we don’t hear his tormented soul, aching at the destroyed world. We see him pull out his tape measure to make sure “the length of the ark three is hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits” (6:15).

This is a big vessel (a cubit being 18-24”), and building it takes years and years, decades and decades. Throughout these 120 years, people must have stopped by; bewildered neighbors look in curiosity; kids check it out in day, and teen check it out at night when they think no one is watching. Noah just hammers away. Then he collects the appropriate animals, two of each and plenty food. The chapter ends with “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (6:22). He doesn’t tell anyone what’s coming. He doesn’t warn the people, he doesn’t encourage repentance, he doesn’t argue with G-d to reconsider, to save the world, to do something, anything! We hear no urgency, no panic, no concern. He is fine. His family is fine. That’s all that counts.

Noah is considered a “tzadik in peltz”, a Yiddish term meaning - righteous person, dressed in fur. Said the Kotzker: when the house is cold, there are two options: warm up the house, or put on a sweater (“fur”). The former – helps all household members; the latter – solves the issue only for the one wearing the fur. Another example, is of the “tzadik” who welcomes a beggar at his door, without realizing what does the beggar want? After all, the tzadik is dressed in fur! “It’s” warm! Why is the beggar shivering?? Can’t he get his own fur??

This is why it said: righteous in his generations. Says Rashi: only during his times. Had he lived in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered righteous.

Then again, I wonder. Shouldn’t we give the guy a break? He’s doing a family construction project for 120 years and anyone who’s done that, knows how much fun that is; then he is spending 40 days in a closed box with countless animals? If nothing else, his wife is surely a saint! So what’s the debate?

And which is really harder? Some say, that to be righteous when all around you are evil, is much more challenging than to be righteous when others around you are on a higher level. To paraphrase Rashi: some of our teachers think this is a “wow” – to be righteous when all are evil around you! Imagine how much more righteous he’s be in a good era! While some think it’s a negative trait: yes, in his generation he was good enough, but had he lived in another time, he wouldn’t have been noticed.

I would like to suggest that the commentators asked themselves a real question. They wanted to know, they had to know, Is it good enough to be good compare to others (“righteous in his generations”), or is there an absolute level one should aim to? Many of our early commentators live in tough times. Is it good enough, they ask themselves, to be just a step up from the Romans? The crusaders? The inquisitors? Or must be we uphold our Torah given standards even when the world around us collapses into “corruption and violence”? If we just don’t torture anyone, crucify or burn anyone, is that sufficient? Or should we continue to care for the poor, give charity, be kind to the stranger, the widow, the orphan?

Most commentators agree on the latter. Further: Some accuse Noah of being showy. How did he get up each morning, walking to his building site with his tools, looking down at all those around him with an all knowing gaze, for 120 years? Then the water started coming down, people must have tried to hold on to anything floating around in an effort to survive; a piece of wood would have been great, and here is this giant vessel, the size of a football field, floating around, and, ah, Noah just shut the little window. Some add and say that the fact that Noah was showered with such lavish descriptions, is already a negative. Why should anyone need this? Let our actions define us and not what anyone is saying about us. We’re not told anyone of our forefathers was “righteous” and “wholesome” when we’re first introduced. The fact that one should need this, means he’s lacking. It’s what would be said before the “… but…”

One way or another, our sages thank Noah. They appreciate his effort but no, he won’t be included as one of our nation’s leaders in our prayer for rain, even though he should know about water more than anyone. And we won’t call ourselves Bnai Noah. We will wait patiently for next week.

V'zot HaBeracha ~ Simchat Torah

V’zot HaBeracha

Simchat Torah

Tisrei 23, 5773 ~ October 9, 2012

by Joel Ackerman

 

                It is the last day of Moses’ life, but before he accedes to G-d’s command and ascends the mountain to pass away, he has one last task to carry out - one that he has not yet done - he wishes to bless the people, the people that he has led and loved these many years.  He does this tribe by tribe.  He begins with the tribe of Reuben:

           “Y’chi Reuven v’al-yamot, v’y’chi m’tav mispar”

 which is translated in the Stone chumash as:  “May Reuben live and not die, and may his population be included in the count.”   On the one hand, this would seem to be a good blessing, or prayer for all of the tribes – not for only one.  On the other, it would seem to be an odd blessing for a tribe that was rather numerous.  Furthermore, the blessings (or prayers or wishes or prophecies) for all the other tribes are much more positive, more of a blessing than this.  Why is this given only for the tribe of Reuben?

Moses was greatly concerned about the tribe of Reuben.  Their territory would be at the southeastern corner of the Land.  It would be bordered by two potentially hostile nations, Moab and Ammon, not to mention other hostile nations not far away, such as Amalek.  It would have a common border with only one tribe, Gad, to the north.  It would be cut off from the remainder of Israel by the Dead Sea.  There was a danger that it could readily be attacked, and that it would be in poor contact with the rest of the nation.  And this location had been their own choice.

In addition, this tribe would be at the forefront of the invasion of Canaan and could suffer serious losses. 

On top of all that, this tribe tended to be impetuous.

This last thought raises the question of whether a tribe composed of many thousands of individuals might nevertheless exhibit a character that is a reflection of the character of its individual founder.  For Reuben himself tended to be impetuous.

Reuben was the first-born son of Jacob.  Because of that status, he should have received a double portion of inheritance and should have been the acknowledged leader of all of Jacob’s children – but neither was the case.  The double portion of inheritance went to Joseph; the leadership to Judah. 

Reuben was Jacob’s first-born, and the first-born of his wife Leah. She gave him the name Reuben “Ki ra’a Ad-nai b‘ani’I ki atah ye’ehavani ishi” – “Because G-d has discerned my humiliation, for now my husband will love me”.  He was the first of three sons whose name was connected to the wish that now Jacob would love her.  However, despite the Torah’s explanation, the clear meaning of the name Reuben seems be something on the order of “Look! A son!” or “Look! I can give you sons!”, and one commentator states that she meant to indicate that Reuben was a normal son, not a strange one like Esau.

We first-borns know that a lot is expected of us.  We are expected to become leaders, expected to become responsible adults, hopefully to become wise (or at least sensible).  But Reuben did not prove to be such a man.  His character can best be described as having the right intention, more or less, but terrible execution.  He would try to do the right thing to show his leadership qualities, but always seemed to flub it badly.  His actions tended to be impulsive, precipitous, wrongly directed, and over the top in nature.  On his deathbed, Jacob described him as “unstable as water.”

After Rachel’s death, Jacob moved his bed from her tent to Bilhah’s, her handmaid’s.  Reuben saw this as an affront to his mother Leah, who was Jacob’s wife, as opposed to Bilhah, who was only a concubine.  So to show his objection he either lay with her (according to the Torah) or moved Jacob’s bed into Leah’s tent (according to the Talmud).  In either case he failed to show respect for his father’s marital relations.  His act was taken in a good cause, but the act itself was precipitous and wrong-headed. 

 

When Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him, it was Reuben who suggested they throw him into a pit instead.  The Torah states that he planned to return to rescue Joseph later.  But instead of doing that as soon as he could, Reuben went off for a while, during which time the brothers sold Joseph as a slave. 

And later, when the brothers were trying to convince Jacob to let them return to Egypt with Benjamin, Reuben decided to make his move for leadership by offering to kill two of his sons if he did not bring Benjamin back.   Jacob’s reaction was to ignore this way-over-the-top idea, saying to himself: “What a meshuggener!  Instead of my losing one son, he wants me to lose two more!”

Moses similarly had to consider whether the nature of the tribe of Reuben, of wrong-headedness in their actions, was such as to put that tribe in danger of being lost to the people of Israel.   After all, it was men of that tribe who had accompanied Korach in his attempted rebellion.  And later, when the Israelites were camped at the Jordan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad came to Moses and said:   “The land where we are now is the land that will be our inheritance. For it is cattle land, and we are cattlemen!”  Moses exploded and accused them of endangering the entire people, as had the spies, by declining to enter the Land.   They responded:  “Oh no, Moses.  You have us wrong.  And just to show you that, we won’t just enter the Land with our fellow Israelites, we will go in the front ranks!  And we won’t return to our homes until everyone has received his own land!”   Does that sound like an over-the-top, impetuous reaction to you?  It certainly does to me.

From these occasions, it does seem that somehow a tribe of many thousands can exhibit a behavior reminiscent of that of its progenitor many generations in the past.   Are we seeing here some sort of undiluted DNA passing down through the generations, or are we perhaps only seeing the result of selective story-telling aimed at making a point?

In the end, the tribe later lost much of its territory to the Moabites, apparently as far back as the time of the Judge Ehud.  When Deborah called for tribes to send men to fight the Canaanites, “among the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart.”   Great searchings of the heart, but no action.  And eventually this tribe was among the first to be exiled by the Assyrians (see First Chronicles 5:25-26, which states that this was caused by their taking up idolatry).

So Moses did have great cause for concern for this tribe, apparently greater than for the other tribes, and his hope, or prayer for that tribe was entirely appropriate.

As with the tribe of Reuben, we can have the propensity for putting ourselves, through our own choices, towards the edge of our people.  Wrapped up in our own objectives, we can lose sight of the need to remain connected to our people, even our own family (this has been known to happen with people who move to California).  And we can think that this situation is perfectly fine, again based on our own objectives and perhaps a tendency to be impetuous and wrong-headed. 

But those of us who are in such a situation should see a need to be connected to the rest of the Jewish people. 

Now, to be honest and above-board, I should admit that, like Ko-Ko in The Mikado, I have a little list:  individuals and groups whom I believe have shown by words and/or actions that they do not really wish to be considered part of the Jewish people  or that they do not really belong as part of our people.  And I’m tempted at times to hope that they can be excluded from membership.  But I’m inhibited from trying to act on that temptation; I suspect that many if not all of us have our own “little lists”, and if we could all act on them, there would be few of us remaining in the Tribe.

So, to be sure with a little sigh, I’m constrained to say that even with those who we clearly believe to be wrong-headed or who, for one reason or another, and perhaps by their own choice, have chosen to be on the periphery of our people (geographically, politically, philosophically, religiously, or in any other way), or are isolated - as with the tribe of Reuben, we should wish that they would live and not die, and continue to be counted among us.  And those of us who are in the center of our people need to be concerned about that, as was Moses.

Shabbat shalom.

Parashat Bereshit

Parashat Bereshit
Tishri 27, 5773 ~ October 13, 2012
by Boris Burshteyn  

Dear Members,

It always gives me joy to see our community members share thoughts of Torah with one another.  Thanks to the tireless organizing work of Joel Ackerman, we already have several years behind us of member derashot offered to the community.  The people in our shul are fascinatingly different, and approach the weekly parasha from remarkably varied perspectives and write with unique styles.  Kudos to all the mini-derash contributors!  And if you are possibly interested in giving it a shot yourself, please contact Joel at jrsackerman@earthlink.net.

You can also find some pointers & tips on writing a derash that I wrote up at:  

www.bethjacoboakland.org/pdfs/Mini_Derash_Writing_Pointers.pdf.   

All of our archived member derashot can be read on the web at www.bethjacoboakland.org/minidrash.  

This week we have a special offering, a more extended manuscript of thoughts on Creation that our member Boris Burshteyn has been working on for quite some time.  I wanted to get it to you before Sukkot, so that you would have time to dive into it before we start the Torah all over again in a couple of weeks.  Enjoy!

You can find the text that Boris has written here:  

Bereshit~ Boris Burshteyn Creator's Creators  

Wishing you a wonderful yom tov,

Rabbi Dardik

Parashat Nitzavim

Parashat Nitzavim
Elul 21, 5772 ~ September 15, 2012
by Danielle Elkins

My husband has always asked me, “How does a girl from South Carolina with your background end up here?” The “Here” is always meant as a positive place. The answer I always give him is “Hashem”, and as a Reform Jew, I used the word G‐d. Today, I’m so happy to know the concept, Hashem, because it expresses the compassion of G‐d, which is what I feel Hashem has given me on my journey toward observant Judaism.

This week’s parsha, Nitzavim, means “standing”, and after studying this parsha I understand how I am still standing. Moshe begins the his last speech on earth describing those standing before Hashem on this day to renew the Covenant, and like at Mount Sinai it explains it is not just those living at that time, but the future souls to come.

“Not with you alone do I seal this covenant and this imprecation, but with whoever is here, standing with us today before Hashem, our G‐d, and with whoever is not here with us today.” (29:13)

In my opinion, this is allowing for the individual soul to witness and know in his heart the truth, no matter how far the life of exile and persecution takes him. Hashem is arming each individual soul with the ability to know the truth.

The parsha then goes on to describe how we will stray and be exiled, but it is not the focus, like past parshiot. The emphasis and the beauty are on how we will return to Hashem, no matter how far away we have drifted.

“If your dispersed will be at the ends of heaven, from there Hashem, your G‐d, will gather you in and from there he will take you.” (30:4)

Rashi explains beautifully that the return of the exiles “will come about with so much difficulty as if He Himself must actually hold each and every person with His hands to take Him from His place in the exile.”

Just before possuk 2: “And you will return all the way to G‐d, your G‐d” which Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch explains is not a partial return. He writes, “You will not stop halfway; your return will be so complete that you will come back all the way to G‐d.”

In just the past five years, my life and my family’s life have had so many forks or you could even say stopping points on our path to observant Judaism, but with each challenge or obstacle we were propelled forward toward observance. Something beyond logic moved us forward.

As a child, I knew I was Jewish. With the last name Goldstein, the Christian world that surrounded me knew it too, so my whole life was a target for good meaning Christians trying to save my soul. The first time I was confronted with this idea was when the Baptist minister’s family moved next door. I was only five. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I could not tell them what being a Jew meant. The ten‐year old daughter of the minister took it upon herself to save my soul from the fires of hell, and she did save me. By making me play a game walking through the fires of hell by day with the crucifix on the wall, it brought the fires of hell to life in my nightmares. I would wake screaming from what seemed real to my young imaginative mind, but I was given the gift of knowing my heart and soul. My soul was Jewish. I had no logical explanation; I just knew it was who I was, if it meant walking through the fires of hell for all eternity, that was my fate. That little girl saved me from ever doubting who I was, no matter what individual or authority questioned the correctness or validity of my identity.

Moshe explains how I could know without specific education. “For this commandment that I command you today‐it is not hidden from you and it is not distant. (30:11) “Rather the matter is very near to you‐in your mouth and in your heart‐perform it.” (30:14) The sages teach in Niddah 30b that the fetus is taught the Torah, but forgets it at birth. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik writes that this can allow a person an innate familiarity with Torah even without formal education.

Hashem has given us the tools to return, but we must take an active role. For me, the best expression of this is Seek your G‐d and you shall live, which is found in numerous ways throughout the Tanakh. It seems so simple but “Seek” is not a passive word. To truly seek you must use every aspect of your mind, heart, soul, and body. Only by doing this can you find the strength to choose “the life and the good”, over “the death and the evil.” To Seek your G‐d is personal and for every person this journey is different, but hopefully in the end we will “SEE” which is the first word in the last paragraph of this Parsha.

It seems perfect that the mnemonic (the numerical value which correlates to a word) for this Parsha means “His Heart”.

Parashat Ki Teitzei

Parashat Ki Teitzei
Elul 14, 5772 ~ Sept 1, 2012
by Alex Hart

She knelt down before her, a movement so seamless, it appeared choreographed as she stepped away from the cast, before blowing her a kiss. In that moment, Laura’s eyes lit up and I could only succumb to the wisdom of the branding; Disney is ‘The Happiest Place on Earth’. From 2 feet off the ground, Sleeping Beauty’s Castle is a wonder, the parades magnificent and the fireworks, well, words failed our little people. It all comes down to perception. If you play by the Disney rules you can give in and be merrily transported alongside barriers for pop-up shows, wait, with formally undiscovered reserves of patience, in lines for rides over in an instant and dispense with the vague hope of finding snacks being anything but a short-lived energy shot. The kids didn’t notice and instead, daily since our return, they narrate their mental snapshots of their time away. We hope that these images remain indelibly magical in their memories forever.  

In Parshat Ki Teitzei, the Torah’s perception in its meting out of the punishment for the wayward son, looks many years ahead. The son, presented to the Beth Din, is referred to as a glutton and a drunk by his parents (יח פסוק כא פרק).  The punishment is death by stoning; sekilah; the most severe death penalty. Many pages of explanation are devoted to this halacha. We are to understand the gluttony was to have been the consumption of meat, together with becoming inebriated from drinking wine, in the company of loafers and criminals. Astonishingly, the term ‘Ben Sorer u-Moreh’ refers only to a boy aged between 13 and 13 ¼. Insights into the Talmud, Sanhedrin 68b, delve into the boundaries as to when a boy is fit to be considered a ‘Ben Sorer U’Moreh’. For example, Rav Yehudah advises that punishment is applicable only when the son reaches the strength of an adult; Rashi understands this to be the beginning of adulthood; the Netziv teaches that liability is once the son reaches the age of Bar Mitzvah and Tosfot interprets the Gemara to be referring to the son right after his Bar Mitzvah. It stands to reason that a person of that age would not have the money for such items, unless by theft.  The Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) teaches that the boy is put to death because of what he will eventually do, rather than what he has done.  In having stolen, the Torah can foresee the natural progression of events. All the more so, the Kotzker Rebbe suggests ‘al shem sofo’ ‘according to his end’ refers to the end of this appellation ‘moreh’. Translated here as ‘rebellious’, the word can also mean ‘teacher’ i.e. that he would lead others to behave likewise; killing him with the most severe form of death would deter others.  Undaunted by the united scolding of his parents (the source of their prerequisites is to be found in Sanhedrin 71a), he would loot once again. Having a taste for delicacies, his appetite could eventually lead the young adult to intricate heists. For a rebellious son’s conviction, he must have been warned in front of 3 witnesses (in this circumstance, a witness could even be a judge). The court could hand down the punishment of lashes. If the wayward behavior were to continue, one could perceive that neither a single experience nor any individual could prevent the son from even murdering for which the penalty is indeed sekilah. With relief I add that the complexities into the requirements to be derived from this passage to secure conviction of a rebellious son are such that none were, nor ever will, be killed. Rav Hirsch suggests that it comes down to chinuch, education. The perception is that with his education, a boy arriving at his Bar Mitzvah should be thrilled at the opportunity to contribute and the potential for increased responsibility. The parents should burst with hope and encouragement, that the novelty and care devoted to unfurling and laying tefillin will never diminish but instead, provide in time the welcome adjunct to the familiar comfort of daily morning Tefillah. 

If we take a moment to assess the make-up our community, it can be noted that a significant percentage of families feed into Beth Jacob singularly because of Gan Mah Tov’s  existence. The preschool is a place where our children’s spirits are nurtured and the mensch in each tot is enhanced. This year marks the 25th since the Gan was founded and the apple tree, just outside its doors, was planted. Hoping that you have now received the order forms for GMT’s Rosh HaShana cards, one of the preschool’s major fundraisers. The chinuch of our kids is a partnership. It is a combination of us as parents ‘Listen my son to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching’, together with Gan Mah Tov’s Morim, promoting gentle civility with the still quiet voice at playground level, providing tender guidance and displaying a kindly outlook that will ensure our community’s longevity. Your support towards the Gan’s programming is warmly welcomed.

כתיבה וחתימה טובה