You are on page 1of 6

Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Yitro

18 Shevat 5775 (7 February 2015)
A Question for Yeshayahu - by Rabbi Oury Cherki,
Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation,
This week's Haftarah includes one of the most difficult verses
in all of the books of the prophets: "In the year King Uziyahu
died, I saw G-d sitting on an exalted and lofty throne and the
hems of His cloak filled the Sanctuary" [Yeshayahu 6:1]. How
can anybody talk about "seeing" G-d, even if we assume that
this is an allegory? Even in an allegory there are internal rules
that establish limits on what can be said. As is explicitly written,
"No man can see Me and live" [Shemot 33:20].
The sages teach us that Menasheh, King of Yehuda, turned to
Yeshayahu and asked him to clarify his words. "He said to him:
Your master Moshe said, 'No man can see Me and live,' how
can you say, 'I saw G-d sitting on an exalted and lofty throne'?"
[Yevamot 49b]. Yeshayahu did not want to answer Menasheh
because he was asking in order to get the best of the prophet
and not in order to really understand. But what would
Yeshayahu answer us if we asked this question? There are of
course philosophical approaches that provide answers, such as
differentiating between various levels of revelation, or between
different names of G-d (aleph-daled-nun-yud in Yeshayahu's
prophecy, yud-heh-vav-heh in the command to Moshe), between
looking at the "front" or the "back" of G-d, and so on. But
such topics were not usually raised during the times of the
prophets. Perhaps we can say that since the prophecy of
Yeshayahu is based on his experience there is no need to
explain it in abstract terms. If we were able to ask what he
meant by his statement that he saw G-d – did he mean the
essence or external elements, speech or a physical
phenomenon, was he referring to a new category of
consciousness – he would probably have answered simply, "I
saw G-d." He would not have felt any need to explain how this
does not contradict the command not to engage in
anthropomorphism of G-d.
Based on this approach, we can possibly explain why in his
book on the Kuzari Rabbi Yehuda Halevy divided the
discussion of the titles of G-d into two essays – the second and
the fourth chapters. In the second chapter, the discussion of
names is entirely philosophical and is related to the era after
the end of prophecy, when there is no longer any revelation of
the Shechina, and the intellect is the only way to understand
the written word. The intellect only recognizes negative names
which completely contradict anthropomorphism. But in the
fourth chapter the discussion involves the language of the
prophets, who had the merit of experiencing a direct revelation
by G-d, which has a positive connotation, and they

encountered the names of G-d that are related to yud-heh-vavheh. The differences between the two eras are what prevent
modern man from understanding the internal world of the
In spite of our great mental distance from a true understanding
of the essence of what he said, Yeshayahu has left us with an
important message: The very same G-d, who is totally
separated from all the creatures, about whom the angels declare
"Holy, Holy, Holy..." meaning that He is far away from us,
without any defined goal (as noted by Rabbi Yehuda Halevy,
that Yeshayahu heard the word "Holy" without any stated
purpose), is the One who "fills the entire world with His
glory." He faces mankind, which was never abandoned by G-d,
and He supervises every move of mankind and answers his
Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World
Center, Jerusalem
A Protective Kippa for the Police - by Rabbi Yisrael
Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute
"Appoint judges ("shoftim") and officials ("shotrim") at all your
gates" [Devarim 16:18]. "'Officials' – They force the nation to
perform the mitzvot, by striking them and binding them with
rods and with straps." [Rashi].
The Police – a Force of Authority
Recently we have been overwhelmed by a number of affairs
which involve moral and criminal failures of senior officers
in the Israel Police. This involves charges of bribery (in the
case of Rabbi Pinto) and sexual impropriety, between officers
with command authority and female staff who are under their
control. The "cat" which is charged with guarding the "cream"
of law and morality does not keep its hand away from the
plate. (See the source of this phrase, "The lazy one puts his
hand into the plate, he will be too weary to put it back into his
mouth" [Mishlei 26:15]. One who is lazy will not bother to put
something into his mouth which he has already hidden in his
hand, taking it straight from the plate.) The "landowner" allows
himself to act in the very way that he punishes when he
encounters it in others.
We wrote "landowner" in quotes, using the Hebrew word
"paritz," and indeed the popular and childish image of the
police is that of a frightening and authoritative force.


Children are raised by threatening mothers, who say, "If you
don't eat your banana, a policeman will come to get you... If
you don't stop yelling on the street, we will call the police."
These are just some of the examples of silly statements. This
approach to the police stems from the existential need for a
supreme authority, as our sages taught us: "If not for the fear
of government authority, every person would swallow up his
colleague alive" [Avot 3:2]. Thus, authority is an expression of
the requirement that "you must fear it" [Sanhedrin 19b]. In folk
language this is indeed the paritz, the Gentile landowner, who
stands above the law. This image is also implied by the quote at
the beginning of this article about the task of the officials to
force the people to act by using a rod and a strap.
The police as a superior authority can also be seen in the
framework of halacha with respect to the laws of installing an
"eiruv" around a settled area (to allow carrying on Shabbat). An
eiruv can only be set up if the entire area is bought in a formal
act of purchase from the "minister of the city" who has some
ownership of the area to be enclosed by the eiruv. In Europe
the area was purchased from the paritz, and modern halachic
experts in Israel and abroad have replaced this functionary
by the local police chief. His privilege of entering every place
within the area for searches and to make arrests gives him the
halachic status of the "minister of the city." (See: Noda
B'Yehuda Tanyana Orach Chaim 32; Maharsham volume 5, 33;
Chelkat Yaacov Orach Chaim 131; among many others).
This classic image of power has evidently not gone unnoticed
by some of the police and officers themselves. It seems that
some of them have even taken on "the paritz-like ministerial
power," and that the higher one is in rank, the greater is the
feeling of being a master. A person must have a large measure
of humility and a noble disposition in order to avoid such a
feeling of power, and this puts us into a bind. People who are
humble and modest will probably be rejected outright for
serving in the police because of "mental unsuitability." In spite
of the above, I am convinced that many members of the police
force in Israel have not fallen into this trap.
Authority and Permissiveness – An Explosive Mix
When you mix authority with permissiveness and
hedonism you get the results that we see in the recent
scandals. The authority of a boss is very tempting as a way of
exploiting sexual relationships in any situation where there is a
chain of command. This would include the army, hospitals, and
in general employers who have the power to make decisions
without any substantial control over them. However, it seems
that in the police force the potential for exploitation is
especially great. Add to all of this the fact that the "work area"
is full of criminals, drug dealers, rapists, organized crime
bosses, and speculators. As Rashi writes, "How can a son avoid
sinning if he is stationed at the entrance to a brothel?" [Shemot
It has been reported that in the IDF this phenomenon has
greatly decreased as a result of extensive work that has been

undertaken in this realm. Severe standards have been
implemented (including against people who are aware of what
is happening but do not report it), significant punishment has
been put in place, female officers who are readily available have
been appointed, and charges are investigated very quickly. The
Israel Police force should immediately copy these
procedures and implement them publicly and in a forceful
The First Religious Police General!
In the journals and the literature of early Zionism and
settlement in Eretz Yisrael, there was a prominent vision of
"the first Jewish policeman" as a desirable character
representing normalization of authority. The "police of Bnei
Yisrael" in the days before the State of Israel was established
came before the "Israeli defense force," just as they preceded
the Exodus from Egypt (Shemot 5:14; 5:15; 5:19). To this day
many tourists are duly impressed to meet a "Jewish policeman,"
while in their own lands the police often represents a violent
force which oppresses the population.
And here we come to one of the main points of this article. I
call out to my friends and colleagues, those who wear a knitted
kippa and who are looking for a challenge for religious
Zionism: Fill the ranks of the police force! I fully believe
that if such people will increase in the higher ranks of the
force, "affairs" of the type we have been discussing will
dramatically decrease in number. I know that it is not politically
correct for us to pat ourselves on our backs and declare, "We
can solve the problem!" But I still can't wait to see the first
religious general in the ranks of the police.
This is the place to take note of and show our appreciation for
the work of Rabbi Rami Berachyahu, the Rabbi of
Talmon, who established a police prep school,
"Maaminim Bamishtara" (Faithful in the Police). I have had
an opportunity of closely viewing the fruits of this institution.
This prep school trains police officers from among graduates
of Hesder Yeshivot and army prep schools, and it sees as its
mission to send religious people into the ranks of the police.
Objecting to "Pilpul" – by Chezi Cohen, Yeshivat Maaleh
Gilboa and Midreshet Ein Hanatziv
The wise men of the east rejected the concept of "pilpul" –
analytical hair-splitting as a method of Torah study. This
technique became widespread in the era of the Tosafot and
took root mainly among the scholars of Ashkenaz, even
though some of the rabbis were opposed to it (for example, the
Marahal and the Maharshal). The technique is based on the
assumption that all the sources of Judaism are based on a single
unified foundation, and that therefore no two texts can ever
contradict each other, even if they were written in different
places and at different times. Thus, if a discrepancy is found, it
is necessary to define a "chiluk" – to differentiate between the


two sources, in a way that often has no direct basis in the texts
themselves. The technique is based on complex theoretical
reasoning which provides great intellectual pleasure. As
opposed to this, in the lands of the east (except for Tunis,
which will be treated in a separate article), from as early as the
days of the Geonim and the Rambam, there was a strong
opposition to this method of study. It was replaced by a
method of "assukei shemaita aliba d'hilchata" – studying with the
goal of uncovering the halachic significance of the original
sources. It was understood that it was necessary to decide
which of the arguments presented is correct.
As is well known, the technique of pilpul gained great strength
in Lita and it has completely taken over the Ashkenazi
Yeshivot in our land. In recent generations, as the Jews
gathered in the land from all over the world and as
modernization took place, the wise men of the east
encountered the Ashkenazi method of study and expressed
their opposition to this technique. They saw pilpul as vain
study which draws the student away from the truth of Torah.
As far as they are concerned, the Torah is intimately linked to
life and is not a sophisticated intellectual pursuit at all. Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef was used to saying, "Pilpul is bilbul (confusion)."
Even sharper words were expressed by Rabbi Shewika, a
prominent Egyptian rabbi in the beginning of the twentieth
century. He wrote the following to his nephew:

However, I am not happy about what you wrote to me
that you are engaged in pilpul. Take my advice, and let Gd be with you, don't be enticed to start with ... those who
are involved in pilpul and hadran, to build up a thesis and
destroy, only to build it up again and destroy, without any
useful purpose. I feel that this is very close to being a
waste of time and a neglect of the study of Torah.
Rabbi Shewika saw the study of pilpul as a waste of the time
that should have been spent learning Torah! It moves the
student away from the intention of the Torah – to have a direct
practical influence on the lives of the individuals and the
community as a whole.

Once, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi (Rishon Letzion) Yaacov
Meir went into Yeshivat Tiferet Yerushalayim, and he saw
the married scholar Meir Chai Uziel with a book of pilpul
from the Talmud in front of him. Rabbi Uziel was so
engrossed in understanding the pilpul that he did not
notice that the Rishon Letzion had arrived. Rabbi Meir
went to him and saw the book in front of him, and he
smiled and said, "Go away from the sharp approach and
the pilpul, and move on to straight and logical insights. I
wish for you to have the clear vision to descend into the
depths and the truths of the brilliant words of our wise
men." Rabbi Uziel, who later became the Rishon Letzion,

declared that the words of Rabbi Meir had a profound
effect on him, and because of them he changed his
approach to learning.
This story involves Rabbi Uziel when he was starting out on
his career. He studied in Yeshivat Tiferet Yisrael, the most
prominent Sephardi yeshiva before the First World War, where
many rabbis who became Rishon Letzion studied. Rabbi
Yaacov Meir supported the yeshiva, and he unsuccessfully tried
to rebuild it after the end of the First World War. In the story,
Rabbi Uziel sat in the middle of the highest yeshiva for
Sephardim, but his heart was busy in the pursuit of the pilpul
that was common among the wise men of Ashkenaz. The
encounter with Rabbi Meir brought him back to the classic
mode of Sephardic studies. Rabbi Meir directs his disciple to
the style of study which requires straightforward logic and not
convoluted thinking. For him, the desire to achieve the truth of
Torah does not go through the techniques of pilpul. Rabbi
Meir differentiates between "chidud" – a sharp approach – and
"chida" – a riddle – that is, an unclarified text which can only be
explained using straightforward logic.
This story illustrates the complex and unique position occupied
by Rabbi Uziel. He is Sephardi, but his heart draws him
towards the Ashkenazi style of learning. He is the son of Rabbi
Yosef Rafael Uziel, the head of the rabbinical court of the
Jerusalem Sephardi community. He was under the influence of
the Rishon Letzion, Rabbi Elyashar, and as an adult he worked
with the later Rishnon Letzion, Rabbi Yaacov Meir. With all of
this, he was still influenced by the Ashkenazi world in his
manner of thinking, and especially by Rav Avraham Yitzchak
Kook. He even wanted to accept various Ashkenazi customs
(such as ritual slaughtering and Yibbum) in an effort to achieve
a unified approach. But in our story his Sephardi identity is
settled once and for all. His method of study from then on will
follow "the path of halacha," but the striving of his soul has
not disappeared, and all his life he tried to combine between
the east and the west using the tools of halacha.
e-mail: (I will be happy to hear any
stories you have about the wise men of the east.)
It's not Good Enough for Me - by Rabbi Yikhat Rozen,
Director of the Or Etzion Institute – Publishing Torah
Books of Quality
Naama's Story
Lately everything has been so upsetting!
Yesterday I took a beautiful piece of artwork to school. I
worked on it for a long time, spending many hours. The
picture was perfect, and so were the decorations around it. But
just when I left the house it started to rain. I protected the
picture by putting it under my coat but that didn't help much,


and it got quite wet. And I had put so much effort into making
Then, later that day, the teacher gave us the date for our annual
field trip. Everybody was very excited - all except me, that is.
Right away, I saw that on that very day my cousin Tehilla was
getting married. What would I do? Would I miss the outing or
the wedding? I would be upset no matter what I did!
That day in our literature class we studied a parable from
Krylov's Fables. Here it is.

The scorpion explained, "This is a mountain. It is high
up, and water flows to a low place. We only get a small
amount of water when rain falls, but even this mostly
flows down to the valley."
By then, the frog was quite desperate, but it still didn't
lose hope. It knew that there was somebody who could
help. The frog turned towards heaven and began to pray:
"Please, the good G-d in heaven, listen to your servant's
prayers. Please, G-d, let the rain fall, let the rivers swell,
until the valley is filled with water, which will increase so
much that it will rise up to this level."


The hero of our story was a frog who was born in a
swamp. It lived with all its many friends, croaking
happily, wading in the water, and eating bugs. One day it
decided that the life in the swamp was disappointing, and
it decided to look for a new location. The little frog left
the swamp and started to hop around the area. After a
short trip it found a small hole full of water, where it
rested for a few days. Then it continued on its way. Where
was it going? The frog didn't know, but it decided to look
for its fortune someplace else.
The frog continued on its path, and a mountain rose up in
the way. But the frog did not hesitate and started to
climb. And in the end it found what it was looking for.
There was an interesting puddle near the bottom of the
mountain. Here was a place where the frog could live
undisturbed. The puddle had ample water. "I have found
me a new home!" the frog gleefully said to itself.
Everything was fine as long as the rains continued and
the area was still wet. But then winter ended, and even
spring had come and gone. Summer ruled the skies, and
the puddle dried up. The frog felt that it was getting
weaker day by day, and with great difficulty it managed to
suck some water out of some leaves. But its skin was
completely dry (the skin of the frogs must be damp all the
time), and the frog was even afraid that it might die. And
now it fondly remembered its faraway home in the
swamps. In the swamp, there was water all year round.
But here everything was so different.
Every day the frog would look up to the heavens in the
hope of seeing rain clouds approaching. And then a
scorpion happened to pass by and laughed at the frog.
"Fool," it said. "What are you looking for? Don't you
know that there is no rain in this season? Here rain falls
only in the winter!"
The frog did not understand, and it asked a question:
"But the valley where I used to live was wet all year
round! There was always rain falling, and the rivers would
also fill up with water. Why is it any different here?"

This prayer went unanswered, so the frog continued.
"Please, G-d of mercy: You take care of every living
creature. Why can't you take care of my need, a poor
mountain frog? Is it so hard for you to fill up the valley
with enough water that some will even reach me?" The
frog fell to the ground without any remaining strength. It
screamed, "There is no mercy in heaven!"
And then, suddenly, a voice was heard from heaven.
"Frog, you are indeed unfortunate. But perhaps instead of
filling the entire world with water, so that all the human
beings and the animals in the valley will suffer greatly,
perhaps instead of all that you should trouble yourself to
go down to the swamp in the valley?"
"And what about us?" our teacher asked us. "How often do we
want everything to be organized just way we need, without take
anybody else's needs into account?"
My teacher was asking this question to the whole class, but I
felt that she was talking directly to me. I understood that the
desires for the rain to stop and for the outing not to take place
were not real. I put my head down in my lap and I realized –
even if not everything happens in a way that is most
convenient for me, I will always be able to manage...
A Herbarium during Shemitta - by Rabbi Re'eim
Hacohen, Rosh Yeshiva and Chief Rabbi, Otniel
Question: How should wild herbs be treated during the
Shemitta year?
The Prohibition of Removing Weeds
First of all, we must clarify what prohibition is involved in
weeding our unwanted plants during Shemitta. A discussion
appears in Moed Katan (2b) about removing weeds during
Shabbat, specifically which major type of labor the sinner
should be warned about. According to Rabba, this goes under
the category of plowing, since one who uproots weeds together
with their roots is at the same time aerating the earth and


improving it for later planting. However, Rav Yosef feels that
the prohibition is planting, since as a result of weeding the
other plants grow in a better way (which is in fact the main
purpose for doing the weeding in the first place).
In halachic terms, the Rambam rules about weeding according
to the opinion of Rabba, that the prohibition is plowing
(Hilchot Shabbat 8:1), and Or Zarua rules according to Rav
Yosef (Hilchot Shabbat 54).
The Talmud continues in Moed Katan by asking on both
opinions, that of Rabba and that of Rav Yosef, from the law in
the Mishna, which permits watering irrigated land on Chol
Hamoed and during Shemitta – How can watering be
permitted if it helps the land and the plants growing on it? The
answer given is that as opposed to the laws of Shabbat, where
all of the derivative labors are forbidden just like the thirty-nine
major categories of labor, in Shemitta the only prohibited labor
is what is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. These are four
specific labors: Planting, reaping (which are major
prohibitions), pruning, and harvesting grapes (which are
prohibited as secondary violations). No other derived
prohibitions exist in Torah law, and therefore watering a field
is permitted during Shemitta.
However, the Talmud finds this difficult to accept, based on a
Baraita which derives from verses in the Torah that other types
of labor are also forbidden – weeding, raking, mowing,
fertilizing, and more. The Talmud replies that all the types of
labor in this Baraita are only prohibited by a rabbinical decree
(and that the proofs brought from verses are merely a hint of
the matter but not Torah law). That is, according to the
conclusion of the Talmud the prohibition of weeding is a
rabbinical decree and not Torah law.
Raking the Ground in order to Keep the Tree Alive
The Baraita quoted above continues with a discussion of the
labors which are permitted during Shemitta:
"We might think that one should not rake the ground under
the olive trees and not rake under the grapevines... it is written,
'do not plant your field' [Vayikra 25:4]. Planting was already
included, why was it explicitly mentioned again? It was
repeated to teach you: Just as planting refers specifically only to
fields and vineyards, so all the prohibited labor is what happens
in the field and the vineyard."

"Is raking the ground really allowed on Shemitta? After all, it is
written, 'and on Shevi'it you shall let it rest and abandon it'
[Shemot 23:11]. And we have been taught, 'let it rest' – from
raking – and 'abandon it' – from removing the stones. Rabbi
Ukvah Bar Chama replies to this, 'There are two types of
raking. One is to improve the health of the tree and the
other is to close the cracks in the ground. To improve the
health of the trees is forbidden, to seal the cracks is allowed."
According to the printed version of Rashi, improving the
health of the tree is prohibited because the main reason to do
this is for financial gain, while sealing the cracks is allowed
because this is needed to keep the trees alive. However, in a
manuscript Rashi explains that the permission given for closing
the cracks is because this is not considered labor, and that the
rule is not related to extra profits. In any case, it is clear from
the Talmud's conclusion that raking the ground is permitted
only in order to "keep the tree alive," which contradicts the
simple reading of the Baraita quoted above.
Weeding for Maintenance of the Tree
In view of the above discussion, we can conclude that weeding
which is prohibited by a rabbinical decree (as a secondary
prohibition stemming from the labor of plowing), can be
compared to the law of raking the ground under the tree. And
this is only forbidden when its purpose is "to improve the
health of the tree."
The Ritva asks why we are allowed to water the fields on
Shemitta while weeding is forbidden by rabbinical decree, and
he writes that "there are those who reply" that a field that
receives its water from irrigation can be watered in order to
avoid a great loss. But the Ritva himself disagrees with this, and
he feels that any labor which entails a large effort is prohibited
on Shemitta, and that irrigation is a large effort. However, the
Rambam does not agree with this, and he feels that there is no
law of "a large effort" on Shemitta. Therefore the Chazon Ish
(21:17) accepts the reasoning of "those who reply" and allows
raking the ground in order to prevent a large loss.
Rav Kook also accepts this ruling with respect to plowing in
order to keep the trees healthy:
"With respect to plowing during Shemitta in a case when it is
clear that without the plowing the tree will be irreversibly lost –
it appears that according to the Rambam this is permitted,
since he wrote that the reason for permitting secondary labor is
that if this labor is not performed the land will become salty
and all the trees will die. The same is true for plowing..."
[Kuntress Acharon 12].

Thus, we see that we are allowed to rake the ground under
olive trees and grapevines. In my humble opinion, the
explanation is clearly given in this passage – that the
prohibition applies only to a field but not to the ground under
trees, since we are permitted to perform actions to keep them
alive after Shemitta.

This is certainly true for weeding, which merely a secondary
offshoot of plowing.

However, the Talmud then finds a contradiction between the
law of raking the ground quoted above and a Midrash on the
book of Shemot:

Note, however, that this entire discussion is relevant for
one who weeds out the weeds with their roots. But
mowing or spraying insecticides is not included in the


definition of weeding, and this is permitted a priori. In
addition, there is no prohibition of uprooting plants that
are growing in land which is not fit to be used for

The heads of X and 10X who are mentioned in the Torah
portion with respect to leadership
Are also mentioned in the Prophets by a King who was
complaining about a revolt.

(1) Uprooting plants from ground which is not suitable for
growing is not related to the prohibitions of plowing or
planting on Shemitta and it is permitted a priori. Therefore on
gravel or on beaten paths there is no problem in uprooting
(2) Mowing grass without removing the roots or spraying is
permitted a priori in any case.
(3) Weeding, including uprooting, in a case of a substantial loss
is allowed according to both the Chazon Ish and Rav Kook.

The answers for last week: The riddle was: Numerically it is a
Tzadik – one who is righteous. Add a "heh" and you get one
who oppressed the Jews.
The numerical value of "mann" – Hebrew for manna – is 90,
the value of the letter "tzadik." Add the letter heh in front of
the word, and you get Haman, the oppressor in Shushan.

Jerusalem, an International City - by Bar-on Dasberg
In each article in this series we deal with some aspect of a
single chapter of the book of Melachim.
(Melachim I 8)
King Shlomo thought of a new idea in Judaism – Jerusalem
would become a world center for religion. "And also the
Gentile... if he comes to pray at this House, You will listen... In
order that all of the nations of the earth will know Your name."
[Melachim I 8:41-43]. This is a very positive idea, and it
corresponds to the prophetic vision of the end of days: "And
many nations will come and they will say, 'Let us rise up to the
Mountain of G-d' [Yeshayahu 2:3; Micha 4:2].
However, this idea is also very dangerous. Later on, Shlomo's
great sin is described: "Then Shlomo built an altar for
Chemosh, the abomination of Moav, on the mountain facing
Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of
Amon" [Melachim I 11:7]. It is reasonable to assume (and the
commentators agree with this) that Shlomo himself did not
worship idols but that he "merely" built altars for them. But we
may still wonder how his wives were able to turn his heart so
far away from the truth.
As is common with the evil inclination, it may well be that
Shlomo followed what seemed to him to be positive
considerations. He wanted to draw all the other religions to the
spiritual capitol of the world, to Jerusalem.
However, this is the great error of his ways: Jerusalem is not a
city for all the religions, rather it is a city for all the nations
which come to experience the one and only true religion.
by Yoav Shelosberg, Director of "Quiz and Experience"

This weekly publication is distributed in Canada by MIZRACHI
B’SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin distributed in hundreds of
synagogues in Israel and has been translated by Moshe Goldberg. If

you are interested in sponsoring or advertising in an issue of
Shabbat B’Shabbato contact the Mizrachi office in Toronto at
416-630-9266,; or in Montreal 514-4833660,