Parshat Mishpatim
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After her blatant anti-Semitism was exposed to the world, Helen Thomas became a persona non grata in much of the Jewish community, so much so that when she passed away, some Facebooks feeds were lit up with the verse from Mishpatim of “Mechashefah lo t’chayeh.” (22:17)
Of course the reference to Ms. Thomas was a pitiful joke at the expense of the woman’s natural death. No one was accusing her of witchcraft, nor did anyone have the right to actually impose the death penalty upon her.
This mitzvah is one of the more clear statements in the Torah that is nonetheless difficult to understand in its literal sense. My daughter loves the Harry Potter books, and the first time she read this verse, I had to explain to her that as Hermione Granger is a fictional character (hard to believe, I know), the verse does not apply to her. (Phew!)
Is the Torah of the view that witchcraft is real – after all, the verse means “A witch shall not live”? [See Rabbenu Bachaye who records both views in the words of our Sages]
So how are we to understand the verse? Many commentators note that the verse, though written in the feminine, refers to male “witches” (warlocks? Wizards? Look out, Harry Potter!) as well. They debate over which form of death punishment would have to be applied to the offenders. At the same time, they also agree to two things: a. the Torah’s terminology is in the feminine form because “women are more apt to be involved in witchcraft,” and b. that the Torah leaves the form of punishment vague as a means to leave open the possibility of actually imposing the capital punishment upon the offending necromancer, for, as Rabbi Chaim Paltiel notes, were the witch to know of the potential punishment, he or she could take measures against that particular death affecting them.
But some commentators also look at the context in which this prohibition appears, explaining the warning and the violation in terms that we can actually appreciate. The commandment before this one relates to the repercussions that come upon a man who seduces a virgin. The commandment after it lays out the prohibition against bestiality.
Chizkuni notes that some who desire to seduce virgins will resort to witchcraft in order to achieve their goals. One need not look too far to understand this in contemporary terms, considering high profile individuals whose names are Bill C. who have been accused of using modern withcraft – power and/or drugs – to “seduce” women. Crimes of this nature, getting women to agree to something they might not otherwise were they not under the influence of the man’s power, is arguably a form of witchcraft.
This is one of the reasons why, although the language of the Torah reflects how women were more often involved in “witchcraft,” men could be equally guilty of the deed and act, which does not preclude women doing the same in their desire for certain men who might morally be opposed to committing such an act. In more concrete terms, Rabbi Chaim Paltiel noted that witches would cause men to become guilty of “seduction” because witchcraft targets and ensnares potential adulterers.
Baal HaTurim claims that bestiality follows this rule regarding witches because most immoral behavior stems from witchcraft. Further, he quotes the Talmud about Bilaam, perhaps the most famous of Biblical necromancers, who committed bestiality with his donkey.
If the magic described in the Bible was real, the idea that people could channel hidden powers and change the natural order of the world is anathema to God’s role in the universe as the Creator and Master of the World. The death penalty would be in order, one might argue, because a human who can play “God” is dangerous to society.
To the rationalist mind, “real” magic does not exist. All the magic in the Bible is sleight of hand and tricks that were perceived as real, because the magicians behind them were as good as it gets. Perhaps a more naïve and superstitious audience contributed to their success. A death penalty would be harder to justify for individuals who are simply very good at mystifying.
And yet, the death penalty is phrased in such a way that it seems there would not even be a trial – as soon as the discovery is made, the witch is to be put to death (R’ Chaim Paltiel)! (Rashi and Sefer haChinukh says a Bet Din of 23 judges is required to impose the death penalty)
How could such behavior ever be justified? People will commit murder all the time, justifying their behavior through claiming that the now-deceased was a witch!
Clearly the Bet Din approach removes any justification for vigilantism. And even if R’ Paltiel’s approach is correct, presumably a person would have to justify the death all the same.
But how could this mitzvah speak to us today? I think it is a warning to people to live life as “straight as an arrow.” There are certain character traits which are described as tricky, deceitful, around-the-back, under-the-table, underhanded (not in the softball-pitching meaning), and just plain sleazy, which are often attributed to dishonest business people, or wheeler-dealers who think that life is all about beating the system. Certainly there are times when a system is flawed. And in a democratic culture, systems can hopefully be changed and improved through honest methods.
But maybe the meaning of the mitzvah is that the trickster “should not live” – not in the death sense, but in the sense that s/he should not be permitted to engage in the lives of others, and should rather be isolated (and certainly not elected to public office!), because they ruin the game of life for everyone they encounter. Anyone who has been a victim of a shady character, in business, in contract work, in wrongful lawsuits, etc. knows what kind of ruination of society can be brought about by the unscrupulous.
As we don’t have witches today (sorry, Harry Potter fans!), we certainly aren’t imposing any death penalties. And maybe the unscrupulous have a chance the witches never had, to actually do teshuvah and change their ways. But let this be a warning to all those who are dishonest cheats. Your ways are not welcome in a civil society.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Appreciating God, Even When the Going is Tough
Parshat Yitro
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While the debate over what Moshe’s father-in-law “heard” (וישמע יתרו) opens up the discussions on the first verse of the parsha, several verses later the Torah tells us “Vayichad Yitro” over all the good that God had dealt towards Israel.
The word “Vayichad” has many possible definitions, though the most common suggestion is that “he rejoiced.” As such, many commentaries note that Yitro celebrated the good done to Israel, but not the bad meted out to Egypt, because he had ties to Egypt and, in general, identified with the suffering of their people – even if deserved – because the humanitarian concern looks at individual plights, rather than the punishment given to a nation that had enslaved the Israelites. (Seforno, SR Hirsch, Malbim, etc)
Along this line, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 94a – wide lines) notes that the word “Vayichad” comes from the word “chidudin,” goosebumps, as his skin reacted negatively to the news of the trauma Egypt had suffered, even as he was happy for the Israelites. (Rashi)
Another viewpoint, also mentioned in the Talmud in the name of Rav, is that the word Vayichad comes from “Chada,” sharp, suggesting Yitro used a sharp blade to circumcise himself, e.g. to convert to Judaism. (See also Medrash Tanchuma, Baal Haturim, Hadar Zekenim)
Of course, on the most simple level, Yitro could have been rejoicing over the good that God had done for the people – beyond the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, and the war with Amalek, all of which are mortal salvation. Saving a life is wonderful, but it isn’t inherently “beneficial” if people will die anyway. So what is the “goodness” over which Yitro rejoiced? Rashi mentions the providing of the Manna, the well (water), and the gift of the Torah.
Midrash Sechel Tov notes that the gift of Manna was that it could have any flavor (think how soy can be cooked to taste like anything), while the gift of the well was that its water could taste like old wine, new wine, milk, honey, and all kinds of delicious things.
One wonders if Roald Dahl was reading this Midrash when he put together Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. (I doubt he was reading the Midrash).
While the Midrash doesn’t continue to describe the benefits of the Torah, perhaps there are two possible reasons why.
Firstly, there is a debate whether Yitro came before the giving of the Torah, or after. There are several arguments for each direction, which we will not be going into now. Suffice it to say, this encounter is presented in the Torah before the giving of the Torah, on the one hand, while on the other hand, what law is Moshe presiding over in the second half of Chapter 18, if not Torah law?
Secondly, while there are certainly those who think that they can fit the Torah into any box that they want to, unlike the Manna and the well’s water, the Torah can’t taste like anything.
Surely there is much flexibility within the Torah lifestyle and halakha system to live a life under the service of God, while conforming to halakhic dictates. There will always be debates as to which is the “best” way to do things.
But just as there are debates in the Talmud about everything, there will be debates from now until the Messiah comes as to what is considered best practice. And that is OK. But there are some things which do not fit into the realm of the Torah’s ways. Whether one follows the “49 ways and 49 ways” (Sofrim 16), 48 ways (Eruvin 13b) or “70 faces” (Bamidbar Raba Naso 13), there is a limit to the number of ways of understanding the Torah which are “correct” or “acceptable.”
The challenge facing us is to know what fits in the realm of “Yeah” and what fits in the realm of “Nay.”
If Yitro rejoiced over the gift of the Torah, perhaps he rejoiced because it was good for the Jews and gave them a sense of purpose. And if, indeed, he became a Jew, he rejoiced over the role it could play in his life. However, it is unclear how Yitro came to grips with a Torah reality, as he soon departed from being with the Jewish people, to return home. Of course, some suggest he went home to convert others to Judaism. But that story is unclear.
Maybe Yitro suffered from the syndrome that some who join the Jewish people for motivations that are not completely sincere also suffer from. That when the going gets tough, commitment falls apart.
I cherish and know many Jews who converted from other faiths, who are dedicated, righteous, and who take their Judaism more seriously than many Jews-from-birth. Whether it is converts, or people who find themselves at odds with their upbringing – whether Chassidic, Lubavitch, Modern-Orthodox, Liberal – I hope everyone can find a place within the larger tent of Judaism that reflects of the 48, 49 or 70 faces, without abandoning it altogether.
After all, whether it was or was not for him, even Yitro knew that the Torah was considered one of the three great gifts that God gave to the Jewish people.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While the debate over what Moshe’s father-in-law “heard” (וישמע יתרו) opens up the discussions on the first verse of the parsha, several verses later the Torah tells us “Vayichad Yitro” over all the good that God had dealt towards Israel.
The word “Vayichad” has many possible definitions, though the most common suggestion is that “he rejoiced.” As such, many commentaries note that Yitro celebrated the good done to Israel, but not the bad meted out to Egypt, because he had ties to Egypt and, in general, identified with the suffering of their people – even if deserved – because the humanitarian concern looks at individual plights, rather than the punishment given to a nation that had enslaved the Israelites. (Seforno, SR Hirsch, Malbim, etc)
Along this line, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 94a – wide lines) notes that the word “Vayichad” comes from the word “chidudin,” goosebumps, as his skin reacted negatively to the news of the trauma Egypt had suffered, even as he was happy for the Israelites. (Rashi)
Another viewpoint, also mentioned in the Talmud in the name of Rav, is that the word Vayichad comes from “Chada,” sharp, suggesting Yitro used a sharp blade to circumcise himself, e.g. to convert to Judaism. (See also Medrash Tanchuma, Baal Haturim, Hadar Zekenim)
Of course, on the most simple level, Yitro could have been rejoicing over the good that God had done for the people – beyond the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, and the war with Amalek, all of which are mortal salvation. Saving a life is wonderful, but it isn’t inherently “beneficial” if people will die anyway. So what is the “goodness” over which Yitro rejoiced? Rashi mentions the providing of the Manna, the well (water), and the gift of the Torah.
Midrash Sechel Tov notes that the gift of Manna was that it could have any flavor (think how soy can be cooked to taste like anything), while the gift of the well was that its water could taste like old wine, new wine, milk, honey, and all kinds of delicious things.
One wonders if Roald Dahl was reading this Midrash when he put together Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. (I doubt he was reading the Midrash).
While the Midrash doesn’t continue to describe the benefits of the Torah, perhaps there are two possible reasons why.
Firstly, there is a debate whether Yitro came before the giving of the Torah, or after. There are several arguments for each direction, which we will not be going into now. Suffice it to say, this encounter is presented in the Torah before the giving of the Torah, on the one hand, while on the other hand, what law is Moshe presiding over in the second half of Chapter 18, if not Torah law?
Secondly, while there are certainly those who think that they can fit the Torah into any box that they want to, unlike the Manna and the well’s water, the Torah can’t taste like anything.
Surely there is much flexibility within the Torah lifestyle and halakha system to live a life under the service of God, while conforming to halakhic dictates. There will always be debates as to which is the “best” way to do things.
But just as there are debates in the Talmud about everything, there will be debates from now until the Messiah comes as to what is considered best practice. And that is OK. But there are some things which do not fit into the realm of the Torah’s ways. Whether one follows the “49 ways and 49 ways” (Sofrim 16), 48 ways (Eruvin 13b) or “70 faces” (Bamidbar Raba Naso 13), there is a limit to the number of ways of understanding the Torah which are “correct” or “acceptable.”
The challenge facing us is to know what fits in the realm of “Yeah” and what fits in the realm of “Nay.”
If Yitro rejoiced over the gift of the Torah, perhaps he rejoiced because it was good for the Jews and gave them a sense of purpose. And if, indeed, he became a Jew, he rejoiced over the role it could play in his life. However, it is unclear how Yitro came to grips with a Torah reality, as he soon departed from being with the Jewish people, to return home. Of course, some suggest he went home to convert others to Judaism. But that story is unclear.
Maybe Yitro suffered from the syndrome that some who join the Jewish people for motivations that are not completely sincere also suffer from. That when the going gets tough, commitment falls apart.
I cherish and know many Jews who converted from other faiths, who are dedicated, righteous, and who take their Judaism more seriously than many Jews-from-birth. Whether it is converts, or people who find themselves at odds with their upbringing – whether Chassidic, Lubavitch, Modern-Orthodox, Liberal – I hope everyone can find a place within the larger tent of Judaism that reflects of the 48, 49 or 70 faces, without abandoning it altogether.
After all, whether it was or was not for him, even Yitro knew that the Torah was considered one of the three great gifts that God gave to the Jewish people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Hard to See the Water, Hard to Change Your Life
Parshat B'Shalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
They traveled from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out to the Shur Wilderness, and they walked for three days in the wilderness and they did not find water. And they came to Marah, and they were unable to drink water from Marah, for they were bitter… (15:22-23)
Today we are going to ask two questions, leaving one unanswered, while learning a lesson from the second.
First: Where was the Yam Suf - Sea of Reeds – and the splitting of the sea (note how it’s not a ‘crossing of the sea’)?
Second: Is this the three day journey of which Moshe spoke?
The first question is wrought with controversy. Targum Yonatan notes the view that the sea split into twelve “lanes” to allow for each tribe to go through at the same time. With 3 million people going through the sea, this would maximize the efficiency while minimizing the amount of time it would take to get to the other side of the sea-walls.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
They traveled from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out to the Shur Wilderness, and they walked for three days in the wilderness and they did not find water. And they came to Marah, and they were unable to drink water from Marah, for they were bitter… (15:22-23)
Today we are going to ask two questions, leaving one unanswered, while learning a lesson from the second.
First: Where was the Yam Suf - Sea of Reeds – and the splitting of the sea (note how it’s not a ‘crossing of the sea’)?
Second: Is this the three day journey of which Moshe spoke?
The first question is wrought with controversy. Targum Yonatan notes the view that the sea split into twelve “lanes” to allow for each tribe to go through at the same time. With 3 million people going through the sea, this would maximize the efficiency while minimizing the amount of time it would take to get to the other side of the sea-walls.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Chiddush about Women and Tefillin
See here - the original post about Women and Tefillin - a list of links to articles and blog posts on the subject..
My shiur Shabbos afternoon was about women and tefillin. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article as part of my preparation. But one thought came to me afterwards based on the position of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (see his footnote there).
One of the suggested reasons why women should not wear tefillin is based on the rules surrounding how the body must be maintained while the tefillin are worn, what is called in halakha "guf naki." In simple terms - guf naki means no discharge can come from one's privates while wearing the tefillin. Since women can't control the menstrual discharge, then certainly until menopause or at least during those days of the month, the woman would be forbidden from wearing the tefillin out of respect for the honor owed to the tefillin.
One of the primary examples of a woman wearing tefillin appears in the Talmud in the form of the personality of Michal Bat Shaul. She is assumed to have been super righteous, so much so that her motivation was pure and the rabbis did not reprove her for her "untraditional" practice. Even though she was the only woman doing this.
But, in light of Rabbi Melamed, might I suggest another possibility as to why Michal was the only example the rabbis could come up with: The verse tells us in Shmuel II 6:23 that Michal never had children. Could it be she never menstruated, and then, unlike other women, the reasons why the rabbis didn't bother her was because her "guf naki" issue was a non-issue?
Just a thought?
My shiur Shabbos afternoon was about women and tefillin. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article as part of my preparation. But one thought came to me afterwards based on the position of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (see his footnote there).
One of the suggested reasons why women should not wear tefillin is based on the rules surrounding how the body must be maintained while the tefillin are worn, what is called in halakha "guf naki." In simple terms - guf naki means no discharge can come from one's privates while wearing the tefillin. Since women can't control the menstrual discharge, then certainly until menopause or at least during those days of the month, the woman would be forbidden from wearing the tefillin out of respect for the honor owed to the tefillin.
One of the primary examples of a woman wearing tefillin appears in the Talmud in the form of the personality of Michal Bat Shaul. She is assumed to have been super righteous, so much so that her motivation was pure and the rabbis did not reprove her for her "untraditional" practice. Even though she was the only woman doing this.
But, in light of Rabbi Melamed, might I suggest another possibility as to why Michal was the only example the rabbis could come up with: The verse tells us in Shmuel II 6:23 that Michal never had children. Could it be she never menstruated, and then, unlike other women, the reasons why the rabbis didn't bother her was because her "guf naki" issue was a non-issue?
Just a thought?
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Adjusting After Interactions = Lesson Learned!
Parshat Bo
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Four of the plagues involve living creatures coming to disturb the lives of the Egyptians: Frogs, Lice, Arov (purposely not translating as this one is complicated to identify), and the locusts. During the plagues of frogs and Arov, as well as before and after the locusts come, does Pharaoh admit wrongdoing or offer to let the Israelites go. There is no communication with Moshe and Aharon before, during or immediately after the lice. [He also offers to let them leave during the plagues of hail and darkness, changing his mind after each plague ended.]
If we pay careful attention to the language in the Torah, we see lessons being learned by Pharaoh, Moshe and Aharon, and even God. How so?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Four of the plagues involve living creatures coming to disturb the lives of the Egyptians: Frogs, Lice, Arov (purposely not translating as this one is complicated to identify), and the locusts. During the plagues of frogs and Arov, as well as before and after the locusts come, does Pharaoh admit wrongdoing or offer to let the Israelites go. There is no communication with Moshe and Aharon before, during or immediately after the lice. [He also offers to let them leave during the plagues of hail and darkness, changing his mind after each plague ended.]
If we pay careful attention to the language in the Torah, we see lessons being learned by Pharaoh, Moshe and Aharon, and even God. How so?
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Amram and Yocheved - A Forbidden Relationship?
Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
Shabbos in Boynton Beach
The highest traffic post on this blog is this first time I wrote about Shabbos in Boynton Beach. It's time for an update!
The stat is not that surprising, considering that a lot of people have connections to Boynton Beach, either through a friend or, quite often, an elderly parent who lives in the area, and they are looking to find the Orthodox Jewish Boynton Beach, so they can find the services that will help them have the kind of Shabbos they are looking for.
Things have changed mightily since that October 2009 blog post, as the neighborhood has undergone a tremendous upheaval - in a good way.
Since those days, the shul where I was a visiting rabbi, Anshei Chesed, has moved, has built a new building, has a full-website, a full calendar of activities, and, just last month, installed me as the first full-time rabbi!
COMMUNITY GROWTH
The community has grown exponentially. So many people have moved in - both to "snowbird" homes, and as full-time residents. There are a few more families with children, and many many more retired and semi-retired couples who have found their way to this hovel of Orthodoxy in the middle of Palm Beach County.
Kosher stats: One kosher restaurant; a significantly kosher variety, including a completely kosher bakery, at the local BJ's; ditto for Costco, which is about a 12-15 minute drive away; a fully kosher supermarket with a prepared foods counter, under the ORB, in Delray Beach - which is a 10 minute drive away. And, of course, all the local supermarkets (several Publix within 4 minutes from the shul, two Targets, etc) carry kosher products.
Eruv: The community Eruv is very large, encompassing a large area in Boynton Beach, from the turnpike to the I-95, 1.5 miles north of the shul, and 2.5 miles south of the shul. Kudos to Rabbi Ciment of Chabad for seeing to the construction of the Eruv, under the guidance of Eruv experts from Miami.
Anshei Chesed features daily minyan, morning and evening, all year round. Thank God, we have not had trouble getting a minyan, even in the "slow season" during the summer.
SHABBOS
Every Shabbos has an increasingly larger crowd - especially during December and January, and Pesach time, the busiest seasons of the year. We also have a teen minyan which meets several times a month, and we'll hopefully soon be starting a hashkama minyan on Shabbos morning.
I still speak 5 times on a typical Shabbos:
1. Friday night - before Bameh Madlikin, 2. Shabbos morning - Chumash class before davening, 3. Morning sermon, 4. Afternoon class - halakha or some timely subject, 5. Seudah Shlishit - short dvar Torah.
With God's help we will continue to grow. If you're planning to spend Shabbos in Boynton Beach, come by our shul! You will love our quiet, respectful davening and our friendly crowd at kiddush. Hopefully you'll also enjoy the other features of our shul, community, members and guests that make our shul a uniquely special place.
The stat is not that surprising, considering that a lot of people have connections to Boynton Beach, either through a friend or, quite often, an elderly parent who lives in the area, and they are looking to find the Orthodox Jewish Boynton Beach, so they can find the services that will help them have the kind of Shabbos they are looking for.
Things have changed mightily since that October 2009 blog post, as the neighborhood has undergone a tremendous upheaval - in a good way.
Since those days, the shul where I was a visiting rabbi, Anshei Chesed, has moved, has built a new building, has a full-website, a full calendar of activities, and, just last month, installed me as the first full-time rabbi!
COMMUNITY GROWTH
The community has grown exponentially. So many people have moved in - both to "snowbird" homes, and as full-time residents. There are a few more families with children, and many many more retired and semi-retired couples who have found their way to this hovel of Orthodoxy in the middle of Palm Beach County.
Kosher stats: One kosher restaurant; a significantly kosher variety, including a completely kosher bakery, at the local BJ's; ditto for Costco, which is about a 12-15 minute drive away; a fully kosher supermarket with a prepared foods counter, under the ORB, in Delray Beach - which is a 10 minute drive away. And, of course, all the local supermarkets (several Publix within 4 minutes from the shul, two Targets, etc) carry kosher products.
Eruv: The community Eruv is very large, encompassing a large area in Boynton Beach, from the turnpike to the I-95, 1.5 miles north of the shul, and 2.5 miles south of the shul. Kudos to Rabbi Ciment of Chabad for seeing to the construction of the Eruv, under the guidance of Eruv experts from Miami.
Anshei Chesed features daily minyan, morning and evening, all year round. Thank God, we have not had trouble getting a minyan, even in the "slow season" during the summer.
SHABBOS
Every Shabbos has an increasingly larger crowd - especially during December and January, and Pesach time, the busiest seasons of the year. We also have a teen minyan which meets several times a month, and we'll hopefully soon be starting a hashkama minyan on Shabbos morning.
I still speak 5 times on a typical Shabbos:
1. Friday night - before Bameh Madlikin, 2. Shabbos morning - Chumash class before davening, 3. Morning sermon, 4. Afternoon class - halakha or some timely subject, 5. Seudah Shlishit - short dvar Torah.
With God's help we will continue to grow. If you're planning to spend Shabbos in Boynton Beach, come by our shul! You will love our quiet, respectful davening and our friendly crowd at kiddush. Hopefully you'll also enjoy the other features of our shul, community, members and guests that make our shul a uniquely special place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)