Synagogues were packed for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In stark contrast, just five days after Yom Kippur, when Succot, the Holiday of Booths arrives, synagogues are empty. But the truth is, Succot is more reflective of the genuine Jewish spirit than is Yom Kippur.

In his Ish Ha-Halakha, Halakhic Man, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, distinguishes between the universal religious person and the Jewish religious person. A universal religious person perceives the body and soul to be in conflict. For this individual, the pathway to spiritual bliss is the rejection of the body, the limiting of the physical, and the escaping from these worldly pleasures. This is the philosophy of fundamental Christianity, of the Eastern religions. Theirs is a world of asceticism, of self-denial.

For the Ish Ha-Halakhah, however, the body is neither to be glorified nor denigrated, diefied nor rejected; rather it is to be sanctified. The pathway to spirituality is not the rejection of the physical, but rather the discovery of meaning and spirituality within it. For the Ish Ha-Halakhah, there is no activity devoid of religious significance. The way one loves, the way one conducts himself-herself in business, the way one eats, are all no less holy than praying and fasting.

Viewed in a vacuum, Yom Kippur is the universal religious experience, an escape from this-worldly pleasures. Those activities that are associated with life energy, such as eating and cohabitation, are prohibited. On Yom Kippur, we look more like angels than people, as we wear white and wear no shoes. Yom Kippur is a simulation of death, intended to help us better appreciate life. It is a dramatic educational tool, used to remind people of the value of life.

Succot arrives on the heels of Yom Kippur so that no one would mistakenly think that Yom Kippur is the normative Jewish experience. Succot is a corrective, a counterweight to Yom Kippur.

In absolute contrast with Yom Kippur, Succot is the holiday that celebrates the physical. We eat in the Succa booth whose roof must be constructed from that which grows from the ground. We take the fruit of the land-the four species-and joyously recite blessings over them, using them as instruments through which we sing songs and praises to God. With all of this we sanctify the mundane and we elevate the physical. We compress the infinite spirit of God into the finite world. We elevate earth to heaven, and draw heaven down to earth. Far from a fanciful flight from the world, Succot is a sanctification of the world.

A chasid living in Minsk decided to seek the heavenly world that was in Pinsk. Overnight, he slept in an open field, having carefully left his shoes pointed in the direction of Pinsk. As he slept, a scoundrel came by and turned his shoes around. The next morning the chasid continued on in the direction that he found his shoes to be pointing in. When he reached his destination, he noticed landscape, streets, homes and people that all seemed familiar. He was puzzled, but delighted to have found heavenly bliss. Heaven on Earth. This is the mission of the Ish Ha-Halakhah and such is the message of Succot, to find spirituality in earthliness. Sadly, for most Jewish Americans, however, there is only Yom Kippur, and not Succot. Taken by itself, Yom Kippur cannot communicate the goal of Judaism. Only in context, when experienced together with Succot can we understand Yom Kippur’s message properly.

Rabbi Kook in his treatise on Torah learning, Orot HaTorah, states that just as the Jewish People can only attain their highest level of self-expression in the land of Israel, so too, an individual Jew can only attain maximum spiritual potential through the learning of Torah, for the Torah is the spiritual environment suited to the uniqueness of the Jewish soul.
Just as the Jewish people outside to the land of Israel are compared to dry scattered bones in the prophesy of Ezekiel, so too a Jew without Torah is like a zombie, a physical body without a living soul. This finds expression in the blessing before the Shema in the evening prayer where we declare that the words of Torah are our life and the length of our days.

Rabbi Akiva was teaching that life without Torah for a Jew is simply not living.
Our sages teach that every new year begins with a process of increasing happiness that reaches a climax on Simchat Torah. On Rosh Hashanah the Jewish people experience the joy of knowing that G-d will judge us in mercy. On Yom Kippur our joy is increased when all of our sins are forgiven. Our happiness is magnified even more when the Clouds of Glory of G-d’s loving kindness and protection surround us during the holiday of Succot. Finally, the zenith of our joy comes on Simchat Torah when we are infused with the knowledge that we are G-d’s Chosen People, exalted with the joy of knowing that his presence is ever amongst us in the great gift of his Torah. On this day we have but one mitzvah – to be totally joyous.

In 1990, we had the beginnings of the massive immigration from the Soviet Union. Towards the end of my year in Israel, in May of 1991, we witnessed the miraculous Operation Shlomo, which brought to Israel tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews. Today we are also seeing signs of Tkiah; increased immigration from Argentina and France; the wonderful project of Nefesh B´Nefesh bringing American olim to Israel; and even here in Efrat, dozens of new families moving into our neighborhood, despite the "matzav".

The reference to goyim and amim in The Grievance of the People of Israel in the Torah section may be co-incidental. There, in his concluding part, author Yosef Ben Shlomo Hakohen states as follows:

And in his footnotes he adds:

Indeed, the territorial basis of nations is mostly founded on history, religion and language, which are the most common binding factors, and little on the identity of individual peoples. The most important adhesive force between different peoples living on the same patch of land is tolerance based on mutual acceptance, not exclusivity, and here comes in the role of religious belief. I believe that ideally there should be one worshipping place embracing all faiths together with no distinction between sects and religion.

Experience is currently showing us the failure of the fairly large nation-state and the ever growing support for the smaller, neighbourhood political structure such as the kibbutz and, at local government level, the city-state. As I see it, future democracy will be based on world government made up of several tiny city-states evolving into larger non-political complexes over decades.

This, I opine, would be the blue-print for a world government.

One thing to consider is that there is to be enough land for persons. We would also need a considerable amount of terraforming, both environmental, especially insofar as water and energy go, and the engineering of democratic-economic units able to sustain small, but growing, neighbourhoods. The big nation-state, or worse still confederation of large states, is slowly being done away with as history shows.

Countries have till now been formed through history, according to the experiences of each era, by the evolution of smaller regions and princely governments, besides other similar factors. Yet if we were to conduct a study by DNA classification, we would find that ethnic realities are much more different and inconsistent than we believe.

We need also develop a reliable system of conflict resolution. A place where to experiment all this and hopefully put it into practice is Africa, a veritable geographical mass of sub-saharan, tribes, religions and languages which have been joined together and split up according to the exigencies of colonial powers. Now they are getting to confederate, which will be a long-term process, I suppose. It is to be remembered that most of the existing African nations are full fledged members of the Commonwealth, which institution is very symptomatic of the shape of worldwide political things to come.

If the Afghan loya jirga held earlier this year was an exercise in patching up war-lords and territorial governors together to form one single political state, any other type of political mega-federalism or enforced union is the counter-risposte to the definition of geographical units as developing in the future from individual city-states.

The story of Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit, a major topic in this week’s Torah portion, is perhaps one of the most famous Biblical stories. Warned by G-d to refrain from eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that is in the midst of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve ignore the divine command. It is puzzling how they could have acted that way since before they ate from the tree evil was not a part of their psychological makeup – they were pure of sin, having no shame of their own nakedness. (see Gen 2:25) While the text makes it clear that the tree was quite attractive, it is still difficult to believe that such an enticement would lead Adam and Eve to transgress. What happened that they disobeyed the Almighty?!

While the snake brought the tree to Eve’s attention, and claimed that "on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5), it is hard to imagine that this is what drove Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. The narrative makes clear that to Eve the tree appeared "good to eat, desirable to look at, and a pleasant means to acquire wisdom" (Gen 2:6). But there is no mention of the tree as a vehicle to their become G-d’s equal. Rather, it is a higher level of wisdom they were ultimately seeking.

The Madregat Adam (great 19th century rabbi) offers a widely accepted interpretation. He says that Adam and Eve never intended to revolt against G-d. Quite the contrary, they viewed eating the fruit as a means to elevate themselves to a higher level of service to G-d. Realizing that the "yetzer hara," the evil inclination, was not a part of their psychological make up, they felt flawed in their ability to serve G-d in as lofty a manner as possible. Service of G-d is most significantly exemplified when someone faces a challenge - and acts as the Almighty would want us to act.

For Adam and Eve there were no such challenges, for they lacked the internal desire to do anything against G-d’s will. They reasoned that eating the fruit would allow them, for the first time, to feel the internal tug of war between the "yetzer hara" and the "yetzer hatov" (the desire to do good). They reasoned that facing and overcoming such challenges would demonstrate greater loyalty to G-d.

What the two failed to realize, however, was that they would be generating conflicts that they may not be able to overcome. Though intended to better show their loyalty to the Almighty, these tests proved to be their downfall. According to the Madregat Adam, the sin of Adam and Eve was not in disobeying G-d. Rather, it was their failure to appreciate how much G-d really understood them.

G-d has the greatest understanding of human beings – who they are and what they are (and are not) capable of achieving. If G-d says you shouldn’t eat from the fruit because it will cause problems, then the right thing to do is to listen to G-d! G-d created us and certainly He knows us best of all. When we abandon the parameters laid down by our Creator, we are opening ourselves up to unfortunate circumstances.

For thousands of years, Jews have understood the importance of hearkening to all G-d’s commands - not only because they are expressions of His will - but also because we know that following them is truly what’s best for us.

The first Rashi in the Torah asks: Why did the Torah start with the story of Bereishit (accounting of the creation of the world)? It would make more sense if the Torah began with the first Mitzvah of "Hachodesh", the laws of sanctifying the new month.

The simple explanation is that in case that the nations of the world should say to Israel: "You are robbers, for you seized by force the lands of the seven nations [of Kena’an]", they [Israel] could say to them, "the entire world belongs to G-d (lit. the whole land), He created it and gave it to whoever was right in his eyes. Of His own will He gave it to them and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us."

1) The Ramban asks: What is wrong with telling us about the creation. Isn’t belief in G-d also a Mitzvah, the foundation of everything?

2) What about the stories in the Torah which are after ‘Hachodesh’? They are not Mitzvot, yet Rashi does not seem to have a problem with them.

3) How can Rashi say that up until ‘Hachodesh’ the Torah only teaches us history? What about all the other Mitzvot written there, the commandments involving having children, Brit Milah and Gid Hanashe?

4) The entire world belongs to G-d". This is understood from the first verse in the Torah. What then do the stories of Noach, Avraham etc. add to that information?

5) "You stole the land from the seven nations". Noach gave the land of Israel to his son Shem (from whom the Jewish people are directly descended). Kena’an later took it away from Shem. What then is their claim on the land? If anything WE should have a claim against them?

6) How can it be said that conquering land is considered theft? Even according to the Noachide laws, (which includes theft) there still has not been a nation that considered conquering land to be stealing.

7) "The entire world belongs to G-d". How does this help argue that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people? Would it not be enough to say, "Israel (and only Israel) belongs to G-d"? What idea does mentioning Hashem’s possession of the "rest of the world" bring to light?

8) "The entire world belongs to G-d". Shouldn’t this fact be mentioned first? "He gave it to whoever was right in his eyes. Of His own will He gave it to them and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us".

9) Why is the term "whomever" (was right in his eyes) general, yet "He took it from THEM and gave it to US", specific?

10) "Of His own will He gave it to them". Why is this part of the answer? Why do we have to know He gave it to them? Isn’t the point that it was given to US!?

11) "Of His own will He gave it to them". Where in the Torah do we find that He actually gave it to them willingly?

"Hachodesh" was the first Mitzvah given to us as a Jewish nation after leaving Egypt. Any Mitzvot mentioned earlier, (like Brit Milah), though it made us different from the other nations, it did not make us "The Chosen Nation". (The Torah teaches us that not all gentile nations are to be treated equally. There are laws that tell us the different ways to deal with specific nations, Edom and Amon for instance.) Even before ‘Hachodesh,’ the Jewish people had been different but not given the title of ‘G-d’s chosen nation’. Therefore, Mitzvot given prior to ‘Hachodesh’ would not be needed to be written in the Torah. They could have been written in a separate book or transmitted from father to son, just as the other nations in the world went about teaching their children the 7 Noachide laws. (3)

When we conquered the land we caused an essential change in the land itself. It became the Holy Land. This is not like regular physical war. We stole it because unlike other seized (!) lands this one could never again become a regular country. (5,6)

This is why we say the whole land (world) belongs to him. It wasn’t only territory that was conquered; it was the inner, deeper dimension that was taken with it.How was that made possible? Because "He created it". This line is not coming to tell us who owns it, rather it telling us that it was created by G-d with a deeper dimension as well. (7,8)

This, however, is not a satisfactory answer for the nations. They can still claim that it is not fair to take away the opportunity from any nation in the world to take the land back from the Jewish people. Before it became the Holy Land, it was like any regular country where the strongest nation could and would own it. By making it holy the entire world was robbed of the possibility to seize it.To that we answer: "He created it and gave it" –in His mind already then, at the time of creation, "to whoever was right in his eyes" i.e. the Jewish people. (9)

Now we have reason to complain! If the land always belonged to us, why then did Hashem ‘steal’ it from US for so long? If in His mind it belonged to us already since creation, why did it have to pass through other hands first?"Of His own will He gave it to them and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us ". The same will that decided to give it to us gave it to them for so long. Hashem wanted us to get the land by conquering it from the nations. A Jew always has to transform worldly matters (land that belongs to gentile nations) and make them holy. We have to read it as follows: "The divine will that decided right from the beginning that this land would belong to the chosen nation, wanted that it should first belong to other nations in order that the Jews would have to conquer it from them. (10,11)

Now we can understand why all the stories are included in the Torah. First we learn that the land goes to Shem. As soon as Kena’an takes it away (G-d’s intention being that it should belong to gentiles), Hashem tells Avraham that the land actually belongs to his descendants but they would first have to go through Egypt in order to ‘work’ for it. Following Yetziat Mitzraim is the account of all that transpired until we actually ended up in the Promised Land. All the stories in the Torah deal with the journey to the final destination. (1,2)
Torah means teachings. Aside for this being an argument against any gentile claims on the land, what lesson does all this come to teach us in our personal lives?

Before we reach the level of being the "chosen nation", living higher than the world, we have to deal with the gentiles, our inner ‘gentile’, the stranger in us who doesn’t recognize Hashem.

May we merit to see the time when all the nations of the world will know that He created the world and made us His chosen nation and gave us our Holy Land with the coming of Moshiach now!

In recognition of the earlier age of physical, emotional and social maturity arrived at by women as compared to men, the age of bat mitzva as established by Jewish tradition is twelve, instead of the thirteen years for the bar mitzva of young men. As the name bat mitzvah implies - a daughter of obligations and responsibilities - girls at age twelve become obligated and responsible as to the ritual requirements of Jewish life. Naturally, it is presupposed that the young woman has previously achieved knowledge and training in these ritual requirements during her childhood so that the transition to becoming a bat mitzvah is usually smooth and seamless. As in the case of bar mitzvah, bat mitzvah celebrations and commemorations have undergone many societal changes throughout Jewish history. Only the fact of bat mitzvah itself and its marking of the coming of age and responsibility of Jewish women has remained constant throughout time.

For many centuries of Jewish life, both in the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, in fact until our time, the bat mitzvah commemoration for a Jewish girl remained a private, family-oriented, self-limiting event. Perhaps, there was a dinner held at home, the girl received the blessings of her family and that was pretty much it. The same thing in the main was true of her brother at his bar mitzva, for in most times in Jewish life, no special commemoration ensued at the age of thirteen except for the fact that the young man was called to receive an honor at the Torah reading of the week. Over the past century, the bar mitzva commemmoration has become much more public, elaborate and expensive. Over the past decades, this has become true for bat mitzvah celebrations as well.

The expansion of the bat mitzvah ceremony parallels the changing role and newly intensive forms of Jewish education for women. It is quite common today for the young woman to deliver a scholarly talk about a Torah subject at her bat mitzvah ceremony. Whether this talk is given in the synagogue at the completion of the Sabbath services, at the party celebration or in her home at the family dinner is a societal matter of differing custom within various Jewish communities. Many times, the talk is devoted to the lessons of life derived from the great Jewish heroines and personalities of the Bible and Talmud. Miriam, Esther, Ruth and Bruriah (the scholarly wife of Rabbi Meir of Talmudic fame) are often chosen as the centerpieces of bat mitzvah discourses. However, as more women now study Mishna and Talmud as well as Bible, the bat mitzva´s presentation may more closely resemble that of her brother at his bar mitzvah, in content, style and scholarship.

Many Jewish societies have the custom of introducing a woman to the commandment of lighting Sabbath candles when she attains the age of Bat Mitzva. In other communities, the obligation of performing this holy act of sanctification, which brings the blessings of the Sabbath into the Jewish home, is postponed until the time when a woman marries. Many young girls at their bat mitzvah also start to take instruction in baking challah, the special bread of Sabbath, which is associated with the commandment of removing a tithe of dough - "challah" - from the batter before baking. It is interesting to note that the name of the bread is taken from the commandment involved in its preparation and baking, namely challah.

Though Jewish women in our world are no longer restricted to the kitchen as their only endeavor in life, the baking of challah remains a cherished task for many and is eagerly pursued by thousands of young women reaching the age of Bat Mitzvah. Oftentimes, as with Bat Mitzvah, it is the private ritual performed with enthusiasm and joy in one´s home that marks the true spirit of becoming Bat Mitzvah more than the public scholarly performance and party that is for many today part of the ceremony marking the young woman´s Bat Mitzvah.

In the Haggada it is written, "In every generation, man is obligated to view himself as if he actually left Egypt." Reading the Haggada at the seder is insufficient. In order to properly tell over the story of the exodus, every Jew is obligated to relive the story by feeling as if he were enslaved in Egypt and God, in His great mercy, took him out of Egypt.

Let us go back in time over 3,300 years. We are now slaves in Egypt. As slaves, we have no independence, few possessions and much hardship. Suddenly, a leader rises from among us. He claims that he has experienced divine revelation and that God has told him to take the Israelites out of Egypt. The Egyptian hierarchy laughs upon hearing about this so-called prophet, Moshe. When the Israelites hear of Moshe, the response sounds like this: "A likely story! We´re slaves! What makes Moshe think that he can take us out of Egypt? We´ve been here for so long. Who are we? We´re slaves and we belong here in Egypt. Pharaoh will never let us leave!"

Moshe then begins to flex his muscles. He starts showing the Egyptians that he means business and that he really is God´s messenger to take the Israelites out of Egypt. First he does some small miracles, like transforming a staff into a snake, but the Egyptians aren´t convinced. He then brings out the heavy artillery; he and his brother Aharon go out to the Nile, the source of life for the Egyptian people, and suddenly turn it to blood. Then he summons frogs from the Nile and then he brings an infestation of lice upon the Egyptians.

The Israelites begin to think, "Hey, this guy Moshe is for real. Maybe he is a messenger of God, and he really will take us out of Egypt. Wow! These miracles are definitely divine!"

As the plagues continue, the hope and longing for redemption grows among the Israelites. They remember hearing from their parents and grandparents that they are descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya´akov, and that they were promised to be brought out of exile to the land of Canaan. The Israelites realize that they really are special and God-chosen, because the plagues are affecting the Egyptians, but not the Israelites.

"This definitely isn´t coincidental. God is going to take us out of Egypt!"

After seeing so many miracles and plagues which afflicted the Egyptians, any Israelite would follow Moshe and his God into the desert. Any thinking Israelite would prefer personal and national freedom rather than hardship and slavery in Egypt. However, our rabbis (Tanchuma, Beshalach) teach that when the Israelites left Egypt, only one out of five actually left Egypt. The other 80% of the Israelites died in the plague of darkness and were buried by their fellow Israelites. There is an opinion in the midrash that only one out of 50 left Egypt. There is even an opinion that only one out of 500 Israelites left Egypt and that the remainder died during the plague of darkness.

Apparently, there were some Israelites who were not so captivated by Moshe and the show that he and his God put on in Egypt. Despite the supernatural miracles, at least 80% of the Israelites were not convinced, did not believe in God and were left in Egypt. They were too set in their ways and too accustomed to their lifestyles as slaves to recognize that the redemption was occurring in front of their eyes. The exile had become part of their nature and they were unable to take the small step of faith required to follow God into the desert and to gain personal and national freedom.

Every Jew, on the night of the Seder must ask himself the following question: "What would I have done had I been in Egypt? Would I have seen God´s hand and followed him into the desert? Would I have wanted to become part of his chosen nation, to receive His Torah and to receive a portion in His land? Would I have woken up or would I have been too set in my ways, too accustomed to the exile, and too psychologically lethargic to be redeemed?"

In our times, God has made it easier for us to visualize this situation. To answer this question, a Jew does not have to pretend he is a slave. A Jew does not have to go back 3,300 years and dress up like an ancient Egyptian. All one has to do is to look at the changes which have occurred to the Jewish people over the last 50 years. Since the War for Israeli Independence in 1948, God has been showing the Jewish people miracles. God granted us a state and, for the first time in 2000 years, gave us national independence. We won a war against our surrounding neighbors with a makeshift army.

The hand of God was clearly shown again in 1967. Against all odds we defeated our enemies on all fronts. Another miracle! It happened yet again in 1973. Our enemies surprised us, but we were able to defeat them with the help of God. In 1991, dozens of missiles miraculously caused only one fatality. Now the Jewish population of the state of Israel has grown tenfold since its inception. In the land of Israel, God is fulfilling the prophecies of returning the lost exiles from Russia, Yemen, Ethiopia and from all over the world.

On the Seder night, every Jew must ask himself a simple question: "Do I recognize the great miracles God is performing for His people? Do I realize that the redemption is occurring in front of my eyes and the words of the prophets are being fulfilled in our time? Am I willing to follow God into the land promised to our forefathers? Am I willing to gain national independence and personal freedom by leaving the exile and following God into the land of Israel, our homeland? Or am I too set in my ways to recognize the miracles that God is doing? Am I content to live under the rule of foreign nations, because I am so accustomed to 2000 years of exile? Am I too psychologically lethargic, after so many years of exile, to actually change my lifestyle and to be redeemed?" In the Haggada it is said about the wicked son, "If you were there [in Egypt at the time of the exodus], you would not have been redeemed." In order to be redeemed from our current exile, every Jew must open his eyes and become part of the redemption which is unfolding in front of his eyes.

The prophet (Jeremiah 2:2) relates that God remembers the exodus from Egypt as "the righteousness of your youth, and the love of your beloved, you walked after me into the desert, into a barren land." In our generation, we have been placed in a similar situation as the Israelites of 3,300 years ago. Like our forefathers, we can show God our willingness to leave a land that is not ours and to follow Him into the desert. If God will see that we are willing to follow him, He will complete the redemption process.

I wish all of our entire nation the blessing we say at the Seder before recounting the story of leaving Egypt: "Now we are here, next year may we be in the land of Israel. Now we are slaves, next year may we be free."

In recent years, Rabbi Dr. Yigal Shafran has been forced to cope with an immense workload. Hardly a day passes without a report from this or that group of scientists specializing in biotechnology about yet another breakthrough in the field. As a rabbi with a Ph.D. in socioethics, he must tackle an ever-increasing number of tough questions that pose a challenge for the laws of halakha (Jewish religious law).

In their laboratories, scientists today are developing genetically engineered goats some of whose genes are human, are perfecting the technology of cloning (genetic replication), and are hoping to eventually discover what ailments a child will have while he or she is still in the womb.

All these developments have created a new reality, are changing the way people think and are raising possibilities that, up until a few years ago, no one would ever have imagined existed, especially in the eras when the Talmud and the Shulkhan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) were written. Halakha, which provides detailed instructions on how we should act at every moment of our lives - even to the extent of telling us which shoe, right or left, we should lace up first - now faces serious questions to which there are no unequivocal answers.

Rabbi Dr. Yigal Shafran is unique: Not only is he an expert in halakhic matters, but he is also very familiar with the ethical arguments utilized in humanistic-universal discussions. He heads the Department of Jewish Medical Ethics in the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem; is a senior teaching associate in bioethics in the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine of the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa; and is also a lecturer in medical ethics at the Hebrew University - Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem. Although he believes that science is dedicated to improving the lot of humanity, there are certain religious axioms that he will never change (for example, "There is no greater emotional distress than that of a woman who is unable to give birth"). Thus, it is not all that surprising that he supports the blood-chilling possibility of human cloning.

A major challenge to halakha is being presented by genetic research, which was accelerated in the late 1980s with the launching of the project to decipher the human genome. In the context of the stepped-up genetic research, various groups of researchers began to claim that they had found genes that influence not only physical characteristics such as the color of one’s eyes, but also personality traits and behavior.

On the same week that the scheduled interview with Shafran was supposed to take place, researchers reported for the umpteenth time the discovery of yet another gene that might be related to personality traits. The "gene of the week" this time was the violence gene. If violence could be attributable to a gene, said Shafran, that could create a giant problem, because Maimonides tells us that all human beings have a certain degree of free choice and that they are therefore responsible for their actions.

Such research work on personality and behavioral genes is on a collision course "with the principle that the individual has free choice. A basic condition of the system of reward and punishment is the element of free choice," Shafran points out. "When the human genome project was launched and we began to hear about ideas that genes determine not only physical tendencies but also spiritual ones, I recall that I wrote a letter to a friend, who is a very, very centrally-placed rabbi. I wrote him that the French are now claiming that they have discovered a gene that is responsible for rebellion against religious concepts and that anti-religious positions can now be attributable to genes.

"In my letter, I asked, `How can this fit in with our approach that we can punish people for turning their back on the Torah and on Judaism’s commandments?’ Suddenly, people were beginning to argue that those who rebel against religious concepts do so because of some problem in their biopsychological mechanism. He wrote me back: `Look, this simply does not hold water, it makes no sense.’ He did not believe that there were such genes.

"Undeniably, these developments create problems in the religious sphere. Answers can be found for these problems; however, it would be wrong to simply dismiss these questions as sheer nonsense. Here is a classic example. We punish two violent individuals and mete out to each of them the same punishment, although it is possible that one of them has a stronger tendency toward violence than the other. Yet we put both individuals in the same boat, hand them down the same punishment, place them in the same category of penalty. Thus, it must be admitted that the new developments in genetic research will force the rabbinical courts to place even greater emphasis on its tendency to avoid adherence to the dry letter of the law but to instead investigate and examine each matter on its own merits."

Some researchers are claiming that a gene is responsible for homosexuality. If that is the case, will you still regard homosexuality as an abomination?

"The Talmud tells us that some people have a tendency toward homosexuality but emphasizes the point that human beings have the capacity for controlling that tendency. This position is diametrically opposed to the modern view that homosexuality is an uncontrollable urge. The homosexual urge is different from the heterosexual drive, which must be satisfied at a specific stage, because it is part of human nature. The homosexual urge can be controlled. According to the religious perspective, every evil impulse can be overcome

"Free will must be perceived as existing within a framework of limitations because everything is God’s will. Free will exists up to a certain point. Let me illustrate with the example of a dog on a chain. The dog can move about, subject to the restrictions of the chain, but when the dog reaches the end of the chain, no further movement in an outward direction is possible. The same holds true for free will. All human beings have freedom of choice - within the limitations imposed by the chain."

But reading the human genome is enticing scientists to move on to the second stage, the stage of genetic engineering. Today, for example, there is a goat into whose genome a spider’s genes have been inserted. The question is how many genetic changes can be made in an organism until you have actually changed its essence and transformed it into something altogether different. If a cud-chewing pig were to be created through genetic engineering, would such an animal be kosher?

Although the very idea turned Shafran’s stomach, he recruited a counter-argument from the area of emotions and Jewish folklore, rather than from halakha. According to Shafran, the non-kosher nature of the pig is different from that of the camel or the rabbit: "The pig became the symbol of the denial of liberty to the Jews in their own land. The emblem of the Roman legion that captured the Holy Land was a wild boar, and this is how the ethos of the pig’s negation developed."

If we were to turn a less problematic animal - say, the camel, for instance - into a hooved creature, would it then be kosher?

"If that were to happen, it is quite possible that such an animal would be kosher."

Approximately since the second century C.E., Judaism has adopted the view that a child’s ethnic identity is determined by the mother’s. Thus, if the mother is Jewish, so is the child. This halakhic principle has held its ground for centuries and has remained relevant even after the emergence in the 1970s of a new technology that substantially changed the options available for bringing children into the world: in vitro fertilization.

In recent years, however, matters have become increasingly complicated. Women whose ova could not be fertilized began to use a donor’s ova. Reality became even more complicated when, two years ago, Israeli physicians began to import fertilized ova from women living in Romania.

Who is the mother? The woman who gave birth to the child? Or perhaps the woman from whom the ova were taken?

The answer, notes Shafran, "depends on which of four different and irreconciliable halakhic approaches is chosen." According to one of these approaches, the mother is the one from whom the ovum was taken. The result: The infant to be born will not be Jewish. Shafran points out that senior rabbinical authorities such as Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and the late Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach once issued a rabbinic ruling according to which, in a case where the ova were provided by a donor, the child belongs to the donor-mother.

However, according to Shafran, the second approach is the more widely accepted. According to this approach, the child belongs to the mother who delivered it and is therefore Jewish. According to the third approach, the child has two mothers and each of them has status with regard to certain laws. According to the fourth approach, the child has no mother, because each of them has offset the function of the other.

"In line with this approach," says Shafran, "there is no problem involved in taking an ovum from a non-Jewish woman. However, we do not like the idea of a child who has no mother." He himself is totally opposed to the importation of ova from Romania - on humanitarian grounds. This is exploitation of women in distress, he argues: "The essential fact here is that the ova are being imported from Romania." (That is, from a country that is in economic distress, and not from, say, a Western European country.)

The disagreement over donation of ova is a concrete example of the difficulties halakha faces in trying to keep abreast of the pace of changes being generated by the research of scientists and physicians. In the final analysis, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman interested in receiving an ovum donation will consult her rabbi and will act in accordance with his ruling in her case. However, strictly religious people are accustomed to receiving unequivocal answers on every detail in daily life. Thus, questions concerning ovum donation and related matters could create a serious dilemma in a religious community.

Bringing children into the world is so important from the halakhic perspective (infertility creates "supreme emotional distress in a woman’s life," Shafran emphasizes) that, in his opinion, cloning is a completely legitimate method of bringing a child into the world. So far, cloning has been carried out only on animals. In the cloning process, a cell is taken from the animal to be cloned and the cell’s nucleus - which contains nearly all the necessary genetic information - is inserted into an ovum whose nucleus has been removed. Generally speaking, a small electric charge is applied to the ovum in order to "glue together" the ovum and the nucleus. The ovum begins to multiply as if it had been fertilized by semen. The offspring resulting from this process will be a genetic carbon-copy of the animal that donated the cell.

The first mammal to be cloned in this manner was a sheep - Dolly. In Dolly’s case, the goal of the cloning process was to replicate farm animals with selected characteristics oriented toward agricultural needs. The same is true for all the other animals that were cloned after Dolly, including goats, cows and pigs. They were cloned to create an entire series of animals with a unique genetic message (goats were cloned and genetically engineered for the purpose of producing milk containing medications, while pigs were cloned so that their organs would be suitable for human transplants).

However, approaches like that of Shafran push the cloning process into an entirely different direction. Instead of regarding the process as a means of replication, he sees it as a means of reproduction. The transformation of the cloning process into a method for reproduction creates many problems. For example, cloned children will grow up in the shadow of their "original" in whose "biological image" they were created and in the shadow of the inevitable expectations that their surroundings will burden them with. Furthermore, there will be great confusion within the family: The father will also be a "twin brother" and the grandfather will, in fact, be the "father."

Many countries are today trying to pass laws that would absolutely forbid human cloning. Yet Shafran’s position in effect is not at all opposed to the law currently existing in Israel. The Israeli law has imposed a five-year moratorium on cloning; the moratorium is scheduled to end in 2004.

"We must have faith in science and we must know that science and scientists want to benefit humanity. In my opinion, cloning is part of science’s desire to benefit the human race. Granted, cloning is not the best solution. The halakhic perspective is that God wanted children to be born to parents who love one another. This is what we read in Sefer Hahinukh, a halakhic text that was written 800 years ago. However, that kind of arrangement is not a solution for people who are `stuck.’ What happens if ordinary methods just do not work for them? In such cases, we can make use of genetic replication. If genetic replication emerges at some stage in the future as a means of helping people for whom no other alternative can work, I would welcome that development."

But not now, because, at present, there are many dangers, correct?

"As I see things today, cloning involves so many problems that I would not want to be the one to stand up and advocate it. But I do want to be the one to stand up and call upon science to try to reach the stage where genetic cloning will be "on the shelf" for couples for whom every other alternative has failed. Cloning is more a problem of human pride - and we must curb that tendency because we do not want people to think that they are God - and less of a concrete problem that clashes with the laws of the Torah. There is no aspect of cloning that is incongruent with any explicit halakhic rule."

One of my favorite ‘two-liners’:

"How many Orthodox rabbis does it take to change a light bulb?"

"Change?!"
The essence of the entire Pesach (Passover) experience, I suggest to you, is all about change. God’s momentous decision to intervene in order to free us from slavery implants forever into history the imperative that we can change, that we must change, in order to move the universe along to its ultimate goal and destination. That is why Moshe introduced himself to Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel) with three "signs": Water into blood; his staff into a snake; and his healthy hand into a leprous one and then back again. All the signs proclaim the same message: Change.

That is also why the Exodus is so central to Jewish life: It´s in our mezuzot, in our tefilin, it is said at kiddush and twice each day in the Shema prayer. We had no chance whatsoever of breaking out of bondage, of defeating the cruelest, most powerful nation on Earth, but Hashem broke the mold of history, overrode the natural course of events and the laws of probability and took us out of Egypt. We are forever indebted to Him for that, but we are also forever to conduct ourselves as a people of change, of teshuva, of dynamic potential.

Among the most well-known cliches of the Hagada - and of Jewish life in general - is "mah nishtana halayla hazeh?" - "How is this night different from every other night?" It seems like such a simple, innocuous phrase, even the littlest toddler knows it by heart. Yet, I suggest that the ba´alei Hagada (compilers of the Hagada) have given us a profoundly important message in these words, if we only know how to read them.

The word nishtana is strange, for a better word would have been shoneh, different. Therefore, these four words are actually a dialogue between us and Hashem:

"Mah, nishtana?" - "What? We can change?"

"Halayla Hazeh!" - "Yes! On this night!"

On the night of Pesach, Hashem opens the door to us to change, to transform ourselves. On this night, we can be anything we want to be! We only have to seize the moment, grab the opportunity and we can turn our situation – right here, right now - into the moment of ultimate Geula (Redemption) and the complete triumph of Am Yisrael (the People of Israel).