Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Ancient Text or Today's Headlines?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Anger Leads to Error
"Elazar the Kohen said to the men of the army that went to battle, 'This is the statute of the Torah that HaShem (G-d) commanded Mosheh (Moses)...'"
Peculiar is the fact that the one to command the people regarding these laws is Elazar the son of Aharon (Aaron) as opposed to Mosheh. Since the passing of Aharon shortly before this incident, Aharon's son Elazar took over his father's position of Kohen Gadol (High Priest), and was perhaps Mosheh's second-in-command at this time. Nevertheless, despite Elazar's high rank, it remains anomalous that he should instruct the people in these laws when throughout Israel's forty-year trek through the wilderness under Mosheh's command, it was consistently the custom of Mosheh himself to do so. Why the sudden change in procedure?
Rashi offers the following suggestion (ibid.):
"Because Moshe came to anger, he came to err, as the laws . . . became hidden from him."
In the previous section (v. 13-20), Mosheh becomes angry (v. 14) at the men of the army for having spared the females of Midyan. Prior to the war (ibid. 25:1-9), these women had seduced the Israelite men into idol worship and lewd sexual practice, bringing upon Israel a plague that decimated 24,000 Israelites. This spiritual attack against Israel instigated the war against Midyan from which Israel now returned. As a result of this anger, Mosheh seems to forget the relevant laws, necessitating Elazar to became a temporary substitute.
Rashi's suggestion that Mosheh's anger caused him to become unable to instruct the people is based on Rashi's observation, which he elucidates in his following comments, that we consistently find that the rare occasions that Mosheh appears to err occur in conjunction with Mosheh becoming angry (indeed a rare occurrence for the one that the Torah describes as "the most humble of all men upon the face of the earth" -ibid. 12:3).
Why should anger have such an effect? Why would anger cause forgetfulness?
In his classical ethical work, Mesilath Yesharim (The Path of the Just), Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzato (RaMChaL), writes (Ch. 11):
"We shall now discuss anger... [The furious man] . . . becomes so filled with wrath that his heart is no longer with him and his judgment vanishes. A man such as he would destroy the entire world if it were within his power to do so, for he is not in any way directed by reason and is as devoid of sensibility as any predatory beast... He can easily commit any conceivable sin to which his rage brings him, for he is bound by nothing but his anger and he will go where it leads him."
While this statement concerns the extreme case, "the furious man," even of lesser anger Ramchal writes:
"This form of anger, too, is unquestionably evil, for much that is very damaging may proceed from him during his fit of anger and he will not afterwards be able to straighten what he has made crooked."
Anyone who has ever gotten really mad (which includes most of us) can certainly attest to the accuracy of the Ramchal's description. Any manifestation of anger, however, on whatever scale, will contain traces of these elements in proportion to the degree of the emotion. Therefore even the smallest degree of anger will impact one's intellectual equilibrium.
Anger clouds one's judgment, allowing the emotional side of the person to supersede the intellectual. How many times have we regretted things that we've said or done under the influence of anger? For this reason, Mosheh was deemed unfit to instruct the people in the laws relevant to the spoils of war. Since he had just become angered, his intellect was in some way hampered by the effects of that most pernicious emotion. Even the slightest anger of the most humble of all men rendered Mosheh incapable of accurately tranmitting the Divine Law.
Clearly, anger leads to error. We see this principal demonstrated in the errors of Mosheh himself, the humblest of all men! How much more so any of us! Let us strive to distance ourselves from this damaging emotion, and may the ensuing peace be for us a true redemption.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I've got you covered, Sam ol' boy!
In the book of Shemuel I (I Samuel) (Ch. 15), after Israel's war against Amalek, and King Shaul's failure to carry out HaShem's (G-d's) directive to obliterate that nation, Shaul is informed by Shemuel that HaShem has rejected him as king over Israel and will choose another to lead Israel as king. In
"How can I go (איך אלך)? Shaul will hear (that I am anointing another) and will kill me!"
Hashem's reply (v. 2-3): "Take a calf in your hand and say, 'I have come to offer sacrifice to HaShem!' Then you shall invite Yishay to the feast (וקראת לישי בזבח), and I will inform you of what to do, and you shall anoint for me the one whom I tell you."
In other words, Shemuel is afraid to carry out HaShem's command, so HaShem offers him a strategy to avoid exposure. He should go incognito, disguising his intent to anoint a king, pretending instead as though his intent is merely to bring a sacrifice. Meanwhile, he would find the one whom HaShem intended him to anoint (David, son of Yishay).
This raises a number of questions:
1. Why was Shemuel afraid to carry out HaShem's command? Where was his faith?
2. Why does HaShem need to offer Shemuel a strategy for survival? Why doesn't HaShem just bolster Shemuel's faith by saying, "Don't worry, Sam ol' boy, I've got you covered!" Can't HaShem protect Shemuel? Why the need for subterfuge?
3. Doesn't this plan seem a bit dishonest? Is HaShem instructing his prophet to engage in deceit in order to carry out His will? Are we not commanded to distance ourselves from falsehood (Shemoth 23:7)?
Let us examine the commentary of Rav David Kimchi (RaDaK) on this passage:
"We find that even when the Holy One issues a guarantee to the prophet or tzadik, he is careful not to enter a dangerous situation, as we saw regarding our forefather Yaakov, whom HaShem promised, when he traveled to Aram Naharayim, 'I shall return you to this land' (B'Reshith 28:15), and to whom an angel also appeared there and promised him, 'Return to the land of your fathers and to your birthplace and I will be with you,' (ibid 31:3) yet when he heard that Esav (Esau) came toward him, 'Yaakov greatly feared and was troubled' (ibid 32:8). David, too, who was anointed king by HaShem, fled from Shaul . . . In matters of war as well, they would devise strategies, even after a Divine guarantee [of success], as did Gidon with the pitchers and torches (Shophetim 7). Sometimes they would even design the strategies by Divine command as it is written in Yehoshua (Joshua), regarding the conquest of Yericho (
"The reason for this is that even though the Holy One enacts miracles and wonders for those who fear Him, these [miracles] are mostly according to the natural order. Therefore, according to the natural order, Yaakov should have feared Esav, and Shemuel [should have feared] Shaul if he would anoint a king in [Shaul]'s lifetime. It was therefore appropriate to seek a strategy with which to proceed. This was Shaul's question, "How shall I proceed?" [NOTE: In Hebrew, the phrase, "איך אלך?" literally means, "How (איך) I go (אלך)?" and can be translated, "How can I go?" as above, or, "How shall I proceed?" Our translation above implied a rhetorical question, "How can I go?" i.e. "It is impossible!" The Radak's translation, however, is inquisitive, "How shall I proceed?" Shemuel was not refusing HaShem's command; he was acknowledging it and requesting further instructions.]
"Our Sages learned from this verse that it is a mitzvah to lie for matters of peace. [NOTE: Although the typical understanding of this concept is that one may lie to avoid strife with another, this does not seem to be Radak's meaning here. In context of Radak's next words, he seems to refer to peace here not as peaceful relations per se, but as well-being. In other words, to preserve one's well-being, as here, when Shemuel's life was in danger, he was enjoined to lie.] For the Holy One told Shemuel, 'Take a calf in your hand,' showing him that it is not fitting for a man to enter a dangerous situation and rely on a miracle, as it states, 'Do not test (לא תנסון) HaShem your G-d' (Devarim 6:16). [NOTE: The Hebrew for "Do not test," is "לא תנסו;" the Hebrew words "test" (נסיון) and "miracle" (נס) share the same root. Therefore, the injunction, "Do not test HaShem your G-d," is understood as a prohibition against relying on a miracle, i.e. testing G-d to see if He will come through in a tight squeeze via some kind of open Divine intervention rather than making efforts through natural means to succeed.]"
Radak now offers an alternative explanation of this verse:
"There are those that explain that this is what HaShem answered [Shemuel, in response to his challenge of 'How can I go?']: 'I told you to go secretly [to anoint a new king], and you [of little faith] said, 'Shaul will hear and kill me!' Now I am telling you to go openly! Take a calf to sacrifice as a peace-offering on the day you anoint him king! (I.e. Make a public spectacle of the event!)' This is the meaning of that which He said, 'you shall call out to Yishay at the feast' [NOTE: The Hebrew, "וקראת לישי בזבח" can be translated as we did above, "you shall invite Yishay to the feast," but alternatively can be translated, "you shall call out to Yishay at the feast." This second translation is consistent with this new explanation that Shemuel was commanded to make a spectacle of the choosing of the new king.]: 'Go openly, and let us see who will kill you! (I.e. You will see that you have nothing to fear by obeying My command!)'"
Question to ponder: Is this second explanation a contradiction to the first? I mean, certainly it is a different explanation of the verse itself, but what of the philosophy underlying Radak's original explanation? Radak went to lengths to tell us that even in the fulfillment of HaShem's command, one is enjoined not to rely on miracles but to utilize natural means to achieve one's ends. Why is Shemuel suddenly criticized for not wanting to rely on a miracle and instead is himself enjoined to orchestrate a situation in which he will be in danger? According to this explanation, is one expected to rely on miracles in the fulfillment of HaShem's command? How can we reconcile such a contradiction?
You may take your time pondering this question. When you are satisfied, you may proceed to read my proposed solution and comment thereon.
Suggestion:
I believe there is no contradiction at all. The alternative explanations of the give-and-take between HaShem and Shemuel are determined by the aforementioned alternative translations of the words "איך אלך." If one translates the phrase as did the Radak, that Shemuel asked, "How shall I proceed?" then he showed no lack of faith in HaShem; he merely asked in what way HaShem wished that he would carry out His will. However, if one translates, "How can I go?" Shemuel was suggesting that what HaShem had commanded was impossible to fulfill. For this he is reprimanded, for nothing is beyond the abilities of HaShem! In fact, this explanation stressed that HaShem never initially commanded anything that was impossible even by natural means, and that the command was for Shemuel to go secretly, in order not to bring Shaul's attention to what he was doing, but after Shemuel is reticent to carry out HaShem's will even in this way, because of a seeming lack of faith, he is reprimanded. HaShem then tells Shemuel that he must carry out his mission in a way that will reverse his apparent lack of trust in HaShem. His orders now are to be as conspicuous as possible, and nevertheless to witness HaShem's protective hand, driving home the lesson that nothing is beyond HaShem's abilities. Even while this is generally not HaShem's way of doing things, here it was necessitated and justified in order to correct this shortcoming in Shemuel.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
It's All About the Benjamins
Have you ever wondered why the first king of
"ויאמר שמואל: 'הלא אם קטן אתה בעיניך, ראש שבטי ישראל אתה, וימשחך ה' למלך על ישראל!'"
"Shemuel said, '[Even] if you are small in your eyes, [yet] you are the head of the tribes of
This translation (my own) seems rather repetitive. Why repeat that Shaul was king over
The Targum, however, has a much more enlightening translation of this verse:
"ואמר שמואל: 'הלא מן שריותך הויתא שיט וחלש בעיני נפשך, ברם זכות שבטא דבנימין אבוך גרמא לך, די בעו למעבר בימא קדם בני ישראל; בדיל כן רביך ה' למהוי מלכא על ישראל.'"
"Shemuel said, 'Behold, from the outset you were low and weak in your own eyes, however the merit of the tribe of Binyamin, your forefather, has brought this about for you, for [the tribe of Binyamin] wanted to cross the [Red] Sea in front of the Children of Israel; because of this HaShem has elevated you to be king over Israel!'"
According to the Targum, the tribe of Binyamin was the first to cross the Red Sea during the Exodus from
Additionally, this week's parshah (Torah portion) tells of the dedication of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle that the Israelites built during their trek through the desert. At this dedication, the nesiim, the leaders of each of the tribes, brought impressive offerings for the glorification of the occasion. The first nasi to bring his offering was that of the tribe of Yehudah, Nachshon ben Aminadav. The Midrash Rabah (B'Midbar Rabah 13:4) examines by what merit Nachshon became the first to bring his offering at this momentous event:
"R' Yehudah bar R' Ilai said: 'When
We have here an apparent contradiction between the Targum and the Midrash Rabah as to the identity of the first to enter the sea. What really happened?
The Talmud in Sotah 37A records the events at the scene of the
"היה ר' מאיר אומר: בשעה שהיו ישראל עומדים על שפת הים היו שבטים מנצחין זה עם זה. זה אומר: 'אני יורד תחלה לים!' וזה אומר: 'אני יורד תחלה לים!' קפץ שבטו של בנימין וירד תחלה לים, שנאמר (תהלים סח:כח):'שם בנימין צעיר רדם.' אל תקרי 'רדם' אלא 'רד ים.' והיו שרי יהודה רוגמין אותם, שנאמר (שם): 'שרי יהודה רגמתם.' לפיכך זכה בנימן הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה וכו'. אמר לו ר' יהודה: לא כך היה מעשה, אלא זה אומר: 'אין אני יורד תחלה לים!' וזה אומר: 'אין אני יורד תחלה לים!' קפץ נחשון בן עמינדב וירד לים תחלה, שנאמר (הושע יב:א): 'סבבוני בכחש אפרים ובמרמה בית ישראל ויהודה עוד רד עם א-ל ועם קדןשים נאמן.' וכו'. לפיכך זכה יהודה לעשות ממשלה בישראל וגו'"
"R' Meir said: 'When [the nation of]
The opinion of R' Meir appears to align with that of the Targum that Binyamin was first. R' Yehudah in the Talmud is synonymous with R' Yehudah bar R' Ilai of the Midrash Rabah, and therefore we are not surprised that their opinions match that the tribe of Yehudah, not Binyamin, was first. An interesting discrepancy, however, is that in the Midrash Rabah, the tribes vie for the privilege of entering the sea first, while in the Talmudic version of R' Yehudah, the tribes vie not to be the first into the sea. Also puzzling is that the rewards for the respective tribes do not line up in any of these differing accounts. According to the Targum, Binyamin merited kingship while R' Meir in the Talmud has Binyamin merit to host the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies that is built in his portion. According to R' Yehudah in the Midrash Rabah, Yehudah's nasi merits to bring the first offering, while according to the same R' Yehudah in the Talmud, Yehudah merits dominion over Israel! [NOTE: This was fulfilled when David, from the tribe of Yehudah, a descendant of Nachshon ben Aminadav, succeeded Shaul as king over
Indeed, these are not the only variants of this event in history found in our literature. There are actually several midrashim that recount this stage of the Exodus that seem to differ from one another. Let us examine a few of them and try to discover the nature of the dispute.
We have already seen the Targum's translation of the verse in Shemuel. The Targum of the Neviim (the books of the Prophets) was written by Yonathan ben Uziel, a sage of the late Second Temple Period (~1st century C.E.) who was the "greatest" of the disciples of Hillel the Elder, the nasi ("prince"), religious leader of the Jews at that time. The Talmud (Megilah 3A) says that Yonathan ben Uziel wrote his Targum based on a received tradition of the meaning of the verses that stemmed back to the prophets Chagay, Zecharyah and Malachi (~4th century B.C.E.). This translation, therefore, bears great authority.
The Talmudic version cited above expresses the opinions of R' Meir and R' Yehudah, sages of the post-Second Temple Mishnaic period (2nd century C.E.), who were disciples of R' Akiva who was a disciple of R' Eliezer the Great (ben Hyrcanus) and R' Yehoshua (ben Chananyah) who were in turn disciples of Raban Yochanan ben Zakay, a contemporary of Yonathan ben Uziel and also a disciple of Hillel the Elder (although R' Yochanan ben Zakay is called the "least" of Hillel's disciples). Raban Yochanan ben Zakay also served as nasi during the period immediately following the destruction of the
There are two additional accounts that we shall examine:
Targum Tehilim – Like the Targum of Yonathan ben Uziel, this Aramaic interpretive translation of the book of Tehilim (Psalms) reveals hidden depth in the verses. Unlike the books of the Neviim, however, this Targum was not written by Yonathan ben Uziel but by later sages.
Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer – A Midrash authored by R' Eliezer (the Great) ben Hyrcanus (whom we mentioned above was one of the principal disciples of Raban Yochanan ben Zakay and one of the masters of R' Akiva) along with his disciples.
In the Talmudic version of the events at the
V. 25: "They saw your steps, O G-d, your steps, my G-d, my King, in holiness."
Targum: "The House of Israel saw the steps of your Presence (Shechinah) upon the sea, O G-d. They said: 'You have walked, O G-d, King of the entire world, in holiness.'"
V. 26: "The singers began after the players, amidst drumming maidens."
Targum: "They began to proclaim a song [of praise] after Mosheh and Aharon who played before them, amidst the righteous women who were with Miriam, drumming.
V. 27: "In gatherings they blessed G-d; HaShem, from the source of
Targum: "In gatherings they blessed G-d; embryos exalted HaShem in their mothers' wombs, the seed of
V. 28: "There Binyamin the younger ruled over them; the officers of Yehudah pelted them; the officers of Zevulun, the officers of Naphtali."
Targum: "There Binyamin, the youngest of the tribes, descended to the sea first. Therefore he received kingship first. After him the officers of Yehudah descended. The [other] tribes pelted them with stones and they received leadership after them. The officers of Zevulun became their merchants. The officers of Naphtali became their warriors."
[NOTE: Although I translated 'שרי יהודה רגמתם' as "the officers of Yehudah pelted them," the Targum splits this phrase into two and relates "the officers of Yehudah" to the tribe of Binyamin, hence having them follow Binyamin's action, leaving the act of pelting to be taken up by the other tribes. The Targum's use of pronouns in the phrase, "The [other] tribes pelted them with stones and they received leadership after them," leaves the identity of "them," "they," and "them," ambiguous, however it makes sense that the first "them" could be both Binyamin and Yehudah, while "they" refers to Yehudah and the second "them" refers to Binyamin. Hence the phrase means that the remaining tribes, jealous that they were not leading the charge into the sea, pelted those that did, while those that did merited leadership over
This Targum's version of the story, for the first time, appears to be something of a synthesis between some of the versions we have seen thus far, with some interesting differences of its own. Binyamin, here too, is considered the first to jump into action at the
Let us examine one more version and see if we can tie up all the loose ends. In Pirkey d'Rabi
"R' Akiva said: '
Astounding! Here again we read that both entered the sea, one after the other, but with a very significant twist. While Binyamin ran first to enter the sea, he was halted by the diversion of Yehudah. Yehudah, then, it seems, under the leadership of Nachshon, gained the lead over Binyamin, entering the sea first with the rest of the nation following. Can all of these versions be brought to terms with one another?
I believe that they can. It would seem that at the
What then is the dispute between R' Meir and R' Yehudah in the Talmud? If everyone agrees on what happened, why does R' Yehudah say to R' Meir, "That's not how it happened"? If the tribe of Yehudah did indeed cross first, what is R' Meir saying? It would seem that R' Yehudah and R' Meir argue as to which tribe is considered to have crossed first. In other words, even though Yehudah ultimately led the nation through the sea, Binyamin did begin the charge. Binyamin was the first to take the initiative. For having initiated this momentous undertaking of the people of
That said, all the different rewards mentioned by the variant versions of the story fit beautifully. Both Binyamin and Yehudah received two rewards, one physical and one spiritual. Binyamin, although his physical accomplishment was less than Yehudah's as R' Yehudah pointed out, his spiritual accomplishment was greater, for he mustered up the greater faith in G-d to be the first to take the plunge into the sea despite the danger it presented. For this great spiritual accomplishment, Binyamin merited a great spiritual portion, to have the Chamber of the Holy of Holies built in his territory in the
May it be HaShem's will that we too may achieve greatness of spirit and deed and merit the arrival of Mashiach, son of David, and the rebuilding of the Beth HaMikdash speedily in our days, and to see the Divine Presence rest once again in our midst.
"And Mother Nature begat Evolution, and Evolution was the most clever of all the creatures in the Garden..."
From How to Speak Dog by Dr. Stanley Coren (on Pets.ca):
“The dog's tail was originally designed to assist the dog in its balance.”
“Evolution again seized an opportunity and now adapted the tail for communication purposes.”
“Evolution has used a few additional tricks to make the tails even more visible.”
NOTE: Here evolution is personified and described as though it acted with intelligence, yet this is contrary to the entire doctrine of evolution! Indeed, this type of attribution of intelligent qualities to evolution is standard fair in the description of evolutionary processes in the writings of even the most atheistic advocates of this so-called theory of random development. By cleverly describing fantastically complex processes in these convenient terms, together with the omission of the Intelligence behind the process, like the above examples where the “designer” is not identified although design is acknowledged, and the one that “seized an opportunity” and “used a few tricks” is called “evolution,” while seizing opportunities and using tricks are the exclusive domain of intelligent beings and not random processes, is the spurious tool of these deniers of the obvious to fool themselves and others into blindly following their mad dogma. How do evolutionists describe the ‘arbitrary’ process of evolution in these terms and yet deny intelligent design in the universe?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
ShoReSh -- SoReS -- SoRSe -- SouRCe
שמואל א' טו:ט: ויחמל שאול והעם על אגג ועל מיטב הצאן והבקר והמשנים ועל הכרים ועל כל הטוב וגו':
Shemuel I (I Samuel) 15:9: "Shaul (Saul) and the people had mercy on Agag and on the best of the sheep and the cattle and the healthy [animals] and the fattened [animals] (karim) and on all of the good…"
My translation here of the word "karim – כרים" as "fattened" is based on the Targum which translates the word as "patimaya – פטימיא," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word "mephutamim – מפוטמים," meaning "stuffed." However, with the addition of the letter "vav – ו'," meaning "and," in front of the word פטימיא, the "p" sound of the letter פ' becomes softened to a "ph" sound and the pronunciation of the word becomes "uphatimaya." Upon reading this word it occurred to me that perhaps the English word "fat" is derived from this Hebrew/Aramaic word.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Weak-Day
During the time that our glorious Beth haMikdash (
“Our sages taught: The men of the watch would pray that the sacrificial offering of their brethren be accepted willfully while the men of the stand would enter the synagogue and fast four fasts: (1) on Monday, (2) on Tuesday, (3) on Wednesday and on (4) Thursday.”
The Gemara attempts to analyze why only these four days were chosen for fasting even though offerings were brought every day (including the Sabbath):
“On Friday they would not fast because of the honor of the Sabbath, all the more so [they did not fast] on the Sabbath itself. However, why did they not fast on Sunday?
R’ Yochanan said: ‘Because of the Christians.’
R’ Shemuel bar Nachmani said: ‘Because it is the third day of creation.’
Resh Lakish said: ‘Because of the extra soul (neshamah yetherah),’ as Resh Lakish said: ‘An extra soul is given to a man on the eve of the Sabbath and at the departure of the Sabbath it is taken from him.’”
Rashi explains that, ‘because of the Christians,” means on account of Sunday being a Christian holiday the Jews did not fast, although Rashi is not explicit as to why this is a reason not to fast. The Maharsha suggests that Rashi means that we didn’t fast on their holiday so as not to incur their ire, however he rejects that approach since during the time the Beth haMikdash stood, the Jews were politically superior to the Christians and not afraid of them. The Maharsha therefore concludes that since on fast days those who fast do not do work, just as one celebrating a holiday does not work, it might appear that those Jews who refrained from work on account of their fast actually did so on account of Christian practice. In order that their fasts not resemble Christian practice, therefore, fasting was not regularly practiced on that day.
The “extra soul” according to Rashi is a “broadening of the mind for eating and drinking.” When that aspect of the man is removed, he is left weakened and unable to endure a fast.
What concerns me is the other explanation: “Because it is the third day of creation.” Rashi explains as follows:
“the third day of creation” – “for man was created on the sixth day [i.e. Friday, making Sunday the third day of his existence], and he is weak on every [occurrence of this] third day, as it is written: ‘It happened on the third day, as they were in pain…’ (B’Reshith 34:25)
Two astounding points emerge from this comment of Rashi:
1. The verse quoted by Rashi here refers to the pain of the men of Shechem on the third day after their circumcision. Rashi is comparing the third day after one’s circumcision to the third day after one’s coming into existence. This means that the event of circumcision is equivalent to one’s creation! (Similarly, tradition teaches that Adam was created circumcised.)
2. We normally understand the increase in pain on the third day after the circumcision to be directly related to the recovery from the surgical process of circumcision. However, according to this comment of Rashi, the increase in pain is not due to the circumcision itself. Rather, the pain of the recovery is increased on account of the weakening of the body since it is the third day after one’s creation.
Now, after all this is said, the burning question remains unanswered:
What is it about the third day of one’s creation that makes one weak?
(I don’t know. I’m curious if anyone has any suggestions. If I find any answers, I’ll post them here – G-d willing.)