The Weekly Shtikle Blog

An online forum for sharing thoughts and ideas relating to the Parshas HaShavua

View Profile

Friday, December 13

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayishlach

Before his meeting with Eisav, Yaakov engages in an epic battle with a mysterious foe. Although Yaakov seems to overpower him, his adversary pulls a crafty maneuver on Yaakov's sciatic nerve and causes the showdown to come to an abrupt end. We are told (32:33) "Therefore B'nei Yisrael shall not eat the sinew of the vein which is on the hollow of the thigh until this day for he touched the hollow of Yaakov's thigh in the sinew of the vein." Indeed, we are forbidden from eating that part of the animal due to its significance in this episode. However, this pasuk does not appear immediately after the fight. The Torah first tells us that the sun had risen and Yaakov was still limping on his thigh. Only then does the Torah proceed with "Therefore..."

I believe the message here is that the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve is not simply because it was used to end the battle with the angel. The significant fact in this episode is that this injury caused Yaakov lingering pain. The confrontation between Yaakov and what is commonly accepted to have been the angelic manifestation of Eisav is often understood as a harbinger of the eternal strife between Yaakov and Eisav, a constant war of values and ideals (See Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah 3.) This war is never won, at least not until the end of days. Yaakov's injury symbolizes our weak point that Eisav is able to exploit. It is not simply the initial injury that is significant. It is Yaakov being hampered by that injury even after the sun rose bringing the dawn of a new day that symbolizes the constant thorn in our side that is Eisav. This is why we must constantly be mindful of this threat and thus, refrain from eating the sciatic nerve.

Have a good Shabbos.

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Great Dishon Confusion

Dikdukian: Appearances

Dikdukian: Efrasah, What is your Real Name?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Goats and Amicable Numbers by Dr. Ari Brodsky

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Friday, December 6

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeitzei (Special Edition)

This week's shtikle comes with mazal tov wishes to two of my avid readers and constructive critics.

Mazal tov to Rabbi and Dr. Mordechai Weiskopf on the recent marriage of their daughter, Rivka, to Chaim Monderer.

And mazal tov to Mr. and Mrs. David Farkas on the upcoming bar mitzvah of their son, Noam, this shabbos.

In honour of the bar mitzvah, here is a beautiful shtikle compiled by the father of the bar mitzvah boy, (followed by an editorial note of my own.)

וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם וַיָּלֶן שָׁם כִּי בָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וַיִּקַּח מֵאַבְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וַיָּשֶׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא.

In a well-known statement, Chazal state that only now did Yaakov permit himself to sleep, a luxury he did not allow himself the previous fourteen years studying in the Yeshiva of [Shem, by now deceased] and Eber. If one calculates the timeline, it emerges that Yaakov was away from home a total of 36 years, all in which time Yaakov failed to keep the mitzvah of honoring one's parents. However, Chazal also observe that Yaakov received Divine recompense for this failure only for 22 of those years, while the 14 years spent in study were absolved.

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky questions this. If a father asks his son to buy him a pair of shoes, and the son stops on the way to sit and learn, would not that be considered a failure – let the son learn sometime else! By the same token, after his parents told Yaakov to go to Haran, what gave him the right to stop for so long a period of time? Moreover, R' Yaakov points out, it was not as though Yaakov hadn't learned anything till then – he had always studied by his father and grandfather. What, then, was so special about this period of time that Chazal felt it excusable from parental obligations?

According to R' Yaakov, it was because it was during this period that Yaakov learned the secrets of how to survive in exile. Shem and Eber grew up in the period of the Flood and then the Great Dispersal, epochs in which very few men were upright and righteous. Shem and Eber were survivors, who had successfully insulated themselves from the ungodly zeitgeist howling all around them. Abraham and Isaac, by contrast, lived their lives away from all evil influences. So much so that Sarah refused to allow Ishamel to remain in the house after she saw him "jesting" (מצחק). We might add, Abraham also deliberately separated himself from Lot. Thus, when Jacob was leaving Eretz Yisrael to live among the ungodly, he needed to learn strategies of how to keep himself pure and pristine in such an unforgiving environment. As R' Yaakov phrases it, he needed to learn Toras Ha-Galus – and for that he needed the Torah of Shem and Eber, not the Toras Ha-Aretz he learned with his father and grandfather.

Thus, the comparison to the son learning after being asked to buy his father shoes is no longer apt. The better comparison would be a father asking his son to buy him a lulav, with the son first stopping at the beis medrash to learn the signs of kosher lulav. Clearly this would be seen not merely as excusable delay, but laudable and praiseworthy.

While R. Yaakov elaborates on this point with proofs and details, what remains to be asked, and what he does not address, is what, exactly, were these strategies? What were these tools that Yaakov learned, to survive in the great wilderness?

For this, I can do no better than to repeat the insights of Noam Jacobson (YouTube link) who highlights three things Yaakov did that all of us can, and indeed, must learn from and emulate.

1)      Yaakov stayed in contact with God. Every step of the way, from even before he reached Haran, we find him engaged in prayer and meditation. He saw God in his dreams, because God was always on his mind.

 

2)      He did not rely on God alone. Rather, he  utilized the tools and technology available. He made himself rich using such techniques, through animal husbandry and genetics still not fully understood today.

 

3)      He did not allow himself to be taken advantage of. As the Torah says, Yaakov "stole" the heart of Laban by leaving him. The phrase is deliberate, intending to underscore that after Laban cheated him from his wives and then his wages, Jacob gave it right back to him, as they say – in his face. "Righteousness" does not mean allowing oneself to be played.

 

These three lessons – keeping God uppermost in one's thoughts, but still making your best efforts, and not allowing oneself to be taken advantage of – allowed Yaakov to stay Yaakov, and to proclaim, in the words of chazal, עם לבן גרתי, ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי.

In this period of time, but in all times, we would do well to remember these lessons. There is a Torah – timeless lessons – for Eretz Yisrael, where we belong; but there is also Toras Ha-Galus. Our destiny and permanent mission is to fulfill the former. Until we get there though, we need to absorb the lessons of the latter.

This touches upon one of my parsha pet peeves. Many people speak about Yaakov spending 14 years in the yeshivah of Shem and Ever. However, Rashi (28:9) clearly refers to it as Beis Ever. This is because by this time, Shem had already passed away. Indeed, a footnote in Emes l'Yaakov points out that while both R' Yaakov and the Chasam Sofer make references to Shem and Ever, Rashi, whose source is Megillah 16b, clearly refers to it as the yeshivah of Ever.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Wordsthatsticktogether

Dikdukian: From his Sleep

Dikdukian: Complete it

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule

Dikdukian: Different Types of Kissing

Dikdukian: Come on, People - Part II

AstroTorah: Did Yaakov Leave the Solar System by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Yaakov's Lesson on Zemanei HaYom by R' Ari Storch


Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Friday, November 29

The Weekly Shtikle - Toledos / Machar Chodesh

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my rebbe and Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Harav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l (Yaakov Moshe ben Refael Nissan Shlomo) whose 24th yahrtzeit is this coming Wednesday, 3 Kisleiv.

With Rosh Chodesh falling on Sunday (and Monday), we do not read the regular haftarah for Toledos but rather, we read the special haftarah for the day before Rosh Chodesh, from Shmuel I (perek 20.) Yehonasan tells David that tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh and there will be a seudah. (For a discussion on how exactly Yehonasan knew it would be Rosh Chodesh since it was based on testimony, see the AstroTorah link below.) They devise a whole plan to confirm whether Shaul still bears mortal enmity towards David. R' Shimon Schwab, in Maayan Beis HaShoeiva, is bothered, is it only because of the fact that Yehonasan mentions the words "machar chodesh" that we read this haftara? Surely there is a greater reason to push aside the regular haftara in favour of this one. 

Rav Schwab explains, Yehonasan's intentions in telling David not to escape until after the seudah of Rosh Chodesh were because Rosh Chodesh, as the moon enters a new cycle around the Earth, symbolizes a time of renewal, on opportunity for repentance and atonement. Yehonasan was telling David to wait and see if Rosh Chodesh will possibly have this positive effect on Shaul and he will change his mind. Therefore, we read this haftara to impress upon the masses this important aspect of Rosh Chodesh. Additionally, Rosh Chodesh is a time destined for geula which is why we recite in Mussaf, Mizbeach chadash b'Tzion tachin. And if Moshiach doesn't come, we are left wondering "why has ben Yishai not come, not yesterday and not today" (20:27, a pasuk in the haftara.) The Navi remarks, vayipaked mekom David, David's place was vacant, an allusion to the fact that we, too, are lacking the presence of ben Yishai. And just as it was gratuitous hatred that caused David's absence from the party, it is exactly that that causes Moshiach to be absent today.

This reading of machar chodesh, heralding the coming commemoration of rosh chodesh, is perhaps made slightly more significant by the intriguing halachic quirk that comes along with it. According to Mishnah Berurah (55:45) based on a teshuvah from the BA"CH, someone who was born 13 years ago on 1 Kislev would become a bar mitzvah this year not on 1 Kislev but rather, the day before, 30 Cheshvan, which is the first day of rosh chodesh. For a detailed discussion, see R' Yehudah Spitz's Insights into Halacha.

 

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: (From the) The Fats of the Land

Dikdukian: Be'er Sheva / Shava

Dikdukian: I will eat, You will eat

AstroTorah: Yaakov and Eisav's Interesting Birthdays by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: When is Rosh Chodesh? by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Fighting in Kislev by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Sweet Fifteen by R' Ari Storch

 

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Friday, November 15

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeira

This week's shtikle, as per tradition for parshas Vayeria, is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben avi mori Reuven Pinchas, whose 48th yahrtzeit is next Tuesday, 18 Cheshvan.

 

At the end of this week's parsha, Avraham faces the ultimate challenge of akeidas Yitzchak. It is certainly not unreasonable to consider this the greatest of Avrhaham's 10 tests on a number of different levels. It is certainly worth noting that this is the one time the Torah actually refers to the episode as a test, (22:1) "VehaElokim nisa." However, Rashi, based on a gemara (Sanhedrin 89b) cites a deeper meaning of the beseeching nature of HaShem's request which seems, at first glance, to border on hyperbole. HaShem uses the word "please" as if to say, "Please stand up to this test so that people do not say of the first tests that there was nothing to them." Suppose Avraham had difficulty with this command. Suppose he had questions about this daunting, impossible task. Would that really have detracted from the utter devotion he showed in the previous tests?

 

R' Schwab, in Ma'ayan Beish HaSho'eiva, explains that while the first 9 challenges were all great in their own right, there was one very important element missing – the involvement of his progeny. Passing these tests were of great significance on a personal level for Avraham. But that, on its own, would not be enough to pass on to the great nation of which Avraham was to be the father. We often speak of Avraham as having instilled the will and the strength of self-sacrifice in all future generations. But this is not accomplished simply through genetics. Akeidas Yitzchak was a trial of sacrifice that Avraham and Yitzchak would experience together as father and son. Only through enduring this test and persevering together could this virtue be passed on. Indeed, if Avraham were to have failed this test in any way, his previous accomplishments would be of much lesser value to the generations that followed. This explains the urgency of HaShem's request.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: A Scratch on the Wall

AstroTorah: Witnesses to Sedom's Destruction

AstroTorah: The Mysterious Midrash by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Lot's Twilight Escape by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: I Can't Believe it's not Fresh by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

Dikdukian: Be'er Shava



Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Friday, November 8

The Weekly Shtikle - Lech Lecha

After leaving Mitzrayim and returning to Eretz C'na'an, the shepherds of Lot and Avraham engage in a dispute as the land they were occupying was not vast enough to accommodate all of them. The pasuk recounts (13:7) that there was a riv between the shepherds. When Avraham attempts to settle the dispute with Lot, he beseeches him, "Al na sehi merivah beini uveinecha." Avraham uses the word merivah, rather than riv, to refer to the dispute. Malbim explains that riv refers to the actual act of dispute, while merivah refers to the factors that caused the dispute. Avraham was indicating to Lot the cause for the friction between the shepherds. The country was surely large enough for both of them to settle peacefully. However, this was only possible if they would separate. It was due to their brotherly relationship, being anashim achim, that they had chosen to travel together. But their togetherness was the root of their difficulties. Therefore, Avraham had to explain to Lot that it was time for them to split up.

SHEL"AH offers an interesting approach to the change in wording. He interprets merivah simply as the feminine form of riv. The female, as opposed to the male, is the species that produces offspring. A riv therefore symbolizes a minor disagreement, while merivah implies a festering dispute, with the potential to spawn a more serious altercation. Avraham was warning Lot, while the dispute was still in its minor stage of riv, that something must be done before it develops into something graver.

This is generally a very valuable, national lesson for klal Yisrael. But somehow, it seems even more apropos in the Unites States this week as we all recover from a rather contentious election season. There will always be divides among us and strong differences of opinion. Let us not allow them to become a merivah.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: King #5

Dikdukian: Vekoyei (le'iluy nishmas Dedi, a"h)

AstroTorah: Quality not Quantity by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The Uncountable Stars

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Friday, November 1

The Weekly Shtikle - Noach

This past Wednesday, 28 Tishrei, was the 23nd yahrtzeit of my dear friend, Daniel Scarowsky, z"l.

This week's shtikle is dedicated leiluy nishmaso, Daniel Moshe Eliyahu ben Yitzchak.

 

A special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my nephew Yaakov Yeres of Cherry Hill on his bar mitzvah this Shabbos. Mazal tov to the extended Yeres and Stark families.

There are many questions surrounding Noah's sending of the two birds at the end of the episode of the mabul. Last year, we explored what the actual purpose was in the first place. Another interesting issue that is discussed is whether Noach was even permitted to send these birds out. After all, he was commanded to enter the teivah and waited explicitly for HaShem's direction to leave.

One of the most fascinating approaches comes from Netziv in Ha'amek Davar. He suggests that this raven and dove were actually not from the pairs of animals brought along for survival. Rather, as a member of the nobility, Noach possessed these birds as pets which was evidently customary even in earlier times. Therefore, these birds were allowed to be let out. (See a further discussion there as to why these specific birds were chosen.)

It occurred to me that this interpretation might explain another nuance in the pesukim. Both the raven and the dove are referred to (8:7-8) in the definite form – ha'oreiv and ha'yonah. If Noach just took any one of those birds, it should have just said, for example, vayeshalach yonah. But if these were his own special birds that he owned, the use of the definite form is much more understandable.

*****

On the lighter side (since, as illustrated below, the teiva was quite heavy): A good friend of mine and noted author, Mordechai Bodek, wrote a homourous book called Extracts From Noah's Diary. Every year since, I have forgotten to insert a plug for the book. This year (with his help,) I finally remembered.


Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.


Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: The Weight of the Teiva and The Constant Rate of Recession 
AstroTorah: Sailing the Friendly Skies by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The World's First Boat?

AstroTorah: Interesting Calendrical Facts About the Mabul

Dikdukian: Noach's Three Sons

Dikdukian: Different Ways to Wake Up

Dikdukian: Take it Easy

Dikdukian: Geshem vs. Gashem


Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

Wednesday, October 16

The Weekly Shtikle - Sukkos

As part of the requisite mitzvos pertaining to Sukkos, we are told (Vayikra 23:42) "You shall dwell in sukkos for a seven-day period." Interestingly, the word sukkos is in plural. The first inclination would be that this is because the nation as a whole will dwell, collectively, in many sukkos. However, the adjacent pasuk referring to the mitzvah of the four species refers to the esrog as pri eitz hadar in singular form, despite the fact that the nation as a whole will be taking many. In fact, it is further puzzling that the rest of the species are referred to in the plural. The hadassim and aravos are understandable. But the lulav, of which we only take one, is also in plural.

     

For now, I would like to address only the discrepancy in the wording of sukkos. There is a significant difference between the mitzvah of sukkah and that of lulav and esrog. The mitzvah to take a lulav and esrog is very personal and private in nature. This is epitomized by the fact that one must own his own four species and cannot fulfill the mitzvah with someone else's.

 

The mitzvah of sukkah, by contrast, is one that naturally includes others, notwithstanding the opinion of R' Eliezer (Sukkah 27) that one must remain in the same sukkah for the duration of the chag. Everyone makes the sukkah their temporary dwelling, the place where they eat all of their meals. Some are unable to make their own. Families and individuals, whether they have their own sukkah or not, are almost certain to share this mitzvah with others, either by eating in others' sukkah or inviting them eat in their own. Therefore, the mitzvah of sukkah is given in the plural because it is the intention that one should eat in many sukkos whereas the mitzvah of lulav and esrog can only be fulfilled with one's own set of the four species.


Have a good Yom Tov and good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Sukas Dovid Hanofeles

Al Pi Cheshbon: Number of bakashos in Ya'aleh veYavo


Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.