The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeishev

There is much intrigue surrounding the story of the brothers' treatment of Yoseif and the crime that was ultimately perpetrated. Even establishing the exact facts of the incident can be challenging, let alone understanding the motives and thought processes behind each character's actions. The first step of the sale of Yoseif is his sale to the Yishmaelim. Yehudah suggests (37:27) "let us sell him to the Yishmaelim… for he is our brother, our flesh." A thought occurred to me – is it possible that Yehudah could have been referring not to Yoseif but to Yishmael?

Sure enough, Kli Yekar, makes that very suggestion. He goes to great lengths to explain the brothers' plans and change of plans and posits that they specifically sold him to the Yishmaelim with the expectation that as "cousins," they would show mercy towards Yoseif and not mistreat him.

Have a good Shabbos and Chanukah Samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Clear the Halls (Chanukah)

Dikdukian: Naaseh Neis (Chanukah)

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayishlach

When Yaakov learns that Eisav is coming to meet him with 400 men, he expresses great fear as stated (32:8) "vayira Yaakov me'od vayeitzer lo." There are various suggestions given as to the exact definition of the word vayeitzer. The predominant interpretation seems to be that it is from the same root as tzar, implying that Yaakov was stressed.

I suggest that perhaps this word is from the root of the word yeitzer which comes from the same root as tzurah, a form. While the body is the physical form of the human being, the yeitzer - both the yeitzer tov and the yeitzer hara - comprises spiritual form of the human being. Yaakov's yeitzer, his spiritual form, was one that directly opposed murder and violence, unlike his brother Eisav. Rashi writes that while vayira was indicative a fear that he himself may be killed, the connotation of vayeizter is that Yaakov was worried that he might be put in a position where he would have to kill others. In other words, Yaakov was troubled that he would be forced to act in a way that is antithetical to his yeitzer. Thus, vayeitzer can be interpreted to mean that his yeitzer was being bothered.

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeitzei

A number of years ago, an interesting story surfaced in one of the Jewish news outlets. A gas attendant at a station on the Palisades Parkway came up with a clever scam. When filling up for an Orthodox Jew, he would mention that on Passover, "one of your guys" filled up on gas but forgot his wallet and he paid for it instead. Many individuals ended up giving this man money in order to make a kiddush Hashem. But this is the 21^st century and thanks to social media, these stories began to spread and the attendant was exposed as a con artist. He targeted Orthodox Jews, however, because he knew he could rely on their honesty and integrity and feeling of responsibility.

To some degree, it is a similar tactic employed by our enemies around and within Israel who seem to constantly seek the signing of treaties and accords with Israel. The value of these deals, of course, is that the Jews can always be relied on to naïvely keep their word while their supposed counterparts in peace barely heed their side of the bargain. (This shtikle was originally published well before the groundbreaking Abraham Accords. We can only hope and pray that those treaties do not follow a similar pattern.)

This is by no means an original ruse. In fact, the last couple of parshiyos expose this as one the oldest tricks in The Book, literally.  First, Avraham is approached by Avimelech (21:22). It appears Avraham's success has led Avimelech to the realization that this is someone he better make sure to keep on his side. So, he engages him in a pact not just for the present but for generations to come. Then, as Yitzchak grows ever powerful, Avimelech approaches him as well (26:26) to secure a mutual deal. History would go on to show that while the progeny of Avraham and Yitzchak carefully kept their side of the deal to the best of their abilities, the Philistine descendants of Avimelech most certainly did not.

Finally, in the end of our parsha we find Lavan pulling a very similar stunt. After realizing he could never overcome Yaakov as a foe, Lavan demands a covenant with Yaakov, ensuring that Yaakov would not act against him. But many generations later, Bil'am had no qualms about dishonoring this agreement in attempting to destroy Yaakov's offspring. (See commentaries to Bemidbar 22:25 who note that the donkey was running Bil'am into the very monument that is mentioned in our parsha in order to remind him of this covenant.)

And so it has been and so it will likely always be. But I am not at all suggesting that this is something that should change. In fact, in a Rosh HaShanah shtikle, I suggest that it is in the merit of our steadfast trustworthiness in honouring our agreements with others – whether they keep their side or not – that HaShem honours the covenant made with our forefathers, even if we are guilty of violating our pledge to keep the Torah in its entirety. It is simply a virtue that makes up the fabric of our nation.

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Toledos

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 25^th yahrtzeit is this coming Sunday, 3 Kisleiv.

At the beginning of this week's parsha, we have the well-known episode of Rivkah's difficult pregnancy and the subsequent birth of her twin sons. As her pregnancy concludes, we are told (25:24) "v'hinei somim b'vitnah," behold there were twins in her womb. As many commentaries point out, the word hinei is used to express the novelty of the matter. This would be understandable under any other circumstance. However, the pasuk just before details the prophecy that Rivkah received, making it very clear that she was carrying twins. So there should have been no surprises when she actually gave birth to twins.

Some commentaries suggest that even though Rivkah knew she was carrying twins, no one else did. The novelty of the matter was only experienced by the others present at the time. However, it remains to be seen why that fact alone would be worth accentuating in the pasuk.

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, in Emes L'Yaakov, offers a fascinating approach. He suggests that in those times, twins were not all that uncommon at all. If we incorporate all of the midrashim, there were indeed multiple instances just in sefer Bereishis. However, the common occurrence was twins of opposite gender. To have twin boys was actually quite rare. This explains why the pasuk is worded in this way.

(He uses this same idea to explain Chavah's assumption at the birth of Sheis. The previous boys were born with twin sisters. Shais, however, was not. This was a clear indication to her that his birth was to fill the void left by Hevel's demise.)

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Chayei Sarah

Rashi (24:10) comments that Avraham's camels were discernible for they would go out muzzled so as to prevent them from eating from fields that did not belong to him. Ramba"n (pasuk 32) objects based on the gemara (Chullin 5b) that states that HaShem does not bring about mishaps even through the animals of tzadikim. The example given later (7a) is the donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair that would not even eat tevel. If so, how could it be that Avraham had to be worried about his animals stealing to the point where he had to muzzle them? Should this same merit not have been present in the house of Avraham Avinu?

There are a number of answers given. R' Ovadia miBartenura answers that perhaps the donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair was different because it was the donkey he used personally for travel and there was a stronger bond, so to speak, between the donkey and him. But these camels were not camels that Avraham used but just camels that he owned and perhaps that is why they were not subject to this merit. But maybe Avraham's own personal donkey was.

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, in Emes l'Yaakov, makes an interesting suggestion, based on one of the kinos from Tisha B'Av. It seems that this "miracle" of the animals avoiding issurim was connected to Eretz Yisrael. Maybe it was only in Eretz Yisrael that this happened. But in chutz la'Aretz – Charan for example – the animals would need to be muzzled. The difficulty I found with this offering, though, is that this seems to be based on Rashi and Ramban's argument being later on in pasuk 32. But Rashi says already on pasuk 10, when Eliezer first left, while still in Eretz Yisrael, that the camels went out muzzled. A reader has pointed out, though, that perhaps we can suggest the kedushah of Eretz Yisrael which is presumably the catalyst of this miracle, was not yet present to the same degree in the times of Avraham. 

Sha'arei Aharon offers a different approach. Tosafos in Chullin seem to make a distinction between food that is itself forbidden in its essence and food that is not by its nature forbidden, but is forbidden due to external circumstances. The example in Tosafos is eating before havdala where there is nothing wrong with the food itself but rather the time it is being eaten. Perhaps that is the difference here. The donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair would not eat tevel. Tevel is universally forbidden in its essence. But the food that Avraham's camels would have eaten was not forbidden by nature, but only because it belonged to others.

Another suggestion made by the same reader as above is that the animals' special, observant behaviour is very much a miracle. In the story of R' Pinchas ben Yair's donkey, he was not aware that the food was tevel. Avraham, however, would not be permitted to rely on this miracle and assume that his camels would not eat other people's food. Additionally, Avraham constantly endeavoured to set an example to the people around him as to how a person should act. Even if he could rely on his camels to not steal from neighbouring fields, it was necessary for his camels to be muzzled to set an example to the masses.  

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

Dikdukian: My Master's Brother(s)

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeira

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben avi mori Reuven Pinchas, a"h, whose 49^th yahrtzeit is Sunday, the 18^th of Cheshvan.

As well, this coming Wednesday, the 21^st of Chesvan, is the 26^th yahrtzeit of my great uncle, Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel ben Yoel.

There are many distinct differences between Avraham's experience with Avimelech in Gerar and his experience with Paroah in Mitzrayim in last week's parsha. One can certainly assess the episode in Gerar as having a slightly more pleasant outcome. Rather than being kindly asked to leave as he was in Mitzrayim, Avraham ended up settling in Gerar. Rashi explains simply (12:19) that Paroah was looking out for Avraham's well-being and knew that his people were steeped in immorality. However, it would seem that the distinct actions of Avimelech and Paroah may also be explained by the character of the monarchs themselves. Both Paroah and Avimelech had their entire houses afflicted with a plague. However, when Paroah summons Avraham he exclaims, (12:18) "What is this that you have done to ME?!" Avimelech, on the other hand, approaches Avraham and asks him (20:9) "What have you done to US?!" Paroah was clearly a more selfish individual than Avimelech. Paroah cared only about himself whereas Avimelech showed concern for others.

Furthermore, we find that Avraham presented an alibi to Avimelech and said nothing to defend himself to Paroah. The reason for this seems to be that Paroah did not even give him a chance to answer. When Avimelech asks Avraham why he acted in the way that he did, he clearly wanted an answer and was ready to listen to one. Paroah was not interested in what Avraham might have had to say and did not let him speak. These factors, although not compelling, seem to indicate that Paroah's dismissal of Avraham was not out of Paroah's genuine concern for Avraham's well-being but more likely a sign of his short-temperedness.

Lastly, when Avraham makes a feast to celebrate the weaning of Yitzchak, Rashi writes (21:8) that he invited the gedolei hador, Sheim, Eiver and Avimelech. Avimelech must have been a respectable individual to be included in the same breath as Sheim and Eiver. Therefore, his good-natured approach to the confrontation with Avraham seems to be a reflection of his character.

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Lech Lecha

Unfortunately, Baltimore continues to reel from the loss of its great ones with the passing of R' Ezra Neuberger of Ner Yisroel this past Wednesday. I was the beneficiary of his wise counsel on a number of occasions. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Ezra Dovid ben Naftali HaLevi, z"l.

When Avraham and his entourage go down to Mitzrayim at the beginning of the parsha, we are told of the famous ruse of Sarah posing as his sister. This is done "l'ma'an yitav li ba'avureich, v'chaysa nafshi biglaleich" (12:13), so that they will do good to me and I will live because of you. Rashi comments on "l'ma'an yitav li," that they will give him presents. There is a discussion amongst the commentaries as to how to understand this exchange. Specifically, how do we reconcile this with Avraham's refusal to accept even a shoelace from the king of Sedom later on the parsha (14:22-23), as well as the maxim from Mishlei (15:27) "he who spurns gifts shall live." In the past, I have quoted the creative approach of the Ta"Z in Divrei David to explain this episode. I will link it here but this time, I would like to explore a number of other approaches.

One element missing from Divrei David's explanation is the fact that Avraham does appear to take more gifts from Paroah as he is sent away. Sha'arei Aharon lays out a number of different innovative explanations. He quotes Imrei Shefer and Kli Yekar who explain simply that we know from Rashi (13:3) that Avraham had incurred debts on his way down to Mitzrayim. It would not have been proper for him to reject gifts at that point at the expense of his debtors. His financial standing was far better when he encountered the king of Sedom.

He brings another perspective from Imrei Shefer asserting that "soneh matanos yichyeh" is not applicable with regards to accepting gifts from gentiles. Avraham's reluctance to accept anything from the king of Sedom was due to his extreme wickedness. Netziv, in Ha'amek Davar explains similarly as to why rejected his gifts while accepting them from Paroah and later, Avimelech.

Maskil L'David suggests that in rejecting the offer Avraham was expressing his steadfast belief in HaShem's promise in the beginning of the parsha that he would become great and exalted. However, this guarantee was applicable only in Eretz Yisrael. While in a foreign land, he could not rely on this.

I would like to offer my own suggestion as to what differentiated Paroah from the king of Sedom. Avraham expressed quite clearly that he did not want the king of Sedom to lay claim to being the source of Avraham's wealth. This was of much greater concern with Avraham's proximity to Sedom. He was troubled with the potential disgrace of the king parading around saying, "See that guy over there? I made him rich!" With the relative distance of Mitzrayim, this issue did not bother him.

Finally, Sha'arei Aharon quotes a novel interpretation he heard directly from the Bobover Rebbe in the name of his father. He contends that "soneh matanos yichyeh" is applicable only when the one who offers the presents is doing so willfully. He urged Sarah to pose as his sister so that they would want, of their own volition, to offer him presents. However, he would reject these gifts, thereby actually fulfilling being a soneh matanos and thus, he will live because of her. To support this alternative understanding of the story, he quotes Targum Yonasan (12:16) who explains that Avraham amassed all of his animals and slaves on his own.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: King #5

Dikdukian: Vekoyei

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.