The Weekly Shtikle Blog

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

View Profile

Friday, December 25

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayigash

This past Tuesday was the Yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, Rabbi Dr Israel Frankel, o"h. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso,
Yisroel Aryeh ben Asher Yeshayahu.

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Opa, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

This week's parsha begins amidst a fierce confrontation between Yosef and his brothers. Yehudah approaches Yosef for a face-to-face encounter in an attempt to plead his case. Alshich asks what should be an obvious question. At the end of last week's parsha, Yehudah offers the entire family as slaves. Yosef rejected this offer in favour of a more lenient arrangement, i.e. the enslavement of only one of the brothers. What place does Yehudah then have to argue with Yosef if his own suggestion was even harsher than Yosef's?

Alshich answers that Yehudah initially saw this crisis as a possible atonement for the selling of Yosef as indicated by the words (44:16) "HaElokim matza es avon avadecha...," HaShem has found the sins of your servants. Had all the brothers been enslaved it would have indeed proven to be a proper atonement. That was why Yehudah seemed so keen on the slavery arrangement. However, once Yosef decided to enslave only Binyomin, who had no part in Yosef's selling, he realized that this was not the time to atone for that sin and he had to fight to vigorously to be able to bring back Binyomin as he had promised his father. Netziv in Hemek Davar gives a similar answer.

With this interpretation of Yehudah's game plan we see how Yehudah easily saw a misfortune that befell him as an atonement for his sins. We see this virtuous quality manifest itself in Yosef as well. When Yosef his identity to his brothers, he assures them (45:5-7) that HaShem has sent him to be put in the position to help out the brothers. It is clear how Yosef attributes his rise to power to the hand of HaShem. However, he also uses the word Elokim rather than HaShem. This word always denotes "midas hadin," the judgmental quality, rather than HaShem which denotes "midas harachamim," the merciful quality. I believe the reason for this is that along with the good fortune of Yosef's rise to power, he endured many rough trials and tribulations. By using the word Elokim, Yosef is not only attributing his good fortune to Divine Providence but is also recognizing that all his troubles along the way came as an atonement for his own sins.

This trait is also found in Yonah who was quick to admit (Yonah 1:12) that the giant storm was all his fault. However, this virtue of realizing one's shortcomings and attributing his misfortune to them is not one expected only of our righteous forebearers. It is expected of each and every Jew. Rashi (Rosh HaShanah 4a) writes that a gentile who gives charity on the condition that his family benefit or that he merits life in the world to come is considered evil for if he is not granted what he requested, he will hold it personally against God. However, a Jew who does so is considered righteous for surely if he does not get what he requested as the condition for his charity, he will realize that it is his own shortcomings that are responsible for his misfortune.

In a more recent illustration of this crucial quality, the Brisker Rav was approached in the midst of much violence and casualty in Eretz Yisroel with the following comment: "Isn't it terrible that all the chilul shabbos is causing all these bad things to happen to Jews." To this he righteously responded, "Who are you to assume that is another's iniquities that are responsible for these difficult times? Perhaps it is your own imperfections that contribute to the suffering. Surely, with the difficult conditions we are facing as a nation today, this is an important lesson to absorb from our predecessors, to respond to adversity with introspection and self-evaluation, figuring out how we may be responsible and what we can do to fix it.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: Interesting Calendar Fact by Ari Brodsky
AstroTorah: Happy New Year by R' Ari Storch
Dikdukian: Just Do It

Friday, December 18

RE: The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeishev

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Opa, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

 

When the brothers return from Mitzrayim after their first encounter with Yoseif, they are forced to explain to their father the turn of events that occurred and the grave dilemma they now faced regarding their youngest brother. When asked why they let it be known that they have yet another brother, the brothers defend themselves by stating, (43:7) “The man asked about us and our birthplaces saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Do you have another brother?’ and we answered accordingly. How were we to know that he would ask us to bring him down?” However, a simple investigation of the dialogue between Yoseif and his brothers (42:9-13) shows that the brothers were never asked to divulge this information. They seemed to have offered it of their own accord.

 

This discrepancy is dealt with by Ramban a few pesukim earlier (42:34). He offers two possible explanations which seem to be polar opposites. First, he suggests that in fact, it never happened. He explains that the brothers were determined to convince Yaakov to allow them to bring Binyomin back with them. Thus, they twisted the story slightly to make it sound better and increase their chances of convincing their father. This was done ultimately with the interests of preserving the peace with their father and thus, it was permissible to stretch the truth.

 

The second explanation offered by Ramban is that it did happen. After being charged as spies, the brothers told Yoseif that they were all part of one family. Yoseif answered that this was not a satisfactory defense and asked about the other members of the family so that he may corroborate their alibi. Ramban asserts that just because this dialogue was not written initially, that does not mean that it didn’t happen. It is not uncommon for the Torah to leave out a certain piece of information which will be revealed in another context. Another instance in which such an interpretation is required is when Yaakov complains to his wives that their father has switched the rules on him a hundred times (31:7). The Torah certainly did not record one hundred instances of Lavan’s chicanery. But by no means does that mean that it didn’t happen.

 

Rashbam, (42:9) assuming Ramban’s second approach, explains how the question would have fit into the dialogue. The brothers exhibited suspicious behaviour as ten, burly men who always stuck together. This warranted the charge of espionage. They defended themselves by maintaining that the reason they stuck together was because they were brothers, not because they were spies. Yoseif’s retort (had he seriously believed them to be spies) was that if they were all brothers, shouldn’t one of them have stayed behind with their father. This strong argument forced the brothers to confirm that their father was alive and that there was indeed another brother who had stayed behind.

 

Have a good Shabbos and a Chanukah Samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Friday, December 11

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeishev

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Opa, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

After throwing Yoseif into the pit, the brothers had clearly paid no attention to Reuvein's previous demand and were still contemplating killing Yoseif. Finally, they are convinced by Yehudah, who had taken on a role of leadership amongst the brothers. He reasons, (37:26) "Of what gain would it be for us to kill our brother, thereby requiring us to cover his blood?" Sensing that the covering of blood was meant metaphorically, Rashi renders "we will hide his death." This seemingly innocuous comment is actually slightly problematic. According to Rashi's interpretation, it seems the brothers wished to avoid informing their father of Yoseif's death. However, even though they didn't kill him, they still told him that he had died. Therefore, it seems that covering up Yoseif's "death" would not have been the issue but rather, covering up his "murder."

 

Behind Rashi's comment may, in fact, be an intriguing psychological insight. Had the brothers actually killed Yoseif, it would have been too difficult for them to report his death to their father and, at the same time, deny any involvement. They would have been forced to make up some other story, much further from the truth. Since they sold him and knew that he was indeed alive and well, they were more comfortable making up a story of his tragic death. If this is the way Rashi is to be understood, it gives deep insight into the mind of a liar. It is more difficult to tell a lie which is very close to the truth, a half-truth perhaps, than to tell a lie which is far from the truth.


Have a good Shabbos and a Chanukah Samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
The Dikdukian: Clear the Halls!

Friday, December 4

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayishlach

First, my sincerest apologies for failing to send out a shtikle last week. I meant to dedicate it to my nephew, Yeshaya Shonek, whose Bar Mitzvah I was attending. So this week will have to do.
The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Opa, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

 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, is the spiritual form of the human being. Yaakov's yeitzer, his spiritual form, was one that directly opposed killing and violence, unlike his brother Eisav. Rashi interprets vayeizter that Yaakov was worried that might have to kill others. Fitting that in with this interpretation, Yaakov was troubled that he would now have to engage in that which his yeitzer diametrically opposes. Thus, vayeitzer means that his yeitzer was being bothered.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Great Dishon Confusion
AstroTorah: The Satanic Strategy of Scorpius by R' Ari Storch (It has to do with the parsha, trust me.)