The Weekly Shtikle - Leil Seider

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

By the time we reach Nirtzah, it is understandable if all the divrei Torah have been exhausted as we bear down the home stretch. But I once saw a very nice piece on "Echad mi yodeia" in the hagaddah "Shiras HaLeviim," compiled by R' Aryeh Leib Lopiansky, one of my rebbeim from Ohr Yerushalayim. Thanks to Uncle Moishy, many of us probably know the entire text by heart - at least in English. So we know that "Ten are the Asereeeeeees... Hadibros." But wait, two are luchos that Moshe brought. Weren't the Aseres HaDibros written on the two luchos? How could the same item or concept occupy two spots in this song?

R' Chaim Soloveichik points out an interesting nuance in the davening for Shabbos morning. In "Yismach Moshe" we say "ushnei luchos avanim horid beyado vechasuv bahem shemiras Shabbos, vechein kasuv besorasecha." We refer to Moshe's bringing down the two stone tablets on which was written "shemiras Shabbos," and so it is written in Your Torah, etc. But what was written on the luchos was Torah. Yet, we treat it as two separate entities - it was written on the luchos and so it was written in the Torah. R' Chaim explains that there was a separate covenant regarding the Aseres HaDibros, (hence the name "luchos habris") exclusive of the covenant regarding the rest of the Torah and so they are treated as two entities. 

This same idea may be used to explain our song. The Aseres HaDibros have their own significance as part of the Torah. But the two luchos represented an additional covenant between HaShem and B'nei Yisroel and that is why they are listed as two entities.

In a footnote, the author brings from another hagaddah that the purpose of Echad Mi Yodeia is to ask us what comes to mind when we hear these numbers.  For someone who leads a true Torah life, these numbers will automatically conjure up thoughts of associated Torah concepts. With this explanation, the original question is essentially a non-starter.

Have a Chag Kasher veSamei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Yagieinu vs Hagieinu

Dikdukian: Chad Gadia

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav

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

    In this week's parsha, a number of the different types of sacrifices are discussed. With regard to the chatas offering, it is written (6:18) "In the place where the olah is slaughtered, the chatas shall be slaughtered in front of HaShem. It is Holy of Holies." A similar description is given of the asham sacrifice. "It is Holy of Holies. In the place where you slaughter the olah you shall slaughter the asham..." The obvious discrepancy between the two is that the order is switched around.

    Meshech Chachmah addresses this disparity citing a gemara (Sotah 32b) which teaches "R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Shimon ben Yochai: Why was prayer decreed to be said quietly? In order not to embarrass the transgressor (who prays for forgiveness for his sins) for the Torah did not designate different areas for the slaughter of the olah and the chatas." A lesson is learned from the fact that the Torah specifically designated the identical place of slaughter for the olah and chatas (north of the altar). The chatas is brought for the inadvertent transgression of a prohibitive commandment. The olah is brought for improper thoughts of transgression or may even be brought as a gift. One who brings a chatas offering is saved embarrassment as the onlooker cannot differentiate between a chatas and an olah for they are slaughtered in the same place.

    It appears that this expression of mercy applies also to the asham which is brought for one of a smaller subset of specific transgressions. However, writes Meshech Chachmah, the pasuk gives this lesson ultimate priority when describing the chatas by enumerating it as the first criterion for the offering because it is brought for an unintentional misdeed. Since the asham is brought for deliberate offenses, this lesson is not prioritized to the same degree and therefore, the primary characteristic of the asham is that it is Holy of Holies.

    What remains puzzling, is why the gemara used the chatas as the example for this lesson. Since the asham is, in fact, also slaughtered in the same place, the expression of mercy is prevalent there as well. It seemingly would have been an even stronger lesson had the gemara used the asham as the example.

Have a good Shabbos and a chag kasher ve'sameiach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: שבת הגדול
Dikdukian: First-born Males
Dikdukian: Haggadah: Hagiyenu vs Yagiyenu
AstoTorah: Halachah vs. History? by R' Ari Storch

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayikra

This past Wednesday, 2 Nissan, was the fourth Yahrtzeit of my Bubbie, o"h. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Yehudis bas Reuven Pinchas.

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

    In 1:14 we are told that an Olah offering of birds is of turtledoves or pigeons. Ramban describes why specifically these two birds are chosen for the Olah offering of birds from all other birds. He explains that the traits of these birds resemble that of B'nei Yisroel hinting to a more metaphysical resemblance between the birds and humans. I believe there is a specific reason why Ramban was compelled to take this approach to the bird offerings.

 

    On pasuk 9 we are exposed to the famous dispute between Ramban and Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim as to the reason for Korbanos. Ramban states there that the sacrificing of the animal is representative of the deserved sacrifice of one's own body. The animal on the Mizbei'ach is really an exchange for the body of the one bringing it. It is easier to understand this connection with regular, four-legged mammals. They have four limbs and innards like that of a human. When a bull is lying on the Mizbe'ach, one can conceive how it represents a human being. When its innards are burnt, one can conceive how this is an exchange for the burning of a human's innards. However, with a bird, the connection is harder to see. A bird's physical make-up is nothing like that of a human. The bringing of a bird offering does not entail the burning of the innards as an essential component like the animal offerings do. Therefore, Ramban shows us that although a physical connection between birds and humans is hard to see, a spiritual connection between the birds and B'nei Yisroel exists in such a way that we may conceive a bird offering on the Mizbei'ach to represent the one who is bringing it.

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbin beSimchah! (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a)

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: The Thirteenth Tribe? by R' Ari Storch

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayakkeil / Pekudei

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

The pasuk (40:22) recounts the placing of the Shulchan in the North before the placing of the Menorah in the South. However, points out R' Chaim Brisker, the Mishkan was put together from the Kodesh Kadashim and out, i.e. from the West to the East. There is a concept known as "Kol pinos she'atah poneh, lo yehu ela derech yamin" (Sotah 15b and various other sources). That is, that all turns that you make should be to the right. If so, when facing East, one should theoretically turn right to the South and place the Menorah first and then place the Shulchan in the North.

R' Chaim answers that we see in the layout that Moshe was commanded (26:35) that aside from being in the South, the Menorah should be "Nochach haShulchan", opposite the Shulchan. Therefore, it had to be placed after the Shulchan so that it would face it immediately. So, too, is the reason why the outer altar was put in its place before the Kiyor which was closer to the Mishkan for in the description of the Kiyor (30:18) we find it is to be placed "bein Ohel Moed uvein haMizbeiach," between Ohel Moed and the altar which is only possible if both are in place beforehand. R' Chaim Kanievsky gives this answer as well.

Chazak, chazak venischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ve'asa Vetzal'el by R' Binny Marwick

Dikdukian: Sham and Shamah

Dikdukian: Let your Soul not be Desolate

Dikdukian: The proper wording for the Blessing on the Trees from Yaaqov Loewinger

AstroTorah: Too Much Chiddush for Rosh Chodesh by R' Ari Storch

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

How many Calves were there?

An intriguing article written by my father.

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Sisa

This past Tuesday was the second Yahrtzeit of Moshe Fuller, z"l, of Ner Yisroel. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Moshe ben Chaim Tzvi.

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

When Moshe returns from the mountain to the horrific scene that was the worshipping of the Golden Calf, he is first greeted by Yehoshua who was waiting for him at the bottom of the mountain. Yehoshua hears the sound of the people from afar and tells Moshe that there is a sound of war coming from the camp. Moshe retorts (32:18) "There is not the cry of victory, nor the cry of defeat. It is the distressful sound (of blasphemy and cursing) that I hear." Yehoshua was presumably aware of what had transpired while Moshe was away. It is unclear what his intentions were in declaring that there was a war.

 

My father explains that Yehoshua was very much aware of the treacherous activities that were going on. By asserting that he heard the sounds of war, he intended to give Moshe the impression that there was a dispute amongst the people, that despite the terrible actions of the worshippers of the Golden Calf, there was a significant objection by the others which resulted in a scuffle. Moshe then replied with the sad truth, that the sounds were not those of war but rather a collective sound of blasphemy and light-headedness. Although only a small portion of B'nei Yisroel worshipped the Golden Calf, perhaps as few as 3000, there is little evidence of any dissent from the others. The gemara (Sanhedrin 7a) recounts that Chur, the son of Miriam, refused to build the idol for the people and was murdered. Moshe awakened Yehoshua to the unfortunate fact that the uprising had succeeded uncontested.

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Kol Anos

Dikdukian: Yeiaseh vs.Taaseh by Ephraim Stulberg

AstroTorah: Holy Cosmic Cows! by R' Ari Storch

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