The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

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

    The very first Rashi in this week's parsha deals with the seemingly redundant phrase "Emor el hakohanim b'nei Aharon, ve'amarta aleihem." To explain the double-instance of "amirah," Rashi quotes from the gemara (Yevamos 114a) which interprets that this a commandment to the men to be watchful of the younger ones. This would seem to be merely an extension of the mitzvah of chinuch, the general requirement that a father has to educate his son in mitzvos. However, the Tur (YD 373) writes with regard to this commandment that a Kohein is required to keep his son away from tum'ah, and even to remove him from tum'ah. If a young Kohein is found in a graveyard, for instance, he must be removed immediately. This is slightly more stringent then the regular laws of chinuch. As far as the d'oraysa aspect of regular chinuch is concerned, a father is not allowed to feed his child forbidden foods but once he is actually in the act of eating it, he is not required to remove him from it. Why is this different?

 

    R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l answers that the general requirement of chinuch is a matter of education which is specific to the father-son relationship. The father must teach the son the mitzvos. As such, it was not deemed necessary to actually remove one's child from a situation of issur. It is sufficient for the purpose of education to make sure that a father does not lead his son into such a situation. When it comes to the laws pertaining to the Kehunah, it is different. The requirement of a Kohein to keep his son away from tum'ah is not only part of his obligation to teach his son the mitzvos but it also relates to the sanctity of the Kehunah. A Kohein is required to preserve the sanctity of the Kehunah and that includes keeping his son away from tum'ah under all circumstances. Even a young child coming in contact with tum'ah is an active desecration of the sanctity of the Kehunah and therefore, he is to be removed at once. It would seem, according to this, that it is not only the father of the boy who is commanded in regards to his son but perhaps every Kohein (but not necessarily every Jew.) Note that Rashi does say "lehazhir hagedolim al haketanim," and not "al habanim."

 

**********

Question: One of the women that a Kohen is forbidden to marry is an "isha gerusha me'ishah", a woman divorced from her husband. This includes even a woman who is divorced out of Kiddushin and never had Nissuin, seemingly because she is still considered "gerusha me'ishah". However, the Mishna in Sotah 4:1 learns that an arusa who has not yet had Nissuin does not drink the mei Sotah. This is learned from the pasuk "Asher tiste isha tachas ishah". Here it seems that ishah refers only to a husband after Nissuin ?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Coutning the Omer in Different Bases (Revised)

AstorTorah: No Martians in the Mikdash by R' Ari Storch

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Acharei Mos / Kedoshim

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

In this week's parsha (18:21), we are introduced to the prohibition against the brutal practice of giving over one's child to the Molech. The exact details of the Molech are discussed in the gemara Sanhedrin. In a nutshell, it refers to a father giving over his child to some form of Avodah Zarah. In the gemara (64a) quite an intriguing law concerning Molech is taught. Rav Acha berei d'Rava states that one who gives over all of his children to the Molech is exempt from the punishment for Molech. He infers this from the word in the pasuk "umizar'acha," from your offspring and not all of your offspring.

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank, in Har Tzvi, raises an interesting question. In order to be given punishment, we require that the transgressor be properly warned beforehand. There is a concept called "hasra'as safek," which is a conditional warning where the action in which the transgressor will be engaging is not clearly a transgression of he specific prohibition. For example, for one to be warned not to throw a rock into a crowd of people because he MIGHT kill someone is "hasra'as safek" for it is not clear that he will kill someone. According to some opinions this is not a valid warning. Therefore, according to those opinions, how can one ever receive punishment for Molech? When you warn the father, it is an invalid warning because he can simply give over all of his children and be exempt. R' Frank suggests that the concept of hasra'as safek is only problematic when it is uncertain that the prohibition will be transgressed at all. However, when a father gives over all his children, it is not that he has not transgressed the prohibition of Molech. Rather, he has transgressed the prohibition but is merely exempt from the punishment. Therefore, since he definitely will be transgressing the Molech prohibition, the warning is valid.

**********

Let's go 2-for-2 with R' Tzvi Pesach Frank. Kedoshim begins commanding us to be kedoshim, holy. The Midrash Rabbah in Parshas Mikeitz says, "This pasuk may have been construed to mean that you should be as holy as I, until it says at the end of the pasuk 'ki Kadosh Ani,' for I am holy. My holiness is above yours." This is a very difficult suggestion to understand. How would even the most foolish of men begin to think that the holiness of man could reach that of HaShem's?

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank, in Har Tzvi offers the following explanation: In the previous parsha, the pasuk (16:16) refers to the Oheil Mo'eid as "hashochein itam besoch tum'osam," that dwells amongst them in the midst of their tum'ah. Rashi comments that even though they are temei'im, the Shechinah, the Holy Presence, dwells among them. The possible misconception referred to by the Midrash is based on this concept. One might have mistakenly thought that just as HaShem's kedushah is such that He may dwell even among a nation that is tamei, a man's kedushah can protect him in such surroundings as well. The Torah then teaches us that this is not so for HaShem's holiness is above ours.

This lesson has far-reaching implications. It may be understood on it's simplest level, referring to actual tum'ah. No man is so holy that contact with tum'ah will not render him tamei. But it can also be understood on a more spiritual level. One must realize that there is no level of holiness, no shell that can protect someone from being influenced by the society in which he dwells. One's level of spiritual purity will always be affected by his surroundings.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Stand up, goat!

Dikdukian: Mitum'os

AstroTorah: Satan: Our Martian King of Earth by R" Ari Storch

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Tazria / Metzora

A special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my first cousins, Yona & Libby Seliger on the recent birth of a baby girl. They named the baby Naomi for my mother, a"h. Mazal Tov to the "ganse mishpachah."

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

I am not familiar with the exact process used to choose which parshios double up together but if there's any tandem that makes 100% sense, it's Tazria and Metzora. Parshas Tazria covers most of the laws pertaining to the declaration of a case of Tzora'as. The specifics of a Kohein determines when there is Tzora'as on a body or garment are discussed there. Parshas Metzora begins with the post Tzora'as procedures necessary for the affected individual to become tahor once again. However, immediately following that we are told of the procedures involved in identifying Tzora'as on a house. One would have expected this section to be connected to the other group in Parshas Tazria.

We have dealt in the past with other examples where some of the things belong together - but they aren't. The key is usually an intrinsic uniqueness in the case of the section that doesn't belong. This instance is no different. The gemara (Sanhedrin 71a) informs us of an interesting fact concerning Tzora'as of the house. According, to one opinion, Tzora'as of the house never happened and never will. Why then is it even discussed in the Torah? The gemara answers, "Derosh vekabel sachar," learn it and you will be rewarded. Perhaps it is the "impracticality" of Tzora'as of the house that warrants its separation from the other more applicable cases of Tzora'as.

The gemara in Sanhedrin lists two other examples of laws in the Torah that never have and never will be implemented. The "ir hanidachas," the wayward city, is a city which has worshiped idols as a whole and is therefore destroyed as a whole. However, this is not carried out in a city that has even one mezuzah. The "ben sorer umoreh," the wayward son is put to death. However, the requirements for this scenario are so exact and specific that it is virtually impossible.

R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, would caution, however, that we one might learn this gemara and be led to believe that the purpose of these sections in the Torah is only so that we may sit and toil learning the specific laws and be rewarded for the toil. But this is not the case. What the gemara is telling us is that although these cases might never happen, there are valuable lessons to be learned from each halachah. For example, the discussion surrounding "ben sorer umoreh" teaches us very valuable lessons in chinuch. The Torah discusses these laws so that we may learn the valuable lessons that are attached to them and through those lessons we will earn reward.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Omer in Different Bases

Dikdukian: Meaining of "kibus" by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: White Hair

Dikdukian: Various Dikduk Observations by Eliyahu Levin

AstroTorah: Ancient Influences of Outside Cultures by R' Ari Storch

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemini

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

In this week's parsha, we learn of the tragic episode of Nadav and Avihu, two sons of Aharon who were killed when they brought a sacrifice which they were not commanded to bring. As the story begins, the pasuk (10:1) recounts, "And two sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, took..." I found it puzzling that they are first referred to as the sons of Aharon and only following that are they identified by their names. One might have expected the opposite.

After convincing the citizens of the city of Shechem to circumcise themselves, Shimon and Levi return three days later and wipe out all of the males. There too, (Bereishis 34:25) they are referred to as "the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi."

At the beginning of Parshas Korach, when Korach's entourage is enumerated, we are introduced to Dasan and Aviram by name for the very first time. They are indeed referred to as "Dasan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav." I am no longer sure which is the exception and which is the rule but perhaps the following thought may explain this discrepancy:

Although the actions of Yaakov and Aharon's sons were met with sharp opposition or death, each group acted with a considerable degree of good intentions. Shimon and Levi's attack on the city of Shechem was hardly an act of selfishness. They were defending their sister and the honour of their father. Although Yaakov ultimately chastised them for their angry attack, their decision was clearly fuelled by the feeling that it was the right thing to do.

Nadav and Avihu, as well, were overcome by the Divine presence and the great miracles that were an integral part of the consecration of the Mishkon. They brought their sacrifice because they were inspired to do so and as Kohanim, the sons of Aharon, they felt it was the proper thing to do. Although both the sons of Aharon and the sons of Yaakov made incorrect judgements, the Torah's recount of their deeds alludes to the good intentions behind their actions by first reaffirming their prestigious pedigree. Dasan and Aviram, contrarily, were driven by selfish motives. Being the sons of Eliav is therefore considered insignificant with respect to their names. They are therefore listed with their names first, indicative of the driving forces behind their actions.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Acharon shel Pesach

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

    The great miracles at Yam Suf moved B'nei Yisroel to sing shirah. The pasuk that prefaces this shirah tells us (14:31) that B'nei Yisroel saw the Mighty Hand of HaShem...and the nation feared HaShem and they believed in HaShem and in Moshe, His servant.

 

    The ultimate defeat of the Egyptian oppression and the miracles which facilitated it brought about tremendous joy. One would have expected the initial emotion of B'nei Yisroel towards HaShem to be love, not fear.

 

    Perhaps this can be explained as follows: The pesukim actually recount a progression following the miracles at Yam Suf. Initially, the massive destruction - an entire army wiped away in the blink of an eye - instilled a great fear and awe in the nation. This, along with the ten plagues showed B'nei Yisroel how powerful and mighty HaShem is. This brought them to a higher level of emunah in HaShem and His prophet, Moshe. With all this recognition as a foundation, B'nei Yisroel were able to come to an even greater appreciation of HaShem's love and out of their own love, sprung forth in song. B'nei Yisroel followed the true progression of yirah to ahavah, fear to love, culminating ultimately in the shirah. This may explain the shirah's first word, "az." Perhaps we may understand that after B'nei Yisroel established their fear and awe of HaShem's might and their belief in Moshe Rabbeinu, then they were able to rise to the next level and sing the praises of HaShem.

 

Have a good Yom Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: Dancing with the Devil by R' Ari Storch

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