The Weekly Shtikle - Bemidbar

A special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov once again to the Yeres & Lifshitz families on the birth of their new baby boy who now has a name - Yisrael Aryeh, named after my wife's grandfather.

Today is the first yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

This coming Sunday is the 10th yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah.

One of the points of interest concerning the census is the discrepancy between the population of the tribe of Levi as compared to all other tribes. The tally of the tribe of Levi was 22300, almost 10000 short of the lowest tally amongst the other tribes, Menasheh's 32200. But the Leviim were counted from one month old whereas the rest of the nation was counted from 20 years old so their numbers are even more unusually low.

Ramba"n notes this point and offers two explanations: 1) B'nei Yisroel's dramatic increase in population was a result of the subjugation in Mitzrayim. As the pasuk (Shemos 1:12) "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad." Since, as we know, the tribe of Levi was not subjected to the same hardships as the rest of the nation, they did not multiply at the same rate. 2) When Yaakov Avinu expressed his anger with Shimon and Levi over the incident in Shechem, Levi was cursed with being less in number than his brothers.

Ohr HaChayim HaKadosh takes issue with both of these offerings from Ramba"n. First, he argues that B'nei Yisroel's miraculous rate of reproduction was not a result of the subjugation. The pasuk stating, (Shemos 1:7) "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them," comes before any mention of slavery. As far as Ramba"n's second suggestion, Ohr HaChayim cites a census in Divrei HaYamim in which the tribe of Levi was great in number, implying that there was no such curse on Levi.

Ohr HaChayim and Klei Yekar offer an alternative suggestion. The gemara (Sotah 12a) recounts that when Par'oah issued his evil decree on all Israelite males, Amram divorced Yocheved and everyone else followed suit. Although Amram eventually did take Yocheved back, this move had a drastic effect on population growth, and most drastically on his own tribe, Levi. Over 80 years later this was reflected in the census.

R' Sander Goldberg (Baltimore) in Nachal Chayim, shows mathematically how Ramba"n's first answer does not seem to work. B'nei Yisroel totalled 603,550 of which 22,273 were first born. That would mean the first born made up less than 4% of the population. But the first born were also counted from one month. It can be assumed that the total population of B'nei Yisroel counting from one month would be far greater than 603,550. As there is only one first born per family, that means the families had an average size of over 30. This is impossible under natural circumstances and is therefore a testimony to the statement of Chaza"l that the Israelite women would give birth to six babies at a time

When we observe the tribe of Levi we find similar numbers. The population of Levi was 22300 of which 300 were first born. That amounts to even smaller percentage of first born and thus, an even larger average family size! Clearly, when the tribe of Levi multiplied, they did so at a similar if not greater rate than the rest of the nation.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup: Al Pi Cheshbon: Tens and Ones by Ari Brodsky Al Pi Cheshbon: Rounded Numbers Al Pi Cheshbon: Discrepency in Levi's Population Al Pi Cheshbon: Explaining the Uncounted Leviim Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability AstroTorah: Navigating 40 Years in the Wilderness by the Northern Stars by R' Ari Storch Dikdukian: Be or Ba? Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar by Eliyahu Levin

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Bechukosai

A special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Avi and Sara Lifshitz of Neve Daniel on the birth of a baby boy this past Wednesday. Mazal Tov to the ganse mishpacha!

    This week's parsha begins with the promise of the blessings for those who follow the ways of the Torah. There are two conditions given: "im bechukosai teileichu," and "es mitzvosai tishmeru." Rashi's comment is a common subject for Bechukosai discussion. "Bechukosai teileichu" refers to toiling in the study of Torah. However, we must certainly be sure to toil enough to realize that there are in fact two conditions. Indeed, there is only one instance of the word "im," if, in the pasuk, indicating that one must accomplish both conditions to be deserving of the blessings. We must toil in the study of Torah but also fulfill the mitzvos diligently. Contrarily, the mirroring pasuk which introduces the curses contains two instances of "im." If we falter in either of these two catergories there are grave consequences.

 

    To put it in computer logic terms for those for whom it is helpful:

if ((bechukosai_teileichu) && (mitzvosai_tishmeru))

    getBerachos();

else

    getKlalos(); // Chas veShalom

 

    However, even if one is able to accomplish the two conditions, there is still a delicate balance that must be met. This is where the haftarah connects with the parsha. In last week's Pirkei Avos, Perek 3 (Mishna 17) R' Elazar ben Azaria teaches what is arguably the paradigmatic lesson of all of Pirkei Avos. One whose wisdom and knowledge is greater than his deeds is like a tree whose branches are greater than its roots, lacking support and easily toppled over. One whose deeds are greater, however, is like a tree whose roots are greater in number than its branches, providing support against all sorts of nasty conditions. The pesukim used to illustrate this are from this week's haftarah (Yirmiyahu 17:5-8). "And he shall be as a tree by the waters..." What I find puzzling is that the Navi is clearly contrasting someone who puts his trust in man with someone who places his trust solely in HaShem. R' Elazar ben Azaria seems to borrow this imagery from its clear application in Tanach and apply it to one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom. Nevertheless, these pesukim, as understood by R' Elazar ben Azaria, establish a direct connection between the parsha and the haftarah.

 

CHAZAK CHAZAK veNISCHAZEIK!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: Why are these Nights Different? 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar

I heard the following from the Rosh HaYeshiva, HaRav Kulefsky, zt"l, a number of years ago: The beginning of this week's parsha (25:8) speaks of the obligation (for Beis Din) to count the 49 years leading up to the Yovel year. Chizkuni writes that since the counting obligation for Yovel is mentioned only once and for Beis Din, it does not require a brachah. For Sefiras HaOmer, however, since the obligation is mentioned twice, once in Emor (23:15) and once in Re'eih (Devarim 17:9), once for Beis Din and once for every individual, it requires a brachah. The reasoning of Chizkuni is rather puzzling. Why would the obligation to count with a brachah depend on the number of times the mitzvah is mentioned?

Ramba"n writes (23:15) that the plural form of the commandment for Sefiras HaOmer, "usfartem lachem," indicates that there should be a counting for each individual. This is unlike the singular form of the commandment to count the years of Yovel, "vesafarta lecha," or the commandment for the zavah to count seven days of cleanliness (15:28), "vesafrah lah." He explains that the singular form implies that the counting is only a means to an end. A zavah need not count each day as the days go by but rather the counting is necessary for her to know when she may become tehorah. This would also seem to be the reasoning behind the Yovel count, that Beis Din need only keep count of the years in order to know which year to make a Shemitah or Yovel year but in both these cases the counts serve no purpose on their own.

Perhaps, suggests HaRav Kulefsky, this is what Chizkuni meant. Since for Yovel there is only one commandment and it is for Beis Din, the implication is that there is no purpose for the count other than to keep track of the years so that we may make Yovel in the proper year. But since for Sefiras HaOmer in addition to the commandment of "shiv'ah shavuos tispor lach" in Re'eih, we have the commandment of "usfartem lachem" in Emor teaching us that every individual must count for himself, it is clear that the counting itself is an end unto itself and therefore it requires a brachah.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Hearing Los by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: How Lo can you Go?

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

    At the beginning of this week's parsha, (21:2) we are told that a Kohein, although he is not permitted to become tamei meis, he is allowed to do so for his mother or father and other immediate family. The Midrash on this pasuk states that after the pasuk has told me that he may become tamei for his mother, I might have thought only for his mother may he become tamei for she is definitely his mother. But his father is a safeik, for we can never be 100% sure that this is in fact his father, but we consider him his father only by a "chazakah," an assumption of sorts. Therefore, we might have thought it does not apply to his father. So the pasuk tells us "ul'aviv," that it applies to his father as well.

    In T`shuvos haRashb"a (27), R"Y asks the Rashb"a what kind of assumption would that have been? Either way he can become tamei for his father. If this man is in fact his father, then he may become tamei because he is his father. But if this man is not his father, then who says he is a Kohein?! Surely, he may become tamei for him.

    Rashb"a answered him that surely as far as permission to become tamei for one's father, we would not have had any doubt that this Kohein MAY become tamei for his father. However, from the words at the end of the next pasuk, "lah yitama," we learn that not only is the Kohein permitted to become tamei for these relatives but he is required to. The intention of the Midrash is that with regards to the requirement to become tamei, since there is a doubt as to whether this man is this Kohein's father, that it does not apply to him.

    Rashb"a offers another answer, that the kedushah of the Kohein which prohibits him from becoming tamei is because, as the pasuk states, "ki es lechem elokecha hu makriv." Chasam Sofer in his t`shuvos (Yoreh Dei'ah 338) explains that since we allow this Kohein to bring korbanos, whether it is rightfully done or not, he is elevated to the kedushah of a Kohein and may not become tamei. Therefore, a suspicion as to the paternity of father, while it may create doubt as to his permission to become tamei for him, will not affect his general prohibition to become tamei. Klei Chemdah argues with Chasam Sofer on one point, that the deciding factor is not whether he brings korbanos but rather whether he may eat them. For if it were dependent on bringing korbanos, then it would not apply to "ba'al mum." But we know that even a ba'al mum may not become tamei. So either way, it comes out that a Kohein involved in Korbanos is subject to the prohibitions of tum'ah, no matter what our doubts are regarding his father.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstorTorah: Facing the Moon for Kiddush Levana

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

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