The Weekly Shtikle - Korach

This week's parsha covers the tragic story of the rebellion lead by Korach, Dasan and Aviram. Their ultimate demise is well known. The leaders and their families were swallowed up into the ground. However, their 250 followers who had each brought a ketores offering were eaten by fire. Surely, there is a reason why different punishments were doled out to different participants.

Rabbeinu Bachaya suggests the principal sin of the leaders was that of haughtiness. They put themselves on a high level from which they were, in truth, very far. This arrogance was fittingly punished with the perpetrators falling down to the deepest depths. The 250 followers were punished for having gone through with the confrontation with Moshe and bringing the ketores. The undesired offering was punished much in the way that Nadav and Avihu met their demise - being burned by the mighty fire of HaShem.

Perhaps we may suggest an alternate approach. The leaders were greedy, self centred individuals looking out only for their own benefit. Their campaign may have appeared to be aimed at "fairness and balance" but their true motives were purely selfish. They wanted nothing but to advance their own positions. The 250 followers were merely misled by their apparent leaders and deceived into believing in their cause. The self-serving disregard for truth was a behaviour that was incorrigible. There was no room for the leaders to grow out of this rut they had dug themselves into. Therefore, they were smothered by the earth and disappeared, symbolizing that there is no potential good that could come out of their actions. The followers, however, were simply misguided loyalists. Their behaviour could easily be channeled for good if pointed in the right direction. This is most clearly illustrated by On ben Peles who, according to the gemara, was convinced by his wife to leave the group. They were fittingly punished with fire. Fire, although often a destructive force, can also be constructive. It can take an inedible slab of meat and make supper out of it. It can be used to shape raw metal. The followers being consumed by fire symbolized that there was what to learn from them and that their actions could be channeled for good. It is therefore easily understood that the metal of their pans was put on display to remind B'nei Yisroel of this tragic episode.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Do it!
Dikdukian: Vayikach Korach

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 - Shelach

    After Moshe Rabbeinu's intense appeal following the sin of the spies, HaShem agrees not to wipe out B'nei Yisroel. Instead, they were forced to roam the desert for 40 years, during which time all the males who had were above the age of 20 at the time would perish, with few exceptions. The Torah is very clear about the significance of the 40-year punishment, clarifying (14:34) that the 40 years correspond to the 40 days that the spies spent in Eretz Yisroel - a day for a year.

 

    This seems like one of the most distinct examples of "midah keneged midah," the method of Divine retribution which exacts a specific punishment which corresponds to the crime. However, points out R' Eisenberg, there is something oddly different in this case. Normally, we would expect the punishment to correspond to the specific method in which the sin was committed, as we find with the Egyptians, who were punished by water, in response to their evil decree that the Israelite males be thrown into the Nile. This element seems to be lacking here. There was nothing inherently sinful in the 40 days for which they staked out the land. Why would the punishment be exacted according to this figure?

 

    Another question that occurred to me was that "exacting" punishment would not be a very appropriate term in this case as it was more than a year since B'nei Yisroel left Egypt. Therefore, it was really only a 39-year punishment. If they were to be punished exactly a year for each day, they should have spent a total of 41 years roaming the desert.

 

    R' Eisenberg explains that "midah keneged midah" is not simply a Divinely ironic method of punishment. At least, it doesn't have to be. In fact, sometimes it isn't that at all. There are, in fact, two types of "midah keneged midah." The first fits the more conventional use of the term, the most evident examples being Keriyas Yam Suf and Purim. As we have previously discuessed, the purpose of that form of punishment is to highlight and accentuate the utter and complete Divine Providence and dispel any suggestions of chance. However, in the second type, the punishment need not be exacted according to a specific aspect of the sin. Rather, the purpose is to serve as a reminder of the sin which caused the punishment and thus, a catalyst for repentance. The mere numeric connection between the years that they would roam the desert and the days that the spies spent in Eretz Yisroel was to be a remembrance by which B'nei Yisroel would constantly be cognizant of the actions that led to their current predicament. It is always easier to repent when you are constantly aware of why it is that repentance is necessary.

 

    I think that this may also answer my question. If we understand midah keneged midah in this light, then it becomes irrelevant that the sentence match the crime exactly. Since the total tally of years that B'nei Yisroel were to sojourn in the desert was 40, that was the number that was most likely to be on their minds. As long as the connection to the original offense is established, the punishment has served its purpose.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: Shelach Roundup

Dikdukian: What's Different About Efrayim?

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 Shitkle - Beha'alosecha

    The Torah recounts that as B'nei Yisroel brought what would be their only Korban Pesach during their sojourn in the desert, there were individuals who were "temei meis" and thus unable to participate. There is a discussion in the gemara (Sukkah 25a) as to who in fact these individuals were. R' Yosei HaGelili suggests they were the ones in charge of transporting the body of Yoseif. Rabbi Akiva is of the opinion that it was Misha'eil and Eltzaphan who were instructed to remove Nadav and Avihu's bodies from the mishkan. Finally, Rabbi Yitzchak discounts the first two opinions and posits that these were individuals who had become tamei as a result of a "meis mitzvah."

 

    It is somewhat intriguing that the approach taken in the gemara is that there was something special and unique about this group. Although, it is not unusual for a midrashic source to fill in the blanks in a pasuk, even if there is no compelling evidence that there is something missing. However, there is a question to be asked on the first two opinions. Why is it that R' Yosei and R' Akiva assume that these individuals were part of a single group, that they were all temei meis for the same reason? Could there not have been more than one cause for these people to be tamei?

 

    The Torah's introduction to this story is as follows (9:6) "Vayehi anashim asher hayu temei'im lenefesh adam." One would have expected the pasuk to read "vayihyu anashim" in the plural. But instead, the singular "vayehi" is used in reference to a group of people. Perhaps R' Yosei and R' Akiva understand that the pasuk is specifically worded this way to convey that although there were a number of individuals were tamei, they were all tamei for the same reason.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail

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 - Shavuos

The Midrash (Mechilta Yisro 5, Sifrei V'zos HaBerachah 343) recounts the events that preceded Matan Torah. HaShem offered the Torah to the other nations before offering it to B'nei Yisroel. When He approached the descendants of Eisav, they asked, "What is written in it?" HaShem responded "Thou shall not murder." The offer was subsequently rejected as they were unable to commit to that provision for Eisav ultimately lives by the sword. When the sons of Ammon and Mo'av were approached and were told that the Torah included a prohibition against illicit relations, they rejected the offer for the very source of Ammon and Mo'av was incestual relationship between Lot and his daughters. The Yishmaelites were given the same offer. When they asked what such a commitment would entail, they were told that it would be forbidden to steal. Thievery being the essence of the descendants of Yishmael, they were unable to commit to follow the Torah. The Midrash states that there was not one nation that was not offered the Torah but no one would accept it. When B'nei Yisroel were approached they all declared in unison "na'aseh v'nishma," we will do and we will listen.

R' Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, asks a very simple question on this Midrash. Why was the sample law given to each nation one that contradicted their very existence and certain to lead to rejection? Why were they not given a taste of the Torah that was more likely to please them? R' Weinberg answers that HaShem's answer to the nations was irrelevant. The very moment that they asked what is written in the Torah, they disqualified themselves from receiving it. By making their acceptance of the Torah contingent upon their approval of its contents, the nations showed a lack of commitment which is incongruous with a Torah nation. Torah must be at the forefront while society is built around it. When the nations asked their seemingly innocent question, they showed that they were not prepared to give up their ideals for Torah. HaShem, therefore, answered them in such a way that showed them that Torah was not for them.

The response of B'nei Yisroel was the exact opposite. They did not flinch. They did not vacillate. They accepted the Torah with true faith and showed no concern for their own agendas. This is why their response is so vital to the process of Matan Torah. With this understanding, we, ourselves have the opportunity to reach the level of "na'aseh v'nishma" in our own way. By subordinating ourselves to the values of the Torah, we show, like our ancestors did, that we are ready to commit unequivocally to a life of Torah. If we set our standards in accordance with the Torah, not allowing them to be tainted by the contrary influences of society, we are, indeed, showing our true devotion to the Word of HaShem, much like our forefathers did at the foot of Har Sinai when they accepted the Torah.

**********

A question that has vexed me for some time: At the beginning of Megillas Rus, when Na'ami returns home she urges Rus to go back to Moav but Rus persists. Finally, Na'ami gives in and agrees to take Rus along with her. The pasuk (1:18) recounts that Na'ami saw that Rus was steadfast to walk with her and therefore ceased to talk her (to convince her not to convert). There is an interesting interpretation of this pasuk in the name of the GR"A. The gemara (Bava Metzia 84a) recounts that Reish Lakish was a bandit before he became a great talmid chacham. When he first met his eventual companion and brother-in-law, R' Yochanan, he leaped into the Jordan River. At the end of his conversation with R' Yochanan, he had accepted to become a Torah-observant Jew. He tried to leap back up to retrieve his clothes but he could not. Rashi writes that since he accepted upon himself the yolk of Torah, he was weakened and could not leap as he could before. The GR"A apparently suggests that when Rus and Na'ami were battling back and forth, Rus was easily keeping up with Na'ami. However, in this pasuk, we see that Rus had to struggle and give herself an extra push in order to keep up with Na'ami. When Na'ami saw this, she realized that Rus had accepted upon herself the yolk of Torah and therefore, she ceased trying to convince her to return to Moav.

I have always found this comparison troubling. When Reish Lakish first jumped in to the river, R' Yochanan exclaimed "This power of yours should be used for Torah." It seems clear from Rashi that what weakened Reish Lakish was accepting the yolk of Torah, seemingly the study of Torah. As it is commonly said, Torah weakens the strength of man. However, Rus was not accepting upon herself the yolk of Torah like Reish Lakish but rather, the yolk of mitzvos. Where do we find that the yolk of mitzvos has a weakening effect?

Have a Chag Samei'ach!

 

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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 - Naso

   There are a number of interesting correlations between this week's parshah and this week's haftarah. The obvious connection is that the Haftara speaks of Shimshon who was a nazir and the nazir is discussed in this week's parsha. However, there are some other connections that lie beneath the surface. First, the Sotah process is discussed in this week's parsha. We are taught, (according to one opinion in the gemara) that a Sotah who was previously childless, will become pregnant if she emerges from the Sotah process alive. R' Dovid Kohn explains why this is. If someone is childless, it is because there has been some decree from Shomayim that this person suffer, for whatever reason, a punishment comparable to death. As Chazal teach us, one who has no children is like they are dead. However, there are other circumstances that are comparable to death. One of them is embarrassment. If someone embarrasses another person, it is as if they are killing them (Pirkei Avos). Therefore, when the woman goes through the Sotah process, she endures so much embarrassment that she has served the punishment equaling death and now there is no place for the decree of infertility anymore. This concept, too, is seen in the haftara. The Midrash recounts that Ivtzan (Boaz) who was the Shofet at the time, had 30 sons and 30 daughters and made two banquets for each one. However, he did not invite Manoach to any of these banquets for he reasoned "He doesn't have any kids, how could he ever pay me back." R' Dovid Kohn suggests that here too it was enduring the embarrassment of 120 banquets to which he was not invited, an embarrassment directly related to the fact that he was childless, that earned him the zchus to have a child.

    Also, Chazal tell us that the purpose of the Sotah process is to eventually instill peace between man and his wife by resolving the existing conflict. Peace is so important that HaShem has His name erased in the water for it. In the Haftara we also see the importance of peace between a man and his wife. The Midrash recounts that when Manoach and his wife were not able to have children, they were fighting over whose fault it was that they were not having kids. Therefore, the angel informed Manoach's wife that she was in fact the "akara". R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that from here we learn a very important lesson regarding Shalom. If you know that one party in argument is correct, it is proper to go over to the one who is wrong and inform them so that they may confess for in that way you will preserve peace. If you inform the one who was correct, you will not resolve the argument and the conflict will only continue. That is why the angel went directly to Manoach's wife rather than Manoach. (See Midrash Rabba on "Veyasem lecha Shalom")

--

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayins

Dikdukian: Reader Question

AstroTorah: The Wrath of Grapes 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