The Weekly Shtikle - Mas'ei

Towards the end of the parsha, we are taught of the mitzvah of exiling one who killed by mistake, shogeig. If he leaves his designated city of exile, the close relative of the victim is allowed to kill him. There is a discussion in the gemara (Makkos 11b) as to whether or not the killing of the killer is a mitzvah or not. R' Chaim Kanievsky makes an interesting observation on the exact wording of this parsha. Almost everywhere else that the Torah commands us to kill someone, the verb of the root "misah" is used, usually in the form "v'heimis." This is because it is considered killing but not murdering. Here, however, the verb "veratzach," is used, the same root as the commandment, "lo sirtzach," do not murder. He explains that even according to the opinion that it is a mitzvah to kill the killer, it is not a obligation but only a mitzvah if he does it. It is his choice. Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah, whether it is a mitzvah or not, as murdering.

 

It is interesting to note, that the part of the parsha dealing with the willful murderer (meizid) states that the relative of the victim shall kill the murderer and there the word "yamis" is used. According to the explanation of R' Chaim, it would suggest that in this instance, it is in fact an obligation for the relative to kill the murderer. 

Chazak, Chazak, veNischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: They are Correct, Sir!

Dikdukian: Whose Tribe is it Anyway?

Dikdukian: The first aliyah in Mas'ei

AstroTorah: Martians and Leviim 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 - Matos

    When Moshe Rabbeinu finally settles with the tribes of Gad and Reuvein and allows them to settle in the land to the east of the Yardein, he sets out strict conditions upon which their settling of the land is contingent. In response to their offer to cross the river and fight with the rest of B'nei Yisroel, Moshe begins (32:20) "If you will do this thing, if you will arm yourselves for war before HaShem..." Certainly one of the two parts of that sentence seems superfluous. Moshe could have simply made reference to their offer, or spoken it out directly. He didn't have to do both.

    Or HaChayim addresses this issue and offers an explanation. Moshe sensed that although Gad and Reuvein pledged their military support, there was something lacking in their intent. They were going to fight solely for the purpose of fulfilling their side of the agreement so that they may settle in their desired land. They would be lacking the proper intentions that are necessary when engaging in HaShem's war, as described by Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 7:15). Therefore, Moshe made two separate statements. If they do as they have promised, that is all well and good. However, he added that in doing so, they needed to arm themselves "before HaShem," with specific intent for the destruction of the enemies of HaShem and to cleanse their minds of their ulterior motives in battle.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Watch out for those Mapiks!

Dikdukian: To Afflict or to Answer

Dikdukian: The Interrogative

Dikdukian: The first aliyah in Mas'ei

Al Pi Cheshbon: Splitting up the Animals

Al Pi Chesbon, AstroTorah: The least frequent haftaros

AstroTorah: Scrambled Eggs 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 - Pinechas

This Shabbos is the Yahrzeit of R' Yaakov Yitzchack Ruderman, zt"l, the first Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel. 

This Sunday is the Yahrzeit of my wife's grandmother, Mrs Shirley Yeres, Chaya Sheindel bas Alexander, for whom our daughter Shaindy, who turns 4 today, is named.

Tuesday, Shiv'ah Asar B'Tamuz, is the Yahrzeit of R' Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

    This week's parsha contains the famous episode of the daughters of Tzelafchad who approached Moshe claiming the unfairness of the laws of inheritance. They maintained that since they had no brothers, their father's inheritance should go to them rather than to other relatives. HaShem asserts the validity of their claim by instructing Moshe (27:7) "Kein b'nos Tzelafchad doveros," the daughters of Tzelafchad speak correctly. Rashi writes here that we are taught that they saw what even Moshe Rabbeinu had not seen (for he was not aware of the halachah.) The following Rashi continues with the praises of the daughters of Tzelafchad, "praiseworthy is he/she that HaShem concurs with their words." R' Moshe Shternbuch, in Ta'am Voda'as brings up an interesting point. The daughters of Tzelafchad came to Moshe with a complaint. They did not know any more than he did. They had their own motives in mind. What is it about their behaviour that merited such extensive praise by Chaza"l?

    He answers that the daughters are not being praised because of their knowledge of halachah. Rather, the reason for praise was that, although having been taught some of the procedures dealing with the division of the land, B'nei Yisroel still saw Eretz Yisroel as a distant venture. They were still wandering the desert. They focussed themselves on the current situation and did not concern themselves with the details of the forthcoming inheritance of the land. The daughters of Tzelafchad, on the other hand, were more infused with belief and trust in HaShem's word, to the point that, to them, the inheritance was a current issue. Their haste in coming before Moshe showed an exceptional level of faith which deemed them worthy of praise.

    Although the daughters of Tzelafchad showed exemplary faith and love of Eretz Yisroel, their meritorious deeds were not completely unique. Following the census that appears at the beginning of the parsha, we are told (26:63) that of these individuals counted in the current census there was not one man who was part of the previous census because they had all died in the desert. Rashi infers from the superfluous mention of the word "ish" that the decree applied only to men and women were exempt because they showed a greater love for Eretz Yisroel.

    We are living in times where we have no choice but to turn our attention to Eretz Yisroel and the critical events that are unfolding in and around there. Let us, like B'nos Tzelafchad and the other women of the Dor HaMidbar, not forget the promise of the ultimate redemption, may it come speedily in our day. Let us pray for Divine deliverance and salvation in these troubling times and for the ultimate peace that will come with the arrival of Moshiach.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian:  Shabbas be'Shabbato

Dikdukian:  I say Yericho, you say Yereicho
Dikdukian:  All of the brothers

Al Pi Cheshbon: Probability of the Goral

AstroTorah: Happy Birthday 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 - Balak

    The main focus of this week's parsha is clearly Bil'am and his numerous attempts to put a curse on B'nei Yisrael. When the elders of Mo'av come to solicit his services the message they are given from Balak is (22:6) "ve'ata lecha arah li," go and curse for me. When Bil'am is speaking with HaShem and tells of the job that has been asked of him (22:11), he says that he was asked "lecha kavah li." The term "kava" also means to curse. There must certainly be some unique meanings that determine why and when each is used.

 

    In observing the dialogue between Bil'am and Balak, the apparent lack of communication is almost comedic. First, when Bil'am told the messengers that he could not go with them for HaShem forbade him, the details seem to have been left out when that message was delivered to Balak. The pasuk (22:14) recounts that Balak was told only that Bil'am refused, but not why. Balak seems to bring up that sore point when he eventually meets Bil'am. When things are really heating up later on and Balak tries to send Bil'am off, Bil'am seems to retort snappingly, (24:12) "Hey, I already told your messengers that I will only do what HaShem allows!" This is as if to say, "Didn't you get the memo?" Time and time again, Bil'am tries to make Bil'am understand that he is limited by HaShem's will but Balak never seems to get it. They really just aren't on the same page.

 

    I do not know of any deeper meaning of the word "arah." It simply means to curse. It is a very general word. "Kava," however, has an alternate meaning. The word literally means to pierce.  Piercing is typically a act which takes much precision. Perhaps the word "kavah," when used in the context of a curse, refers to the more precise "art" of the curse. Balak completely did not understand this. Rashi points out (22:6) that Bil'am was known for having helped Sichon defeat Moav. It seems that Balak had simply heard of his work but didn't fully understand it. Further, it is interesting to note that Balak is mentioned in the very first pasuk as having observed B'nei Yisroel's destruction of the Emorites. However, the ensuing discussions and planning were between Moav and Midyan (not necessarily Balak himself.) One might contend that "Moav" is simply an apostrophe for its king but perhaps it is indicative of a group of representatives being the principal planners of the Bil'am project. Balak just gave the orders but wasn't intimately involved.

 

    Balak seems to believe that the cursing procedure is a simple and uninvolved one which merely takes someone with special powers like Bil'am to perform. Yet Bil'am is constantly trying to convince Balak of the "spiritual" aspect of cursing, the necessary communication with HaShem and the obligation to subject oneself to His will. Perhaps it is because of this misunderstanding that Balak originally uses the word "arah," the general term for cursing whereas Bil'am himself, except when quoting Balak (23:7), always uses the word "kavah." [See also Malbi"m here to deals with the difference between the two words.]

 

    [It is also interesting to note the root of "kavah" used at the end of the parsha - "kubah," tent, and "kavasah," her ... stomach.]

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Dead of the Plague

Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Judges

AstorTorah: Did Bil'am Say Tachanun? 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 - Chukas-Balak

    This week's parsha contains the unfortunate events of "Mei Merivah." The tragic outcome of that incident was that neither Moshe nor Aharon were allowed to enter Eretz Yisroel. Moshe's role is clear and it is understandable that he is punished. However, it is difficult to comprehend why Aharon is held responsible to the point that he received the very same punishment.

 

    I wasn't able to find too much discussion on this in the commentaries. Some suggest that Aharon should have objected to Moshe's hitting of the rock. However, HaShem commanded Moshe directly and it is unclear that Aharon even knew Moshe was doing something wrong.

 

    R' Moshe Shternbuch, in Ta'am VaDa'as states simply that Aharon was punished merely because he was together with Moshe. They worked as a team, and they went down as a team. It's not that there was any specific wrongdoing on his part - just his being there alongside Moshe is what included him in the punishment. With this, he explains a Midrash on the pasuk following Aharon's death. The pasuk states, (20:29) "And the congregation was fearful following Aharon's death (or because Aharon died.)" The Midrash explains that B'nei Yisroel were afraid that they, too, would meet the same demise as the generation of the spies who would all perish before entering Eretz Yisroel. R' Shternbuch explains that they observed Aharon taking the fall after Mei Merivah, even though he was not guilty of any crime. They were therefore afraid that even though they, themselves, were not responsible, nor technically involved in the sin of the spies, their mere presence at the time would be enoughto doom them to the same fate. Fortunately for them, this was not the case.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your real name?

Dikdukain: Watch out for that chirik

AstorTorah: Avodah Zarah in our Calendar? 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