The Weekly Shtikle - Rosh HaShanah

On the first day of Rosh HaShanah, the Torah reading comes from Parshas Vayeira. It begins with the conception and birth of Yitzchak to Avraham and Sarah after many years of barrenness. This is a fitting section to be read on this day as the gemara (Rosh HaShanah 10b) teaches us that it was on Rosh HaShanah that Sarah, Rachel and Chanah were "remembered" and their prayers answered. Then ensuing episodes of Yitzchak's weaning and the expulsion of Hagar and Yishmael are all directly pertinent to Yitzchak's upbringing and are justly included in the reading. The last two aliyos deal with the pact made between Avimelech, king of the Pelishtim, and Avraham that they and their descendants shall do no harm to each other. On the surface, there does not seem to be any relevance to Rosh HaShanah. The first three aliyos contain 21 pesukim, conceivably enough to comprise a complete Torah reading, even on Shabbos when we require seven aliyos. Why, then, is this section included in the reading?

I suggest that this section of the reading does in fact have a significant connection to the Rosh HaShanah experience. The central theme of the Mussaf service on Rosh HaShanah is the trio of malchios, zichronos and shofaros - kingship, remembrances and shofars . The middle of the three, remembrances, refers specifically to recalling the various covenants made with our forefathers. This section which is read at the end of the day's Torah reading impresses upon us the significance of a covenant. The pact made between Avimelech and Avraham, later reaffirmed by Yitzchak, was binding over many generations. Despite being gravely mistreated and persecuted by the Pelishtim, Avimelech's descendants, after entering Eretz Yisroel, on two occasions (Yeshoshua 15:63, Shmuel II 5) B'nei Yisroel refrained from any offensive against the Pelishtim. In the Midrash (Sifrei Re'eih 12:17) R' Yehoshua ben Levi teaches that it was within their powers to do battle with them, but they were not allowed because of the covenant between Avraham and Avimelech. 

Perhaps, the inclusion of this episode in the Torah reading is in parallel with the zichronos aspect of our prayers. Indeed, we are guilty many times over of violating our covenant with HaShem to keep the Torah in its entirety. Nevertheless, we beseech of HaShem to remember, so to speak, the covenant made with Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov never to forsake us despite our transgressions, in the same manner in which we faithfully upheld our accord with the Pelishtim.

Have a Good Yom Tov, a Kesivah vaChasimah Tovah and a Good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Good Remembrance

AlPiCheshbon: The Most Possible Seudos in a Year

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 - Nitzavim / Vayeilech

The central theme in this week's parsha, not in the least bit coincidentally, is theme of teshuvah, repentance. After the pesukim dealing with the harsh punishments of the man, woman, family or tribe who "goes his own way," we are told of all the good that is bestowed upon us when we return to HaShem.

Perek 30 begins, "And it sall be when these things come upon you, the blessings and the curses which I have put before you...And you shall return to HaShem, your God." It is common, especially at this time, to look back and reflect on recent tragedies - those that affect us personally or as a nation more directly, such as the passing of a loved one or the trials and tribulations endured by our bretheren in Eretz Yisroel, and those that might seem to affect us less directly, such as various world events - and try to understand it as HaShem's call for us to do teshuvah. It is certainly not uncommon for such events to be invoked in a Rosh HaShanah or Shabbas Shuva drasha. However, there is a small yet important nuance in this week's parsha that might easily be overlooked in this process. It is not merely the curses, the tragedies and misfortunes, that are meant to be catalysts to our repentance. The berachah, the blessings and the good fortune are meant to serve the same purpose. It is simply insufficient to look back at the tough times that befell us, either personally or nationally, and declare "God was telling us something." We must also reflect upon the wonderful blessings we have enjoyed, for He was telling us something then too. Appreciating the love and the Divine Providence with which our lives are governed, can and should lead us to teshuvah just the same.

Have a good Shabbos and a kesivah vachasimah tovah.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Don't you worry

AstroTorah: The Great Rabbinic Cover-up 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 - Ki Savo

    B'nei Yisroel are commanded (27:4) that after they cross the Yardein they are to set down the rocks on Har Eival, etc. In the gemara Sanhedrin 44a, R' Shaila teaches that Yehoshua did not act accordingly as the pasuk instructed to perform this ceremony immediately after crossing the Yardein but he travelled for 60 mil. Tosafos asks an obvious question. B'nei Yisroel were clearly commanded to do all this on Har Grizim and Har Eival. Is it Yehoshua's fault that these mountains were 60 mil from the Yardein?

    Tosafos puts together a rather creative answer. In the gemara (Sotah 33b) there is a dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Elazar. R' Yehuda holds that Har Grizim and Eival were far away from the Yardein while R' Elazar holds that they were right next to it. Tosafos explains that R' Elazar holds that there were two sets of mountains and that they carried out the commandment on the closer one. The Yerushalmi statesthat according to R' Elazar, they actulally built two mountains upon crossing the Yardein and called one Grizim and one Eival. Tosafos explains that R' Shaila here is of the opinion that the commandment to B'nei Yisroel R' Elazar's interpretation and was supposed to be carried out on the nearer mountain. What they in fact did in practice follows R' Yehuda's interpretation and that is why Yehoshua is rebuked for having delayed 60 mil.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim

AstroTorah: Goodbye Moon 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 - Ki Seitzei

    In this week's parsha, (23:5), we are told that an Amonite and Moavite are not allowed to come 'bikhal HaShem', that a convert from Amon or Moav may not marry into B'nei Yisroel. The reasons given are because they did not come forth with bread and water as we passed their land and for their hiring of Bilam to curse us. The question that is asked by many of the commentaries is that in 2:29, and particularly with the explanation of Rashi, it seems that Edom and Moav both provided B'nei Yisroel with bread and water, albeit at a price. Also, we do not see in the pesukim anywhere that Amon had anything to do with the hiring of Bilam. There is much discussion amongst the commentaries concerning this question, too much to deal with at one time. I will focus on the answer of the Sma"g. He simply interprets the pasuk as giving one reason for each nation. The Amonites are forbidden to marry into our nation because they did not come forth with bread and water. The Moavites are forbidden for their involvement in the hiring of Bilam. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that in the Gemara Yevamos 76b we learn that women are excepted from this prohibition. We learn this because the reason of not having come forth with bread and water would not apply to women whose nature is not to come forth in that manner. It seems from there that this reason applies to both Amon and Moav, for it is specifically Moavites that are the subject of that Gemara. The only possible explanation for the Sma"g is that just like it is not the nature of women to go out and greet a nation with bread and water, it is not their nature to go out and hire hitmen. The only difficulty with this, of course, is that such a reasoning is not mentioned in the Gemara itself. Nevertheless, the Rashba in Yevamos interprets the gemara in accordance with the Sma"g.

    Another interesting nuance in the pasuk is that the language used in the failure to bring bread and water is 'asher lo kidmu eschem', B'nei Yisroel are referred to in plural. But in the hiring of Bilam it states 'va'asher sachar alecha', referring to B'nei Yisroel in singular. I think that the explanation for this is that when Bilam was to curse B'nei Yisroel, it was to be done on the entire nation at once. Therefore, the nation is referred to in singular form. However, from the aforementioned gemara in Yevamos it seems that it was expected of the Amonites to come forth with the men giving food to the men, and the women to the women. Since they were expected to come and give individual attention to separate groups of B'nei Yisroel, they are referred to in the plural.

**********

If you have a few extra minutes, this cute game was developed a couple of years ago to demonstrate the mitzvah of "Shiluach HaKein." The site which hosted it is not up anymore but I was able to rescue the file and host it: http://weeklyshtikle.com/shaleach.html

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Time before Creation 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 - Shofetim

    In this week's parsha we are taught of the laws concerning the "zakein mamrei," the elder who differs in opinion with the ruling of the Sanhedrin HaGadol and teaches against their ruling. If all the proper procedures are followed, he is put to death. Chizkuni makes a fascinating observation. The pasuk tells us (17:9) that the dispute is to be brought to the Kohanim and the judges to be resolved. Chizkuni writes that this obligation refutes all heretics who do not believe that there is any portion of Torah in addition to the written Testament and do not believe in the teachings of the Chachamim. If all we were really given was the written Torah, how is it possible to have a dispute that must be settled by the higher authorities? Let them just read the text and figure it out. Why go all the way to Yerushalayim? But indeed, the Torah instructs us that a higher authority will preside over the matter. The Torah is clearly empowering the sages to have a certain command over our laws. Surely, our code of law spans more than the written tradition. Surely there is an oral component that requires the greatest of sages to teach in the proper way.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

BaltimoreJewishLife: Save the Trees

Dikdukian: Two of a Kind

AstroTorah: The Scorpion's Forehead 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