The Weekly Shtikle Blog

An online forum for sharing thoughts and ideas relating to the Parshas HaShavua

View Profile

Friday, February 24

The Weekly Shtikle - Terumah

The story goes that R' Chaim of Volzhin had trouble understanding a certain passage of Zohar and appeared before his rebbe, R' Eliyahu of Vilna (GR"A) and asked him to explain it to him. The GR"A then proceeded to give him the following pshat on a pasuk in this week's parsha. The pasuk (25:11) tells us that the Ark be made of wood and be coated inside and out - "mibayis umichutz" - with gold. Rashi explains from the Yerushalmi in Shekalim that Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood. He put the wooden ark in the larger gold one and then the smaller gold one inside the wood one and then coated the top of it. If such was the order, asks the GR"A, then why does the pasuk say "mibayis umichutz"? It should say "michutz umibayis" because the Ark was coated first on the outside and then on the inside. He answers that "mibayis umichutz" is not referring to the wood but rather to the gold. This to say that the larger golden ark coated the wood "with its inside" and the smaller golden ark coated the wood "with its outside". So instead of the pasuk telling us to coat the wood on its inside and its outside, it is in fact saying to coat the wood with the inside of the gold and with the outside of the gold.

And why did the Torah go out of its way to explain this process in such a strange manner? The GR"A explained that it was to express the following symbolism. (This is where it gets deep.) The wood refers to man as the pasuk says (20:19) "Ki haAdam eitz hasadeh" and the two coatings of gold refer to the two portions of Torah that must envelop man, the "niglé," the revealed portions, and the "nistar," the hidden. Torah is compared to gold in Tehillim (19:11) "hanechemadim mizahav". The Torah is telling us that as far as the niglé, represented by the outer coating of gold, is concerned, one has the ability to reach the deepest depths of this chelek haTorah. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is the inside of the gold that coats the wood. But in the nistar, symbolized by the inner gold, one may only reach the surface and may not be able to reach the full depth of the chelek hanistar, as it is only the outside of this layer of gold that coats the wood. Following this explanation, the GR"A refused to explain that particular passage in Zohar to R' Chaim.

One issue I have with the above: I looked up that particular Yerushalmi referenced by Rashi and the order is actually the other way around that the inner layer of gold was first placed in the wooden ark and then they were placed in the larger layer of gold. According to this, the order of the pasuk is fine the way it is. Perhaps Rashi had a different "girsa" in the Yerushalmi for in Yoma 72b Rashi explains this process in the same way he does here in Parshas Terumah.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Amudei HeChatzeir
Dikdukian: Venahapoch hu
Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav
Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings 

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

Friday, February 17

The Weekly Shtikle - Mishpatim

    At the beginning of this week's parsha, we are taught a number of different offences for which the punishment is death. Among them are the striking and cursing of one's parents. One would certainly have expected to find the two pesukim next to each other. However, surprisingly, after the pasuk dealing with the hitting of a parent (21:15) we are taught that one who kidnaps an individual and sells him is also subject to the death penalty. Only after that are we taught the punishment for cursing a parent.
 
    Ramban explains in the name of R' Sadiah Gaon that the placement of the pasuk dealing with kidnapping gives us an insight into the gravity of the crime and why it is punishable by death. Kidnapping victims are often younger children. When a young child is kidnapped he is taken from his family and forced to grow up away from the warmth of a loving family. He grows up not knowing his parents and thus is more likely to hit or curse them when he is older. This would have been a truly unfathomable act coming from a child who was the beneficiary of a full life of parental love and nurture. Since the kidnapper is responsible for creating this scenario, his act is punishable by death as well.
 
    Another approach offered by the Rishonim is that the pesukim are actually following a logical progression of increasing novelty, commonly referred to as "lo zu af zu." First, we are taught (21:14) that someone who plans and premeditates the murder of his fellow Jew is to be put to death. This is understandable. The next pasuk, dealing with hitting a parent, teaches us that it is not only murder that warrants the death penalty. One can even get capital punishment for merely hitting. The death penalty for kidnapping then teaches us that one can be guilty of a capital offence without causing any physical harm whatsoever. Finally, we are taught that one can even be put to death for the improper use of his words in the form of a curse.
 
    Bechor Shor offers a fascinating take on the issue. When the kidnapper stands before the court and is accused of his crime, he is likely to curse his parents and blame them in order to vindicate himself. That is why the pasuk dealing with kidnapping is snuck in here to be juxtaposed to the pasuk dealing with cursing. (I am not sure why a kidnapper is more likely to do so than any other criminal.) This idea teaches a very poignant lesson which is most applicable in our time. We live in a society where crimes are very often justified by outside causes. When a heinous crime is committed, too often we get wrapped up in the perpetrator's background, his upbringing, what kind of music he listened to or what he watched on TV. What made him do this? The Torah teaches us - HE made him do this. Regardless of what influences might have played a part, one is always responsible for his own actions and must face the consequences thereof.
 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Ox and his Friend
Dikdukian: Answer vs. Torture
Dikdukian: Give it to me
Dikdukian: Ha'isha viladeha 

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

Friday, February 10

The Weekly Shtikle - Yisro

    As Matan Torah approaches, HaShem ensures Moshe (19:9) that with this great event, B'nei Yisroel "will believe in you forever." The difficulty with this promise is that we have already seen that with the splitting of the sea (14:31) "they believed in HaShem and in Moshe his servant." Why does Moshe need to be assured once again of B'nei Yisroel's trust?
 
    Ramban here and Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 8) explain along similar lines that the mere witnessing of great miracles still did not accomplish complete belief in Moshe's prophecy for there was still room to suspect witchcraft of some sort. They had never actually witnessed the actual procedure of prophecy. The events at Har Sinai showed not only Moshe heeding HaShem's word but HaShem actually commanding Moshe directly, to which all of B'nei Yisroel were witness. Now there was certainly no room for any doubt whatsoever in the authenticity of Moshe's prophecy.
 
    One of the most prevalent proofs offered by common kiruv organizations as to the authenticity of Judaism over other religions is based on these events. For the most part, each religion has a figure who claimed to have been in contact with God. Their religion is based largely on these prophecies. The Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel, HaRav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l offered a famous joke found in an old Hebrew joke book as a parable to prove the futility of this belief:
 
    A certain Rabbi passed away and left two sons who argued over which was to be their father's successor. One day one of the sons gathered all the elders of the community and proclaimed that his father had come to him an a dream and told him that he wants him to be his successor. The elders, rather impressed by this revelation, were just about to appoint him rabbi when one man objected from the back, "Excuse me, but if your father really wanted us to appoint you rabbi, then he would have come to US in OUR dream!"
 
    All the other religions choose to believe in the prophecy of one man. But why? So-and-so says he spoke to God. Why should you believe him? Only the Jews are different. Every single Jew stood at the foot of Har Sinai and witnessed HaShem talking to Moshe with their very own eyes and ears. This is a level of belief that is irrefutable. Also, due to its foundation upon nationwide testimony, it is a claim that could not possibly be fabricated. That explains why none of the other religions have ever dared make such a claim.
 
    With this we can understand that the promise given here to Moshe was not about whether or not B'nei Yisroel believed in his prophecy. This was already established earlier. Rather it was a promise of the longevity and perseverance of this belief. A prophet who performs miracles may convince his generation to believe in him, but who will believe it in the generations to come? With the awesome events at Har Sinai, the belief in Moshe Rabbeinu's supreme prophecy became one that is sure to be everlasting and could never be challenged.
 
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Many Who Fear God
Dikdukian: Letzais
Dikdukian: Ram veNisa 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

Friday, February 3

The Weekly Shtikle - Beshalach

    The second to last of the many episodes that make up this week's parsha is the confrontation at Masah uMerivah. The double name seems anomalous. B'nei Yisroel quarrelled with Moshe saying, "Give us water so that we may drink!" Moshe counters "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test HaShem?"
 
    Ibn Ezra explains that there were two distinct groups involved in this episode. The first group were truly in need of water and this led to their altercation with Moshe. However, there was another group that still had water which they brought from Alush (their previous stop as per Bemidbar 33:14). They wanted to challenge HaShem to see if He would provide water. To the first group, which had at least some semblance of a legitimate complaint, Moshe answered "Why do you quarrel with me?" To the second, he charged, "Why do you test HaShem?"
 
    The site is therefore aptly named Masah uMerivah after the two separate aspects of the confrontation. However, notes Ibn Ezra, the second group surely angered HaShem more than the first. Thus, in Sefer Devarim (6:17) we are warned "Do not challenge HaShem as you did at Masah." Merivah is not mentioned.
 
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Exceptions Ahoy
Dikdukian: Leave us Alone

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