The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas

The beginning of Parshas Chukas deals with the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah, (which will not be referred to as the Red Cow or Heifer because it probably was not really red, but that's for another time.) Parah Adumah is well-known as the textbook "chok," mitzvah without reasoning. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that he will not give a reasoning for the mitzvah of Parah Adumah as he does for most of the other mitzvos for even Shlomo HaMelech could not find the reasoning for it. R' Yaakov Kaminetzky writes, in Emes L'Yaakov, that to give a reasoning for the miztvah would be against the very reasoning for the mitzvah itself. That is to say, that the essence of the mitzvah of Parah Adumah is that there is no reasoning to it.

Rashi at the end of perek 19 parables the mitzvah of Parah Adumah, an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, to the child of a maidservant who had "soiled" himself in the palace of the king, that it is incumbent upon the mother of the child to come and clean up the mess. Ramban and Kuzari write that the sin of the Golden Calf was not pure Avodah Zarah. B'nei Yisroel feared that Moshe had died and were afraid of losing their connection with HaShem and built the Golden Calf so that the Shechinah would rest on it. Nevertheless, it was Avodah Zarah. This was a sin of the intuition. They did not turn away from HaShem, per se, but rather, they devised new, foreign methods to receive His Presence. Afikei Yehudah writes that the meaning of Rashi's parable is that the "palace of the king" refers to the mind. By committing this sin of the intuition, B'nei Yisroel soiled the mind. The way to repent for this sin was to be given a mitzvah that cleans out the mind by keeping it out of the picture. A mitzvah which the mind cannot begin to understand is the perfect atonement for a sin for which the mind was responsible. (See also Rambam at the end of Hilchos Me'ila on the importance of refraining from trying to understand the mitzvos in one's mind.) 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Watch out for that Chirik
Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your real name?

AstroTorah: Maaseh Hamerkava and Chukas 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 - Korach

     We are taught in Pirkei Avos (5:20) "Every controversy which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, but any controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven will ultimately not endure." The Mishnah then proceeds to give examples. The example of a "machlokes l'sheim Shomayim," the controversy for the sake of Heaven, is that of Hillel and Shamai. The example of the controversy that was not for the sake of Heaven is Korach and his entourage.

    There is a glaring incongruity between the two examples given by the Mishnah. The first, Hillel and Shamai, deals with the two sides of the controversy or dispute. The second, Korach and his entourage, strangely, deals with only one side of the of the dispute. The dispute was in fact between Korach, his entourage and Moshe. HaRav Kulefsky zt"l gives the following answer in the name of the Nachlas Dovid: The Mishnah is zeroing in on a specific attribute in each dispute. Hillel and Shamai argued "l'sheim Shomayim." That is, that although they constantly took contrary views, they always had a common goal - to establish the proper halachah. It was never a showdown of man vs. man, or school vs. school. Rather, it was a matter of what was the proper way. Thus, a common objective endured throughout and indeed, whenever Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai disagree in the Mishnah, even though we follow Beis Hillel primarily, we are always given both sides. Indeed, the Mishna (Yevamos 1:4) also recounts that although Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai disagreed on matters directly relating to the validity of marriages and the status of tum'ah and taharah, they still trusted each other in practical applications. 

    Korach, on the other hand, lacked this very commonality of purpose within his own group. Although they appeared to be on the same side, they really did not share a common goal. Each member of the rebellion had his own selfish motives for joining the cause. It was each man for himself, not for each other. In the end, they were not fighting for what they felt was right but rather for what they felt they had coming to them. This was the argument of the righteous wife of On ben Peles who persuaded her husband to withdraw himself from the foolish uprising because there was simply nothing he would get out of it, as recounted by the gemara. The Mishnah teaches us that due to this lack of unity and sincerity of cause, not only did the dispute itself disintegrate, but Korach's entire company disintegrated as well.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Just do it!

AstroTorah: Dark Sunrise 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 - Shelach

    Towards the end of this week's parsha is the episode of the "mekosheish," the man who gathered trees on Shabbos and was thus subject to the death penalty. B'nei Yisroel did not know what was to be done with him at first so he was put in jail until the sentence was given by HaShem. After the Torah tells us that he was put in jail, there is a "samech" in between the pesukim (15:34- 35), after which the Moshe is told what to do with him. What puzzled me is that in the episode of the "mekaleil" at the end of parshas Emor, an episode which seems to be quite similar to that of the mekosheish, there is a "peh" between the pasuk telling us that they did not know what to do with him and the pasuk that begins the teaching of the sentence (Vayikra 24:12-13).

    A samech indicates a "parsha setumah," a closed paragraph, i.e. there is only a little space between the end of one paragraph and the beginning of the next. The peh indicates a "parsha pesuchah," an open paragraph, i.e. that the next paragraph begins on a new line. Perhaps the reasoning behind the difference between the two episodes lies in the gemara in Sanhedrin 78b. The gemara says that when the episode of the mekaleil took place, they did not know what the sentence was at all. However, the mekosheish they knew was subject to the death penalty from the pasuk "mechaleleha mos yumas;" they just didn't know what form of the death penalty. Since their lack of knowledge was more limited in this case, perhaps that is why there is only a samech in between the pesukim to symbolize that they awaited only a short answer. But since they knew nothing of the mekaleil's sentence, a peh is placed between the two pesukim to symbolize that they awaited a longer answer.

    There are other instances in the Torah where the halachah was not known and an answer was awaited. For the halachos of Pesach Sheini (9:8-9) and as well, for b'nos Tzelafchad (27:5-6) there is a peh between pesukim. There we are taught that Moshe either did not know the halachah at all or forgot it completely (Sanhedrin 8a) so an entire halachah needed to be taught. This would seem to support the above approach.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: E=MC² by R' Ari Storch
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 Shtikle - Beha'alosecha

In this week's parsha we have the famous two pesukim (10:35-36) regarding the traveling and resting of the Aron. The two pesukim are encapsulated by the irregular upside down nuns, thus dividing sefer Bamidbar into two parts. The exact placement of this separation is quite significant. The divided parts of Bamidbar are rather opposite eras in B'nei Yisroel's sojourn in the midbar. Until this point, everything is proceeding beautifully. B'nei Yisroel are camped as a united nation at Har Sinai. They complete the building of the Mishkan and its consecration. Everything seems to be going fine. And then everything seems to go wrong. The rest of Bamidbar seems to be a drastic sequence of struggles that B'nei Yisroel face. Moshe seems constantly challenged with complaints. B'nei Yisroel are faced with the challenging episodes of the spies, Korach and Midyan. These two pesukim are the border between these two eras.

The first challenge is that of the mis'onenim, the complainers. The Torah does not tell us what they were complaining about but the ensuing consequences are quite clear. The site of this disaster is named Tav'eirah, after the great consuming fire. R' Chaim Kanievsky notes that in parshas Mas'ei, when all the checkpoints that B'nei Yisroel passed through are enumerated, there is no mention of Tav'eirah.

Ramban (11:3) posits that B'nei Yisroel did not move from there before the next challenge after which that very same place was renamed Kivros HaTa'avah which is mentioned as the first stop after Har Sinai (33:16). However, R' Chaim dismisses this suggestion based on the pasuk in parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:22) which seems to clearly refer to Tav'eirah and Kivros HaTa'avah as separate places. R' Chaim quotes from his son that the list of checkpoints in parshas Mas'ei is only a list of locations where B'nei Yisroel camped and rested. While the Torah does not tell us directly what the mis'onenim complained about, Rashi does offer some insight into the matter. He writes (11:1) that B'nei Yisroel were complaining about the discomfort of having traveled three consecutive days without resting. It therefore seems that this place was not a place where they rested at all. They were certainly traveling until the tragedy occurred and seemingly picked up and continued immediately afterward as well. Therefore, it is not listed in parshas Mas'ei.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail 

Dikdukian: The Impure

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

This week's shtikle is dedicated to my nephew, Avi Bulka, on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah which we will be celebrating over Shabbos and Sunday. Mazal Tov!

This week's parsha includes extensive discussions of the laws pertaining to the sotah and the nazir, one after the other. Their respective tractates of gemara, aptly named Nazir and Sotah, also appear side by side, although in the opposite order. The juxtaposition of these two topics is discussed in the gemara at the beginning of maseches Sotah. Rebbi would say that anyone who is present and witnesses the public humiliation of the sotah should make sure he is not adversely affected by his experience and restrict himself from drinking wine, one of the principal requirements of the nazir. Refraining from wine will make sure that any impure thoughts don't translate into indecent behaviour.

Perhaps another understanding may be offered. Sotah represents the epitome of reckless conduct, a blatant disregard for the sanctity of the marriage bond. Although there are many other instances of sinful behaviour in the Torah, this is elaborated upon in much greater depth. Perhaps more importantly, it impresses upon us how seemingly innocent conversation between a man and woman has the potential to lead to destructive consequences. Sotah symbolizes brazen disregard of Torah values.

 

Nazir, however, is at the other end of the spectrum. The nazir separates himself from the pleasures of this world and leads a life of extreme holiness. Although curbing one's level of indulgence is often looked upon as a commendable, the practice of nazir is surprisingly not. The gemara, on a number of occasions (Taanis 11a, Nedarim 10a, Nazir 19a, 22a, Bava Kamma 91b) dwells on the pasuk in this week's parsha, concerning the nazir's sacrifices, "and it shall atone for him from that which he sinned on the soul." What sin did the nazir commit? R' Elazar HaKefar teaches that his sin was that he caused himself undue anguish in refraining from wine. And if one is called a sinner for merely refraining from wine, all the more so one who restricts himself excessively from all other pleasures.

 

From this perspective, sotah and nazir represent the two extremes of behaviour discouraged by the Torah. The sotah is one who is overindulgent and runs after pleasure. The nazir is one who withdraws himself from all pleasure and inflicts upon himself excessive suffering. By putting the two side by side, the Torah is impressing upon us the importance of following the middle path. While we are required to do our utmost to avoid the temptations of indulgence, we must not do so by completely withdrawing from the pleasures of this world. The Torah does not favour extremism in either direction. As it is said, (Devarim 5:29) "And you shall be watchful to do as HaShem your God has commanded you, do not stray to the right or to the left." Do not act liberally with respect to Torah and mitzvos, but be not overly conservative in your observance.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayin's

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