Re: The Weekly Shtikle - Vayishlach

Title: Acharon, Acharon, Chaviv

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Weekly Shtikle <weeklyshtikle@weeklyshtikle.com> wrote:

In this week's Parsha, Rashi makes mention of the concept of "acharon, acharon chaviv". If asked what the meaning of this saying is, one would probably answer, "The last is the most dear." However, as a friend of mine pointed out, a closer look at Rashi shows that it is not quite that simple.

Pasuk 33:2 discusses the order of Yaakov's wives and kids as they approached Eisav. First were the shefachos and their kids. Then were Leah and her kids and then Yosef and Rachel. It is on this pasuk that Rashi invokes the idea of "acharon acharon chaviv." However, one might have expected Rashi's comment to appear as an explanation of Rachel's placement since she was last. In fact, it is going on the words "V'es Leah uvaneha acharonim". It seems clear that what is bothering Rashi is that the word acharonim is used even though Leah and her kids were not last. Rachel was behind them. Rashi then explains that acharonim really only means further behind but not the last. Rashi conveys this by telling us that acharon, acharon chaviv, which, as we see from the placement, does not merely mean that the last is the dearest but rather the further back, the more dear. Leah was specifically put behind the shefachos because she too was dear. She was more dear than the shefachos but not as dear as Rachel and Yosef. I later saw that the sefer "Lifshuto Shel Rashi" understands Rashi this way as well.

The above observation is made by Tosfos Yom Tov (Demai 7:3) regarding the phrase "Uma'aser sheni ba'achronah." He explains that this is a refutation of those who claim that there will not be a third Beis HaMikdash, based on the following pasuk in Chagai (2:9) "Gadol yihyeh kevod habayis hazeh ha'acharon min harishon," referring to the second Beis HaMikdash. This might lead one to believe that the second Beis HaMikdash was the last. But from the pasuk in this week's parsha, we see that this is not the true meaning of the word "acharon."

He brings yet another proof from the pasuk in Shemos (4:8) where HaShem declares to Moshe that if B'nei Yisroel do not believe Moshe's first sign, "vehe'eminu l'kol ha'os ha'acharon." However, in the very next pasuk, HaShem proceeds to give Moshe a third sign - the spilling of the waters of the Nile and turning them to blood. The Radziner Rebbe derived an amusing allusion based on this last proof. The pasuk (Shemos 12:13) states "vehayah hadam lachem le'os al habatim," the blood will be for you a sign on the houses. The blood, referring to the third sign that was given to Moshe, proving that the word acharon does not mean last, was a sign for the houses - an indication that the second Beis HaMikdash would indeed not be the last.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Great Dishon Confusion

Al Pi Cheshbon: Goats and Amicable Numbers by Ari Brodsky

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

--

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

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 - Vayishlach

In this week's Parsha, Rashi makes mention of the concept of "acharon, acharon chaviv". If asked what the meaning of this saying is, one would probably answer, "The last is the most dear." However, as a friend of mine pointed out, a closer look at Rashi shows that it is not quite that simple.

Pasuk 33:2 discusses the order of Yaakov's wives and kids as they approached Eisav. First were the shefachos and their kids. Then were Leah and her kids and then Yosef and Rachel. It is on this pasuk that Rashi invokes the idea of "acharon acharon chaviv." However, one might have expected Rashi's comment to appear as an explanation of Rachel's placement since she was last. In fact, it is going on the words "V'es Leah uvaneha acharonim". It seems clear that what is bothering Rashi is that the word acharonim is used even though Leah and her kids were not last. Rachel was behind them. Rashi then explains that acharonim really only means further behind but not the last. Rashi conveys this by telling us that acharon, acharon chaviv, which, as we see from the placement, does not merely mean that the last is the dearest but rather the further back, the more dear. Leah was specifically put behind the shefachos because she too was dear. She was more dear than the shefachos but not as dear as Rachel and Yosef. I later saw that the sefer "Lifshuto Shel Rashi" understands Rashi this way as well.

The above observation is made by Tosfos Yom Tov (Demai 7:3) regarding the phrase "Uma'aser sheni ba'achronah." He explains that this is a refutation of those who claim that there will not be a third Beis HaMikdash, based on the following pasuk in Chagai (2:9) "Gadol yihyeh kevod habayis hazeh ha'acharon min harishon," referring to the second Beis HaMikdash. This might lead one to believe that the second Beis HaMikdash was the last. But from the pasuk in this week's parsha, we see that this is not the true meaning of the word "acharon."

He brings yet another proof from the pasuk in Shemos (4:8) where HaShem declares to Moshe that if B'nei Yisroel do not believe Moshe's first sign, "vehe'eminu l'kol ha'os ha'acharon." However, in the very next pasuk, HaShem proceeds to give Moshe a third sign - the spilling of the waters of the Nile and turning them to blood. The Radziner Rebbe derived an amusing allusion based on this last proof. The pasuk (Shemos 12:13) states "vehayah hadam lachem le'os al habatim," the blood will be for you a sign on the houses. The blood, referring to the third sign that was given to Moshe, proving that the word acharon does not mean last, was a sign for the houses - an indication that the second Beis HaMikdash would indeed not be the last.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Great Dishon Confusion

Al Pi Cheshbon: Goats and Amicable Numbers by Ari Brodsky

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 - Vayeitzei

    After Leah gives birth to 4 boys, Rachel, after a confrontation with Yaakov, gives over her maidservant to Yaakov so that he may produce children with her. She declares with utmost certainty (30:3) "ve'ibaneh gam anochi mimenah," and I, too, will be built up through her. This statement is in noticeable contrast to Sarah's statement when she gives Hagar to Avraham. There, she states (16:2) "ulai ibaneh mimenah," perhaps I will be built up through her. 

    There's a simple explanation for the different approaches taken by the imahos. Although the Torah states that Sarah was barren, without children, Avraham was equally childless. The exact cause of their childlessness was seemingly unknown. Had Avraham been the barren one, giving him Hagar would not have helped.

    When Manoach and his wife were childless before the birth of Shimshon (Shofetim 13), the Midrash recounts that there was a conflict between them as two who was responsible. That is why the angel appeared to her to tell her that she was the barren one, but that they would soon have a child. We see from Sarah's handling of her situation that no such conflict existed between Avraham and Sarah. Sarah was perfectly ready to accept that she was the barren one and have Avraham reproduce through Hagar, albeit with that slight hint of uncertainty.

    The situation with Yaakov and Rachel, of course, was completely different. Yaakov had already fathered four children with Leah. Rachel knew that she was barren and Yaakov was not. She had no reason to worry that Yaakov's union with Bilhah would not produce children and therefore, was certain that she would be built up through her.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Wordsthatsticktogether

Dikdukian: From his Sleep

Dikdukian: Complete it

Dikdukian: Different Types of Kissing

Dikdukian: Come on, People - Part II

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 - Toledos

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my rebbe and Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Harav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l (Yaakov Moshe ben Refael Nissan Shlomo) whose Yahrtzeit is this coming Shabbos, 3 Kisleiv.

A very special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my nephew, Yisroel Meir Shonek on his aufruf this Shabbos and forthcoming marriage to Miriam Teitelbaum of Far Rockaway.

When Eisav comes back from the field, he is so wiped out that he is on the verge death. He demands of Yaakov who was cooking up a lentil soup, "Pour me some of that red stuff!" The pasuk continues to say that for this, he was called Edom (red). This name has stuck as a reference to Eisav throughout the generations. Why would we designate an eternal name for Eisav based on this seemingly insignificant exchange? And why the focus on the colour of the soup? It would seem more appropriate to refer to them as "hal'iteini-niks."

Daniel Scarowsky, z"l, explained that we are taught (Rashi 26:34) that Eisav is compared to a pig. A pig has split hooves but does not chew its cud. When it sleeps, it sleeps with its hooves stretched out as if to show "look at me, I'm kosher" when, in fact, it is not. The pig symbolizes superficial and external obsessiveness, a misguided focus on outer appearance and neglect of the importance of inner essence. It is this very trait that is being illustrated here by Eisav. Even in this most desperate time, when he was in such dire need of sustenance, the lentil soup was nothing more to him than "red stuff." This exchange, therefore, is a significant indication of Eisav's character and thus, he was given the name Edom.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: (From the) The Fats of the Land

Dikdukian: Be'er Sheva / Shava

Dikdukian: I will eat, You will eat

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 - Chayei Sarah

    Rashi on 24:10 comments that Avraham's camels were discernible for they would go out muzzled so as to prevent them from eating from fields that did not belong to him. Ramba"n (pasuk 34) asks on this based on the Midrash that refers to the donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair about which it is said that even the animals of tzadikim, HaShem does not bring about bad through them and the donkey would not even eat "tevel." (Chullin 5b) If so, how could it be that Avraham had to be worried about his animals stealing to the point where he had to muzzle them? Should this same merit not have been present in the house of Avraham Avinu?

    There are a number of answers given. R' Ovadia miBartenura answers that perhaps the donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair was different because it was the donkey he used personally for travel and there was a stronger bond, so to speak, between the donkey and him. But these camels were not camels that Avraham used but just camels that he owned and perhaps that is why they were not subject to this merit. But maybe Avraham's own personal donkey was.

    R' Yaakov Kaminetzky, in Emes leYaakov, makes an interesting suggestion, based on one of the Kinos from Tisha B'Av. It seems that this "miracle" of the animals avoiding issurim was connected to Eretz Yisroel. Maybe it was only in Eretz Yisroel that this happened. But in Chutz la'Aretz, Charan for example, the animals would need to be muzzled. The difficulty I found with this offering, though, is that this seems to be based on Rashi and Ramban's argument being later on in pasuk 34. But Rashi says already on pasuk 10, when Eliezer first left, which was in Eretz Yisroel, that the camels went out muzzled. A reader has pointed out, though, that perhaps we can suggest the kedushah of Eretz Yisroel which is presumably the catalyst of this miracle, was not yet present to the same degree in the times of Avraham. 

    Sha'arei Aharon offers a different approach. Tosafos in Chullin seem to make a distinction between food that is itself forbidden in its essence and food that is not by its nature forbidden, but is forbidden due to external circumstances. The example in Tosafos is eating before Havdala where there is nothing wrong with the food itself but rather the time it is being eaten. Perhaps that is the difference here. The donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair would not eat 'tevel'. Tevel is universally forbidden in its essence. But the food that Avraham's camels would have eaten was not forbidden by nature, but only because it belonged to others.

    Another suggestion made by the same reader as above is that the animals' special, observant behaviour is very much a miracle. In the story of R' Pinchas ben Yair's donkey, he was not aware that the food was tevel. Avraham, however, would not be permitted to rely on this miracle and assume that his camels would not eat other people's food. Additionally, Avraham constantly endeavoured to set an example to the people around him as to how a person should act. Even if he could rely on his camels to not steal from neighbouring fields, it was necessary for his camels to be muzzled to set an example to the masses. 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

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 - Vayeira

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben Avi Mori Reuven Pinchas, a"h, whose Yahrtzeit is tomorrow, the 18^th of Cheshvan.

As well, this Tuesday, the 21^st of Chesvan, is the  Yahrtzeit of my great uncle, Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel ben Yoel.

There are many distinct differences between Avraham's experience with Avimelech in Gerar and his experience with Paroah in Mitzrayim in last week's parsha. One can certainly assess the episode in Gerar as having a slightly more pleasant outcome. Rather than being kindly asked to leave as he was in Mitzrayim, Avraham ended up settling in Gerar. Rashi explains simply (12:19) that Paroah was looking out for Avraham's well-being and knew that his people were steeped in immorality. However, it would seem that the distinct actions of Avimelech and Paroah may also be explained by the character of the monarchs themselves. Both Paroah and Avimelech had their entire houses afflicted with a plague. However, when Paroah summons Avraham he exclaims, (12:18) "What is this that you have done to ME?!" Avimelech, on the other hand, approaches Avraham and ask him (20:9) "What have you done to US?!" Paroah was clearly a more selfish individual than Avimelech. Paroah cared only about himself whereas Avimelech showed concern for others.

Furthermore, we find that Avraham presented an alibi to Avimelech and said nothing to defend himself to Paroah. The reason for this seems to be that Paroah did not even give him a chance to answer. When Avimelech asks Avraham why he acted in the way that he did, he clearly wanted an answer and was ready to listen to one. Paroah was not interested in what Avraham might have had to say and did not let him speak. These factors, although not compelling, seem to indicate that Paroah's dismissal of Avraham was not out of Paroah's genuine concern for Avraham's well-being but more likely a sign of his short-temperedness.

Lastly, when Avraham makes a feast to celebrate the weaning of Yitzchak, Rashi writes (21:8) that he invited the "gedolei hador," Sheim, Eiver and Avimelech. Avimelech must have been a respectable individual to be included in the same breath as Sheim and Eiver. Therefore, his good-natured approach to the confrontation with Avraham seems to be a reflection of his character.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: A Scratch on the Wall

AstroTorah: Witnesses to Sedom's Destruction

Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

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