The Weekly Shtikle Blog

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

View Profile

Friday, January 25

The Weekly Shtikle - Beshalach

    As the Egyptians realized they were doomed when their chariots began to collapse in the middle of Yam Suf, they proclaimed (14:25) "Let us flee from the Israelites for HaShem is fighting for them in Egypt!" At least, this is the simple literal understanding of what they said. But the last phrase is very puzzling. They were not in Egypt. HaShem wasn't fighting their battle in Egypt. Rashi starts by interpreting the word "beMitzrayim" as really meaning "baMitzriyim," not in Egypt but with the Egyptians. That solves the problem rather simply.
 
    He then brings another, less direct approach from the Mechilta. Just as those who in the sea were being smitten, so too those who remained in Egypt were being simultaneously smitten.
 
    However, Targum Onkelos offers a novel interpretation of this pasuk. He writes that the Egyptians were declaring that this was the same Strong Hand of God that fought B'nei Yisroel's battles in Egypt. A polytheistic belief system, such as that to which the Egyptians subscribed, is forced to give boundaries to their deities by some sort of criteria such as location, time or specific strength. As much as the Egyptians recognized HaShem's Hand in the meting out of the ten plagues, they still did not appreciate our monotheistic beliefs. It would seem from this pasuk that they believed that HaShem's powers were somehow confined to Egypt. They chased B'nei Yisroel with the belief that His Mighty Hand would not reach them outside of those boundaries. When they witnessed the miraculous collapse of their chariots, they finally began to realize their error. They recognized that the God who brought their nation to its knees on its home turf knows no boundaries and was now bringing them to their ultimate demise.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Exceptions Ahoy
Dikdukian: Mikdash, HaShem ...
Dikdukian: Leave us Alone
Al Pi Cheshbon: Chamushim

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, January 18

The Weekly Shtikle - Bo

    The pasuk in Bemidbar 3:13 states "Ki li kol bchor byom hakosi kol bchor b'eretz mitzrayim". In the hakdama to Maseches S'machos (found in the back of maseches Avodah Zarah) it is asked that the pasuk in this week's parsha states "vayehi bachatzi halayla v'HaShem hika kol bchor..." If the maka occurred at night, why does the pasuk in Bemidbar say "b'yom"? The answer given there is that the maka was initiated at night, and they were struggling until the morning when they died. The Maharsham states that it is because of this that we find that Pidyon HaBen is usually done during the day, because the actual death of the first born was during the day.

    Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach zt"l points out that this concept may answer an interesting discrepency between the Birchos Kriyas Shema of the morning and of the night. In the morning we say (after Shema) "mimitzrayim gealtanu... v'chol bechoreihem haragta". At night we say,"hamakeh v'evraso kol bchorei mitzrayim, vayotze es amo Yisrael mitocham..." At night, the term haka'ah is used, whereas in the morning, hariga is used. Furthermore, at night the exodus is mentioned after the killing of the first born, whereas in the morning it is mentioned before. The explanation is that at night we refer to what happened at night. The initial "haka'ah" took place at night and the exodus followed after. The actual death is what happened in the morning and that is what we refer to. By then, the geula had already begun because Bnei Yisroel were on their way out.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Talented Locusts
AstroTorah: Korban Pesach in the Sky 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

Friday, January 11

The Weekly Shtikle - Vaeira

    As we all know, we drink four cups of wine at the seder. These four cups are traditionally connected with the four exodus-related verbs found at the beginning of this week's parsha. Moshe is commanded to assure B'nei Yisroel (6:6-7) "vehotzaisi," I will bring you out, "vehitzalti," I will save you, "vega'alti," I will deliver you, "velakachti," I will take you for a nation. However, as the pesukim continue, we find a fifth verb used, "veheiveisi," and I will bring you to the land. Traditionally, this fifth verb is matched up with the extra cup that we pour for Eliyahu HaNavi. What is it that sets this assurance apart? Why do we consider 4 principal promises and the fifth is merely extra. And what is the specific connection to Eliyahu's cup?

    R' Shmuel Wagner, Mashgiach of Ohr Yerushalayim in Eretz Yisroel where I attended, offers the following thought: After enduring centuries of hardship, it was clearly time for B'nei Yisroel to be delivered from Egypt. The first four steps were inevitable. The time had come and that was that. However, between step four and five, there was a condition. After HaShem's promise to take us for a nation, Moshe declares "And I (HaShem) will be for you a God and you will know that I am HaShem, your God..." B'nei Yisroel reaching step five was contingent upon their acceptance and recognition of HaShem. Only when they reach that hight would they merit to be brought into Eretz Yisroel. This clearly separates "veheiveisi" from the rest. Furthermore, we now see a connection to Eliyahu HaNavi. The fifth step is the ultimate redemption, when we are brought into Eretz Yisroel on our merits. We are now constantly striving to reach that goal, to merit the coming of Moshiach, may he come speedily in our day. When Eliyahu comes in and has a taste of our wine, he gives us but a little taste of that final redemption.

--

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Dikdukei Va'eira by Eliyahu Levin
Dikdukian: Leshon Yachid veRabbim by Eliayhu Levin
AstroTorah: Stars Fell on Egypt 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

Friday, January 4

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemos

After the episode when Moshe eliminates the Egyptian who was beating up on an Israelite, he sees to men fighting and attempts to break up the fight. One of the assailants, identified by Chazal as Dasan, challenges Moshe and retorts (2:14) "Halehargeini ata omer ka'asher haragta es hamitzri?" Loosely translated, he asked, "Are you saying to kill me like you did to the Egyptian?" The difficulty with this accusation is that killing hardly has anything to do with words. What did Dasan mean when he said "Are you saying to kill me?"

Rashi writes that we may understand from this wording that Moshe killed the Egyptian with the Sheim HaMeforash, the Holy Divine Name which, when spoken, has lethal powers. Dasan was afraid that Moshe might use it on him as well. When Moshe actually killed the Egyptian, Rashi commented there (2:12) that Moshe examined his prospective descendants and saw that no good person would come out of him and then killed him. Why did he need to use the Sheim HaMeforash? Why didn't he kill him the old fashioned way? Additionally, why did he have to examine his future generations before killing him? If he was liable to be killed, then what difference would any righteous offspring make?

The Brisker Rav writes that according to Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 10:6) a gentile who strikes a Jew is liable for "Misah bidei Shomayim," death at the Hands of Heaven. This means that HaShem will see to it that this punishment is exacted. Moshe, therefore, could not kill the Egyptian with his own hands. Using the Sheim HaMeforash was, in essence, a way of carrying out the death penalty as a messenger of the Heavenly court. However, a Heavenly judgement is not like that of a regular court. A regular court will focus only on the crime and no other factors. The Heavenly court, however, may pass judgement based on outside factors. The Heavenly death penalty may be waived by virtue of a potential righteous offspring. Moshe, therefore, had to make sure that no good man would come out of the Egyptians descendants in order to determine that he was fit for the Heavenly death penalty.

My father offers a more straightforward approach to the first pasuk we dealt with. In the famous episode of Kayin and Hevel, we find a similar nuance. The pasuk (Bereishis 4:8) reads: "And Kayin said to Hevel, and they were in the field and Kayin came upon Hevel his brother and killed him." The pasuk does not recount what it was that he said. Rashi there writes that the words that were spoken were words of incitement. Rather than kill his brother out of the blue, Kayin was picking a fight in order to lead up to the murder. The use of "amirah" may be understood likewise in our case. Dasan's accusation may thus be understood, "Are you, Moshe, starting up with me and inciting me so that you eventually kill me as you did the Egyptian?" This is a more simplistic understanding of the pasuk.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikduian: Bas Paroah (Guess what I have to say about that!)
Dikduian: From the Children of the Hebrews
Dikduian: The Strange Thing about Straw
Dikduian: Affliction
Dikduian: Raamseis
Dikdukian: Random Dikduk from Shemos 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