Fwd: The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

This week's parsha ends off with the tragic episode of the megadeif, the blasphemer who cursed HaShem out of anger. When Moshe is taught how to proceed, he is instructed (24:14) that the man is to be brought outside of the camp where those who heard (i.e. the witnesses and judges)  place their hands on his head. He is subsequently put to death by stoning. This follows standard procedure for stoning except for one step. In no other instance do we find the placing of hands before an execution. It is unique to the case of a blasphemer.

 

The Da'as Zekeinim miBa'alei haTosafos cite a midrash explaining what makes the case of the blasphemer different in this regard. The judicial process as mandated by Torah Law makes it extremely difficult to impose capital punishment. The witnesses must be able to report every minute detail. In the case of the blasphemer we are faced with a difficult dilemma. The witnesses must tell the judges what they heard. Therefore, as the mishnah (Sanhedrin 56a) explains, the judges and witnesses would leave the courtroom for a private session and the witnesses would indeed verbalize the exact words that came out of the mouth of the blasphemer, at which point the judges would tear their clothes to signify the mournful distress at having to hear such words uttered. The placing of hands on the head of the blasphemer, a process more common to sacrifices, is a symbolic transfer the burden of responsibility for one's sins. Normally, we place the hands on the animal, allowing it to be an atonement for our sins. Here, the witnesses make a clear statement absolving them of responsibility for having to repeat the curses and the judges for having heard them. Since it was all brought about by the actions of the blasphemer it is he who bears the responsibility even for the repetition.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

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 - Acharei Mos / Kedoshim

In Bemidbar 3 and 26 when Nadav and Avihu are mentioned, the pasuk recounts "vayamusu... bahikravam eish zara..." the pasuk recounts the specifics of their sin in bringing the ketores which they were not commanded to bring. However, here, it only says at the beginning of the parsha "b'karvasam ... vayamusu." The pasuk refers to their coming close to HaShem and their subsequent death but there is no specific mention of the aish zara as there is in the other references.

The reference to the death of Aharon's two sons is followed directly by the instruction of Aharon as to the proper procedure for entering the kodesh hakadashim on Yom Kippur. The procedure is briefly prefaced by the warning that one may not enter the kodesh hakadashim whenever they please. Rashi connects the two topics with the parable of the doctor who tells his patient, "Follow these directions so that you don't die the way so-and-so died." But what in fact is the connection between Nadav and Avihu's death and entering the kodesh hakadashim?

            The simplest answer might be that according to Bar Kappara in the midrash, the actual sin of Nadav Avihu was entering the kodesh hakadashim  However, R’ Ephraim Eisenberg, zt”l, offers an answer which is concurrent with all the opinions in the midrash. There are quite a number of opinions quoted in the midrash as to the actual sin of Nadav Avihu. But with close examination, there emerges a pattern amongst all of them. The central theme seems to be that Nadav and Avihu were trying to reach a degree of closeness to HaShem which was beyond their reach. Their actions indicated a desire to become closer to HaShem but this yearning brought them to act inappropriately. Therefore, their actions serve as a lesson that there are limits when it comes to closeness to HaShem. This is the theme of the Yom Kippur avodah. A kohein gadol may not enter the Kodesh HaKadashim whenever he pleases, even if it is to become closer to HaShem. There is a time and place for this practice and it is on Yom Kippur only.

           Perhaps this answers the original question. In this specific reference to the demise of Nadav and Avihu, we are not concerned with the actual actions that lead to their tragic death. We are merely concerned with the motives behind their actions and how they relate to the principal topic, the avodah of Yom Kippur.

**********

            In perek 19 (9‑10), we are taught four different mitzvos with regard to the poor: peah, leket, peret and olalos. The required quantity for these mitzvos is quite small. For instance, the mishna in Peah teaches that one or two sheaves constitutes leket but three do not, i.e. if one dropped as few as three sheaves, it is still considered too much and may be retrieved by the owner.

            R' Moshe Mintz of Ner Yisroel asks why the Torah commanded us a number of mitzvos of such small quantity instead of perhaps commanding us one mitzvah of greater quantity. He answers that perhaps we can understand this with Rambam's interpretation of a mishnah in this week's perek of Pirkei Avos, perek 3. Mishnah 19 teaches "hakol l'fi rov hama'aseh". Rambam explains that it is better for a person to give a little tzedakah at a greater frequency than to give a larger amount of tzedakah less often (assuming the total amount is the same). For example, he explains that giving one donation of 1000 gold coins, meritorious as it may be, does not have the same effect on the giver as giving one gold coin a thousand times. Doing mitzvos more often has a more profound impact on a person, even if the quantity of the mitzvos is small. Therefore, the Torah specifically commanded us to do many different acts of tzedakah in the field in smaller quantities, rather than less acts in larger quantities.  

            It is ironic that this lesson be taught in parshas Kedoshim. Although it is certainly among the smaller parshios, at 64 pesukim, it actually boasts the highest rate of mitzvos per pasuk. 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: A Revealing Note
Dikdukian: Stand up, goat!
Dikdukian: Watch that plural

Weekly Shtikle Blog Apps:

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 - Tazria / Metzora

I am proud to announce the availability of a suite of Weekly Shtikle BlackBerry® Apps, now available at BlackBerry World® . There is an individual app available for each of the Weekly Shtikle blogs as well as an aggregate app, Weekly Shtikle Blogs which includes all four of the parsha-oriented blogs in one. Hopefully, more platforms will follow.

    The chief topic of this week's parshios, Tazria and Metzora is the sickness known as tzara'as. Tazria deals mainly with the assessment of tzara'as. In Metzora, we begin to discuss the "recovery process." Be'er Moshe, in the introduction to chelek 3 of his teshuvos notes that we find that a metzora must bring two birds after his tzara'as has gone away (14:4). One of the birds is slaughtered and the other is sent away. Why? Rashi there writes that the reason why birds are brought is because they talk a lot and the reason why one becomes afflicted with tzara'as is because he spoke lashon hara. Be'er Moshe explains, therefore, that the slaughtering of the bird is to symbolize how we must be aware of when to keep our mouths shut and to prevent whatever words we were going to say. However, the most complete way to battle lashon hara is not by complete verbal repression. One must be able to speak normally, using his mouth for good, for divrei Torah. He must be able to converse with individuals but in a way that he watches his words and doesn't say anything wrong. Therefore, the second bird is sent out into the world symbolizing how one is supposed to go out and talk naturally, but the bird is first dipped in the blood of the dead bird, to show how he must always keep in mind his responsibilities to refrain from speaking evil.

    I heard in a shiur last night about the various challenges the Chofetz Chaim encountered trying to get haskamos for his sefer on lashon hara. On one occasion he was given a test where someone engaged him in conversation for 6 hours on all sorts of issues of the day. Yet, any time the conversation would gravitate towards the denigration of individuals, he would put a quick end to it. Indeed, the Chofetz Chaim was the true embodiment of the above.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Omer in Different Bases

Dikdukian: White Hair

Dikdukian: Meaining of "kibus" by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: Various Dikduk Observations by Eliyahu Levin

AstroTorah: Metzoraim are from Saturn by R' Ari Storch

Weekly Shtikle Blog Apps:

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

BlackBerry® App

I am happy to announce that the Weekly Shtikle BlackBerry® App is now available, compatible with all devices, including the new BB10 devices.

Apps for other WeeklyShtikle blogs are available as well.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemini

    At the end of the parsha, summarizing the commandments relating to forbidden foods, the pasuk (11:45) says "Ki ani HaShem hamaale eschem..." Rashi comments that in all other instances it says hotzeisi but here it says hama'ale and quotes from Tana d'Bei Eliyahu that the term ma'ale implies that this mitzvah itself is a ma'ala, a virtue in and of itself, for which B'nei Yisrael merited exodus from Egypt. The obvious inference is from the change of terminology from yetzia to aliyah.

    However, perhaps there is another inference to be made. In most other instances, the word hotzeisi is used. It is in past tense. Here, had the pasuk said asher he'eliesi then there would not have been such a strong implication that this mitzvah is a ma'ala but only that HaShem took us out and therefore we should keep it. Now that it is written in the present tense, it implies that with this mitzvah HaShem brings us up to a higher level and it is a virtue for us. The Midrash is clearly not making this inference but it may still be used to arrive at the same conclusion. [Nevertheless, it should be noted that in a gemara that was recently learned as part of the Daf Yomi cycle (Eiruvin 19a) Rav Kahana asserts that although hama'ale is structured in the present tense, it is clearly to be understood in the past tense.]

Have a good Shabbos.