The Weekly Shtikle - Va'eira

Mazal Tov once again to my nephew, Yisroel Meir Shonek, his wife, Miriam, and the extended Shonek, Bulka, Jakobovits and Teitelbaum families on my new grand-nephew who now has a name, Tovia Yehuda Shonek, named after my Opa, z"l. May he bring nachas to the family and an aliyah to the neshama.

 

    In order to give Paroah a warning for the plague of blood, (7:15) Moshe is told to meet Paroah at the Nile and hamateh asher nehpach lenachash tikach beyadecha, the staff that was turned into a snake you shall take in your hand. This command begs the question, whose staff is it anyway? A staff was turned into a snake twice, once in front of B'nei Yisrael and once in front of Paroah. It would seem that in front of B'nei Yisrael it was done with Moshe's staff as HaShem had demonstrated in front of the burning bush. From pasuk 9, it appears that the staff used in front of Paroah was Aharon's. Which one, then, is being referred to in this pasuk?

 

    The Klei Yekar on pasuk 9 points out that Moshe's staff turned into a nachash while Aharon's turned into a tanin. He then goes on to explain the difference between the two. Since our pasuk reads hamateh asher nehepach lenachash and not hamateh asher nehepach lesanin, it would seem that the staff being referred to is Moshe's. The Ibn Ezra holds that even the staff that was used in front of Paroah was Moshe's. According to this, it would seem to leave no doubt that the staff was Moshe's. [It is noteworthy, however, that when the signs are in fact performed in front of B'nei Yisrael, (4:30), it seems to be Aharon who performed them. Why this would be is a question unto itself. But if Aharon was the one who performed them, perhaps it is not so simple that Moshe's staff was used.]

 

    Nevertheless, Targum Yonasan here states outright that it was Aharon's staff to be brought to the Nile. In Tosafos HaShaleim, an interesting reasoning for this is brought. Moshe's staff had HaShem's name etched on it. Rashi here tells us that Paroah was found at the Nile bank each morning to relieve himself. Therefore, taking Moshe's staff with HaShem's name on it would have been like taking a sefer into the bathroom. So, it had to be Aharon's staff that was brought to the Nile.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Yachid and Rabbim

Dikdukian: Frogs

Dikdukian: Dikdukei Va'eira 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemos

A very special Weekly Shtikle MAZAL TOV to my nephew Yisroel Meir Shonek and his wife Miriam on the birth of a baby boy which makes my sister, Yocheved, a grandmother and my father a great(er) grandfather (and me a great uncle) for the very first time! MAZAL TOV to all! This Shabbos also marks the Bar Mitzvah of my nephew Eliyahu Boruch Shonek so he gets his own MAZAL TOV, as well.

After a lengthy discourse at the burning bush, HaShem instructs Moshe Rabbeinu to appear before the elders of B'nei Yisrael and proclaim in HaShem's name, pakod pakadti eschem, I have surely visited/remembered you. With this simple introduction, the elders would listen to Moshe and he would proceed to come before Paroah and begin the redemption process. However, Moshe contends that B'nei Yisrael will not believe him and will claim that HaShem never appeared to him. HaShem then proceeds to give Moshe three signs to use in front of B'nei Yisroel. The first is to turn his staff into a snake. The second was to place his hand in his bosom. Upon removing it, it became afflicted with tzora'as and turned white as snow. After placing his hand inside once more, his hand returned to normal. If they would not believe in the first sign, they would believe in the second. If they would not believe even the second sign, then Moshe was to take from the waters of the Nile and pour them onto the ground at which point they would turn to blood. (3:17-4:9)

 

The necessity of the signs seems easily explainable. Moshe was originally told that all he would need to say is pakod pakadti eschem, etc., in order to achieve the trust of B'nei Yisrael. According to the well-known midrash, based on a pasuk at the end of last week's parsha, there was a tradition passed on from Yoseif that this specific phraseology was a code that would only be uttered by the ultimate redeemer of B'nei Yisrael. This was all Moshe really needed. However, since he showed a lack of faith in his nation's trust, he was required to prove his validity through these signs. Why three, though? What was it about the second sign that made him more believable than the first? What advantage did the third have over the previous two?

 

The first sign is a rather simple one. On the surface, there seems to be little significance to this trick. Perhaps, this was meant as a simple proof that Moshe Rabbeinu possessed special powers.  At a certain level of desperation, this might have been enough to gain the trust of the people. But Moshe had to do more. The second sign had more symbolic significance. When one is trying to prove his powers to the masses, it is unconventional to inflict harm upon himself. However, what Moshe was proving to B'nei Yisrael with this sign was that he was prepared to put himself in personal danger for the sake of the people. In this, Moshe was proving not only his extraordinary powers but his quality as a leader. A true leader is one who not only takes credit for the success of his followers, but is prepared to sacrifice his dignity, and perhaps even his life, in taking responsibility for their failures. Indeed, the end of this week's parsha is only the first of many instances in which Moshe Rabbeinu exhibited this aspect of leadership.

 

Finally, if these two signs still were not enough, the third sign would divert the nation's attention to a different aspect of the issue at hand. The Nile was the lifeline of Egyptian agriculture and an object of worship in and of itself. Turning it to blood symbolized the first step towards the destruction of this evil regime. The combination of these three signs would prove unequivocally that Moshe Rabbeinu was imbued with special powers and sent by HaShem to lead B'nei Yisrael to their long-awaited redemption.

  Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikduian: Bas Paroah
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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayechi

This Sunday, 12 Teves, is the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Joseph Schechter of Ner Yisrael. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yoseif ben Eliezer Z'ev.

Before Yaakov blesses all his children together, Yoseif brings his sons to Yaakov to be blessed. "And he blessed them on that day saying, by you Israel shall bless saying, may HaShem make you like Efrayim and Menasheh." Rashi validates Yaakov's prophecy by explaining that the blessing was that for generations to come Jews would bless their children to be like Efrayim and Menasheh. Indeed, it is the practice of most Jews to bestow this blessing upon their sons every Shabbos night. Yaakov was blessing his grandchildren that they should merit to be the paradigmatic children like whom all parents hope and pray their children will become.

Although the pasuk begins vayevarecheim, and he blessed them, the actual blessing itself begins becha, by you, in the singular. The word bachem would have been expected in that situation.

When we bless our children to be like Efrayim and Menasheh, it is certainly a tribute to them and their righteousness, having been brought up in a foreign land, surrounded by negative influences and nevertheless emerging as the great men they were. However, the word becha would seem to be referring to Yoseif. It is a tribute to Yoseif and the diligence and dedication with which he brought up his precious children in the most loathsome of societies that we pray that our sons be like his. Therefore, this blessing of Yaakov was very much directed to Yoseif as well.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: You Make the Call: Aveil Mitzrayim

AstroTorah: Was Yissachar Really the One to Regulate the Calendar? 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 - Vayigash

This coming Sunday, 5 Teves, is the yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, Rabbi Dr Israel Frankel, a"h. This week's shtikle, a most appropriate one, is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel Aryeh ben Asher Yeshayahu.

 

    When Yaakov reaches Be'er Sheva on his way down to Mitzrayim (46:1), he bring sacrifices to "the God of his father, Yitzchak." Of course, This was the God of his gradfather, Avraham, as well. However, Avraham's name is not mentioned. Rashi writes that the reason is because one is obligated more so to respect his father than to respect his grandfather. The very simple and obvious inference to be made from this Rashi is that there is in fact some halachic obligation of respect owed to one's grandfather, albeit less so than for one's father. Rama in Yoreh De'ah 240:24 writes that there is an obligation to respect one's grandfather. His source is this Rashi.

 

    However, this issue is the subject of much discussion amongst the posekim. Mahari"k (Shoresh 30) declares that a gradfather is just like anyone on the street. That is, there is no specific obligation of respect. There seems to be no official source given by the Maharik. One source that is suggested as the basis for Mahari"k's position is the gemara Sotah 49a. The gemara relates that R' Yaakov grew up in the house of R' Acha bar Yaakov, his maternal grandfather. When asked to bring him water, R' Yaakov declared, "I am not your son." As the saying goes, "Raise me but I am still not your son for I am but your daughter's son." (End of quote) This suggests that there is no obligation to honour one's grandfather.

    However, the GR"A and others explain that there is a difference between paternal and maternal grandparents. The GR"A, Gilyon Maharsh"a and Mahari"l explain that the source is a gemara in Makkos (12a). The gemara discusses various laws pertaining to the go'eil hadam, the avenger. In certain specific instances, certain relatives of a murder victim are permitted to avenge their relative's death. A brother is usually included in this group. However, if a father kills his own son, under these conditions, the brother of the victim is not permitted to kill his father. Nevertheless, the gemara does conclude that the son of the victim (grandson of the killer) is not bound by this prohibition. This seems to imply that there isn't any obligation to honour one's grandfather. Rashi's language there is even more unequivocal, stating that one is not warned by the Torah to respect his grandfather.

 

    In addition to buttressing the position of Mahari"k, the statement of Rashi in Makkos also seems to be in contradiction with the statement made in our parsha. R' Akiva Eiger (Teshuvos 68) and others answer that when one's father is not alive, there is no obligation to honour the grandfather. Therefore, in the case of the gemara where it is the father that has been killed, the obligation to honour the grandfather does not apply. However, in our case, Yitzchak was not alive either. Perhaps one can explain as follows: There are certain acts of respect and honour that can be performed when a parent is alive (e.g. bringing them a cup of water.) But when a parent has passed, obviously some of these acts are no longer possible but there remains a subset of honour that is still possible after death, such as the way one addresses the parent by name. R' Akive Eiger is addressing the former. The obligation to refrain from avenging a relative's death is clearly one that pertains to the living. In the case where the father is no longer alive, it doesn't apply to the grandfather. In our parsha we are dealing with a show of honour after passing. There would still be an obligation to show such honour to a grandparent, regardless, albeit less so than to a parent.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon / Dikdukian: Can you count to 70?

Dikdukian: Pain in the Neck

Dikdukian: Just Do It!

Dikdukian: Ram'seis

Dikdukian: Dikdukei Vayigash by R' 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Chanukah

This evening, I was explaining the various historical episodes referenced in Maoz Tzur when it occurred to me that there is a chronological anomaly in the order of the verses. The third stanza relates the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash and the crowning of Zerubavel after 70 years of exile (which is of course also referenced in the haftarah we read on Shabbos.) However, the next stanza summarizes the story of Purim which, of course, predated the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash. 

I thought an answer to this quandary might lie in a recent gemara from Daf Yomi which I had found difficult, as originally discussed here.

The gemara (Yoma 9b) is comparing the merits of the generations that saw the destruction of each Beis HaMikdash. The consensus seems to be that the fact the Beis HaMikdash has not been rebuilt, in contrast to the relatively short initial exile of 70 years, is proof of the greater merit of the earlier generations.

 

We are taught (actually ירושלמי in this פרק)
כל דור שאינו נבנה בימיו מעלין עליו כאילו הוא החריבו

 

It would seem that the responsibility for bringing the Beis HaMikdash back would lie in the hands of the subsequent generations in exile. Yet, the gemara seems to tie it back to the generation in which it was destroyed. I suppose one support for this could be that the prophecy of the 70-year exile was already given to Yirmiyahu (29:10). The gemara must understand that it was due to the merit of the generation of the destruction that an expiry was put on the ensuing exile from the very beginning, whereas as no such favour was granted the second time.

Since apparently, it was the generation of the churban, on whose merit the Beis HaMikdash was so speedily rebuilt, the verse in Maoz Tzur actually belongs before the story of Purim as it was put in motion well before.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Clear the Halls

Dikdukian: Naasah

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