The Weekly Shtikle - Terumah

    A number of years ago, I posed the following question and received back a number of nice suggestions which I would like to share.

 

    At the beginning of the parsha Moshe is told to collect numerous different materials for the purpose of building the Mishkan. He is told to collect gold, silver, copper and various other materials without any indication as to what they will be used for. Then he is told to collect oil for lighting, spices for the anointing oil and the Ketores and stones for the Eifod and Choshen. Why is the specific purpose listed for these materials but not for the others?

1. The relative value of the metals and fabrics was known to be greater and thus their importance was easily understood. It was more difficult for the people to understand the importance of the oil and the spices. They therefore needed to be informed right away of the important tasks for which these items were needed. (This answer would not suffice for the stones, however.)
   
   
2. This week's parsha deals at length with the construction of the Mishkan using the wood, the metals, and the skins. The oil, spices and stones are not dealt with more thoroughly until the next parsha. Since their purpose isn't discussed until later, it is mentioned briefly at the outset.
   
   
3. The other materials were more readily available to B'nei Yisroel. The oil, spices and stones took greater toil to seek out. As in answer 1, they needed to be informed of the special purpose they would serve in order to motivate them to find the materials and bring them in
   

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Amudei HeChatzeir
Dikdukian: Venahapoch hu

Dikdukian: Watch out for that kamatz

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings 

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 - Mishpatim

This coming Wednesday, 28 Shevat, marks the first yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, R' Yitzchak Yeres. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yitzchak Chaim ben Moshe Yosef.

This week's parsha contains the first of three instances of the of the prohibition of  lo sevasheil gedi bachaleiv imo (23:19), not to cook a goat in its mother's milk. As all my kids learned this week, this is the source for the prohibition of milk and meat. The three instances are necessary to indicate a prohibition against cooking, eating or deriving any other benefit. In this instance and in Ki Sisa, (34:26) the phrase appears right next to the mitzvah of bikurim. In Re'eih (Devarim 14:21), however, it does not. Netziv explains in Ha'ameik Davar that it is the way of the nations to mix meat and milk together and put it in the ground as a very effective fertilizer. Thus, the prohibition of the mixing of meat and milk was put next to bikurim to tell you that even for the purpose of growing nice fruit for bikurim, one may not mix meat and milk. The prohibitions of cooking and deriving benefit may be connected to this agricultural phenomenon. But the prohibition of eating may not. After all, if you've eaten it, you can't put it in the ground. As the saying goes, you can't eat your basar b'chalav and plant it, too. Therefore, it is exactly twice that lo sevasheil gedi appears next to the mitzvah of bikurim.

My Rebbe, R' Kulefsky, zt"l would often tell over this explanation of Netziv, accompanied with a rather humourous anecdote involving Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. He was once in the bathroom and reading a secular agriculture book when he came across this fact that putting milk and meat together in the ground helps the soil. Immediately, this fact sparked the idea in his mind to understand the pesukim as Netziv did above. Since this caused him to think about Torah, he had to run out of the bathroom right away!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Ox and his Friend
Dikdukian: Answer vs. Torture
Dikdukian: Give it to me
Dikdukian: Ha'isha viladeha

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

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 - Yisro

   At the beginning of this week's parsha we are once again given the reason behind the naming of Gershom : "Ki ger hayisi b'eretz nochria", because I was a stranger in a strange land. Here the explanation of Eliezer's name is given as well, "Ki elokei avi b'ezri, vayatzileini micherev Paroah", apparently referring to Moshe's escape from execution at the hands of Paroah. At first glance, these names seem to be out of order. The cause for the naming of Gershom seems to have been preceded by that of Eliezer. Moshe was a stranger in Midyan after he escaped from the hands of Paroah. My Rebbe in Eretz Yisrael, R' Yeshaya Greenwald suggests that perhaps there is a different explanation behind Gershom's name. In the years leading up to Gershom's birth, Moshe realized that although he seemed at home in Egypt as a prince and leading quite a good life, he was nevertheless a stranger in a strange land. So Ki ger hayisi... is in fact referring to Moshe's years in Mitzrayim rather than those in Midyan. This explanation is supported by the fact that Moshe says "Ki ger hayisi," in the past tense, even while he is still living in Midyan (2:22).

    Another interesting point concerning the naming of Gershom and Eliezer: For Gershom it says "vesheim ha'echad Gershom". And than for Eliezer, "vesheim ha'echad Eliezer". One would have expected the use of ordinal numbers such as "Sheim Harishon... vesheim hasheni" in this case. Why are they both referred to as "ha'echad"? R' Greenwald suggests that the answer may lie in the Midrash on the pasuk (2:22) "Vayoel Moshe," which states that Moshe made a pact with his father-in-law to give his first son to Avodah Zarah (or some manifestation thereof.) Therefore, Gershom was the "ben ha'echad," the one son for Avoda Zarah and Eliezer was the "ben ha'echad" laShem.

    Perhaps the answer to the second question could be used to answer the first. Since Moshe had this pact with Yisro, he didn't want to mention any specific praise of HaShem which would convey to Yisro that he had not kept to the deal. Therefore, Gershom was given a more generic, religion-less name while Moshe waited until his second child to mention the praise of HaShem for saving him from Paroah's sword but it indeed did come first.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Many Who Fear God

Dikdukian: Letzais

Dikdukian: On top of Old Smokey

Dikdukian: Ram veNisa 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 - Beshalach

    At the end of the parsha, B'nei Yisrael defeat Amaleik in a battle, though the war is still not won. Following the victory, Moshe is told to instruct Yehoshua about the eventual destruction of Amaleik. Rashi (17:14) comments that here it was hinted to Moshe that he would not bring B'nei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael but rather Yehoshua would bring them in. However, the passage does not appear to contain anything pertaining to the entrance into Eretz Yisrael. Is it not possible that Moshe is just instructing Yehoshua because he is the general? Where exactly is the hint?

    I suggest that when HaShem told Moshe "K'sov zos zikaron baseifer, vesim be'oznei Yehoshua," it is not simply referring to the words that followed but he was also told to relay to him the parsha of Amalek that we find at the end of Ki Seitzei, the text of Parshas Zachor. There it speaks specifically about the events following the entrance into Eretz Yisrael, (Devarim 25:19) "It shall be that when HaShem, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies..." Perhaps, there was the hint, that Yehoshua alone will witness those events and not Moshe.

    This approach (that Moshe gave over the parsha of "zachor" at this time) is supported by Kol Eliyahu on this pasuk. He writes that Moshe was told to "place in the ears of Yehoshua" the proper pronunciation - zeicher Amaleik, as opposed to Yoav's erroneous mesorah, zachar Amaleik. [As a side point, it was deciphered in Peninim MiShulchan HaGR"A that the GR"A himself is not the actual source of this piece but rather, it came from R' Chaim of Volozhin.]

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Happy 7th Birthday, Dikdukian!

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Bo

When Moshe comes to warn Paroah about makas bechoros, he declares (11:5) that all the firstborn in Mitzrayim shall die, from the firstborn of Paroah who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the handmaiden who sits behind the mill-stones. There is a slight discrepancy, however, between this pasuk and the pasuk dealing with the plague itself. There (12:29) we are told that in the middle of the night, HaShem smote all the firstborn in the land of Mitzrayim, from the firstborn of Paroah who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon. Here the handmaiden is substituted for the captive.

Rabbi Raphael Davidovich of Cleveland, OH once showed me a nice explanation from the sefer HaKesav vehaKabalah. He writes that many commentaries say that the handmaiden and the captive are one and the same. The Egyptians would capture women and have them do work during the day. At night, since they were not doing work, they locked them up in their cells. He adds when Moshe came to Paroah to warn him about the plague, it was daytime so then he referred to them as the handmaidens that sit behind the millstone. But the actual plague took place at night so the Torah refers to them as the captives in the dungeon.

Another explanation can be suggested based on what we find a number of times in Rashi, that Moshe took a deliberately overly respective tone with Paroah. Moshe referred to them as handmaidens so as to go along with the impression that these women were graciously being provided employment. But the narrative account of the actual plague reveals the true nature of their plight as prisoners who are subjugated by day and subjected to confinement at night.

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

AstroTorah: The Death Star (Ra'ah) the classic 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