The Weekly Shtikle - Naso

   There are a number of interesting correlations between this week's parsha and this week's haftarah. The obvious connection is that the haftara speaks of Shimshon who was a nazir and the nazir is discussed in this week's parsha. However, there are some other connections that lie beneath the surface. First, the sotah process is discussed in this week's parsha. We are taught, (according to one opinion in the gemara) that a sotah who was previously childless, will become pregnant if she emerges from the sotah process alive as an innocent woman. R' Dovid Kohn explains why this is. If someone is childless, it is because there has been some decree from Shamayim that this person suffer, for whatever reason, a punishment comparable to death. However, there are other circumstances mentioned by Chazal that are comparable to death. One of them is embarrassment. If someone embarrasses another person, it is as if they are killing them (Pirkei Avos). Therefore, when the woman goes through the sotah process, she endures so much humiliation that she has served the punishment equaling death and now there is no longer a place for the decree of infertility. This concept, too, is seen in the haftara. The midrash recounts that Ivtzan (Boaz) who was the judge  at the time, had 30 sons and 30 daughters and made two banquets for each one. However, he did not invite Manoach to any of these banquets for he reasoned "He doesn't have any kids, how could he ever return the favour?" R' Dovid Kohn suggests that here too it was enduring the embarrassment of 120 banquets to which he was not invited, an embarrassment directly related to the fact that he was childless, that earned him the merit to eventually have a child.

    Also, Chazal tell us that the purpose of the sotah process is to eventually instill peace between man and his wife by resolving the existing conflict. Peace is so important that HaShem has His name erased in the water for it. In the haftara we also see the importance of peace between a man and his wife. The midrash recounts that when Manoach and his wife were not able to have children, they were fighting over whose fault it was that they were not having kids. Therefore, the angel informed Manoach's wife that she was in fact the akara. R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that from here we learn a very important lesson regarding shalom. If you know that one party in argument is correct, it is proper to go over to the one who is wrong and inform them so that they may confess for in that way you will preserve peace. If you inform the one who was correct, you will not resolve the argument and the conflict will only continue. That is why the angel went directly to Manoach's wife rather than Manoach. The prevalence of the theme of shalom is also found in the culmination of birkas kohanim (which is actually the pasuk on which this midrash appears.)

Have a Chodesh Tov and Good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayins

AstroTorah: The Wrath of Grapes 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

Re: The Weekly Shtikle - Bemidbar

Title: With us in Spirit 

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Weekly Shtikle <weeklyshtikle@weeklyshtikle.com> wrote:

Today is the yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

This coming Sunday is the yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah

 

    A number of years ago, I was approached on parshas Vayigash and asked the following question: Why, when the Torah is enumerating the 70 travelers who came down to Mitzrayim, are Eir and Onan mentioned (Bereishis 46:12.) If the point of this section is to count the seventy family members, why mention those who were not there? A similar question may be asked in this week's parsha. After B'nei Yisrael are counted and arranged in their camps, the families of Moshe and Aharon are briefly discussed. We find the Torah going into specific detail regarding Nadav and Avihu (3:2,4) even though they were no longer alive. Again in parshas Pinechas (26:61) when the descendants of Levi are enumerated, Nadav and Avihu and their unfortunate fate are mentioned.

 

    The answer I gave him is surely homiletic, but I think there is a valuable and appropriate lesson to be learned. The Torah is teaching us that when a member of the family passes on, although they are physically removed from the family, they are still an integral part of the family. Through times of joy and accomplishment and through times of sorrow, they are still there in some way, sharing those experiences. It is common to say of a family member whose presence is missed that they are with us in spirit. The Torah impresses this point upon us by not counting Yehudah's family without mentioning Eir and Onan, and never failing to invoke Nadav and Avihu when enumerating the sons of Aharon.

 

    This shabbos is sandwiched between the yahrtzeits of two very special ladies on the Jakobovits side of the family, for whom we have two daughters named. Although they were different in many ways, one of the similarities they shared was the joy and eagerness they would have to share in family semachos, no matter how close or distant the relative - in relation or distance. Their presence would always add a special touch to every simchah. And even with their absence, their presence is still felt.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Clarification of a Sheva Na rule

Al Pi Cheshbon: No Population Increase

Al Pi Cheshbon: Tens and Ones by Ari Brodsky

Al Pi Cheshbon: Rounded Numbers

Al Pi Cheshbon: Discrepency in Levi's Population

Al Pi Cheshbon: Explaining the Uncounted Leviim

Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability

AstroTorah: Navigating 40 Years in the Wilderness by the Northern Stars by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Be or Ba?

Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar 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

--

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 - Bemidbar

Today is the yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

This coming Sunday is the yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah

 

    A number of years ago, I was approached on parshas Vayigash and asked the following question: Why, when the Torah is enumerating the 70 travelers who came down to Mitzrayim, are Eir and Onan mentioned (Bereishis 46:12.) If the point of this section is to count the seventy family members, why mention those who were not there? A similar question may be asked in this week's parsha. After B'nei Yisrael are counted and arranged in their camps, the families of Moshe and Aharon are briefly discussed. We find the Torah going into specific detail regarding Nadav and Avihu (3:2,4) even though they were no longer alive. Again in parshas Pinechas (26:61) when the descendants of Levi are enumerated, Nadav and Avihu and their unfortunate fate are mentioned.

 

    The answer I gave him is surely homiletic, but I think there is a valuable and appropriate lesson to be learned. The Torah is teaching us that when a member of the family passes on, although they are physically removed from the family, they are still an integral part of the family. Through times of joy and accomplishment and through times of sorrow, they are still there in some way, sharing those experiences. It is common to say of a family member whose presence is missed that they are with us in spirit. The Torah impresses this point upon us by not counting Yehudah's family without mentioning Eir and Onan, and never failing to invoke Nadav and Avihu when enumerating the sons of Aharon.

 

    This shabbos is sandwiched between the yahrtzeits of two very special ladies on the Jakobovits side of the family, for whom we have two daughters named. Although they were different in many ways, one of the similarities they shared was the joy and eagerness they would have to share in family semachos, no matter how close or distant the relative - in relation or distance. Their presence would always add a special touch to every simchah. And even with their absence, their presence is still felt.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Clarification of a Sheva Na rule

Al Pi Cheshbon: No Population Increase

Al Pi Cheshbon: Tens and Ones by Ari Brodsky

Al Pi Cheshbon: Rounded Numbers

Al Pi Cheshbon: Discrepency in Levi's Population

Al Pi Cheshbon: Explaining the Uncounted Leviim

Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability

AstroTorah: Navigating 40 Years in the Wilderness by the Northern Stars by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Be or Ba?

Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar 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 - Bechukosai

In the beginning of the parsha, we are promised that if we follow HaShem's laws, we will receive great reward. Among those promised is the great blessing of peace. "Venasati shalom ba'aretz." (26:6) This peace requires definition. It would seem that the Torah then proceeds to explain the nature of this peace. "Ush'chavtem v'ein macharid..." you shall rest and none shall be fearful. The next pasuk reads "ur'daftem es oyveichem, venaflu lifneichem becharev," You will chase your enemies and they will fall in front of you by the sword. This seems, at first glance, to be the exact antithesis of peace. Is the Torah not promising peace then describing victory through war? I believe the message that the Torah is teaching here is that true peace is not living with your enemies but rather, living without your enemies. Surely, this is not meant to advocate the wholesale murder of our enemies for the sake of peace. But I do believe it offers deep insight into the Torah definition of peace and when we should feel that we have achieved it.

 

The world at large, particularly those who lean to the left (and I'm not talking about the seder night,) seems unable to accept this idea and insists on forcing us to allow our enemies to live among us. Perhaps this definition of peace is something specific to the Jewish people. Bil'am proclaimed (Bamidbar 23:8) "They are a nation that dwells in solitude and does not consider itself among the nations." Our ultimate goal is to be a nation of solitude. To allow other nations to dwell in our midst is antithetical to our purpose and thus, can not be an ingredient in the Jewish definition of peace.

 

A couple of excerpts from Tanach illustrate this point. In the episode involving Dinah and Shechem (Bereishis 34) the sons of Yaakov offer a plan in which they would live among the people of Shechem. When Shechem and his father return to their city, they proclaim (pasuk 21) "Ha'anashim haeileh 'sheleimim' heim itanu." This proposal is misconstrued as a bid for peace. But the words of the sons of Yaakov, when examined closely, contain no mention of any word connected with peace. What the Shechemites perceived as peace, the sons of Yaakov considered no peace at all.

 

The essence of the peace treaty between Yitzchak and Avimelech (Bereishis 26:28-31) was a separation of one from the other such that one does not infringe on the other's property.

 

The King of Ammon tries to broker an agreement with Yiftach HaGil'adi to return the land that was conquered by B'nei Yisrael before crossing over to Eretz Yisrael. He appeals to Yiftach to return it "in peace." This is precursor to the modern day concept of "land for peace." Fortunately, Yiftach was not as naive as some of the leaders of our day and knew that this would be no peace at all and refused the request.

 

We are commanded (Devarim 20:10-12) to open with an offer of peace before waging war on a city. However, the ensuing pesukim reveal that this peace entails the subordination of the city to our rule, effectively eliminating it as an enemy. The only alternative is war.

 

Indeed, the term "shalom" is often associated with only one party. Shalom does not need to be between two entities. On its highest levels, it is experienced within one cohesive unit, exclusive of any external interconnection. Even when we refer to shalom bein ish le'ishto, peace between a man and his wife, or the more commonly used term, shelom bayis, we are speaking ideally not of a peace between two separate entities but the peace of the home functioning as one singular entity. This is the shalom that we are promised here, a peace to be experienced in solitude. May it come speedily in our day.

!חזק, חזק, ונתחזק

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule
Al Pi Cheshbon: An Ironic Observation

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 - Behar

This week's shtikle comes with a double Mazal Tov dedication. First, to my father on the occasion of being inducted to the Order of Canada this past Wednesday. Second, to my inlaws, Rabbi Moshe & Esty Yeres on the occasion of their being honoured with the Keter Torah Award by the Thornhill Community Shul this coming Sunday. Mazal Tov!

In the section dealing with our obligation to reach out and come to the aid of our neighbour, there is a glaring discrepancy, pointed out by Meshech Chachmah, in two adjacent pesukim. The first deals with the ger toshav, a non-Jew who has sworn off avodah zarah but is not subject to all of our mitzvos. We are commanded to support him in his time of need. The pasuk ends of, "vachai imach." The next pasuk, dealing with the prohibition of charging interest, ends of, "vechei achicha imach." The message seems almost the same but the word vachai turns into vechei.

Meshech Chachmah explains the difference between these two similar terms. One might summarize it as follows: Chei is to live whereas chai is life itself. We find the word chai used with respect to HaShem, as in "Chai HaShem," because He embodies everlasting life. The word chei is used with respect to more fleeting life, such as Yoseif's use of the term "chei Par'oah." 

When we support our neighbour, the ger toshav, it is far more than providing financial stability. Since he has not accepted the full burden of all mitzvos, his sole source of "everlasting life" is his connection to our community. If we do not come to his aid, he will surely stray and give up the life he had chosen. Therefore, reaching out to him is indeed providing him with everlasting life.

The second pasuk refers to achicha, your Jewish brother. He therefore already merits the "everlasting life" by virtue of his service of HaShem and acceptance of all mitzvos, a pact he surely cannot alleviate himself of under any circumstances. Therefore, our financial support, however mandatory, is simply providing superficial, physical life. And so, the word chei is used instead. 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
DIkdukian: Hearing Los

Dikdukian: How Lo Can You Go?

Dikdukian: Even Lo-er

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 - Emor

    Parshas Emor always comes out in the middle of sefiras ha'omer and it is also the parsha which contains the commandment for sefiras ha'omer (23:15). This unique mitzvah seems to give rise the most interesting halachic discussions ranging from the theoretical, such as counting the Omer in alternative number bases, to the more practical, such as the effect of crossing the International Date Line on the fulfillment of the mitzvah. There is an interesting discussion as to whether or not writing may qualify as a valid means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. That is, if one was to write, "Hayom Yom x La'Omer," would that be sufficient to fulfill one's obligation and would this action disallow one from repeating the count with a berachah?

    The discussion of this halachic quandary follows an interesting family tree. This issue is first dealt with in the responsa of R' Akiva Eiger, siman 29. The teshuvah is actually written by R' Akiva Eiger's uncle, R' Wolf Eiger. Unable to attend his nephew's wedding, he made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. He wrote to his nephew about this halachic issue, which was discussed at the banquet. He cites a number of related issues which he builds together to try to reach a conclusion. The gemara (Yevamos 31b, Gittin 71a) teaches that witnesses may only testify by means of their mouths and not by writing. The gemara (Shabbos 153b) states that mutes should not separate terumah because they cannot say the berachah. It is assumed that writing the berachah would not have been sufficient. Also, there is a discussion among the commentaries with regards to the validity of a vow that is written and not recited. R' Wolf Eiger concludes that writing is not a sufficient means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. However, this sparks a debate between him and his nephew which stretches out to siman 32.

    This issue is eventually discussed in the responsa of Kesav Sofer (Yoreh Dei'ah siman 106) by R' Avraham Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, R' Akiva Eiger's grandson who was, in fact, named after R' Wolf Eiger. He covers a host of related topics and eventually discusses the exchange recorded in his grandfather's sefer. The debate, although it encompasses various pertinent issues, never produces any concrete proof directly concerning the act of counting. However, Kesav Sofer quotes his father, Chasam Sofer, in his footnotes to R' Akiva Eiger (his father- in-law) where he provides a more concrete proof. The gemara (Yoma 22b) teaches that one who counts the number of B'nei Yisrael transgresses a prohibition as it is written (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of B'nei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea that shall not be measured nor counted." The gemara cites two examples (Shmuel I 11:8, 15:4) where Shaul HaMelech went out of his way to avoid this prohibition by using pieces of clay or rams in order to perform a census. Chasam Sofer suggests that Shaul could simply have counted the men by writing down the numbers and not saying them. Since Shaul went to far greater lengths, we are compelled to say that writing the number of men would still have qualified as counting them and he would hot have sufficiently dodged the prohibition. Thus, concludes Chasam Sofer, if one has explicit intention to fulfill the mitzvah, writing is a valid means of counting Sefiras HaOmer. However, Kesav Sofer suggests that perhaps the berachah should not be recited in this case.

    It's hard to imagine what the practical implications might have been in those days. Why would someone write down the day of the omer if not for the fact that they were completely unable to talk. However, perhaps this issue has more practical implications in our modern age. Suppose someone sends his friend a text message asking what night of sefirah it is and he responds, "tonight is 17." Could there be a problem counting with a berachah after that?

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