The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas

This week's parsha contains two episodes which are very similar and yet, at the same time, drastically different. After traversing mostly uninhabited dessert lands, B'nei Yisrael needed to pass through a number of different nations as they made their final approach towards Eretz Yisrael. Messengers were sent to Edom, Sichon's land (see Dikdukian) and Moav. The first two are discussed in this week's parsha. Both requests are denied. The exchange with Edom is quick and painless with B'nei Yisrael respectfully circumventing their land. Sichon took military action which did not end well for him.

While the two episodes clearly ended differently they curiously began quite differently as well. The message to Edom is preceded by historical anecdotes explaining how B'nei Yisrael got where they were. The actual request is "nabera na," let us please pass. The request to Sichon was "ebera," I shall pass. There is no polite "please." The request is also in the singular rather than the plural in the case of Edom. 

The key to the different tone used with Edom would seem to be at the very beginning, in the From: field, so to speak - "ko amar achicha Yisrael." After all the generations of tension and strife, we still saw fit to address Edom as a brother. We told them our story because we thought perhaps they would care to hear it. Whereas the request to Sichon was to pass through alone, the plural nabera in the request to Edom seems to imply not that we, B'nei Yisrael, should pass through but we - you and us - should pass through the land together. "Let's catch up a bit." 

But in the message to Edom was more than just fraternal cordiality. There was an underlying message of Divine strength and assuredness. When Yaakov and Eisav first reunite, Yaakov states (Bereishis 33:10) "for I have seen your face as one would see the face of Elokim..." The gemara (Sotah 41b) explains that this was a subtle hint to Eisav, as if to say "I've seen the face of God, so don't mess with me." It would seem a similar message is being sent here. B'nei Yisrael are making it very clear to Edom that they have been through a lot and HaShem has seen them through every step of the way, lest they have any notions of starting up with them. Although in the end, the desired result was not achieved, at least the episode ended without incident.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: What land was Sichon king of?

Dikdukian: Watch out for that Chirik
Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your real name?

Dikdukian: It wasn't thrown

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 - Korach

    There are some obvious connections between the parsha and the haftarah we read from (beginning at Shmuel I 11:14). As indicated in Divrei HaYamim, Shmuel was a direct descendant of Korach. Rashi at the beginning of the parsha points out that it was a vision that Korach had, that he would have offspring equal in stature to Moshe and Aharon, that fueled his rebellion. Additionally, we find Shmuel delivering an address to the people in which he must make the following defensive assertion (12:3) " Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed?" This very closely parallels part of Moshe's prayer to HaShem in the midst of the Korach crisis, (15:15) "I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them."

 

    I believe there is something deeper in these correlations, an actual connection between them. Perhaps it may be suggested that the trials and tribulations that Shmuel endured during his reign as leader of the Jewish Nation were in some way a retribution or atonement for the similar treatment which his ancestor Korach put Moshe Rabbeinu through. A few points to ponder along this line of thought: As explained in "Ma SheHayah hu Sheyihyeh" on haftaros, by R' Elie Wolf, Korach's claim was that the entire nation were on an equal level of holiness and thus, did not require a supreme leader. To counter this, as we read in our haftarah, Shmuel is tasked with anointing the very first king in our history.

    

    Another component of Korach's campaign was the opposition to the appointing of Aharon as the Kohein Gadol, although it is not clear that he necessarily opposed the concept of a Kohein Gadol itself. It is therefore fitting that Shmuel was raised under the tutelage of Eli, the Kohein Gadol and judge at the time.

 

    Although Korach's misguided revolution had quite a significant following, we are told later on (26:11) that his own children saw the errors of his ways and repented and were thus saved from meeting the same demise as their father. It is therefore quite interesting to note Shmuel HaNavi having the very opposite experience. Despite Shmuel's righteousness, we are told (Shmuel I 8:3) that his sons did not follow in his ways and when they were appointed to high judiciary positions were involved in bribery and perversion of justice. It was this unfortunate reality that led to the nation's request to abolish the system of judges as national leaders and to institute the monarchy as Shmuel did in our haftarah.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Just do it!

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 - Shelach

Tomorrow, 16 Sivan, is the Yahrtzeit of R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated l'iluy nishmaso, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi.

There is an interesting linguistic nuance I heard last year from my cousin, Dr. Yoel Jakobovits. As we all know, parshas Shelach begins with the infamous story of the meraglim. Or does it? The term is never used once. Although in parshas Chukas, it states (21:32) that Moshe sent "leragel es yazer," here that verb is not used. Rather, the men are sent lasur. However, when the episode is recounted in the beginning of Devarim, it is stated (Devarim 1:24) of the men, "vayragelu osah." And of course, when Yosef first meets his brothers in Mitzrayim, he indeed charges them with being meraglim.

The difference in meaning and thus, the reason for the change, he explains, is that a tar would seem to be someone who is seeking out the good, exploring the virtues of the area. Perhaps this is even the origin of the English word, to tour. This was supposed to be the essence of the mission of these 12 men. Indeed, Yehoshua and Caleiv stayed true to that mission with a glowing report of how beautiful and plentiful the land is and easily it can be conquered. However, there was a transformation that took place from the original purpose and for the other 10 men, it became a very negative fact-finding mission. Ultimately, in retrospect, as recounted in Devarim, they went as meraglim. The other instances in which we see the term used it is also with a negative connotation. The spies in Chukas were sent to exploit the weaknesses of Yazer and Yosef charged his brothers with doing the same of Mitzrayim.

The term used at the beginning of the parsha is used once again at the end, regarding tzitzis - velo sasuru acharei levavchem ve'acharei eineichem. Here, too, it can be explained that was the Torah is warning us not to do, is to follow our hearts and eyes when they appear to be seeking out a better life for us. We must stay true to our path and not stray after the temptations they present before us.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: What's Different About Efrayim? 

Dikdukian: In my humble opinion...

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 - Beha'alosecha

    We are commanded to remember the episode with Miriam that appears at the end of this week's parsha. Part of this remembrance is being careful not to speak lashon hara, which was the cause of Miriam's punishment. However, if we look at the pasuk, when HaShem rebukes Miriam and Aharon He says (12:8) "Madua lo yaraisem ledaber b'avdi beMoshe," how could you not be fearful of talking badly about my servant Moshe?! R' Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, points out that this pasuk insinuates that the main issue with Miriam and Aharon was that they had spoken about Moshe, but if it were about someone else it would not have been so serious. But we know this not to be true for it is forbidden to speak lashon hara about anyone.

 

    R' Weinberg explains that this gives us an important insight into the essence of lashon hara. The principal mistake that one makes when he speaks lashon hara is a failure to realize the virtues of the person about whom he is speaking. Miriam and Aharon's error was to a more grave degree. It was their failure to recognize Moshe's greatness that allowed them to rationalize speaking badly about him. Had they realized the full greatness of Moshe, they never would have done so. It is this specific aspect of their misjudgment that HaShem focused on in His rebuke. Likewise, every Jew has his own inherent greatness. Anyone who speaks lashon hara about his fellow Jew fails to realize the true greatness of that person, at whatever level it may be, and therefore speaks badly about them.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail 

Dikdukian: The Impure

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 - Shavuos

I recently happened upon a very interesting, simple point regarding Shavuos which can really change one's entire perspective on the chag. The mishnah (Chulin 5:4) discusses a law regarding oso v'es beno, the prohibition against slaughtering both a mother animal and its child on the same day. There are four days of the year on which it is imperative to inform the buyer of an animal if its mother or its child have already been sold for slaughter. The reason is that on these days, it is certain that the animal is being purchased for immediate slaughter. One of these days is the erev Shavuos. There are various reasons given. There was one approach quoted in the Kehati mishnayos which I was not able to source. Since Shavuos is only one day, unlike the other holidays, there was a tendency to give great reverence to the day and make the meals extra special.

Shavuos tends to be downplayed somewhat based on its shorter length. After all, families don't always go to great lengths to spend Shavuos together as they do other yamim tovim. It really is over before you know it. But we see from the earlier generations that on the contrary, Shavuos should be given even more attention for this reason. Rather than resign ourselves to Shavuos being 1/7 as significant as Sukkos or Pesach, we should be striving to somehow "cram" 7 days of a beautfiul yom tov experience into one. Each meal, each shemoneh esrei, each hallel should be 7 times as meaningful. 

Have a good Yom Tov (x7)

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Letzeis and On top of Old Smokey

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