The Weekly Shtikle - Naso

This week's parsha includes extensive discussions of the laws pertaining to the sotah and the nazir, one after the other. Their respective tractates of gemara, aptly named Nazir and Sotah, also appear side by side, although in the opposite order. The juxtaposition of these two topics is discussed in the gemara at the beginning of maseches Sotah. Rebbi would say that anyone who is present and witnesses the public humiliation of the sotah should make sure he is not adversely affected by his experience and restrict himself from drinking wine, one of the principal requirements of the nazir. Refraining from wine will make sure that any impure thoughts do not translate into indecent behaviour.

 

Perhaps another understanding may be offered. Sotah represents the epitome of reckless conduct, a blatant disregard for the sanctity of the marriage bond. Although there are many other instances of sinful behaviour in the Torah, this is elaborated upon in much greater depth. Perhaps more importantly, it impresses upon us how seemingly innocent conversation between a man and woman has the potential to lead to destructive consequences. Sotah symbolizes brazen disregard of Torah values.

 

Nazir, however, is at the other end of the spectrum. The nazir abstains from (some of) the pleasures of this world and leads a life of extreme holiness. Although curbing one's level of indulgence is often looked upon as commendable, the practice of nazir is surprisingly not. The gemara, on a number of occasions (Taanis 11a, Nedarim 10a, Nazir 19a, 22a, Bava Kamma 91b) dwells on the pasuk in this week's parsha, concerning the nazir's sacrifices, "and it shall atone for him from that which he sinned on the soul." What sin did the nazir commit? R' Elazar HaKefar teaches that his sin was that he caused himself undue anguish in refraining from wine. And if one is called a sinner for merely refraining from wine, all the more so one who restricts himself excessively from all other pleasures.

 

With this perspective, sotah and nazir represent the two extremes of behaviour discouraged by the Torah. The sotah is one who is overindulgent and runs after pleasure. The nazir is one who withdraws himself from pleasure and inflicts upon himself excessive suffering. By putting the two side by side, the Torah is impressing upon us the importance of following the middle path. While we are required to do our utmost to avoid the temptations of indulgence, we must not do so by completely withdrawing from the pleasures of this world. The Torah does not favour extremism in either direction. As it is said, (Devarim 5:29) "And you shall be watchful to do as HaShem your God has commanded you, do not stray to the right or to the left." Do not act liberally with respect to Torah and mitzvos, but be not overly conservative in your observance.

 

This idea is also supported linguistically as the words chosen for these two diametrically opposite individuals are in fact quite similar. As Rashi (5:12) explains, the basic understanding of the word sotah is one who turns away, deviates from the path of modesty and from her responsibilities as a married individual. Nazir, as well, means one who is separated. Not only has he detached himself from this-worldly pleasures, he has removed himself from the conventional ways of the world. Indeed, the Torah has classified both of these individuals as deviants of sorts.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayin's

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

Although I am only covering Shavous in the shtikle, please explore the many intriguing blog posts on Bemidbar below:

On Shavuos, we celebrate the giving of the Torah to B'nei Yisrael after they came out of Mitzrayim. On this day we experienced a level of spirituality higher than ever before. Just as it is with other significant days in the calendar when we attempt to relive and re-experience the historical events of the day, we are meant to try reach this spiritual pinnacle, to a certain degree, every year when Shavuos comes around. In the Torah, there are (at least) two instances where we find Shavuos standing out as an exception, perhaps to convey this very idea.

The first is in parshas Vayikra. We are told (Vayikra 2:11) that leaven and honey may not be brought with any (communal) korban. The very next pasuk, as Rashi there explains, comes to tell us that there is one exception to this rule. The avodah of Shavuos involves the bringing of the shtei halechem, the two loaves which did consist of chameitz, and the bikurim, which contained the honey of dates. Why is Shavuos different? Klei Yakar explains that honey represents the desires that every human has in this world. Just as honey is very sweet but an overdose of it can be harmful, so too there are desires in this world that are very necessary, but an overdose of them is harmful as well. One must be careful to indulge in only those that are necessary, and make do without the rest. Se'or, leaven, represents the yeitzer hara, as demonstrated in Berachos 17a "Our desire is to fulfill Your desire, but the se'or sheba'isa is interfering." Both desire and the yeitzer hara are necessary components of our being. One must eat and drink to stay healthy. One must want to marry in order to start a family, or the world would not last. Being that these aspects of our being are not necessary within themselves, but only to reach an ultimate goal, it is not fitting that they be brought for any korban during the duration of the year. However, on Shavuos, we are celebrating the giving of the Torah, the only antidote to keep the yeitzer hara and this-worldly desires at bay. With this in mind, we may bring leaven and honey for on this day, Torah is the principal focus. On all other days, it is forbidden.

The second example is in parshas Pinechas, where the korbanos for all the holidays are discussed. On every Yom Tov, a se'ir izim, a kid goat is brought as a korban. On all days it is referred to as a se'ir... chatas, a goat for a sin offering. However, when the Torah discusses Shavuos, we find a different wording, (Bemidbar 28:30) "se'ir izim echad," with no mention of the word chatas. The Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShanah 4:5) teaches us why the word chatas was left out here. R' Mesharshia said in the name of R' Ida, HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to Yisrael, "since you accepted upon yourself the yoke of My Torah, I consider it as if you have never sinned in your days." R' Chaim Paltiel points out that in Emor (Vayikra 23:19) the korban is indeed referred to as se'ir izim echad l'chatas. However, there too there is a missing phrase. The words lechapeir aleichem, to atone for you, are left out, as if we do not require atonement. We see clearly from examples in the Torah that the spiritual high of Matan Toraseinu is meant to be experienced every year. May we all experience it at the greatest possible level.

Have a good Shabbos and good Yom Tov.

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 Levi'im

Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability

Dikdukian: Be or Ba?

Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: Shavuos takes it on the chin

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar/Bechukosai

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

Today, the 25th of Iyar, is the yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah.

For the benefit of readers in Eretz Yisroel, I will focus on Bechukosai:

 

In the beginning of this week's parsha we are told of the blessings that will be bestowed upon us if we follow the mitzvos. We are told (26:8) that five of us will chase away 100 and 100 will chase a myriad (10,000). Rashi comments on the obvious discrepancy in the proportions. If five will chase 100, then 100 should only be able to chase 2,000. Rather, the merit a small group of individuals who follow the Torah is incomparable to that of a large group that follow the Torah. It seems the idea being conveyed is that a greater deliverance is given to a larger group of worthy men. 

For a long while I have had difficulty reconciling this with a certain passage in Navi. In Shmuel I perek 14, Yonasan decides to attack the Pelishtim with his nosei keilim, his armourman. He says to him (pasuk 6) "Ulay ya'ase HaShem lanu, ki ein laShem ma'tzor lehoshia berav o bim'at," Yonasan assures him that if HaShem is to bring about a victory it matters not whether it be done by many or few. Does this not directly contradict the above? Maybe only a large group of B'nei Yisrael would have the combined merit to defeat the Pelishtim.

The only approach I could think of is that perhaps the pesukim in our parsha are dealing with a scenario where victory is inevitable. It has already been determined that we will overcome our enemies. The difference between many and few is only the speed at which we achieve that victory. However, the overall end result, whether or not we ultimately triumph over our adversaries, is not affected by quantity - only quality.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Life as we Know It 

Dikdukian: Hearing Los

Dikdukian: How Lo Can You Go?

Dikdukian: Even Lo-er

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 - Emor

The very first comment of Rashi in this week's parsha deals with the seemingly redundant phrase, "Emor el hakohanim b'nei Aharon, ve'amarta aleihem." To explain the double-instance of amirah, Rashi quotes from the gemara (Yevamos 114a) which interprets that this is a commandment to the men to be watchful of the younger ones. This might seem, at first, to be merely an extension of the mitzvah of chinuch, the general requirement that a father has to educate his son in mitzvos. However, Tur (YD 373) writes with regard to this commandment that a kohein is required to keep his son away from tum'ah, and even to remove him from tum'ah. If a young kohein is found in a graveyard, for instance, he must be removed immediately. This is slightly more stringent then the regular laws of chinuch. As far as the d'oraysa aspect of regular chinuch is concerned, a father is not allowed to feed his child forbidden foods but once the child is actually in the act of eating it, he is not required to remove him. Also, the traditional chinuch requirement does not kick in until the child is of an educable age. This commandment would seem to apply regardless of age. Why is this different?

 

R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, answers that the general requirement of chinuch is a matter of education which is specific to the father-son relationship. The father must teach the son the mitzvos. As such, it was not deemed necessary to actually remove one's child from a situation in which he is already engrossed. It is sufficient for the purpose of education to make sure that a father does not lead his son into such a situation. When it comes to the laws pertaining to the kehunah, it is different. The requirement of a kohein to keep his son away from tum'ah is not only part of his obligation to teach his son the mitzvos but it also relates to the sanctity of the kehunah. A kohein is required to preserve the sanctity of the kehunah and that includes keeping his son away from tum'ah under all circumstances. Even a young child coming in contact with tum'ah is an active desecration of this sanctity and therefore, he is to be removed at once. It would seem, according to this, that it is not only the father of the boy who is commanded in regards to his son but perhaps every male kohein (but not necessarily every Jew.) Note that Rashi does say "lehazhir hagedolim al haketanim," and not "al habanim."

 

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

It is not difficult to establish a connection between Acharei Mos and Kedoshim. For example, the subject of illicit relations is discussed in both. But there is more under the surface that connects the two. Kedoshim begins commanding us to be kedoshim, holy. The Midrash Rabbah in parshas Mikeitz states, "This pasuk may have been construed to mean that you should be as holy as I, until it says at the end of the pasuk 'ki Kadosh Ani,' for I am holy. My holiness is above yours." This is a very difficult suggestion to understand. How would even the most foolish of men begin to think that the holiness of man could reach that of HaShem's?

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank, in Har Tzvi offers the following explanation: In Acharei Mos, the pasuk (16:16) refers to the oheil mo'eid as "hashochein itam besoch tum'osam," (see Dikdukian) that dwells among them in the midst of their tum'ah. Rashi comments that even if the people are temei'im, the Shechinah, the Holy Presence, dwells among them. The possible misconception referred to by the midrash is based on this concept. One might have mistakenly thought that just as HaShem's kedushah is such that He may dwell even among a nation that is tamei, a man's kedushah can protect him in such surroundings as well. The Torah then teaches us that this is not so for HaShem's holiness is above ours.

This lesson has far-reaching implications. It may be understood on its simplest level, referring to actual tum'ah. No man is so holy that contact with tum'ah will not render him tamei. But it can also be understood on a more spiritual level. One must realize that there is no level of holiness, no shell that can protect someone from being influenced by the society in which he dwells. One's level of spiritual purity will always be affected by his surroundings.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: A Revealing Note
Dikdukian: Stand up, goat!
Dikdukian: Mitum'os: Watch that plural

Dikdukian: Sukas David

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule

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