The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas

It is with great sorrow that I inform you of the passing of my wife's sister, Batsheva Yeres, in Eretz Yisrael yesterday. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Batsheva Blima bas Moshe Yosef.

 

Please excuse the simple, solemn nature of this week's shtikle. In scanning through the episodes and topics covered in parshas Chukas, there seems to be a very common theme - the involvement of water. As well, the water theme seems to be often associated in some way with death.

 

First, we have the laws of parah adumah which, of course, come in to play when one becomes tamei from a dead person. One of the most critical aspects of the process is combination of the ashes and the mayim chayim in a special vessel. And of course, the purification is ultimately achieved by the sprinkling of that water.

 

We then learn of the death of Miriam in whose merit the nation was able to drink from a miraculous, travelling well. With her passing, the well ceased to be and that led directly to the infamous incident of mei merivah. The showdown that ensued appears to correlate directly with Moshe and Aharon being prohibited from entering Eretz Yisrael and thus, dying and early death. We read about Aharon's passing and the month of crying that ensued - water from within.

 

We also are informed of the great miracles that would happen when enemies would hide inside mountains to ambush B'nei Yisrael, only to be crushed when the mountains would miraculously collide together. They became aware of the miracle only when they observed the stream below turning red for the blood of the Amorite attackers.

One final, tangential connection to water is observed in the story of the defeat of Og who, as just about any school child will tell you, was a survivor of the great mabul many generations previous.

 

Indeed, may we merit to witness "vezarakti aleichem mayim tehorim ut'hartem" and "umachah HaShem Elokim dim'ah mei'al kol panim" speedily in our day.

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

After the episode of Korach, B'nei Yisrael continue to challenge Moshe and Aharon's authority. After yet another plague strikes B'nei Yisrael, Moshe is instructed to perform a demonstration that would show, through Divine intervention, the authenticity of Aharon's leadership as kohein gadol. He was told (17:17-18) to gather twelve staves from the twelve leaders of the tribes and to write their names on their respective staves. Aharon's name was to be written on the stave belonging to the tribe of Levi. Later, when the demonstration is performed, the Torah recounts (17:21) that the leaders gave the staves to Moshe - twelve staves with the stave of Aharon among (besoch) them. Throughout the episode, it is unclear whether Aharon's stave was one of the twelve or if it was in addition to the twelve for a total of thirteen.

Ramban, citing an apparent tradition that the Tribes of Israel shall never be counted as more (or less) than twelve, asserts that the stave of the tribe of Levi was one of the twelve. He suggests that to compensate, the tribes of Efrayim and Menasheh were not separate this time but were considered as one tribe under the umbrella of Yoseif. This approach leads to another question. Efrayim and Menasheh had their own independent leaders. Which one's stave was used? Malbim posits that the leader of the tribe of Efrayim was the one whose stave was used as per Yaakov Avinu's command (Bereishis 48:20) that Efrayim be placed before Menasheh at all times.

Netziv, in Ha'amek Davar, challenges Ramban's position. He proposes that there is no problem with counting B'nei Yisrael as more than twelve in this case because the end result of the demonstration was to be that one of the staves would blossom, thus removing the tribe to whom it belonged from the group of twelve. Rather, Aharon's stave was indeed the thirteenth.

Although Netziv does address Ramban's issue of a maximum of twelve, Ramban's opinion is based on a textual inference as well. Moshe was commanded to collect the twelve staves and write Aharon's name on the stave of Levi. We do not find a command to take a separate stave for Levi. Ramban infers, therefore, that the stave of Levi was among the original twelve. Netziv does not address this inference.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Just do it!
Dikdukian: Flee Market
Dikdukian: Vayikach Korach

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

In the end of the parsha we have the episode of the mekosheish eitzim, the one who gathered wood on Shabbos who was given the death penalty for transgression of Shabbos. Targum Yonasan writes that the mekosheish acted with good intentions. Until that time it was only known that a transgressor of Shabbos is given death but it was not known which of the four forms of capital punishment were to be administered. The mekosheish transgressed the Shabbos in order to expose to the true halachah.

Maharsha (Bava Basra 119a) asks how he could take such drastic measures as to transgress Shabbos just to teach this halachah. He answers that in truth, since he performed the act with the sole intention of fining out the halachah, it is considered a melacha she'eina tzricha le'gufa, a work that is not needed for its principal purpose for which one is not liable. For example, if one digs a ditch because he needs the dirt, he is not liable for digging a ditch because he did not need the ditch. So too here, the mokosheish's purpose had nothing to do with the actual melachah. However, since he did not inform the witnesses, he was liable for the death penalty. However, min haShamayim, he did not transgress Shabbos.

**********

The sentence given to the mekosheish was sekilah, stoning. The mishnah (Sanhedrin 45a) discusses the sekilah procedure. One of the witnesses pushes the offender of a cliff and if he does not die from that, they throw a large rock on him. If he still doesn't die, then everyone stones him until he dies. The gemara (45b) presents a conflict, quoting a beraysa which states that it never occurred that they actually reached the third step of the entire nation throwing stones. The gemara answers that the mishnah was indeed not telling us that it happened but rather that if it were to come to that, that would be the procedure. However, it seems to state clearly in the parsha (15:36) that the entire nation stoned him. How are we to interpret the beraysa or the pasuk?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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

Dikdukian: In my humble opinion... [UPDATE]

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

A very special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my niece, Fraidy Shonek of Far Rockaway, on her engagement this week to Shmuel Clinton of Toronto (but formerly of Ottawa.)

 

This past Wednesday, 16 Sivan, was the yahrtzeit of R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated l'iluy nishmaso, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi. Also, there was a recent publication put out in honour of the yahrtzeit for Shavuos which is available here.

 

After a grueling couple of months spent on Keilim and Ohalos, the Mishna Yomis program recently began Nega'im. The very last mishna in the second perek discusses which nega'im one may or may not observe for the purpose of determining tzara'as. It begins, of course, with the well-known double entendre, that one may observe all nega'im except his own. Traditionally, it is also understood homiletically to indicate that one is capable of seeing everyone else's faults but not his own. Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that one may also not observe the nega'im of a close family member. This position begs the question, at the end of this week's parsha, when Miriam became afflicted with tzara'as, who made the declaration?

This question is indeed addressed in a beraysa the gemara (Zevachim, bottom of 101b) where it is asked who was the one who declared that Miriam should be quarantined? Moshe was not a kohein and was therefore not even eligible and Aharon was a close relative. (Indeed, Moshe was too.) Rather, the gemara answers, a great honour was given to Miriam in that HaShem Himself declared her temeiah.

This issue gets a little more interesting with the very next mishna, the first of the third perek. There it is stated that indeed anyone, not just a kohein, is fit to observe the nega and decide its status. However, the declaration of "tamei" or "tahor" must be made by the kohein. The judge conveys their decision to the kohein to make the declaration.

Minchas Chinuch (end of mitzvah 172) puts these two laws together, in conjunction with the gemara and makes what appears to be an indisputable inference. It is not the judgment and assessment of the nega which cannot be done by a relative but rather, the status declaration, although it does not involve judgment, may not be made by a relative. Otherwise, what is bothering the beraysa? Any other Israelite could have judged Miriam's tzara'as and conveyed their assessment to Aharon to make the declaration. Rather, it is clear that is the declaration which may not be made by a relative. (He assumes that it is the declaration only and not the assessment but I'm not sure what compels him to understand this way. Perhaps both may not be done by a relative.)

Much of the above is from a shiur I stumbled upon on Kol HaLashon. (It can be played straight from that link. It is in Hebrew.) He goes into further discussion on the position of the Rambam which is perhaps to lengthy for here.  He also quotes Netziv in Emek HaNetziv who asks why Pinechas, not a disqualified relative, couldn't perform the declaration. (Just previous to the above-mentioned gemara, there is a dispute as to exactly when he became a kohein.) He answers that if it were not to be Aharon or Moshe, it would have been beneath Miriam's dignity for another individual to declare her tamei. This approach essentially discounts Minchas Chinuch's inference.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail 

Dikdukian: The Impure

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