The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Seitzei

In this week's parsha we are warned (24:17) not to pervert justice for the stranger or orphan and not to take a garment as collateral from a widow. Following that, we are again instructed to leave behind the sheaves that are forgotten during the harvest and to leave olives and grapes behind for the stranger, the orphan and the widow. Both are followed by a reminder that we were slaves in Mitzrayim and that is why HaShem has commanded us such. However, in the first instance we are not only reminded that we were slaves. We are also reminded that HaShem took us out from Mitzrayim whereas there is no such mention in the second instance.

There is a fundamental difference between the first set of commandments and the second. The second set concern an indirect relationship with the stranger, orphan or widow. You are to leave these sheaves, olives or grapes behind so that they may come and gather them. You are not instructed to give them these gifts directly but rather, to leave them so that they may pick them up on their own at a time of their choosing. The first set, however, focuses on direct dealings with these individuals. In these cases, we are commanded to remember not only our slavery in Mitzrayim but also the compassion with which HaShem brought us out. We are required to exhibit this Godly attribute and show similar compassion in our dealings with them. In the second set of laws, where we are not given the opportunity to meet the beneficiaries of our charity, we are expected only to put ourselves in their position by remembering our poor state in Mitzrayim, thus impressing upon us how much this gift is appreciated by them.

There is perhaps an even more intriguing nuance in these commandments. Following both groups of commandments, we are told, "that is why I command you to do this." In both instances HaShem is seemingly referring to more than one commandment. Therefore, it would appear more appropriate to refer to hadevarim haeileh, these things. Furthermore, each of the commandments is a prohibitive one, instructing us what not to do. It would therefore have been more appropriate to say, "that is why I command you not to do these things." Rather, each and every one of these commandments focuses on one central theme - showing care and empathy towards those less fortunate than us. It is easy to get caught up in the fine details of these individual mitzvos. But with this pasuk, HaShem is telling us that there is one goal behind it all and this is what HaShem wants from us. The various mitzvos are the avenues prescribed to express this. But what HaShem is really demanding of us is the careful kindness and compassion that lie behind these practices.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Mitzvas Zechiras Amaleik this week?

Shiluach HaKein Game

Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Shofetim

A very special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my niece, Fraidy Shonek, on her forthcoming marriage to Shmuli Clinton (formerly of Ottawa) later today. Mazal Tov to the gandse mishpachah. May they merit to build a bayis ne'eman b'Yisrael.

 

In parshas Mishpatim we are taught of the prohibition against the accepting of bribes as well as the drastic ramifications thereof. Here we are told that (Shemos 23:8) "bribery blinds the open-eyed and perverts the words of the righteous." In a very similar pasuk in this week's parsha we are told that (16:19) "bribery blinds the eyes of the wise man and perverts the words of the righteous." The word pikchim is replaced with chachamim.

 

The GR"A explains that the references to a judge as a pikei'ach and a chacham pertain to two separate requirements a judge must meet. The word chacham always refers to Torah wisdom. A judge must always be aware of the pertinent laws and know how to judge a case in accordance with the Torah. However, there may be times when the law will dictate a certain judgement in a case, but the judge senses an element of corruption in the testimony. Indeed, the gemara (Shevuos 30b) teaches that in such a case, a judge should trust his senses. For this, a judge must be worldly and understand the people in order to accurately analyse the testimony. This is the meaning of a pikei'ach.

To explain why each pasuk is found in its specific parsha, it is interesting to note that the names of the two parshios are very similar. Mishpatim refers principally to the laws by which we are governed. Therefore, the commandments tend to address the nation more generally. Shofetim refers to the individuals who are to carry out those laws. Therefore, the prohibition against bribery is addressed to the chachamim only, while the reference in Mishpatim appears to address everyone, at least those who wish to be regarded as a pikei'ach.

 

There is another discrepancy between the two pesukim that the GR"A does not deal with. The pasuk in this week's parsha refers to the "eyes of the chachamim" whereas with regards to pikchim in Mishpatim there is no mention of the eyes, rather the pikchim will be blinded. Perhaps this may be understood based on the GR"A's explanation. That which is seen by the eyes represents a certain degree of reality. As the saying goes, "seeing is believing." Likewise, the Torah laws that govern the judgement are absolute, undebatable truths. Nevertheless, a bribe can distort one's perception of reality to the point that he is blinded even to these truths. This is reflected in the pasuk in our parsha.

 

The vision of a pikei'ach is much more abstract. His perception of the testimony is his own judgement call. There are no absolute rights and wrongs. Thus, the blinding is less severe. For this reason, the pikei'ach is not referred to with regards to his eyes like the chacham is.

Furthermore, we find that the chachamim are referred to (Vayikra 4:13) as eini hakahal, the eyes of the community. In a spiritual sense, the chachamim represent the eyes of the nation, leading and guiding us with their vision. For this reason, the eyes are mentioned regarding the chachamim and not the pikchim.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Additional Symbolism of the Shofar

Dikdukian: Two of a Kind

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 - Re'eih

In this week's parsha, we are taught about the meisis, the sinner who tries to seduce another to commit idolatry. We are instructed to deal with the meisis more stringently than with other transgressors. For example, his guilty verdict may not be overturned and we may use entrapment to catch him in the act.  

The pasuk (13:9) says concerning the meisis, "lo soveh lo." Rashi interprets soveh‚ as derived from the same root as ahavah, love. He writes that although we are taught "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha," you shall give love to your neighbour as you do yourself, to this man or woman, that commandment does not apply.

The gemara in Sanhedrin 45a discusses the place where those who were to be stoned met their ultimate doom. The first step was to push them off a two-story cliff. The gemara asks why the cliff was not simply 10 tefachim high (less than two stories). We are taught elsewhere (Bava Kamma 50b) that this depth is enough to cause death. But the gemara answers that this would result in a more painful death and the Torah says "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha," therefore, we must provide him a more proper and "pleasant" death. However, according to Rashi here, ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha does not apply to a meisis. Why, then, do we not kill a meisis by pushing him off a ledge only 10 tefachim high?

I asked this of a friend of mine who happened to have been bothered by the same question. He told me a friend of his answered from the gemara on 43b which states that he who is to be stoned does viduy, confession, before receiving the death penalty. It seems that even the meisis does this as well. Therefore, after he has confessed his sins, he may now be included in the mitzvah of ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha and is deserving of a more proper death. Rashi in the parsha is referring to the processes carried out beforehand and thus, he is still excluded from the mitzvah of ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha. (It should be mentioned, however, as one reader pointed out, that the Minchas Chinuch writes that teshuvah is not effective regarding a meisis; if so viduy also won't be operative and this is not a valid answer.)

Perhaps another answer may be offered. Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 5:4), in explaining the practical prohibitions connected with this pasuk, writes, "It is forbidden for the seducer's target to show love towards the seducer." It appears from Rambam's careful wording that the prohibitions discussed in this pasuk are directed specifically at the seducer's target and not the general public. The beis din, who are responsible for carrying out and overseeing the execution, are thus never absolved of their obligation of ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha toward the meisis.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
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 - Eikev

 

There are a number of interesting little differences between the first parsha of keriyas shema, which we read last week, and the second which we read this week. One of them is that in the first parsha, the mitzvah of keriyas shema, the words "beshivt'cha beveisecha, uv'lechtecha vaderech" are written before the mitzvah of tefillin is mentioned. It is the other way around in the second parsha.

 

R' Chaim Kanievsky, in his unique manner, offers a novel explanation. The Beiur Halacha in the beginning of siman 58 concludes that keriyas shema kevasikin, i.e. immediately prior to haneitz hachamah (sunrise), takes precedence over davening with tefillin. If you can do only one or the other, it is better to recite shema kevasikin. Rashi has explained that the first parsha speaks to a yachid, a single individual while the second parsha is addressing the rabbim, the masses. The gemara (Yoma 37b) asserts that a tzibbur does not have the ability to synchronize all together kevasikin. Therefore, it is definitely suggested that the tzibbur daven at a time where they would be putting on tefillin.

 

So, the first parsha which refers to a yachid, puts keriyas shema first because for a yachid, performing this mitzvah in its ideal manner takes precedence over the mitzvah of tefillin. But the second parsha speaks to the rabbim, so it puts tefillin first since for them, it takes precedence as keriyas shema in its ideal time is not a recognizable reality.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: To Afflict the Corrector

Dikdukian: To Make a Misnaged Cringe

Dikdukian: Those Bad Egyptians

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