The Weekly Shtikle - Eikev

Toward the beginning of the parsha, B'nei Yisrael are reminded (8:4) that their garments did not tatter and their feet did not swell for the duration of their forty-year sojourn. Then, they are told that they should know in their hearts that just as a father chastises his son, so too HaShem chastises B'nei Yisrael. The juxtaposition of these two pesukim is puzzling. Why would the great miracles in the desert be associated with chastising and punishment?

The obvious suggestion is that the chastising is referring not to the blessings mentioned in the previous pasuk but rather, to what precedes that passage. Those pesukim recount how HaShem inflicted suffering and starvation upon B'nei Yisrael, testing them to see if they will keep His mitzvos. Many commentaries understand this to be what is referred to as HaShem's chastising of B'nei Yisrael. However, this leaves two difficulties unaddressed. First, the comparison to the father is troublesome. The chastising and discipline of a father are usually not for the purpose of testing the son. How then can the pasuk compare HaShem's chastising to that of a father? Second, based on our initial question, the interruption of the pasuk dealing with the miracles is unexplained.

 

Indeed, it is not the norm for a parent to harshly discipline his son as a test. But perhaps that is not the point or the message here. HaShem tested B'nei Yisrael in ways that could be mistakenly perceived, on the surface, as nasty and cruel. But the next pasuk immediately reminds us of our miraculous provisions in the desert. Therein lies the comparison to the father. The true sign of a loving father is one who despite his apparent harsh treatment of his son, still happily provides his son with all he needs. When these two contrasting behaviours exist in harmony, it is clear that it is all done out of love. In order to fully understand HaShem's role as the Father, we must contrast the harsh punishments with the constant miracles that were lovingly performed for us.

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Va'eschanan / Tu B'Av

Mazal Tov to my niece Rochel Leah (née Shonek) on her marriage to Shua Grunwald this past Monday. Mazal Tov to the extended Shonek, Bulka and Jakobovits families.

 

Today, the 15th of Av, is the yahrtzeit of my Opa, Mr. George Jakobovits.

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, z"l.

 

The gemara (Bava Basra 121a) tells us that there have not been celebrative days in Yisrael like Tu B'Av and Yom Kippur. On the 15th of Av, the gemara explains, the punishment for the sin of the meragelim ended. Every Tish'ah B'Av, another phase of the men who were aged 20-60 at the time of the meragelim died out. On the last year, it was known by the 15th of Av that all the dying had stopped. The simple question is, what is the big celebration? If all the males from 20-60 were supposed to die, once they all died it was obvious that the dying was over. What did they find out on the 15th of Av that they did not know before? Who was it that expected to die and was now overjoyed that they remained alive?

 

The commentaries deal at length with this problem. The Brisker Rav, R' Yitzchok Ze'ev haLevi Soloveichik, offers the following answer. In parshas Shelach, when HaShem declares the decree that all males from 20-60 die within the next 40 years, we find an interesting phrase. HaShem declares that none of them will merit to see the land and then adds (Bemidbar 14:23) "and all who angered Me will not see it." What is the meaning of this phrase? The Brisker Rav quotes a passage from Midrash Rabbah stating that although it was only the 20-60-year-olds who were categorically doomed to die in the midbar, regardless of their level of participation in the sin, the 13-20-year-olds who were involved in the sin were also doomed to die. This is the meaning of the pasuk. In addition to all of the 20-60-year-olds who will not see the land, those who angered HaShem from age 13-20 will also not see it.

 

The midrash comments on the pasuk in Tehillim 95:11, referring to those who perished in the desert, "Therefore I swore in my anger that they shall not come into my resting place." HaShem swore in His anger, but when His anger subsides, the decree will be lifted and they will be allowed to enter. The Raava"d asks the obvious question. Everyone who was supposed to die in the desert did, in fact, die. No one entered Eretz Yisrael from that generation! Rather, it is referring to those in the 13-20 category. They are referred to in the pasuk in Shelach as "mena'atzai," those who angered Me. So long as they remain in this category of "angerers, " they will not enter the land. If they do teshuvah, HaShem will no longer be angry at them and they will be allowed to enter.

This, says the Brisker Rav, is the group that rejoiced on Tu B'Av. They were not certain whether they would survive and enter the land or whether they would die that year. Their status was indeed uncertain. Once Tu B'Av came along and they were still alive, they knew that they had fallen out of the category of "mena'atzai" and would be allowed to enter the land.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: You were shown

Al Pi Cheshbon: Moshe's Pleas

Al Pi Cheshbon: Gemtrias off by 1

AstroTorah: 15 Av is the Wrong Date? 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 - Devarim / Tish'ah B'Av

Apologies for the very late shtikle.

    A number of years ago I observed an interesting nuance in the targum of two words in this week's parsha.  When Moshe is in the midst of recounting the sin of the spies (1:29), he recounts having addressed the nation's concerns with the giants they would face in an attempt to enter Eretz Yisroel. He told them, "lo sa'artzun v'lo sir'un meihem," do not dread them and do not be afraid of them. The targum on "lo sa'artzun" is "lo sitab'run." Only thirteen pesukim later, we read about HaShem's having told Moshe to warn the "ma'pilim" not to try to conquer the land prematurely as HaShem would not support such an initiative. They are told not to go up and not to wage war "velo tinagfu lifnei oyeveichem," lest you be smitten before your enemies. The targum of "velo tinagfu" is "velo sitab'run," the exact same targum as that of "lo sa'artzun." There must be some significance to this.

 

    B'nei Yisrael were living in a time of unprecedented and unmatched Divine Providence. Their success or failure in all on national and personal levels were dependent directly upon their level of emunah. Although I do not have a concordance at my fingertips, I am not aware of any other instances of the root of "lo sa'artzun." The words "lo sitab'run," literally translated back from Aramaic, means "you shall not be broken." When the dor dei'ah were given a promise that they would defeat their enemy, it was demanded of them to have absolute faith and belief in that promise. Even the slightest doubt, the slightest fear of the enemy, was indicative of a breakdown of that belief. This breaking of the spirit, the lack of "lo sa'artzun," bore automatic consequences of  "tinagfu," military breakdown. Fear and defeat were a cause and effect so tightly bound that the targum deemed them synonymous.

 

    As parshas Devarim is always read on the Shabbos before Tish'ah B'Av, and indeed this year on the Ninth of Av itself, I was searching for a possible connection between this idea and the themes of Tish'ah B'Av. I was reading "Tear Drenched Nights," a book by R' Moshe Eisemann of Ner Yisroel which explores the profound and tragic effect that the sin of the spies had on our history, particularly the destruction of the two temples. In Chapter 7 he discusses one of the roots of the sin, that the spies lacked a belief in themselves. The moment they began to doubt the absolute promise that they would enter the land and conquer it no matter what the circumstances, everything came undone. This, the root of the tragic sin of the spies and thus, the root of generations upon generations of suffering in exile, is directly connected to the above idea.

 

    As we all strive to correct the sin of the spies in full faith in the "geulah ha'asidah," may we merit to see this month turned "miyagon lesimchah umei'eivel leyom tov!"

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: To Correct, or not to Correct

Dikdukian: Don't you worry!

Dikdukian: Past and Future

Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your name?

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

Fwd: The Weekly Shtikle - Matos / Mas'ei

Some time after the victorious military campaign against Midyan, (31:25-47), all of the booty - humans and animals - is counted and divided in two. One half is designated for the soldiers who fought the war and the other half is for the rest of B'nei Yisrael. Of the half that went to the soldiers, one out of 500 was to be given to Elazar. Of the half that went to the rest of the nation, one out of 50 was given to the Levi'im.

 

There are a number of puzzling nuances in this chapter. First the totals of the sheep, cattle, donkeys and humans are tallied. Then the halves to the soldiers are counted as well as Elazar's portion. The halves to the rest of the nation, although exactly the same as the halves to the soldiers are also counted. It is recounted that Moshe distributed the portion for the Levi'im but no count is given. Lastly, Elazar's portion is said to be "from the humans, from the cattle, from the donkeys and from the sheep." The same phrase is repeated with regards to the portion of the Levi'im but the words "mikol habeheimah," from all of the animals, is added.

Netzi"v in Ha'amek Davar suggests that "mikol habeheimah" includes other species of animals that were brought back that were fewer in number. Since they were fewer than 1000, there would not have been enough to give Elazar even one. Therefore, this phrase is left out of the command of Elazar's portion and these animals' numbers are not significant enough for the Torah to recount.

 

A fascinating approach is offered in the name of R' Shlomoh HaKohein of Vilna. Elazar's portion is referred to in the pasuk (29) as a "terumah laShem." One of the laws of terumah is that one may not separate from one species as terumah for another. Therefore, Elazar's portion was required to be one out of every 500 of each animal. However, this was not a requirement with the portion of the Levi'im and it was sufficient to give them 1/50 of all the animals combined. That is the meaning of "mikol habeheima." The Levi'im were given 1/50 of all the animals. And that is why the Torah does not go into any detail concerning the division for it was not exact.

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: To Correct, or not to Correct

Dikdukian: Watch out for those Mapiks!

Dikdukian: To Afflict or to Answer

Dikdukian: The Interrogative

Dikdukian: The first aliyah in Mas'ei

Dikdukian: They are Correct, Sir!

Dikdukian: Whose Tribe is it Anyway?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Splitting up the Animals

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