The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Savo

This week's parsha begins with the process of the bringing of bikurim, the first fruits, and the passages that are to be recited at the time that they are brought. We are instructed (26:3) "And you shall come to the kohein in those days and you shall say to him: 'I have said today to HaShem your God that I have come to the land that HaShem has sworn to our fathers to give to us.'" Rashi, on the words ve'amarta eilav, and you shall say to him, comments "[to show] that you are not ungrateful." This implies that the very purpose of the recitation is to show that he is not ungrateful. My father points out, however, that the very essence of bikurim is an expression of thanks to HaShem. We go out of our way to show that we appreciate that everything comes from HaShem by bringing our first fruits to Yerushalayim. Why would anyone think us ungrateful that we should have to recite this passage to refute that perception? Furthermore, it is strange that Rashi would make this comment on the words ve'amarta eilav, rather than on the actual words that are recited, where the gratitude is actually expressed.

 

My father's answer is based on a remarkable interpretation of bikurim from Netziv in Ha'amek Davar. He is bothered by the words "HaShem Elokecha," as opposed to "HaShem Elokeinu." Why are we referring to HaShem as the God of the kohein rather than our God. He answers that the purpose of the bikurim process going through the kohein is so that we may show gratitude to the righteous kohanim, that in their merit and through the Providence bestowed upon them by HaShem, that we are worthy of entering Eretz Yisrael. That is why we direct the opening passage towards the kohein.

 

Rashi, as well, is not suggesting that we are showing that we are not ungrateful to HaShem. Our actions are indicative enough in that regard. Rather, we are going out of our way to show that we are not ungrateful to the kohein for his spiritual influence on the nation and the merit that he brings to the nation as a whole. And that is why Rashi is explaining the words ve'amarta eilav. He is explaining why we are talking to the kohein. The kohein is more than just a middle man in the bikurim process. He is an essential figure. Rashi points out on the words (26:3) asher yihyeh bayamim haheim, that you have only the kohein of your day and your generation. It is not our task to delve into the level of righteousness of one particular kohein or another. By virtue of the service he performs for our nation, he is deserved of this gift.

 

This week, the Mishnah Yomis program began the seventh perek of maseches Sotah, which discusses which passages may be recited in any language and which must be recited in leshon hakodesh. Three of the different procedures are found in this week's parsha, including that for bikurim and viduy ma'aser. While viduy ma'aser may be recited in any language, mikra bikurim must be recited in leshon hakodesh. One has to wonder why they are different. I haven't worked out the specifics but perhaps the difference lies in the nature of mikra bikurim as we have discussed above. Viduy ma'aser is really a conversation strictly between the subject and HaShem so the language does not matter. Perhaps the involvement and significance of the kohein in mikra bikurim is what necessitates leshon hakodesh.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim at Har Gerizim and Har Eival
Dikdukian: Tough Day at the Office

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 - Ki Setzei

This week's parsha deals with the proceedings with regards to a case of illicit relations with a betrothed girl or married woman. The betrothed girl must be at least 12 years old, without having shown complete signs of adulthood in order to be subject to these specific laws. Additionally, these laws only apply after the kiddushin (betrothal) stage and not after marriage.

 

There is an interesting discrepancy found in the pesukim dealing with these transgressions. With regards to the penalty of death delivered in the case of the betrothed girl (stoning), the Torah comments (22:21,24) "And you shall wipe out the evil from your midst." However, with regards to the death penalty in the case of ordinary adultery (strangulation), it is written (22:22) "And you shall wipe out the evil from Yisrael."

 

The Brisker Rav, R' Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik, zt"l, offers an explanation. The gemara (Sanhedrin 57b) teaches that a ben-Noach (gentile) who is found guilty of illicit relations with a Jew, which are applicable to gentiles is put to death in the same manner as any gentile who transgresses one of the seven gentile commandments, namely death by the sword. However, if he is found guilty of illicit relations with a Jew which are not applicable to gentiles, he is put to death in the same manner as a Jew who commits the same offense. The only such case, the gemara points out, is the case of the betrothed girl. From a halachic perspective, betrothal does not exist with regards to gentiles. Therefore, a gentile guilty of this offense (with a Jewish betrothed girl) is put to death by stoning, just like a Jew. When the Torah details these proceedings, it is written, "And you shall wipe out the evil from your midst," because this process applies to everyone. Since the concept of a married woman exists with gentiles, a gentile who is found guilty of adultery, even with a married Jewish woman, is given his own special death penalty. It is therefore written, "And you shall wipe out the evil from Yisrael," since the regular death penalty in this case is not applicable to gentiles.

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

This week's parsha discusses a wide range of topics. Among them are the unique laws of eidim zomemim, the false, plotting witnesses who are given the exact punishment they planned to cause to the defendant. The manner in which they are refuted must be very specific as well as the timing of their disproof. The mishnah (Makkos 1:6) teaches that the refutation must come after the defendant had been sentenced but before the sentence was carried out in order for these laws to take effect. This is the famous conundrum of eidim zomemim, that the false witnesses are punished accordingly only if they ultimately fail but not if they succeed. The mishnah learns this law in cases of capital punishment from the pasuk (19:19) "And you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother." The fact that the Torah refers to the defendant as his brother indicates that he is still alive. If he has already been given the death penalty, the punishment referred to in this pasuk does not apply.

Similarly, the gemara (Sanhedrin 10a) learns from the pasuk (25:3) "And your brother shall be flogged before your eyes" that the punishment of lashes must not result in death for after the lashes, he must remain your brother.

Many commentaries question this understanding of the word ach, brother. After all, the pasuk (Vayikra 21:2) teaches us that a regular kohein may become tamei for the purpose of the burial of an immediate family member. There, the word ach is clearly referring to someone who is no longer alive. How can the aforementioned sources assume ach to be a living person?

Rasha"sh on the gemara in Sanhedrin offers an interpretation. The Torah uses the word ach in two different contexts. Sometimes it used to refer to an actual brother with a familial relationship. In this case, the relationship is not broken by death and thus, he remains a brother even after passing on. However, when the Torah uses the word ach to refer to a fellow Jew, the rationale is that he is your brother in mitzvos. He shares the same obligations as you. When he dies, he is absolved of his obligation to perform mitzvos and this brotherly relationship is severed. Therefore, the gemara justifiably extrapolates from the usage of ach that we are referring to someone who is still alive.

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

Dikdukian: Not necessarily a dumb correction

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

This week's parsha presents the contradiction of the following two pesukim. First we are told (15:4) that with the proper fulfillment of the laws of shemitah as they pertain to loans "there will not be any needy among you." In the very same perek we are told (pasuk 11) "For the needy shall never cease from within the land." Rashi explains homiletically from the Midrash (Sifrei Piska 114) that when we are performing HaShem's will, the needy will be among others and not among us. But when we are not performing HaShem's will, there will be needy among us.

On a more simple level, however, perhaps the contradiction may be reconciled as follows: The first pasuk is indeed giving us an assurance that with the proper performance of the laws of shemitah, poverty will be wiped out from the community. The second pasuk, however, is stated regarding the mitzvah of tzedakah. It is not a prediction of the future. Rather, the Torah is stating a practical fact as a reason why charity is always necessary. You should never say, "someone else will take care of him, he'll make it somehow." The Torah is teaching us a lesson that the poor will never just cease to be. In order to tackle poverty, you must take the initiative and give tzedakah and never rely on someone else to do the job.

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Don't Feed the Animals

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

A Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my niece and nephew, Ruti (née Levy) and Yoni Epstein of Lakewood on the birth of their daughter, Tzirel Nechama, earlier this week. Mazal Tov to the extended Bulka, Levy and Epstein mishpachos and to the great great grandmother, Oma Jakobovits.

 

While last week's parsha contained the first paragraph of keriyas shema, in this week's parsha we find the second. Both begin with the subject of our obligation to love HaShem. Although the two seem quite similar, there is one obvious difference. The first parsha demands of one to love HaShem bechol levavecha, with all your heart, uvchol nafshecha, with all your soul, uvchol meodecha, which Rashi explains to mean with all of your money. The second parsha mentions bechol levavchem uvchol nafshechem but there is no mention of bechol meodechem.

 

Meharsh"a (Berachos 35b) offers an explanation for this omission. In the gemara it is explained, according to one opinion, that the scenario of the second parsha of Shema is that of ainam osim retzono shel Makom, those who do not fulfill the will of HaShem. Meharsh"a points out that it is clear from the very beginning of the parsha that we are talking about people who perform the mitzvos and demonstrate a love of HaShem. Rather, he concludes in accordance with Tosafos that this parsha is surely referring to people who do fulfill HaShem's will, only not on the same level of complete tzadikim who can rely on their work being done by others and need not worry about plowing their fields. He uses this to explain the discrepancy between the two parshios. The first parsha, outlining the ideal service of HaShem, includes even the devotion of one's property and assets. The reward for that level of service is, as the gemara explains, that your work will be performed by others. The second parsha speaks to those on a slightly lower level for whom that degree of dedication is too difficult. Consequently, they will have to do their work themselves.

 

R' Moshe Shternbuch, in Ta'am Vada'as offers an alternate explanation. The two parshios speak of different forms of love. He understands the first parsha to be speaking of true devotion to HaShem and not to serve other gods for which we are indeed commanded to give up our lives. For this aspect of our service of HaShem we are certainly expected to part with our monetary possessions as well. However, the second parsha refers specifically to the service of HaShem through the performance of mitzvos. We are required to devote all of our heart and soul toward this cause. However, we are not expected to dispose of all our assets for this purpose. After all, we may give no more than a fifth to tzedakah (Kesubos 50a) and spend no more than a third on the fulfilling of a mitzvah (Bava Kamma 9a). Therefore, uvchol meodechem is left out of the second parsha.

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