The Weekly Shtikle - Re'eih

In this week's parsha a word not used any where else in the Torah (although it is found 20 times in NA"CH) appears twice. The inhabitants of the ir hanidachas, the city that has been led astray, are referred to (13:14) as b'nei beliya'al. Later, when discussing the requirement to reach out to the needy and lend them money, we are warned (15:9) lest there be an inclination of beliya'al in our hearts not to lend to the needy since the shemitah year is approaching. This unique word is used to describe idolaters as well as those who refuse to lend money as shemitah approaches. Surely, there is a connection.

 

I have purposely left beliya'al untranslated. It is difficult to attach an exact meaning to the word and we must therefore turn to the commentaries for the etymology of the word. Rashi writes that it is a contraction of b'li ol, without a yoke. It refers to someone who has thrown off the yoke of the service of HaShem. Clearly, one may only throw off a yoke if it was once upon him. Perhaps we may explain in the second case that it is referring to one who has thrown off the yoke of communal responsibility. The Torah is talking of someone who might very well appear to appreciate the importance of charity. But when push comes to shove and his loan is in danger of having to be forgiven, he is unwilling to his duty to society. He bears the yoke when it suits him, but is quick to unload it when it does not.

 

Another insightful rendering of the word is given by Rav Hirsch. He explains that it is a contraction of bli al, without one above, someone who acts as if there is no one above him. This may also be applied to the apprehensive lender. The shemitah year (which will be upon us shortly) is one of the primary tests of faith. A farmer is required to put all his faith and belief in HaShem that despite the land being unworked for a full year, he will still pull through. The lender has to have a little faith as well. Someone who fears that the Shemitah will interfere with his financial dealings fails to see HaShem's Hand and considers himself a master of his own destiny. It is this behaviour specifically that is labelled as beliya'al and is, by association, likened to avodah zarah.

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Eikev

In this week's parsha, Eretz Yisrael is praised as (8:8) "A land of wheat and barley and grapes and figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey." These species are given a special status when it comes to making berachos. Shulchan Aruch (OC 211:4), based on the gemara (Berachos 41,) rules that if you have in front of you two foods that are both of the aforementioned seven species, the berachah should be made on the one that comes earliest in the pasuk. For example, if you have a grape and a fig, you should make the berachah on the grape. However, the determining factor is the proximity of the food to the word eretz in the pasuk. The word eretz is repeated before olive oil and honey. Thus, if you have a date (the source of the honey) and a grape, the berachah should be made on the date because it is the second food from the second eretz whereas the grape is the third from the first eretz. Why, though, did the Torah specifically repeat the word eretz?

The GR"A writes that the pasuk is split into two categories. The first five species are all mentioned for their very essence. It is the fruit or grain itself for which Eretz Yisroel is praised. However, the last two species refer to the olive and the date but are only mentioned for the substances that are extracted from them. This is why the pasuk is divided by two instances of the word eretz.

Meshech Chachmah offers an alternate interpretation. He suggests that the first five species were available in Mitzrayim as well. His support for this is the dialogue preceeding the incident of Moshe and the rock, when the nation complained (Bemidbar 20:5) "And why have you taken us out from Mitzrayim to bring us to this terrible place, not a place of grain or figs or grapes or pomegranates and there is no water to drink." It is evident from here that the first five species were also abundant in Mitzrayim. The pasuk is therefore singling out olive oil and honey as the two species that are uniquely abundant in Eretz Yisrael by repeating the word eretz.

There is a slight difficulty with this interpretation. When Dasan and Aviram refused to appear before Moshe, they exclaim (Bemidbar 17:13) "Is it not enough that you have brought us out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the dessert!" It seems from here - assuming Dasan and Aviram were not simply "throwing stones" and there was some truth to their statement - that there was an abundance of honey in Mitzrayim as well. Why then should the Torah single it out along with olive oil as unique to Eretz Yisroel?

A friend of mine showed me a quote from a sefer Shomer Emes endeavouring to answer this question. He references Rashi in a number of different locations (Vayikra 2:11, Sukkah 6a) who writes that any sweet substance derived from fruit is called devash. Indeed, in the gemara (Kesubos 111b) we find a reference to devash te'einim, fig honey. He suggests, therefore, that what Dasan and Aviram were referring to was other forms of fruit honey that might have been available in Mitzrayim. But the abundance of date honey was still unique to Eretz Yisrael. As for why bee honey is not suggested, perhaps the reason is that even though it originates as nectar from plants and is minimally processed by the bee (otherwise it would not be kosher), since it isn't produced from the ground in a form that may be harvested by humans, it would not qualify as something by which to praise the land. 

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

Today, the 15th of Av, marks the 10^th yahrtzeit of my Opa, Mr. George Jakobovits. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

 

At the beginning of this week's parsha, after Moshe makes his plea to enter Eretz Yisrael, he is told (3:27) to go to the top of the mountain, to lift his eyes west, north, south and east and see with his eyes for he will not cross the Jordan River. Why is he told to see with his eyes? What other part of the body would he otherwise have seen with?

 

 When Moshe delivers his plea, he begins by emphasizing that HaShem had begun to show him His Greatness and Powerful Hand. Surely, Moshe was not referring to having been shown these visually. We know that he was denied that privilege. Here, the term re'iah does not refer to physical seeing as it often does, but rather to an experience. Moshe had witnessed and experienced HaShem's greatness. He then asks to be allowed to cross over and "see" the good land, the good mountain and the Levanon. Surely, Moshe wanted more than to see the land. Here again, Moshe Rabbeinu is asking not to see the land but to live it and experience its greatness, to behold the Land of Israel. HaShem denies Moshe and grants him only to climb the mountain and see the land. That is why he is told to see with his eyes, indicating that he will not be granted the re'iah for which he yearned but rather, only a physical re'iah with his eyes.

 

There is another aspect of this passage that has always intrigued me. Moshe was standing to the east of Eretz Yisrael at this time. If he was being told to observe the land with his eyes, why would he need to look east? He should only have had to look north, south and west. I have yet to find a simple, practical (peshat) explanation for this.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: You were shown

Dikdukian: Raise the Valleys

Al Pi Cheshbon: Moshe's Pleas

Al Pi Cheshbon: Gemtrias off by 1

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

Sefer Devarim is, for the most part, a summary of the events of the previous 40 years. Most of the major events are recapped throughout the sefer. This week's parsha focusses largely on the episode of the spies. After hearing the spies' grim report of Eretz Yisrael, B'nei Yisrael cried on that night (Bemidbar 14:1.) The midrash (Bemidbar 16:20) and the gemara (Sotah 35a) teach us that that night was the night of Tish'ah B'Av. HaShem said "You have wept gratuitously, I therefore shall designate this day for crying throughout the generations."

Although on a larger scale, this dooming of Tish'ah B'Av as a day for weeping may refer to all the terrible misfortunes that have befallen the Jewish people on this day, it is certainly a more specific reference to the destruction of the two Temples which happened on this day.

The connection here between the wrongdoing and the consequent punishment is greater than it may appear on the surface. It is more than just "You cried for no reason, I'll make you cry for a reason." It's not merely about the fact that they cried but the reason why they cried. The nationwide cry was a sign of acceptance of the spies' report and thus, a rejection of Eretz Yisrael an immediate and imminent reality. The destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and the ensuing exile was Eretz Yisrael's rejection of us. With the episode of the spies, B'nei Yisrael showed a total lack of appreciation for the gift that HaShem wished to bestow upon us. Tish'ah B'Av was therefore designated as a day that would constantly serve as a reminder to us of what terrible consequences befall us when Eretz Yisrael is not given the respect it deserves. In these days, it should not be difficult to appreciate the importance of Eretz Yisrael and how hard we must fight to keep it. Certainly, recent world events have once again left the fate of the nation and the land hanging in the balance. May the joint efforts of all of Klal Yisroel help bring mashiach speedily and transform this month from eivel to yom tov and may we all return to artzeinu haKedoshah for the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Don't you worry!

Dikdukian: Past and Future

Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your name?

AstroTorah: Like the Stars of the Heavens

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 - Matos / Mas'ei

This week was the first yahrtzeit of my cousin, Mrs. Michelle Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Rochel Mirel bas Shmuel HaLevi.

 

Towards the end of the parsha, we are taught of the mitzvah of exiling one who killed by mistake, shogeig. If he leaves his designated city of exile, the close relative of the victim is allowed to kill him. There is a discussion in the mishnah (Makkos 11b) as to whether or not the killing of the killer is a mitzvah or not. R' Chaim Kanievsky makes an interesting observation on the exact wording of this parsha. Almost everywhere else that the Torah commands us to kill someone, the verb of the root misah is used, usually in the form "v'heimis." This is because it is considered killing but not murdering. Here, however, the verb veratzach is used, the same root as the commandment, "lo sirtzach," do not murder. He explains that even according to the opinion that it is a mitzvah to kill the killer, it is not an obligation but only a mitzvah if he does it. It is his choice. Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah, whether it is a mitzvah or not, as murdering.

 

It is interesting to note, that the part of the parsha dealing with the willful murderer (meizid) states that the relative of the victim shall kill the murderer and there the word "yamis" is used. According to the explanation of R' Chaim, it would suggest that in this instance, it is in fact an obligation for the relative to kill the murderer. 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Cold has Passed

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