The Weekly Shtikle - Balak

Today, 15 Tammuz, is the 18^th yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Mrs. Shirley Yeres, Chaya Sheindel bas Alexander HaLevi.

 

Yesterday was the 34^th yahrzeit of R' Yaakov Yitzchack Ruderman, zt"l, the first Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel. 

 

Sunday, 17 Tammuz, is the 22^nd yahrzeit of R' Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel.

 

The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

 

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Oma, Chaya Sara bas Zecharia Chaim, a"h.

 

This week's shtikle is dedicated for a refuah sheleimah for my father.

Please include Reuven Pinchas ben Yehudis in your tefillos.

 

There is some interesting discussion among the commentaries as to what exactly Bil'am's powers were. There are many (Rabbeinu Bachya, Ohr HaChayim, for example) who contain that he didn't really possess any actual power to affect anything with his blessings or curses. Rather, he was able to use astrology to determine what was destined to happen anyway and put that in the form of a blessing or curse to give the appearance that events occur on his command. According to the gemara (Berachos 7a) he did possess the ability to discern the exact moment in the day at which HaShem expresses his anger and was able to capitalize on that to produce an actual curse. However, that moment never came when he intended to curse B'nei Yisrael.

According, to either approach, however, the chain of events is difficult to understand. As we know (Devarim 23:6), HaShem turned the curse into a blessing. Why was this necessary? If Bil'am was so inept – to use the Ohr HaChayim's words, his blessing was as effective as that of a donkey – why couldn't he simply be left to do and say whatever he pleased without the Divine intervention to flip his attempted curse?

This question is asked by Rabbeinu Bachya, among others, and their answer was discussed in a shiur I attended last night. However, I wish to use an idea discussed in a shiur I attended the previous night to answer this quandary. Meshech Chachmah addresses a common question: what was the purpose of bringing about the miracle of the talking donkey in front of only Bil'am and a handful of Balak's men? He explains that the main objective of this entire episode was to prevent any neighbouring nations from even attempting to wage war on B'nei Yisrael. Although swift victory by the Divine hand was an absolute certainty, the realities of war present all sorts of challenges as we observed from some of the wars which resulted in casualties. With a clever inference from the words of Rachav, as we read in the haftarah two weeks ago (Yehoshua 2:10-11), Meshech Chchmah understands that the episode of Bil'am played a significant role in deterring attacks against B'nei Yisrael. If Bil'am's words were the only source of discouragement, there would have been room to believe that he had been bribed by B'nei Yisrael. Balak's men needed to witness the talking donkey to know that HaShem was truly behind us.

With this idea, we can understand why it was not sufficient to allow Bil'am to utter idle, useless curses. It is clear from the beginning of the parsha (22:4) that Balak's master plan was to attack B'nei Yisrael militarily. If Bil'am had uttered curses, he would have been inspired to follow through. He would certainly have been handily defeated but the point was to avoid the war altogether.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: I say Yericho, You Say Yereicho

Dikdukian: The Dead of the Plague

Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Judges

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 - Chukas

Tomorrow, 9 Tammuz, is the 6^th yahrtzeit of my sister-in-law, Batsheva Yeres. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Batsheva Blima, a"h bas HaRav Moshe Yosef HaLevi, ybl"t.

 

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Oma, Chaya Sara bas Zecharia Chaim, a"h.

 

This week's shtikle is dedicated for a refuah sheleimah for my father.

Please include Reuven Pinchas ben Yehudis in your tefillos.

 

This week's parsha contains the unfortunate events of mei merivah. The tragic outcome of that incident was that neither Moshe nor Aharon were allowed to enter Eretz Yisroel. Moshe's role is clear although the actual understanding of exactly what the wrongdoing was is the subject of extensive discussion. One can't help but wonder if more ink has been spilled on the subject than the water that came out of the rock.

 

This is indeed a very difficult episode to understand, such that Ramban (20:8) concludes that it is indeed from the deeper secrets of the Torah. What seems to be largely left out of the conversation, however, is comprehending Aharon's role and why he is held responsible to the point that he received the very same punishment.

 

I wasn't able to find too much discussion on this in the commentaries. Some suggest that Aharon should have objected to Moshe's hitting of the rock. The command to Moshe was (20:8) "vedibartem," and you (plural) shall talk. However, HaShem commanded Moshe directly and it is unclear that Aharon even knew Moshe was doing something wrong.

 

R' Moshe Shternbuch, in Ta'am VaDa'as states simply that Aharon was punished merely because he was together with Moshe. They worked as a team, and they went down as a team. It's not that there was any specific wrongdoing on his part - just his being there alongside Moshe is what included him in the punishment. With this, he explains a Midrash on the pasuk following Aharon's death. The pasuk states, (20:29) "And the congregation knew following Aharon's death (or because Aharon died.)" The Midrash explains that B'nei Yisrael were afraid that they, too, would meet the same demise as the generation of the spies who would all perish before entering Eretz Yisrael. R' Shternbuch explains that they observed Aharon taking the fall after mei merivah, even though he was not guilty of any crime. They were therefore afraid that even though they, themselves, were not responsible, nor technically involved in the sin of the spies, their mere presence at the time would be enough to doom them to the same fate. Fortunately for them, this was not the case.

 

Indeed, the events of the last year-and-a-half – as well as tomorrow's yahrtzeit – have given us much more opportunity than we would like to reflect on how tragedy seems to befall those who are undeserving from our perspective. We are certainly no greater than the generation of the midbar and thus, it is not unreasonable to be moved by this phenomenon, albeit with the understanding that there are many aspects of this world that are far beyond our comprehension.

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Oma, Chaya Sara bas Zecharia Chaim, a"h.

 

This week's shtikle is dedicated for a refuah sheleimah for my father.

Please include Reuven Pinchas ben Yehudis in your tefillos.

 

The gemara (Berachos 10a) recounts that Rabbi Meir was having some difficulty with some neighbourhood hoodlums and prayed that they would meet an untimely demise. Rabbi Meir's wife, Beruryah took issue with this prayer. Referencing a pasuk we recited yesterday and today as a Rosh Chodesh addition, she declares the pasuk (Tehillim 104:35) states "yitamu chatta'im min ha'aretz," the sins shall cease from the land. It does not say chot'im, sinners. Furthermore, the end of the pasuk states that the wicked will be no more – since the sins will cease, there will be no more wicked people. Indeed, she succeeded in convincing her husband to modify his tefillah and he davened that they should repent – and so they did.

As nice as this story is, there is a difficulty with Beruryah's clever rebuke. We see from this week's parsha (17:3) that the word chatta'im is actually used to refer to sinners. There is a very subtle difference, as well. Chatta'im with a dagesh in the tes, as it appears here and in Tehillim, is the plural of chatta, sinner. Only without a dagesh in the tes is it the plural of cheit, sin. So how are we to understand Beruryah's words?

I found a beautiful explanation in Eim laMikra, a sefer on dikduk, quoting another contemporary work, Layhudim Haysa Orah. Indeed, the word chatta'im does mean sinners. However, there is a difference between chatta'im and chot'im. A chatta is someone for whom sin is an essence of his being. It is the same construct as gammal or chammar referring to a camel or donkey driver as that is their profession. A chotei, however, is someone who sins casually. They are heavily influenced by the chatta'im to follow in their ways. What the pasuk in Tehillim is teaching us is that when the chatta'im are no longer they will cease to influence the chot'im and all other resha'im and they will naturally do teshuvah. Beruryah was cautioning her husband that these men are not really chatta'im. They are merely chot'im, as they are only under the influence of greater sinners and he should not pray for their demise as they are not the subject of the pasuk.

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 Weeky Shtikle - Shelach

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Oma, Chaya Sara bas Zecharia Chaim, a"h.

 

This week's shtikle is dedicated for a refuah sheleimah for my father.

Please include Reuven Pinchas ben Yehudis in your tefillos.

 

After Moshe Rabbeinu's intense appeal following the sin of the spies, HaShem agrees not to wipe out B'nei Yisrael. Instead, they were forced to roam the desert for 40 years, during which time all the males who had were above the age of 20 at the time would perish, with few exceptions. The Torah is very clear about the significance of the 40-year punishment, clarifying (14:34) that the 40 years correspond to the 40 days that the spies spent in Eretz Yisroel - a day for a year.

 

This seems like one of the most distinct examples of "midah keneged midah," the method of Divine retribution which exacts a specific punishment which corresponds to the crime. However, points out R' Eisenberg, (whose yahrtzeit was just last Thursday,) there is something oddly different in this case. Normally, we would expect the punishment to correspond to the specific method in which the sin was committed, as we find with the Egyptians, who were punished by water, in response to their evil decree that the Israelite males be thrown into the Nile. This element seems to be lacking here. There was nothing inherently sinful in the 40 days for which they staked out the land. Why would the punishment be exacted according to this figure?

 

Another question that occurred to me was that "exacting" punishment would not be a very appropriate term in this case as it was more than a year since B'nei Yisrael left Egypt. Therefore, it was really only a 39-year punishment. If they were to be punished exactly a year for each day, they should have spent a total of 41 years roaming the desert.

                                                           

R' Eisenberg explains that "midah keneged midah" is not simply a Divinely ironic method of punishment. At least, it doesn't have to be. In fact, sometimes it isn't that at all. There are, in fact, two types of "midah keneged midah." The first fits the more conventional use of the term, the most evident examples being keriyas Yam Suf and Purim. As we have previously discussed, the purpose of that form of punishment is to highlight and accentuate the utter and complete Divine Providence and dispel any suggestions of chance. However, in the second type, the punishment need not be exacted according to a specific aspect of the sin. Rather, the purpose is to serve as a reminder of the sin which caused the punishment and thus, a catalyst for repentance. The mere numeric connection between the years that they would roam the desert and the days that the spies spent in Eretz Yisroel was to be a remembrance by which B'nei Yisrael would constantly be cognizant of the actions that led to their current predicament. It is always easier to repent when you are constantly aware of why it is that repentance is necessary.

 

This approach may be used to answer my question as well. If we understand midah keneged midah in this light, then it becomes irrelevant that the sentence match the crime exactly. Since the total tally of years that B'nei Yisrael were to sojourn in the desert was 40, that was the number that was most likely to be on their minds. As long as the connection to the original offense is established, the punishment has served its purpose.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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

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