The Weekly Shtikle - Bechukosai

A very special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to our dear daughter, Michal, who will be celebrating her Bas Mitzvah this Sunday.

 

This past Tuesday was the 12^th yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

 

Today, the 25th of Iyar, was the 21^th yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah.

 

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my father, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h.

 

This week's parsha contains the strong rebuke for those who do not follow HaShem's laws, known as the tochachah. There is a word which features prominently as the pesukim detail worsening shirking of duties and corresponding calamities – keri. This word is used numerous times to describe both the negative way in which we relate to HaShem and the way HaShem responds in kind. Rashi (26:21) first provides what is probably the most  well-known translation of the word – chance and happenstance. Rashi then quotes Menachem (ben Saruk) as understanding the word to mean "refraining." It refers to an attitude of holding back from doing the right thing. Rashi then connects this approach with the word used by Targum Onkelos – kashyu. Rashi explains this to mean stubbornness, a hardening of the heart to refrain from coming closer to HaShem.

 

There is one significant issue with these explanations of keri, in particular the association with Onkelos's translation. This problem might be a bit more evident in a non-leap year when Behar and Bechukosai are read together. At the end of Behar, we are warned (25:43) not to overwork a Jewish servant. The familiar word that is used in the pasuk is perech. Onkelos translates this word as kashyu. If perech and keri are translated with the exact same Aramaic word, surely, they must be connected.

 

A link between these two words is provided by Bechor Shor's translation of keri. He appears (26:21) to translate the word as a heavy burden. In the tochachah, we are warned not to act in a way that conveys that mitzvos are a heavy burden to us. And with regards to servants, we are not to treat them with overly heavy, burdensome work. This would explain why the targum uses the same word for both.

 

On a related note, while the targum of keri is kashyu in almost every instance, the term "chamas keri" (26:28) is rendered tekof regaz. See Bei'urei Onkelos for a detailed explanation.

 

Chazak, Chazak, veNischazeik!!

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule
Al Pi Cheshbon: An Ironic Observation

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

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my father, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h.

 

I heard the following from the Rosh HaYeshiva, HaRav Kulefsky, zt"l: The beginning of this week's parsha (25:8) speaks of the obligation (for beis din) to count the 49 years leading up to the yoveil year. Chizkuni writes that since the counting obligation for yoveil is mentioned only once and for beis din, it does not require a berachah. For sefiras haomer, however, since the obligation is mentioned twice, once in Emor (23:15) and once in Re'eih (Devarim 17:9), once for beis din and once for every individual, it requires a berachah. The reasoning of Chizkuni is rather puzzling. Why would the obligation to count with a berachah depend on the number of times the mitzvah is mentioned?

 

Ramba"n writes (23:15) that the plural form of the commandment for sefiras haomer, "usfartem lachem," indicates that there should be a counting for each individual. This is unlike the singular form of the commandment to count the years of yoveil, "vesafarta lecha," or the commandment for the zavah to count seven days of cleanliness (15:28), "vesafrah lah." He explains that the singular form implies that the counting is only a means to an end. A zavah need not count each day as the days go by but rather the counting is necessary for her to know when she may become tehorah. This would also seem to be the reasoning behind the yoveil count, that beis din need only keep count of the years in order to know which year to make a shemitah or yoveil year but in both these cases the counts serve no purpose on their own.

 

Perhaps, suggests HaRav Kulefsky, this is what Chizkuni meant. Since for yoveil there is only one commandment and it is for beis din, the implication is that there is no purpose for the count other than to keep track of the years so that we may make yoveil in the proper year. But since for sefiras haomer in addition to the commandment of "shiv'ah shavuos tispor lach" in Re'eih, we have the commandment of "usfartem lachem" in Emor teaching us that every individual must count for himself, it is clear that the counting itself is an end unto itself and therefore it requires a berachah.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
DIkdukian: Hearing Los

Dikdukian: How Lo Can You Go?

Dikdukian: Even Lo-er

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule
Dikdukian: A name that took ME by surprise

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

 

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my father, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h.

 

At the beginning of this week's parsha, (21:2) we are told that a kohein, although he is not permitted to become temei meis, is allowed to do so for his mother or father and other immediate family. The midrash on this pasuk states that after the pasuk has told me that he may become tamei for his mother, I might have thought only for his mother may he become tamei for she is definitely his mother. But his father is technically uncertain, for we can never be 100% sure that this is in fact his father, but we consider him his father only by a chazakah, an assumption of sorts. Therefore, we might have thought it does not apply to his father. So, the pasuk states "ul'aviv," indicating that this exception applies to his father as well.

 

In T'shuvos haRashb"a (27), R"Y asks the Rashb"a what kind of assumption would that have been? Either way he can become tamei for his father. If this man is in fact his father, then he may become tamei because he is his father. But if this man is not his father, then who says he is a kohein?! Surely, he may become tamei for him.

 

Rashb"a answered him that surely, as far as permission to become tamei for one's father, we would not have had any doubt that this kohein may become tamei for his father. However, from the words at the end of the next pasuk, "lah yitama," we learn that not only is the kohein permitted to become tamei for these relatives but he is required to. The intention of the midrash is that with regards to the requirement to become tamei, since there is a doubt as to whether this man is this kohein's father, one might have thought that it does not apply to him.

 

Rashb"a offers another answer. The sanctity of the kohein which prohibits him from becoming tamei is, as the pasuk states, "ki es lechem elokecha hu makriv," a direct consequence of the fact that he serves God's bread (in the form of korbanos.) Chasam Sofer in his t'shuvos (Yoreh Dei'ah 338) explains that since we allow this kohein to bring korbanos, whether it is rightfully done or not, he is elevated to the kedushah of a kohein and may not become tamei. Therefore, a suspicion as to the paternity of his father, while it may create doubt as to his permission to become tamei for him, will not affect his general prohibition to become tamei. Klei Chemdah disagress with Chasam Sofer on one point. He argues that the deciding factor is not whether he brings korbanos but rather whether he may eat them. For if it were dependent on bringing korbanos, then it would not apply to ba'al mum, a kohein with a blemish that prevents him from being able to perfםrm the service. But we know that even a ba'al mum may not become tamei. So, either way, the end result is that a kohein involved in korbanos is subject to the prohibitions of tum'ah, no matter what our doubts are regarding his father.

 

Have a good Shabbos and a wonderful Pesach Sheini!

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

 

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

 

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Kedoshim

A triple Weekly Shtikle mazal tov, in chronological order: to my niece Rikki and her husband Daniel Ash on the birth of their son, Reuven Pinchas Alexander, my nephew Yeshaya Shonek and his wife Tzippora Leah, on the birth of their daughter Chaya Sara (named after my Oma) and finally, my nephew Avi Bulka on his very recent engagement to Mikayla Shkedy of Houston. Mazal Tov to the extended Bulka, Shonek and Hook mishpachos!

The following shtikle is of particular significance to me. A year ago, my father was hospitalized with an infection and I drove up to spend the day. During my visit he relayed this beautiful thought to me, one that also perfectly summarized the way my father, a"h, lived his life. If I recall correctly, this was the last devar Torah I heard from my father. Naturally, it is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h.

While this parsha contains many individual mitzvos it begins with a general command, "kedoshim tihyu." The Midrash Rabbah in parshas Mikeitz (90:2)  states, "This pasuk may have been construed to mean that you should be as holy as I, HaShem, until it says at the end of the pasuk 'ki Kadosh Ani,' for I am holy. My holiness is above yours." This is a very difficult suggestion to understand. How would even the most foolish of men begin to think that the holiness of man could reach that of HaShem's? (We have previously discussed an approach from R' Tzvi Pesach Frank.)

My father explains that this discussion does not necessarily revolve around actual levels of holiness but rather, how the whole idea is to be interpreted. HaShem's holiness, far beyond our reach, is a status, a state of being. For us mortals, we must understand that kedushah represents a goal, a target. It is something we must always work towards. But we must understand that it is nothing we can achieve, per se, for if we did, there would be nothing left to accomplish. It is a guiding principle which is meant to define our everyday service of HaShem through Torah and mitzvos. While HaShem's holiness is absolute, ours is a goal we must always strive toward, all the while knowing that the journey will never be done.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: A Revealing Note
Dikdukian: Sukas David

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

 

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.