The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav / HaGadol

This past Sunday, 4 Nissan, marked the 5^th yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Rebbetzin Faigie Frankel. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Leah Feiga bas Aharon Tzvi.

 

In this week's parsha, a number of the different types of sacrifices are discussed. With regard to the chatas offering, it is written (6:18) "In the place where the olah is slaughtered, the chatas shall be slaughtered in front of HaShem. It is Holy of Holies." A similar description is given of the asham sacrifice. (7:1-2) "It is Holy of Holies. In the place where you slaughter the olah you shall slaughter the asham..." The obvious discrepancy between the two is that the order is switched around.

 

Meshech Chachmah addresses this disparity citing a gemara (Sotah 32b) which teaches "R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Shimon ben Yochai: Why was prayer decreed to be said quietly? In order not to embarrass the transgressor (who prays for forgiveness for his sins) for the Torah did not designate different areas for the slaughter of the olah and the chatas." A lesson is learned from the fact that the Torah specifically designated the identical place of slaughter for the olah and chatas (north of the altar). The chatas is brought for the inadvertent transgression of a prohibitive commandment. The olah is brought for improper thoughts of transgression or may even be brought as a gift. One who brings a chatas offering is saved embarrassment, as the onlooker cannot differentiate between a chatas and an olah for they are slaughtered in the same place.

It appears that this expression of mercy applies also to the asham which is brought for one of a smaller subset of specific transgressions. However, writes Meshech Chachmah, the pasuk gives this lesson ultimate priority when describing the chatas by enumerating it as the first criterion for the offering because it is brought for an unintentional misdeed. Since the asham is brought for deliberate offenses, this lesson is not prioritized to the same degree and therefore, the primary characteristic of the asham is that it is Holy of Holies.

What remains puzzling, is why the gemara used the chatas as the example for this lesson. Since the asham is, in fact, also slaughtered in the same place, the expression of mercy is prevalent there as well. It seemingly would have been an even stronger lesson had the gemara used the asham as the example. Another side question is that the olah is a male sacrifice from cattle whereas the asham and chatas are both female flock sacrifices. So, this onlooker of which the gemara speaks cannot be all too observant. The gemaras actually does address the gender issue and asserts that (in some cases) the presence of a tail would make it hard to discern. But the issue of cattle and flock is not addressed.

Have a good Shabbos and a chag kasher ve'sameiach!

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a)

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: שבת הגדול
Dikdukian: נעשה

Dikdukian: Vayishchat

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 - Vayikra

Today, 2 Nissan, is the 17^th yahrtzeit of my Bubbie. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Yehudis bas Reuven Pinchas.

Also, I must mention the loss of a great man and master mechaneich – Rabbi Moshe Juravel z"l – who passed away this past week after battling illness for a number of months. He was my son's 5^th Grade rebbe, introducing him to gemara. I developed a relationship with him as well as he was a formidable dikduk expert and we had numerous long discussions on various topics. He was one of Baltimore's "irreplaceable gems" and will indeed be sorely missed. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Moshe Shlomo ben Yosef Eliezer.

In this week's parsha, we are taught the procedures involved in the various sacrifices. The kohanim, the ones performing most of the duties, are almost always referred to as "b'nei Aharon hakohanim."  In one instance, however, with regards to the placing of the fire on the mizbei'ach, (1:7) the term "b'nei Aharon hakohein," is used. The singular form is used instead of the plural. Initially, I understood that the reference to the kohanim was simply reconstructed. Instead of being referred to as "the sons of Aharon," COMMA, "the kohanim," here they were simply referred to as "The sons of Aharon HaKohein." The sudden change was quite puzzling.

 

However, a number of commentaries comment on this anomalous structure. The sefer Moshav Zekeinim suggests that the placing of the fire took special skill and thus, a specially appointed kohein was needed. R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that the other procedures were in fact performed by numerous kohanim whereas this particular one was performed only by one. Clearly, they are understanding that this term is merely a singular version of the common term used to refer to the kohanim. "HaKohein" refers to the kohein himself, not to Aharon as I had suspected.

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a)

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

 

Weekly Shtikle Blog Roundup:

Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

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 - Vayakheil / Pekudei

In the beginning of this week's parsha, the sum total of all the metals used for the mishkan is given. Ibn Ezra (38:24) and many other commentaries point out that the total of the gold is given without telling us what the gold was used for. But when the totals of the silver and copper are given, we are told exactly what they are used for.

A number of answers are offered. Ramban answers that the silver and copper were used for parts made completely of silver and copper so their exact weights could be measured out in order to count how much was used. The gold, however, was often used to coat different utensils such as the mizbei'ach or the aron and thus it was not possible to weigh out the amount of gold used for each utensil.

Netziv, in Ha'amek Davar, explains that the gold was used for the more holy parts of the mishkan such as the covering of the aron and the menorah and it would not have been respectful to weigh these items on a scale and thus, none of the gold was weighed.

Meshech Chachmah points out that while all the silver and copper that was used was already mentioned in Vayakheil, the making of the vestments of the kohen gadol were yet to be described and thus, the gold had not yet been finished so the Torah could not yet give a full account of its uses.

R' Moshe Shternbuch explains in Ta'am VaDa'as that the Midrash Tanchuma (7:4) tells us that the fools of the generation were accusing Moshe of taking some of the metals for himself and thus, Moshe gave a full account of all the totals. R' Shternbuch points out that the giver of gold obviously gave with more generosity than the giver of silver. Thus, the really generous givers were so pure-hearted that they didn't demand an account of where their money had gone. Those who gave only silver or copper, however, were more stingy and thus, demanded to know where every last penny (for the copper givers, silver coin for the silver givers) went.

CHAZAK, CHAZAK, veNISCHAZEIK!

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'Simchah!
 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ve'asa Vetzalel

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings
Dikdukian: A Wise Correction

Dikdukian: Tarshish Shoham

Dikdukian: Sham and Shamah

 

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 - Ki Sisa / Parah

This past Wednesday marked the 1^st yahrtzeit of HaRav Chaim Kanievsky. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Shemaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, zt"l.

 

When Moshe returns from the mountain to the horrific scene that was the worshipping of the Golden Calf, he is first greeted by Yehoshua who was waiting for him at the bottom of the mountain. Yehoshua hears the sound of the people from afar and tells Moshe that there is a sound of war coming from the camp. Moshe retorts (32:18) "There is not the cry of victory, nor the cry of defeat. It is the distressful sound (of blasphemy and cursing) that I hear." Yehoshua was presumably aware of what had transpired while Moshe was away. It is unclear what his intentions were in declaring that there was a war. (See the interesting post on Dikdukian on this pasuk.)

 

My father, z"l, explains that Yehoshua was very much aware of the treacherous activities that were going on. By asserting that he heard the sounds of war, he intended to give Moshe the impression that there was a dispute amongst the people, that despite the terrible actions of the worshippers of the Golden Calf, there was a significant objection by the others which resulted in a scuffle. Moshe then replied with the sad truth, that the sounds were not those of war but rather a collective sound of blasphemy and light-headedness. Although only a small portion of B'nei Yisrael worshipped the Golden Calf, perhaps as few as 3000, there is little evidence of any dissent from the others. The gemara (Sanhedrin 7a) recounts that Chur, the son of Miriam, refused to build the idol for the people and was murdered. Moshe awakened Yehoshua to the unfortunate fact that the uprising had succeeded uncontested.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Kol Annnos

Dikdukian: Yeiaseh vs.Taaseh by Ephraim Stulberg

Dikdukian: No More Drinking

Dikdukian: Minimizing Sin

Dikdukian: Whys and Wherefores

Dikdukian: Need to Bring this Up

Dikdukian: Oops (Parah)

Dikdukian: Let Your Heart Not be Desolate (Parah)

 

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 - Purim

The world recently marked a full year since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sitting around the table at the seudah last year, I offered my very amateur – and somewhat biased – analysis of why our current government might have a vested interest in a prolonged altercation. Our economy had been in the middle of a pretty steep decline. The prices of gas and many other necessities were sharply on the rise and the supply chain crisis was also taking its toll. With the war exacerbating these issues, it presented the perfect scapegoat, a cataclysmic event on which to hang the blame for our troubles, regardless of the mismatch in timing. Indeed, it presented a very practical case of techilaso bipshi'ah, vesofo be'oneis – a Talmudic concept relating to the laws of custodians where an initial negligence on the part of the custodian is followed by an unpredictable event beyond his control. What was previously attributable to bad policy and poor management was now the fault of a foreign power. (Nevertheless, the halacha (Bava Metzia 42a) is that he is liable.)

This overly simplistic explanation of a very complex situation is definitely debatable. But what in the world does it have to do with Purim (unless we suggest that Russia is the modern-day manifestation of Amaleik?) And why would I waste precious moments of Purim joy discussing geopolitics? Well, it just so happens that this thought allowed me to understand a passage relating to the megillah that had previously perplexed me.

The gemara (Megillah 14a,) in its extensive expounding upon the story of the megillah, likens the relationship of Achashveirosh and Haman two individuals, one of whom had an unwanted mound of dirt in the middle of his field and the other of whom had a ditch in the middle of his field. Each was wallowing in their predicament until they came upon each other and the owner of the ditch asked the other to sell him the dirt so that he may fill his ditch. The owner of the dirt responded, "Please, take it for free."

This passage suggests that both Haman and Achashveirosh had the same desire for the fate of the Jews. They were merely helping each other reach a common goal. But how are we to understand the king's side of this relationship? Why would the ruler of the world, ostensibly, need another to execute his wishes. Could he not have simply commanded it on his own?

Ramban, in the beginning of Shemos (1:10) explains that even all-powerful monarchs who rule with an iron fist need to be careful in how they govern so as not to provoke a revolt. This is why Paroah had to devise a devious plan to subjugate the Jews, rather than just wiping them out right away. Achashveirosh, as well, had to be mindful of the optics of a brutal decree that would originate from his palace. To him, Haman was the fall guy to whom any blame for the genocide could be deflected. Indeed, the decrees were signed with his own ring but they were still Haman's decree. The king still maintained some semblance of plausible deniability. This is why Achashveirosh is portrayed as "needing" Haman to take care of the Jews.

Purim samei'ach!

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'simchah

Please see my Purim archives for some more insightful (hopefully not inciteful) thoughts on Purim. 

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Dikdukian Posts on Megillas Esther

                                                                                                                                                     

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 - Tetzaveh

In general, of the two parshios that deal in depth with various technical details, parshas Terumah is dedicated to the architectural detail of the mishkan and related structures whereas parshas Tetzaveh deals primarily with details relating to the kohanim. The exception that proves this rule is found at the end of this week's parsha. After all the procedures pertaining to the kohanim have been discussed, the Torah details the golden altar that was placed inside the mishkan. One would have expected this to be dealt with in parshas Terumah, when the Torah dealt with the menorah and shulchan. Instead, it is mentioned here.

Meshech Chachmah offers an explanation for the placement of the instructions for the golden altar. Every one of the structures and utensils had a specific purpose. If any of the structures was missing, its purpose could not be performed. If the menorah was not present, the lighting could not take place. In the absence of the outer altar, the sacrifices could not be slaughtered and offered. A kohein certainly could not perform any service without the proper garments. In this, the golden altar differed. The principal function of the golden altar was for the ketores, incense. The gemara (Zevachim 59a) teaches that if the altar is not present, one may still offer the incense in its proper place. The golden altar is excluded from all the other components to show its uniqueness in this respect.

The GR"A offers an insight into this issue which may shed some light on the reasoning behind the above law. The primary purpose of the entire mishkan undertaking was for HaShem's Divine Presence to rest on the nation. This is stated clearly at the very beginning (25:8) of the instruction and stated once again at the end (29:45) "And I will dwell amongst B'nei Yisrael..." Everything within these two statements shared the same purpose. However, the golden altar, which is mentioned afterward, was not for the purpose of affecting the Divine Presence. The principal role of the golden altar was atonement. The daily incense was an atonement offering. The incense was also used in emergency situations to halt the breakout of a plague. Indeed, it is here that we learn that the kohein gadol was to sprinkle blood on the golden altar once a year on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. Since the golden altar served a different purpose than the rest of the components of the mishkan, it is separated and dealt with on its own.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'Simchah!

 

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Dikdukian Posts on Megillas Esther

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

Dikdukian: Of Plurals and Singulars

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings

Dikdukian: Tarshsih veShoham

Dikdukian: Sham and Shamah

 

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.