The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas / Balak

Today, 9 Tammuz, marks the 8^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.

When the elders of Moav and Midyan came to try to hire Bil'am, the pasuk (22:7) recounts that they brought kesamim with them. Rashi writes that the Midyanites came with a plan as to how to determine Bil'am's legitimacy. They said, "If he comes with us this time, he is legitimate. If he tells us to delay, there is no purpose." Once he said "sleep here tonight," they saw that he had no hope and they left him. The GR"A points out the inconsistency in the terminology used by Rashi. It is observed in the Hebrew as Rashi changes terms from "Yeish bo mamash" to "Ein bo to'eles" to "Ein bo tikvah."

 

The GR"A explains that Bil'am professed to be on a higher level of prophecy than Moshe. Although Moshe was above all other prophets in that he may speak to HaShem whenever he wished, Bil'am claimed to be even greater, in that he was "yodei'a da'as Elyon," that he didn't even have to speak to HaShem but that he already knew what He was "thinking," as it were. Therefore, the Midyanites reasoned, if he comes with us right away, it is indeed true that he is better than Moshe - yeish bo mamash - there is legitimacy to his claim. If he tells us to wait then that means he has to confer with HaShem. Although he might still be a great prophet, he is no better than Moshe so why should they side with Bil'am any more than Moshe. Therefore, there is no "purpose" (to'eles). When they saw that he required them to stay the night, they realized that he could only communicate with HaShem at night, which put him well below Moshe on the prophecy scale. Then they saw that he had no hope (tikvah) and they were wasting their time so they left him.

 

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

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Korach

We are taught in Pirkei Avos (5:17) "Every controversy which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, but any controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven will ultimately not endure." The mishnah then proceeds to give examples. The example of a machlokes l'sheim Shamayim, the controversy for the sake of Heaven, is that of Hillel and Shamai. The example of the controversy that was not for the sake of Heaven is Korach and his entourage.

There is a glaring incongruity between the two examples given by the mishnah. The first, Hillel and Shamai, deals with the two sides of the controversy or dispute. The second, Korach and his entourage, strangely, deals with only one side of the dispute. The dispute was in fact between Korach, his entourage and Moshe. HaRav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, gives the following answer in the name of the Nachlas David: The mishnah is zeroing in on a specific attribute in each dispute. Hillel and Shamai argued l'sheim Shamayim. That is, that although they constantly took contrary views, they always had a common goal - to establish the proper halachah. It was never a showdown of man vs. man, or school vs. school. Rather, it was a matter of what was the proper way. Thus, a common objective endured throughout and indeed, whenever Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai disagree in the mishnah, even though we follow Beis Hillel primarily, we are always given both sides. Indeed, the Mishna (Yevamos 1:4) also recounts that although Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai disagreed on matters directly relating to the validity of marriages and the status of tum'ah and taharah, they still trusted each other in practical applications.

Korach, on the other hand, lacked this very commonality of purpose within his own group. Although they appeared to be on the same side, they really did not share a common goal. Each member of the rebellion had his own selfish motives for joining the cause. It was each man for himself, not for each other. In the end, they were not fighting for what they felt was right but rather for what they felt they had coming to them. This was the argument of the righteous wife of On ben Peles who persuaded her husband to withdraw himself from the foolish uprising because there was simply nothing he would get out of it, as recounted by the gemara. The mishnah teaches us that due to this lack of unity and sincerity of cause, not only did the dispute itself disintegrate, but Korach's entire company disintegrated as well.

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

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Shelach

I am saddened to report of the passing of my great uncle, Rabbi Shlomo Jakobovits, earlier this week. He was the principal of Eitz Chaim schools in Toronto for over 30 years. He was also well known by all who met him as a man who was fluent in Torah and history and possessed a unique ability to captivate listeners while expressing his broad knowledge. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Shlomo ben Yoel.

 

Keeping it "in the family," here is an interesting linguistic nuance I heard last year from my cousin, Dr. Yoel Jakobovits. As we all know, parshas Shelach begins with the infamous story of the meraglim. Or does it? The term is never used once. Although in parshas Chukas, it states (21:32) that Moshe sent "leragel es Yazer," here that verb is not used. Rather, the men are sent lasur. However, when the episode is recounted in the beginning of Devarim, it is stated (Devarim 1:24) of the men, "vayragelu osah." And of course, when Yosef first meets his brothers in Mitzrayim, he indeed charges them with being meraglim.

 

The difference in meaning and thus, the reason for the change, he explains, is that a tar would seem to be someone who is seeking out the good, exploring the virtues of the area. Perhaps this is even the origin of the English word, to tour. This was supposed to be the essence of the mission of these 12 men. Indeed, Yehoshua and Caleiv stayed true to that mission with a glowing report of how beautiful and plentiful the land is and how easily it can be conquered. However, there was a transformation that took place from the original purpose and for the other 10 men, it became a very negative fact-finding mission. Ultimately, in retrospect, as recounted in Devarim, they went as meraglim. The other instances in which we see the term used is also with a negative connotation. The spies in Chukas were sent to exploit the weaknesses of Yazer and Yosef charged his brothers with doing the same of Mitzrayim.

 

The term used at the beginning of the parsha is used once again at the end, regarding tzitzis - velo sasuru acharei levavchem ve'acharei eineichem. Here, too, it can be explained that what the Torah is warning us not to do, is to follow our hearts and eyes when they appear to be seeking out a better life for us. We must stay true to our path and not stray after the temptations they present before us.

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

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Beha'alosecha

This past Monday, 16 Sivan, was the 21^st yahrtzeit of R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated l'iluy nishmaso, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi.

In this week's parsha, B'nei Yisrael are instructed to bring what would be their only korban Pesach in the desert. Ohr HaChayim points out a number of intriguing anomalies in the introduction to this event. First, the conventional way for dates to be presented in the Torah is the month followed by the year. For example, the very beginning of sefer Bemidbar: "On the first day of the second month, in the second year." In our case, however, the order is reversed.

Second, this command is different than others in that it is not introduced with Moshe being charged to speak to B'nei Yisrael. Rather, it is simply stated that B'nei Yisrael shall do the Pesach in its time. In that instruction, the vuv appears to be an additive vuv, as if it is connected to something previous. Lastly, what the necessity for this commandment in the first place? The korban Pesach offering was an existing mitzvah. Why did B'nei Yisrael need to be told to do what they were already commanded to do?

Ohr HaChayim offers a fascinating approach. It is stated (Shemos 12:43) regarding the korban Pesach that a ben neichar, a foreigner, may not partake of the Pesach. The halachic interpretation of this status clearly includes a Jew whose deeds have become foreign and has left the fray. (See Rashi Shemos 12:43.) Following the transgression of the golden calf, B'nei Yisrael were in a quandary as to whether they had a status of ben neichar. It was therefore unclear if they were even permitted to bring the korban Pesach at all. Therefore, the year is written first because it is most significant. Despite the fact that this was the second year, and thus after the sin of the golden calf, B'nei Yisrael were nevertheless commanded to bring the Pesach. This charge is not meant to be understood as a commandment, rather, it is a granting of permission to bring the korban and that is why it does not follow the same form as other charges given to Moshe to relay to the nation.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail 

Dikdukian: The Impure

Dikdukian: In My Humble Opinion

Dikdukian: To Make Travel 

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.