The Weekly Shtikle - Sukkos

This coming Tuesday, 18 Tishrei, is the 18^th yahrtzeit of HaRav Naftali Neuberger, zt"l, of Ner Yisroel.

This shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Naftali ben Meir Halevi.

 

I heard the following from Rav Tzvi Mordechai Feldheim of Mesivta Kesser Torah last year:

The four species we traditionally take and shake on Sukkos carry numerous different symbolisms. If you ask your typical student, perhaps the most well-known is the midrash (Tanchuma Emor 19) comparing each item to a part of the body. The one lulav is compared to the spine. The one esrog resembles our heart. We take two aravos whose leaves are shaped like lips – of which, of course, we have two. The leaves of the hadas resemble the eyes. Why, then, do we take three, rather than two?

Another oddity regarding the hadas is observed in the discussion in the gemara (Sukkah 32b) regarding configurations of the leaves that render a hadas invalid. The stem should have three leaves coming out together at the same level. If one of the leaves is offset from the other two, although Rav Acha would consider this a virtue, Mar bar Ameimar declared that his father would refer to such a branch as a hadas shoteh – literally, a crazy myrtle. Why is this adjective used for the hadas? We don't find any other invalid mitzvah objects being referred to as shoteh.

We commonly associate the work sukkah etymologically with the schach, the covering, to which many of the intricate halachic details apply. Rabbeinu Bachye (Devarim 16:14), however, suggests that the word is derived from socheh, to see (as in Rashi to Bereishis 11:29). More specifically, it refers to the more abstract vision of wisdom and insight.

Rabbi Feldheim explains that the theme of the sukkah demands of us to let go of our pursuit of material possessions and leave our home in favour of a flimsy hut to remind us of that which is fleeting and meaningless and focus our attention to serving HaShem, the true purpose of our existence. This is the vision to which Rabbeinu Bachye refers that this mitzvah makes so clear. In addition to our two physical eyes, we must possess the third eye to realize this vision. That is why we take three hadasim. As well, the branch with only two leaves aligned is referred to as shoteh because symbolically, it represents the individual who sees only with his eyes and lacks the awareness to understand his true purpose.

Have a good Shabbos and chag samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Harachaman hu yakim...

Al Pi Cheshbon: How many bakashos in Ya'aleh v'Yavo

 

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 - Ha'azinu / Shuvah / Yom Kippur

At the end of this week's parsha, Moshe is told to go to the mountain where he is to pass away. The pasuk states the reason(s) why he is dying here (32:51): "Al asher me`altem bi... al asher lo kidashtem osi," (Concerning the rock-hitting incident) because of that which you trespassed against me... that which you did not sanctify me. Why is it that two reasons are given? The GR"A on Pirkei Avos 3:1, "lifnei mi ata atid litein din vecheshbon" writes that din, judgement, refers to the direct judgement of a person's deeds. Cheshbon, calculation, refers to what that person could have been doing at that time. So, one is judged not only for their bad deeds, but for the good deeds they could have been doing at that time. This, suggests Meshech Chachma, is the meaning of this pasuk. "Al asher me`altem bi" refers to the din, that which they did. "Al asher lo kidashtem osi" refers to the cheshbon, the judgement on what they could have done at that time. Had Moshe not hit the rock, there would have been a kiddush HaShem.

Meshech Chachma explains at the end of parshas Nitzavim that this concept is a very important one to keep in mind on Yom Kippur. The gemara (Yoma 20a) says that the gematria of haSatan is 364, to hint that every day of the year the satan is allowed to do his "work." But on one day of the year, Yom Kippur, he is not. This day is set aside to allow us to do a full teshuvah without having to battle the satan. When we say the berachah of shehecheyanu at the beginning of Yom Kippur, we must say it with total and utter happiness, in appreciation of this opportunity that HaShem has given us. But if we don't use this time to do teshuvah, the time that HaShem has specifically set aside for teshuvah, how much greater of a transgression it is, that we have actively rejected this opportunity.

Have a good Shabbos and a gemar chashimah tov(ah).

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Weekly Shtikle Blog Roundup:

Dikdukian: HAL

Dikdukian: Remember Us for the Good

Dikdukian: A Happy Ending

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 - Rosh HaShanah

Following each instance of shofar blowing during the repetition of mussaf, and even on Shabbos when we do not blow the shofar, we recite a small paragraph declaring the gravity and importance of the day and including a short prayer as well. This paragraph begins with the words hayom haras olam, today is the [anniversary of the] conception of the world. This is in accordance with R' Eliezer in the gemara (Rosh HaShanah 10b) who asserts that the world was created in Tishrei. More precisely, he contends that the first five days of creation were before Tishrei and the sixth day of creation, the day that man was created was the day we know of as Rosh HaShanah.

 

There are two points I find puzzling about this opening phrase. First, the world includes all of the creations from the first day and on. Why would this day be referred to as the conception of the world? Perhaps the conception of humanity or of civilization would be more precise.

 

Second, the step in the circle of life one would probably associate with something new is birth. A fetus in the gestational period does very little on its own. Life, as we know it, begins with birth. Why is this day referred to as the "conception" of the world rather than its birth?

 

It should be noted that Abudarham actually addresses both these points. He answers the first problem by stating simply that the sixth day was the completion of the conception of the world. It was not a world until it was complete. He avoids the second problem by stating that the word haras can refer to birth as well as conception and quotes a pasuk in Iyov (3:3) to support that assertion.

 

Perhaps, when it comes to human life, birth is certainly the ultimate beginning whereas the gestation period is simply the preamble and preparation for that event. As a metaphor for creation, however, conception is certainly the pinnacle. The miraculous creative spark is conception whereas birth is simply a necessary step in the development of the human being, bringing it out into the world to fully develop. It is therefore more accurate to refer to the creation of the world as conception rather than birth.

 

Additionally, we might regard the metaphoric gestational period as corresponding to a certain block of time at the beginning of history. Perhaps Adam and Chavah's brief stay in Gan Eiden was humanity's incubation period, a time of unparalleled closeness between man and God. Following this short period, man was expelled as a fetus is expelled from its mother's womb, and forced to live the grueling life in this world as we know it.

 

The difficulty with this understanding, of course, is that getting booted out of Gan Eiden was not in the plans. It's hard to imagine a master plan for creation including Adam's sin and subsequent eviction. Perhaps the gestational period was the 2448 years that led up to the giving of the Torah and the "birth" of B'nei Yisrael as a nation, an event which we are told by Rashi on the very first pasuk of the Torah was the very purpose of creation. The experiences of our forefathers shaped us as a nation forever. On Rosh HaShanah, thousands of years ago, was when it all began.

 

Ironically, as I was going over the above, I happened upon a very recent video of HaRav Yitzchak Breitowitz on Ohr Somayach's YouTube channel and he discusses this phrase with a very intriguing spin. He points out that the word olam in Tanach is not a reference to the entirety of the physical world but rather, it is a temporal reference to eternity. He therefore understands haras olam to mean the conception of the new eternity we will be facing in our lives [as a consequence of the judgment.] Here is the clip.

 

A good Shabbos and shanah tovah umsukah to all!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Remember us for the Good

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 - Nitzavim / Vayeilech

As the Torah wraps up the last of the 613 mitzvos, we are taught of the mitzvah of hakheil, which was performed on the Sukkos following a shemitah year. One of the unique qualities of this mitzvah is that it contains a Biblical requirement of child involvement on the part of the parents. Whereas any mitzvah contains within it an assumed requirement of chinuch, education of children, here it is clearly spelled out. We are commanded (31:12) to gather around to hear the various readings from sefer Devarim "so that we will hear and so that we will learn and will fear HaShem our God and will observe to do all the words of the Torah." In the very next pasuk, the purpose of the children's attendance is discussed. It is so that "those who don't know will listen and will learn to fear HaShem your God..."

 

Meshech Chachmah points out that there is a phrase missing from the description of the children's purpose. The words veshamru la'asos seem to be relevant only to the adults. He explains that this phrase refers to the performance of active commandments, mitzvos aseih. Children under the age of Bar Mitzvah are not commanded in specific mitzvos aseih. There is only a general requirement of chinuch, to educate the children in the mitzvos so that when they do become of age, they know how to perform them properly. Prohibitive commandments, mitzvos lo sa'aseih, however, do specifically involve children. The gemara (Yevamos 114) teaches us that Beis Din is required to separate a child from eating neveilah, meat that comes from an animal that was not properly slaughtered. Therefore, part of the children's purpose is velamdu leyir'ah, a phrase associated with mitzvos lo sa'aseih because this aspect of mitzvah observance is directly relevant to them. The reference to mitzvos aseih, however, is omitted because it is not immediately applicable.

Have a good Shabbos and a kesivah vachasimah tovah.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Name of the Parsha

Dikdukian: Don't you Worry

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 Savo

This week's parsha begins with the laws pertaining to the bringing of bikurim. The bringing of the bikurim is accompanied by a recitation of a number of verses known as viduy bikurim. The first pasuk that he must recite reads (26:3) "higadti hayom laShem elokecha ki vasi el ha'aretz asher nishba HaShem la'avoseinu..." Rashi on pasuk 11 writes that due to the possessive reference to the forefathers in this pasuk, avoseinu, a ger (convert) who brings bikurim does not recite the viduy for the land was never promised to his forefathers. This ruling is based on the Sifrei and the mishnah (Bikurim 1:4). However, the Yerushalmi (Bikurim 1:4) reaches the opposite conclusion. The halachic ruling is further a matter of dispute in Tosafos (Bava Basra 81a). Rambam (Hilchos Bikurim 4:3) writes that a ger does in fact read the viduy for the reason given in the Yerushalmi, that the word avoseinu can be interpreted as referring to Avraham Avinu who is called av hamon goyim. Thus, even geirim can claim Avraham as a father.

What is puzzling about this ruling of the Rambam is that with regards to viduy ma'aser, the next issue dealt with in the parsha, he rules (Hilchos Ma'aser Sheini 11:17) that the ger does not read the viduy. The viduy for ma'aser contains the identical term, la'avoseinu. However, Rambam's ruling is due to the reference made to Eretz Yisrael (26:15) as ha'adamah asher nasata lanu, the land that You gave us and geirim do not have a portion in the land. But a similar phrase is found in viduy bikurim, (26:3) ha'aretz asher nishba HaShem la'avoseinu lases lanu. What is the difference between the wording in viduy bikurim and the wording of viduy ma'aser that led Rambam to rule differently?

The sefer Kapos Temarim suggests that the difference lies in the tense of the reference to Eretz Yisrael. In viduy ma'aser we refer to the land that "was given" in the past tense. This would exclude geirim because they were not given a portion in the land when they came initially. However, in viduy bikurim we refer to the land that was sworn "to be given" in the future. There is a pasuk in Yechezkel that suggests that geirim will ultimately get a portion in Eretz Yisrael. So, this pasuk does not exclude geirim. Although in viduy bikurim there is also a reference (26:10) to the land that "was given," this refers to the land that he actually owns and not to the land that was promised to the forefathers from which the geirim were excluded. Therefore, geirim may read viduy bikurim.

The sefer Aruch LaNer suggests another difference between ma'aser and bikurim. The ger's reading of the viduy is predicated upon the word la'avoseinu referring to Avraham Avinu. However, the word la'avoseinu in viduy ma'aser appears in connection to the promise of eretz zavas chalav udvash, the land flowing with milk and honey. The forefathers were never promised a land of milk and honey. The reference to milk and honey was not mentioned until B'nei Yisrael were in Egypt. Since la'avoseinu could not refer to Avraham Avinu in this instance, it must exclude the ger from reading this viduy.

I suggest that another difference might be that in viduy bikurim the land is referred to as ha'aretz whereas in viduy ma'aser it is referred to as ha'adamah. Perhaps ha'aretz refers to the country as a whole. The privilege to benefit from Eretz Yisrael surely does not exclude geirim. The country was given to them just as it was to anyone else. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude them. But the word adamah refers more to the physical ground itself which connotes actual property. Real property was something that geirim were not granted and therefore, they are excluded.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim 

Dikdukian: Tough Day at the Office

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.