The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeitzei

When Yaakov finally manages to escape the clutches of his evil father-in-law, Lavan, Rachel decides to do a little housecleaning and steals her father's idols. It didn't take long for Lavan to realize this. When he catches up with Yaakov and family, he charges Yaakov with the theft of his gods. Yaakov pleads not guilty but, not knowing that Rachel had stolen them, offers Lavan to look around for them and declares that the one with whom they are found will not live. The pasuk that follows (31:33) is a rather confusing one and is the subject of much discussion. It reads, "And Lavan came into Yaakov's tent and in Leah's tent and in the tents of the two maids and did not find them. He then exited Leah's tent into Rachel's tent." How did he exit Leah's tent when he was in the tent of one of the maids? Rashi adds to the confusion by commenting that the tent of Rachel and the tent of Yaakov were one and the same and he was there twice. Is the pasuk out of order? It remains quite difficult to try and map out Lavan's exact search path.

 

R' Chayim Kanievsky, in Ta'ama D'kra, gives a fascinating and even slightly entertaining interpretation of the pasuk. He describes that the four tents were arranged in a 2x2 cube with the tents of Leah and Rachel on top, each of them above the tents of their respective maids. After passing through Yaakov's tent, he began to search in Leah's tent because she was the oldest. From Leah's tent he came down to inspect the tents of the two maids and after coming up empty there he realized he may not simply be searching for his idols but rather chasing them. Maybe the idols were being passed from room to room as he made his way around. So, he thought, he would pull a fast one on them and go back the other way to look for them. Therefore, instead of entering Rachel's tent from Bilhah's tent, he came from Leah's tent because he had backtracked through the tents he had already visited. This explanation is even compatible with Rashi. He went through all the tents and then traced his steps back to Rachel's tent where he began. This resolves much of the confusion concerning  this pasuk. There are, however, many different ways to understand this pasuk amongst the commentaries but this, to me, was the most novel and most interesting.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Wordsthatsticktogether

Dikdukian: From his Sleep

Dikdukian: Complete it

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule

Dikdukian: Different Types of Kissing

Dikdukian: Come on, People - Part II

AstroTorah: Did Yaakov Leave the Solar System by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Yaakov's Lesson on Zemanei HaYom by R' Ari Storch

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 - Toledos

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my rebbe and Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Harav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l (Yaakov Moshe ben Refael Nissan Shlomo) whose 23^rd yahrtzeit was yesterday, 3 Kisleiv.

Most of the notes we encounter when reading the Torah with the proper cantillation are part of a group of mainstream notes which are distributed, according to their rules, fairly evenly over the entire Torah. There are a number of notes, however, that appear very infrequently. The shalsheles, which appeared in both of the last two parshiyos, is probably the best known of this group. In this week's parsha we find another unusual note - the mercha kefulah. When Yaakov dresses up as Eisav to receive the blessings, after feeding Yitzchak the "fast food" that Rivkah prepared, Yaakov gives Yitzchak wine to drink (27:25). The mercha kefulah appears under the word lo, for him. Whereas the placement of the regular notes is usually governed by strict grammatical rules, the special notes usually hold a deeper intrinsic significance. (In an old parshas Tzav shtikle, the significance of the shalsheles was discussed.)

Although it is not evident that his intention is to account for the use of the mercha kefulah, Chizkuni makes a comment on this pasuk that may offer some insight into this issue. Chizkuni writes that Yaakov brought his father wine because wine has a tendency to cloud one's judgment, thus making it less likely for Yitzchak to discover that he was being fooled. A mercha kefulah, as its name indicates, appears simply as a doubling of the popular mercha note, just as a "w" is actually made up of two "u"s… sort of. Thus, it is usually used to denote a double meaning. (I have seen this quote but I am unsure of the exact source.) Perhaps, the word lo in this pasuk has two interpretations as well. The obvious reading is that Yaakov brought the wine for Yitzchak to drink, whereby the pronoun lo refers to Yitzchak. However, with Chizkuni's interpretation, Yaakov was bringing the wine as part of his scheme. Since he was doing this to further his own cause, lo may alternatively refer to Yaakov himself. The mercha kefulah is therefore used to indicate that there are two ways to read this pasuk.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: (From the) The Fats of the Land

Dikdukian: Be'er Sheva / Shava

Dikdukian: I will eat, You will eat

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 - Chayei Sarah

When Avraham requests an audience with Efron HaChiti, the pasuk (23:10) recounts "And Efron was sitting in the midst of B'nei Cheis. " Rashi here comments that the word yosheiv, sitting, is in the present tense, is written without a vav. Without vowels, it may be read yashav, in past tense. This, suggests Rashi, implies that he only now sat amongst them. The term "sitting amongst them" implies a position of stature. Here, Efron had just been appointed judge.

 

This explanation of Rashi should sound rather familiar. Just one week ago we had almost the exact same comment from Rashi with regards to Lot. When the angels arrived, (19:1) Lot was sitting at the gates of Sedom. Rashi interprets "sitting at the gates" to refer to a position of judgement and again the missing vav insinuates that this promotion had just taken place. Certainly, this abnormal spelling must be addressed in both instances. But why is this a necessary fact for the Torah to convey to us on these two occasions?

 

The position of judge is certainly one that involves a great deal of responsibility. Certainly, in a culture such as that of Sedom, the task of a judge was quite daunting. Even though both Lot and Efron seemed to have been appointed, it still takes a great deal of courage and feeling of responsibility to accept the appointment. It also pertains directly to one of the seven mitzvos that even gentiles are required to keep.

 

Perhaps, the Torah is conveying to us in both these instances the great reward that is allotted to those who bravely take upon themselves positions of responsibility for the greater good. These two characters, as analyzed by the commentaries, are certainly not short of flaws. Yet both are put into a somewhat positive spotlight. It was this noble act that gave Lot the merit to be saved from the destruction of Sedom. Indeed, it was in Avraham's merit as well that he was saved. But had Lot truly been as wicked as the rest of the city, perhaps Avraham's merit would not have been enough. And it was Efron's accepting of his position as judge for which he merited to be a part of this historic acquisition.

 

Moreover, when one seizes the reins of responsibility, they are realizing that they cannot simply wait for this void to be filled by another. Often times the position of responsibility is one that could, in theory, easily be filled by another candidate. But the man of responsibility seizes the moment and does not delegate or shirk these duties. For this reason, it is not enough that they simply be rewarded. Rather, it is on the very day, as Rashi notes, that they accepted these positions that they are instantly rewarded.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

Dikdukian: My Master's Brother(s)

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 - Vayeira

This week's shtikle, as per tradition for parshas Vayeria, is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben avi mori Reuven Pinchas, whose 47^th yahrtzeit was yesterday, 18 Cheshvan.

 

As well, this coming Sunday, 21 of Chesvan, is the 24^th yahrtzeit of my great uncle, Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel ben Yoel.

 

After Avimelech mistakenly takes Sarah from Avraham, HaShem comes to him in a dream at night and tells him that he will die for his sin. Avimelech then proceeds to plead his innocence after which HaShem responds and lets him off the hook. The response begins (20:6) "Elokim said to him in the dream..." From pasuk 3 we are already aware that HaShem was speaking to Avimelech bachalom halaylah, in a dream of the night. Why is it necessary to repeat this point?

 

On a separate occasion, we have discussed the many differences in the conduct of Avimelech as opposed to Par'oah in just about the same circumstance. In addition to those points, Paroah was not even given the honour of a visit or warning from God, presumably because he simply was not worthy of such a revelation. Avimelech, on the contrary, did merit that visit. Instead of mere hints that something was not right, he received a message directly from HaShem, much in the way, it would seem, that any other prophet did. Yet, we do not ever see Avimelech referred to as a prophet. Wouldn't this dream constitute a prophecy?

 

I therefore suggest, albeit without any textual source to support this theory, that true prophecy consists not only of a message from HaShem but the ability to converse with Him in the context of that prophecy. What happened here is that Avimelech actually awoke after receiving the message from HaShem in his dream. His words, quoted in the pasuk, were exclamations uttered while awake. He then went back to sleep and HaShem answered him in yet another dream. There was never an actual two-way conversation going on within the dream itself. Contrarily, when HaShem comes to Bil'am in his dream (Bemidbar 22:9-12) there is a clear dialog. Nevertheless, due to this nuance, Avimelech is not considered a navi. For the same reason, Lavan is also not considered a navi after HaShem spoke directly to him (31:24).

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: A Scratch on the Wall

AstroTorah: Witnesses to Sedom's Destruction

AstroTorah: The Mysterious Midrash by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Lot's Twilight Escape by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: I Can't Believe it's not Fresh by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

Dikdukian: Be'er Shava

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.