The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav / Parah

The Shulchan Aruch states (OC 146:2 and 685:7) that both parshas Zachor and parshas Parah are biblical obligations. The source for this seems to be a variety of rishonim in Brachos 13a. Many acharonim (Ba"ch, Magen Avraham, GR"A) however, say that this is based on an error and in fact only Zachor is d'oraisa. A number of later acharonim, however, suggest justifications for such an obligation. Malbi"m, in his sefer Artzos HaChaim, as well as the Torah Temimah suggests that we see from Rashi in the beginning of Chukas that the parah adumah was an atonement for the Golden Calf. In parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:7) the pasuk says "Zachor al tishkach es asher hiktzafta es HaShem elokecha bamidbar." The Torah Temimah and Malbim learn that this is a reference to a biblical obligation to remember the sin of the Golden Calf which is materialized through the reading of parshas Parah.

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, in Emes L'Yaakov questions the source of parshas Chukas. If we were to be commanded to remember the Golden Calf, why not remember it with a direct reference rather than an allegorical allusion? In Eikev, he points out that this pasuk does not even refer to the Golden Calf for it is the pesukim that follow that refer to the Golden Calf. Rather, he learns that the pasuk refers to Marah (parshas Beshalach) where B'nei Yisrael complained about the bitter waters and HaShem sent a piece of wood which Moshe put in the waters and sweetened them. Chazal teach us that there we were given the parsha of Parah. The purpose of this was to show us how things don't need to be logical in the world of Torah, that the word of HaShem is to be followed because it is the word of HaShem, whether there is a reason or not. This was the lesson to be taken out of the episode of Marah, where a bitter stick thrown into bitter water made the water sweet, an event which on the surface made no sense. It is this that we are commanded to remember in Eikev and therefore, we read parshas Parah to remind us of the incident in Marah and the lessons we are to take out of it.

Aroch HaShulchan (OC 685) gives his own source for the biblical obligation for parshas Parah. In the parsha, the term "chukas olam" is used twice. On the first instance, the Sifrei learns that it is to teach us that the ashes of the Parah may be used forever, even if there is no beis haMikdash. Aroch HaShulchan posits that the second instance must be a reference to the reading of the parsha and that's why we read it every year.

Have a good Shabbos

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: נעשה

Dikdukian: Vayishchat

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

I recently heard a beautiful perspective on a thematic element of the megillah from Rabbi Gershon Schaffel of Skokie, IL.

 

Esther's life is obviously turned upside down when she is chosen to become queen. Any aspirations she had of living a purely frum life feel by the wayside as she took her place in the palace of one of the most powerful kingdoms in history. Just about the only thought that could get her through this predicament was that somehow, this was all for the best and part of HaShem's master plan.

 

Although the story of the megillah moves rather quickly, in truth, it was more than five years for which Esther had to survive on this one glint of hope. Sure enough, the stage was set when Haman's decree came down. When she initially resists Mordechai's plea to beseech the king to intercede, Mordechai retorts with a mussar schmooze of sorts. He ends with (4:14) "who knows if perhaps it is for this very reason that you have been put in this royal position." Indeed, it was no longer time to wonder what greater good was behind the unfolding of events of years prior. This is it.

 

In the beginning of the next perek, as Esther prepares to make her daring appeal, the pasuk recounts (5:1) "Vatilbash Esther malchus." The simple meaning is that she put on her royal clothes, with the word malchus meaning bigdei malchus. However, on a deeper level, this pasuk is telling us that Esther, having absorbed and internalized Mordechai's message, finally embraced her role as queen. All these years, she had only tolerated her situation without any vision or understanding of why she had been put there. Now, she was truly able to seize the day and realize her destiny. And we all know the rest of the story.

 

This can certainly serve as inspiration for anyone who finds themselves in a life predicament which may just not seem right.  The true challenge is to embrace the destiny of the moment.

 

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 - Vayikra / Zachor

In pasuk 3:1 we are introduced to the concept of the korban shelamim. Rashi explains the meaning of the word shelamim as coming from the word shalom, peace, that it puts peace between Man and his Master. However, the wording chosen by Targum Onkelos for shelamim is rather intriguing. In all instances it is referred to as nichsas kudshaya, meaning holy slaughtering, which clearly does not follow the simple translation. Why?

 

One sefer on Targum Yonasan ben Uziel suggests that it was to show that shelamim is excluded from the laws of kodshei kadashim and is therefore only referred to as kodesh. 

 

However, a friend of mine offered what I believe is a more insightful answer. In 17:1-5 we are taught that in the desert, slaughtering an animal for one's own pleasure as we do today, was forbidden. Rather, anyone who wanted to eat an animal was required to bring it as a korban shelamim. The purpose of this is clearly stated in 17:5 "So that B'nei Yisrael may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to HaShem..." The very essence of the shelamim was an animal that would otherwise have been slaughtered and eaten by its owner without any sanctification, but instead was brought to the mizbei'ach and made holy by being offered as a korban. This is in contrast with other sacrifices brought out of necessity, or the olah which, although it may be offered as a pure donation, is not eaten and therefore does not represent the same idea. Since the shelamim represents the sanctification of what would otherwise have been mundane it is given the name nichsas kudshaya, holy slaughtering.

 

Have a good Shabbos. 

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian: Zachar Amaleik? What was he smoking? (Including a new addendum on the true pronunciation from R' Aryeh Leib Lopiansky)

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 - Pekudei

The pasuk (40:22) recounts the placing of the shulchan in the north before the placing of the menorah in the south. However, points out R' Chaim Brisker, the mishkan was arranged from the kodesh hakadashim and out, i.e. they began in the west and moved eastward. There is a general rule in matters pertaining to the holy service, kol pinos she'atah poneh, lo yehu ela derech yamin.(Sotah 15b and various other sources). This is to say that any time there is a choice between turning to the left or to the right, one must turn to the right. If so, when facing east, one should theoretically turn right to the south and place the menorah first and then place the shulchan in the north.

 

R' Chaim answers that when detailing the layout Moshe was commanded (26:35) that aside from being in the south, the menorah should be nochach hashulchan, opposite the shulchan. Therefore, it had to be placed after the shulchan so that it would face it immediately. This is also the reason why the outer altar was put in its place before the kiyor which was closer to the mishkan for in the description of the kiyor (30:18) we find it is to be placed bein ohel moed uvein hamizbeiach, between ohel moed and the altar which is only possible if both are in place beforehand. R' Chaim Kanievsky, zt"l, gives this answer as well.

 

Chazak, chazak venischazeik!

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
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 - Vayakheil

In the beginning of parshas Vayakheil Moshe begins to instruct the nation on how they are to proceed with the building of the mishkan. At the conclusion of Moshe's assembly, the pasuk recounts (35:20) that the congregation of B'nei Yisrael exited from the presence of Moshe Rabbeinu. R' Elya Lopian, in Lev Eliyahu, comments that it would have been sufficient for the pasuk to say that B'nei Yisrael exited. We knew where they were. Why is it necessary for the pasuk to say that they exited from Moshe's presence?

 

Imagine a street in a city that contained both a bar and a library. If you were to see a man walking crooked down the street, barely able to stand on his own two feet, explains R' Lopian, you need only take one look at him and you know exactly from which of the two he has just emerged. (As the old joke goes – it's 5 minutes from the house to the bar, but 45 minutes from the bar to the house. The difference is staggering.) Likewise, the pasuk here is telling us that when B'nei Yisrael left Moshe's presence, they were fundamentally changed people. They were not simply B'nei Yisrael. They were a nation who had just left the presence of their great leader, Moshe Rabbeinu, having just received instructions to build a dwelling place for the Divine Presence, no less. Merely being in his midst left its mark on them.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: A Wise Correction

Dikdukian: Ve'asa Vetzalel

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings
Al Pi Cheshbon: 10,000 Kikars

 

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

When Moshe returns to HaShem to begin his defence of B'nei Yisrael, he opens by stating (32:31) "The nation has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves a god of gold." Rashi, quoting the gemara (Berachos 32a, Yoma 86b) writes that Moshe's intention with this opening argument was, in fact, to place the blame on HaShem, so to speak, for having showered so much gold upon B'nei Yisrael. Rashi adds a parable that illustrates Moshe's argument. It is assumed that Moshe is referring to the loot that B'nei Yisrael were commanded to collect before leaving Egypt.

My father, z"l, once asked me that Rashi writes (15:22) that the spoils collected at Yam Suf when they Egyptian soldiers were washed onto the shore along with their horses and chariots was far greater than that which was collected before B'nei Yisrael left Egypt. If so, Moshe's argument is no longer valid. HaShem may have commanded B'nei Yisrael to collect the gold from the Egyptians in Egypt. But they were never commanded to loot the soldiers after they were washed on the shore of Yam Suf. How, then, can Moshe claim that HaShem was solely responsible for their wealth?

I believe the answer lies in the Vilna Gaon's understanding of the two episodes which I will summarize briefly. The gemara (Berachos 9a) relates that HaShem asked in the form of a request that B'nei Yisrael collect the silver and gold from the Egyptians. This was done in order to appease Avraham Avinu, so that he does not claim that the promise that his descendants would be subjugated was kept but the promise that they leave with a large bounty was not.

The GR"A asks that if this was in fact the proper fulfilment of the promise to Avraham, why was it done to "appease" him so that he does not raise a complaint? Avraham Avinu's reaction should not be the issue. It should be a matter of whether or not it is time to fulfill the promise. He answers that in truth, the exodus from Egypt was only ultimately complete at Yam Suf where the Egyptians truly got their deserved punishment for subjugating B'nei Yisrael. It was only then that HaShem's promise to Avraham that his descendants shall leave with a great bounty needed to be fulfilled. However, in case Avraham mistakenly viewed the leaving of Egypt as the ultimate redemption, HaShem had B'nei Yisrael collect a great bounty there before leaving to avoid any possible objections from Avraham.

According to this approach, although B'nei Yisroel were never commanded to collect the adornments from the horses of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, this too was part the fulfilment of the promise that HaShem made to Avraham Avinu 400 years prior. Therefore, Moshe Rabbeinu's defence was still valid.

Have a good Shabbos.

 

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

 

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.