The Weekly Shtikle - Pinechas

Throughout chumash, we find examples of gratitude and compassion some of which are rather surprising. The most significant that come to mind are Moshe's not smiting the ground or the water which facilitated his survival and our instruction not to show undue hostility towards the Egyptian because we were "guests" in their land. At the beginning of this week's parsha, Moshe is commanded regarding the eventual destruction of the nation of Midyan for their role in seducing the nation towards the worship of Ba'al Pe'or and the illicit encounter involving Kuzbi. But Midyan was the nation that provided a place of refuge for Moshe when he fled Egypt. He spent a number of formidable years in Midyan and it is not inconceivable to suggest he enjoyed some form of protection and immunity from the crime he had committed back home. Indeed, it was not Moshe who led the war effort. Still, one might have expected the Midyanites to be afforded some degree of consideration when facing their Divinely-commanded retribution.

I found that the Tur, quoted in Shaarei Aharon, does touch on this point. First, Rashi explains that the commandment of "tzaror" denotes not a directive for a singular campaign but a constant and present enmity towards Midyan for what they had done. Tur understands that there are two distinct commandments. Tazror is in the singular and directed at Moshe specifically for he may very well have been the target of the Midyanite plot as the midrash recounts that Kuzbi was instructed to attempt to seduce the greatest among them. The subsequent commandment of "vehikisem osam," referring to the ultimate destruction of the Midyanites was specifically stated in the plural, not directly to Moshe, because he grew up in Midyan.

Malbim writes the justification of the commandment given here actually refers to three separate aspects justifying the defeat of Midyan. "Ki tzorerim heim lachem" refers to the present. "Asher nikelu lachem" in the past tense refers to the plot they devised. "Ve'al devar Kuzbi" is indicative of a current plan to exact revenge on B'nei Yisrael for the killing of Kuzbi. With this analysis, the military campaign against Midyan was not simply a war of revenge and retaliation. The nation of Midyan was still plotting further attacks and constituted a clear and present danger. Perhaps for that reason there was no room for a compassionate allowance.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian:  Shabbas be'Shabbato

Dikdukian:  I say Yericho, you say Yereicho
Dikdukian:  All of the brothers

Dikdukian: One Big Happy Family?

Dikdukian: Pinechas: What's in a Name?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Probability of the Goral

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 - Balak

Tomorrow, 14 Tammuz, is the 37^h yahrzeit of R' Yaakov Yitzchack (ben Yehuda Leib HaLevi) Ruderman, zt"l, the first Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel. 

 

Sunday, 15 Tammuz, was the 21^st yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Mrs. Shirley Yeres, Chaya Shaindel bas Alexander HaLevi.

  

Tuesday, 17 Tammuz, is the 3^rd yahrtzeit of my dear father, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h. As well, it is the 25^th yahrzeit of R' Shmuel Yaakov

(ben Yitzchok Matisyahu) Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel.

  

The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

 

At the beginning of this week's parsha, we find that Moav is frightened of B'nei Yisrael because of what they did to Sichon. Some are bothered by the fact that B'nei Yisrael are commanded not to wage war with Moav. So, they need not have worried. However, it is unclear to me how exactly Moav would have known that. But I was once asked a more intriguing question concerning Balak's entire approach to B'nei Yisrael. Sichon met his demise only because he started up with B'nei Yisrael. B'nei Yisrael clearly had no intentions of war with Sichon and he was the one who came out and attacked. As long as Balak avoids a confrontation, what does he have to be afraid of? If he simply leaves B'nei Yisrael alone, his country is in no danger whatsoever.

 

At this point, I wish to advertise the recent release of the sefer Oneg LaShem which is posthumously authored by R' Moshe Juravel, zt"l, my son's fifth grade rebbe. He makes this question just that much stronger by pointing out that if you follow the path of B'nei Yisrael's travels, they would have already passed Moav. They were well in their rear-view mirror at this point.

 

However, R' Juravel's point essentially invalidates an earlier answer I had suggested to this question: Perhaps what frightened Moav was that they observed that as soon as B'nei Yisrael requested a passage through Sichon's land, that is when everything started to fall apart for him. Indeed, Sichon started the war, but what was he supposed to do? How is a country supposed to see such a request as a friendly gesture? The way Balak saw it, as soon as B'nei Yisrael asks for permission to go through the land, it means trouble. Now, in the parsha we are not told that any such request was sent to Moav. However, in the haftara of Chukas (Shoftim 11:17) we find that messengers were sent to Moav as well with the same request. Perhaps the episode of Balak happened after these messengers were sent and that is why he became frightened. When Balak saw his nation following the same course of events as that of Sichon, he felt threatened and saw fit to take preemptive action.

 

However, there is a much simpler approach to Balak's actions which teaches a great lesson, one that is most fitting for current events. Perhaps Balak was simply misinformed and misguided. B'nei Yisrael's trouncing of Sichon's army ultimately had them looking like the aggressors. B'nei Yisrael began to be looked upon as a force of terror ripping through the region. Balak was not aware, or did not allow himself to be aware that B'nei Yisrael had no intentions of any involvement with him whatsoever. This whole parsha is therefore a clear example of ma'aseh avos siman labanim, a harbinger of events to follow for many generations. Throughout history, Jews have always been vilified on false pretenses. But in our days, it is most glaringly evident. After the Holocaust there was an atmosphere of pity for the Jewish people. But that only lasted for a fleeting moment. Israel has been blessed by HaShem with the strongest and most successful of armies. With the Divine gift of power and might, they have crushed their enemies to bitter defeat. But because of that, (in addition to pure unadulterated anti-Semitism,) we are looked upon as aggressors. Each war was a defensive battle but yet, we are looked upon as instigators and subsequently, occupiers. In sweeping, defensive attacks against terrorists, we are seen as terrorists ourselves. We defend ourselves against blatantly genocidal maniacs, only to be labeled ourselves as waging a genocide.  As we see in our parsha, this is old news. As the generations pass it is evident that the Jews will always be misunderstood and misjudged in the public eye.

 

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 - Chukas

Monday, 9 Tammuz, is the 9^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.

 

Towards the end of this week's parsha, B'nei Yisrael are confronted by Sichon and his mighty army (21:1-3). B'nei Yisrael made a vow to HaShem. The vow itself is cause for discussion in and of itself. In the end, HaShem delivered them and they defeated the Canaanites and destroyed their cities. They then named the place of their battle Charmah, destruction.

 

Charmah - that should sound familiar. Only two parshios ago, a small group from B'nei Yisrael rose up and charged towards Eretz Yisrael in an attempt to vindicate themselves for the sin of the spies which had doomed them to 40 years in the desert. As we know (14:45) They were quickly wiped out by the Amalekites and Canaanites who dwelt on the mountain and were beaten unto HaCharmah. Rashi comments that the place was named for the events that transpired there, namely the destruction of that group from B'nei Yisrael. Being that the battle site in this week's parsha was named on the spot, it is safe to assume that these were not the same place.

 

I believe the identical names given to these places is surely no coincidence. The Charmah of Shelach was named for a tragic destruction of a group of over-zealous fighters. More importantly, it symbolized that HaShem had put His final stamp on the 40-year decree. It became clear that no act of repentance could possibly overturn the decree. The aron stayed put and did not go out to accompany the fighters, thus devoiding them of Divine protection. This defeat brought home the reality of B'nei Yisrael's failure.

 

It was now many years later. Most of B'nei Yisrael was now made up of those who would merit to enter Eretz Yisrael. This was the first battle that B'nei Yisrael would fight since that fateful defeat at the hands of Amaleik and Canaan. It did not get off to a good start, either. But B'nei Yisrael endured with prayer and devotion and through their prayers HaShem led them to victory over their adversaries. This battle symbolized the turnaround from the previous generation. The dramatic defeat of decades ago made the clear statement to their forebearers that they would not enter Eretz Yisrael. Contrarily, this dramatic victory over Sichon indicated that the conquest of Eretz Yisrael had begun. To accentuate this turnaround, they named the site of this great battle the very same name as the site of the previous battle. The name of the site where B'nei Yisrael were once smitten by the Amalekites and Canaanites was now the very same name of the place where they devastated Sichon and his army on their way to entering Eretz Yisrael.

 

Please see Noam Jacobson's video post for this week where he explains in a similar vein. Unfortunately, he did not publish a video with English subtitles this week.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: What land was Sichon king of?

Dikdukian: Watch out for that Chirik
Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your real name?

Dikdukian: It wasn't thrown

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

After the episode of Korach, B'nei Yisrael continue to challenge Moshe and Aharon's authority. After yet another plague strikes B'nei Yisrael, Moshe is instructed to perform a demonstration that would show, through Divine intervention, the authenticity of Aharon's leadership as kohein gadol. He was told (17:17-18) to gather twelve staves from the twelve leaders of the tribes and to write their names on their respective staves. Aharon's name was to be written on the stave belonging to the tribe of Levi. Later, when the demonstration is performed, the Torah recounts (17:21) that the leaders gave the staves to Moshe - twelve staves with the stave of Aharon among (besoch) them. Throughout the episode, it is unclear whether Aharon's stave was one of the twelve or if it was in addition to the twelve for a total of thirteen.

Ramban, citing an apparent tradition that the Tribes of Israel shall never be counted as more (or less) than twelve, asserts that the stave of the tribe of Levi was one of the twelve. He suggests that to compensate, the tribes of Efrayim and Menasheh were not separate this time but were considered as one tribe under the umbrella of Yoseif. This approach leads to another question. Efrayim and Menasheh had their own independent leaders. Which one's stave was used? Malbim posits that the leader of the tribe of Efrayim was the one whose stave was used as per Yaakov Avinu's command (Bereishis 48:20) that Efrayim be placed before Menasheh at all times.

Netziv, in Ha'amek Davar, challenges Ramban's position. He proposes that there is no problem with counting B'nei Yisrael as more than twelve in this case because the end result of the demonstration was to be that one of the staves would blossom, thus removing the tribe to whom it belonged from the group of twelve. Rather, Aharon's stave was indeed the thirteenth.

Although Netziv does address Ramban's issue of a maximum of twelve, Ramban's opinion is based on a textual inference as well. Moshe was commanded to collect the twelve staves and write Aharon's name on the stave of Levi. We do not find a command to take a separate stave for Levi. Ramban infers, therefore, that the stave of Levi was among the original twelve. Netziv does not address this inference.

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

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.