The Weekly Shtikle - Behar / Bechukosai

This past Wednesday, 23 Iyar, was the 15^th yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

Today, the 25th of Iyar, is the 24^th yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah.

On the occasion of the yahrtzeit 7 years ago, I made a siyum on maseches Makkos. I plan to do so again today. The following was my introduction to the siyum 7 years ago:

Makkos concludes (daf 24) with the well-known  story of R' Akiva who was on the way with his colleagues Raban Gamliel, R' Elazar ben Azaria and R' Yehoshua. First, they lamented and cried at the sound of the reveling of idol worshippers. R' Akiva showed the exact opposite emotion and explained that if idol worshippers are able to enjoy such bliss, surely there is much greater delight in store for those who heed HaShem's word. Then once again the other three expressed sorrow and dismay at the sight of foxes on the prowl at the site of the ruins of the beis hamikdash. Yet again, R' Akiva – ever the optimist – expressed joy and happiness. When confronted by the others to justify his seemingly inappropriate reaction, he explained how this depressing sight was in fact an assurance that the prophecies of Zecharia regarding the ultimate redemption would indeed be fulfilled as well.

At first glance, it is difficult to see how these anecdotes fit with the preceding gemara. However, I believe the theme of R' Akiva's optimism is meant to connect back to the last mishnah. A lot of time is spent in this masechta discussing the meting out of corporal punishment and the various ways one can come to be so deserving. The daunting nature of these discussions can surely lead one to become despondent in the feeling that Jewish life is all about crime and punishment. The tannaim in the mishnah therefore quell these notions by reminding us that if these are the grave consequences that befall someone who transgresses the laws, how much greater is the reward for someone who keeps the laws, even by merely abstaining passively from forbidden acts. After having considered various creative ways one can be liable for numerous transgressions in one simple act, R' Chananya ben Akashya ultimately reminds us of the big picture – that the true purpose of the large number of mitzvos is in order to increase our merits (and purify us.)

R' Akiva was applying this "big picture" approach to understand the ups and downs of our national history. Indeed, he was living in a very difficult time full of sorrow and dismay when all seemed lost. But he did not allow himself to lose sight of the totality of our national destiny – past, present and future – which he confidently knew will end with our ultimate redemption, may it come speedily in our day.

This idea may also be applied regarding parshas Beha'alosecha and the tochacha which tends to take center stage. The gloom and doom foreshadowed in this passage can also generate a very negative view of the challenges of following HaShem's word. But this is only if we fail to realize that this is but one side of the coin. The calamities that would befall us for not following the correct path are only delivered after – although more briefly – the abundant blessings for keeping HaShem's laws are made clear. R' Chananya and R' Akiva help us keep the proper perspective in realizing that reward is HaShem's ultimate goal.

Chazak, chazak, venischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Life as we Know It 

Dikdukian: Hearing Los

Dikdukian: How Lo Can You Go?

Dikdukian: Even Lo-er

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule
Al Pi Cheshbon: An Ironic Observation

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 - Emor

This week's parsha ends off with the tragic episode of the megadeif, the blasphemer who cursed HaShem out of anger. When Moshe is taught how to proceed, he is instructed (24:14) that the man is to be brought outside of the camp where those who heard (i.e. the witnesses and judges)  place their hands on his head. He is subsequently put to death by stoning. This follows standard procedure for stoning except for one step. In no other instance do we find the placing of hands before an execution. It is unique to the case of a blasphemer.

The Da'as Zekeinim miBa'alei haTosafos cite a midrash explaining what makes the case of the blasphemer different in this regard. The judicial process as mandated by Torah Law makes it extremely difficult to impose capital punishment. The witnesses must be able to report every minute detail. In the case of the blasphemer, we are faced with a difficult dilemma. The witnesses must tell the judges what they heard. Therefore, as the mishnah (Sanhedrin 56a) explains, the judges and witnesses would leave the courtroom for a private session and the witnesses would indeed verbalize the exact words that came out of the mouth of the blasphemer, at which point the judges would tear their clothes to signify the mournful distress at having to hear such words uttered. The placing of hands on the head of the blasphemer, a process more common to sacrifices, is a symbolic transfer the burden of responsibility for one's sins. Normally, we place the hands on the animal, allowing it to be an atonement for our sins. Here, the witnesses make a clear statement absolving them of responsibility for having to repeat the curses and the judges for having heard them. Since it was all brought about by the actions of the blasphemer it is he who bears the responsibility even for the repetition.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

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 - Acharei Mos / Kedoshim

A very special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my niece and nephew, Ruti (née Levy) and Yoni Epstein, on the birth and bris of their son, Reuven Pinchas, named after my father, z"l. Mazal Tov to the extended Bulka, Levy and Epstein families.

This week's shtikle comes with some sad news as well, the passing of my brother's father-in-law, Simeon Hook. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Shimon Moshe ben Dan Tzvi Aryeh.

In this week's parsha (18:21), we are introduced to the prohibition against the brutal practice of giving over one's child to the molech. The exact details of the molech are discussed in the gemara Sanhedrin. In a nutshell, it refers to a father giving over his child to some form of avodah zarah. In the gemara (64b) quite an intriguing law concerning molech is taught. Rav Acha berei d'Rava states that one who gives over all of his children to the molech is exempt from the punishment for molech. He infers this from the word in the pasuk, "umizar'acha," from your offspring and not all of your offspring.

Tosafos ask a very simple question. Suppose someone has two children. If they give over one of their children to the molech and are liable for the death penalty, how is it possible for them to simply reverse their fate by transgressing all over again with their second child? Tosafos answer that this exemption would apply to someone with only one child or someone who gives over all of them at once. But it seems the assumption remains that in the scenario above, the death penalty would still apply.

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank, in Har Tzvi, raises an interesting question. In order to be given punishment, we require that the transgressor be properly warned beforehand. There is a concept called hasra'as safeik, which is a conditional warning where the action in which the transgressor will be engaging is not definitively a transgression of the specific prohibition. For example, for one to be warned not to throw a rock into a crowd of people because he might kill someone is hasra'as safeik for it is not clear that he will kill someone. According to some opinions this is not a valid warning. Therefore, according to those opinions, how can one ever receive punishment for molech? When you warn the father, it is an invalid warning because he can simply give over all of his children and be exempt. R' Frank suggests that the concept of hasra'as safeik is only problematic when it is uncertain that the prohibition will be transgressed at all. However, when a father gives over all his children, it is not that he has not transgressed the prohibition of molech. Rather, he has transgressed the prohibition but is merely exempt from the punishment. Therefore, since he definitely will be transgressing the molech prohibition, the warning is valid.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: A Revealing Note
Dikdukian: Stand up, goat!
Dikdukian: Mitum'os: Watch that plural

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule

Dikdukian: Sukas David

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 - Tazria / Metzora

Just today, I heard a rather humourous joke that might only be truly appreciated by baalei keriah:

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"Tzora'as"

"Tzora'as who?"

"Tzora'as hee!"

 

I figured I would stay on the dikduk theme. This is actually straight out of the Dikdukian and I don't have the time right now to reformat to my regular shtikle format:

The beginning of this week'sפרשה  contains many instances of the מפיק ה, indicating the female, third-person possessive. The proper pronunciation of these is more critical than usual as we find the word טהרה both with and without. The absence of an expected מפיק ה would certainly change the meaning. There is another such instance later on. In the discussions of the various laws of צרעת, there are a number of references to hair. In 13:20, when the כהן observes the white hair, the word ושערהּ has a מפיק ה as expected, indicating that its hair turned white. However, earlier on, (13:4) in reference to hair that has not turned white, we find the very same word without a מפיק ה. Most חומשים go out of their way to call attention to this apparent anomaly.

I had originally thought that this was simply another one of the many grammatical anomalies found in the תורה, such as the missing דגש in the שׂ of the last word of פסוק י in this very פרק. However, I found a very logical explanation for this in משך חכמה. In the later reference to the hair, rewinding to the beginning of the paragraph reveals that the subject is בשר, flesh. That is why ושערהּ is punctuated in the possessive form, because the hair emanates from the flesh. However, the subject of the earlier pasuk is עור, the skin. Although the hair appears to be coming from the skin, in truth, it comes from the flesh underneath it so the non-possessive form without the מפיק ה is used.

A reader offered the following alternative approach which seems more plausible, partially due to MDJ's question in the comments:

Note that "hair" in English has two separate connotations – either referring to individual strand of hair, or to a collection of strands. I suggest se'ara (the fem. Form) has the former meaning, and se'ar (masc.) the latter.

When we describe a situation where white hair has appeared, it may be a minimal amount or (more typically) an entire section, so "hair" is used in the collective sense.When we describe the opposite situation, we say not one strand of hair has turned white.

Thus, in 13:3 which speaks of some hair turning white, the masculine form se'ar is used. In 13:4, the condition described is that no hair (not even a minimal number of individual strands) has turned white – so the feminine form denoting a strand is used. And in 13:20, which (like 13:3) speaks of some of "its" hair having turned white, we are back to the masculine form, but with a feminine possessive suffix added.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: White Hair

Dikdukian: Meaining of "kibus" by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: Various Dikduk Observations by Eliyahu Levin

 

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.