The Weekly Shtikle Blog

An online forum for sharing thoughts and ideas relating to the Parshas HaShavua

View Profile

Friday, April 3

The Weekly Shtikle - Leil Seder

As we look forward to the seder Night, there are many familiar passages we will go over again, hopefully with a new understanding of the meaning behind the text. The saying goes that there are 70 faces to the Torah but when it comes to the haggadah, it tends to be more like 170. But every now and then it is interesting to take a passage we are familiar with and rethink the way it is even read in the first place.

Such was the mission of noted Weekly Shtikle contributor David Farkas in a recent post on the Seforim Blog which I will attempt to re-write in English. We all know the famous story of the five sages who were engrossed in the retelling of the story of yetzias Mitzrayim in B'nei Brak. There are indeed numerous intriguing questions which make this entire anecdote quite mysterious. One such question is how it could be that these sages would be oblivious to the onset of the time for recitation of keriyas Shema such that their disciples needed to interrupt and remind them. This question is based on the assumed reading of the text thusly: Until the disciples came and said to them, "Raboseinu, the time for recitation of keriyas Shema has arrived."

However, notes Mr. Farkas, a simple re-reading of this passage with an adjustment to the comma and the quotes could lend an entirely different understanding of the story. The term raboseinu appears to be part of the quote but perhaps it is part of the narrative resulting in the following reading of the text: …until the disciples arrived and raboseinu declared, "the time for recitation of keriyas Shema has arrived." It was not in fact the disciples who made the declaration but the sages themselves. Of course this only addresses one of the many mysteries of this passage. There is still much more to discuss. 

For a collection of previous seder night shtikles, please check out my archive of past Seder shtikles.

Have a good Shabbos and a Chag kasher ve'samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Chad Gadya

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

Labels: ,

Friday, March 27

The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav


In this week's parsha, a number of the different types of sacrifices are discussed. With regard to the chatas offering, it is written (6:18) "In the place where the olah is slaughtered, the chatas shall be slaughtered in front of HaShem. It is Holy of Holies." A similar description is given of the asham sacrifice. (7:1-2) "It is Holy of Holies. In the place where you slaughter the olah you shall slaughter the asham..." The obvious discrepancy between the two is that the order is switched around.
Meshech Chachmah addresses this disparity citing a gemara (Sotah 32b) which teaches "R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Shimon ben Yochai: Why was prayer decreed to be said quietly? In order not to embarrass the transgressor (who prays for forgiveness for his sins) for the Torah did not designate different areas for the slaughter of the olah and the chatas." A lesson is learned from the fact that the Torah specifically designated the identical place of slaughter for the olah and chatas (north of the altar). The chatas is brought for the inadvertent transgression of a prohibitive commandment. The olah is brought for improper thoughts of transgression or may even be brought as a gift. One who brings a chatas offering is saved embarrassment, as the onlooker cannot differentiate between a chatas and an olah for they are slaughtered in the same place.
It appears that this expression of mercy applies also to the asham which is brought for one of a smaller subset of specific transgressions. However, writes Meshech Chachmah, the pasuk gives this lesson ultimate priority when describing the chatas by enumerating it as the first criterion for the offering because it is brought for an unintentional misdeed. Since the asham is brought for deliberate offenses, this lesson is not prioritized to the same degree and therefore, the primary characteristic of the asham is that it is Holy of Holies.
What remains puzzling, is why the gemara used the chatas as the example for this lesson. Since the asham is, in fact, also slaughtered in the same place, the expression of mercy is prevalent there as well. It seemingly would have been an even stronger lesson had the gemara used the asham as the example. Another side question is that the olah is a male sacrifice from cattle whereas the asham and chatas are both female flock sacrifices. So this onlooker of which the gemara speaks cannot be all too observant.

Have a good Shabbos and a chag kasher ve'sameiach!
Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a)
Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: שבת הגדול
Dikdukian: נעשה

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

Labels: ,

Friday, January 16

The Egyptain Holocaust

by David Farkas
Our sages have told us “masseh avos siman labonim” events that occurred to our forefathers are harbingers for their future descendants. In the events involving the enslavement in Egypt a frightening, and almost eerie pattern emerges.
1. Genesis 45:18 - Bnei Yisroel came originally to Egypt at the king’s expressed desire. Most probably, Pharaoh was impressed by Joseph’s financial acumen and expected similar ability in his brothers. In future centuries, Jews would be invited to countries in Eastern Europe to revive and stimulate the economy. Poland, which would later become notorious for its anti-Semitism, welcomed the Jews for this very reason after the Spanish Inquisition at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
2. Genesis 46:28 – the Israelites all moved into one area of settlement. This ghetto-ization has certain benefits (both spiritually and practically), and so Joseph himself was desirous of this arrangement. But it can also have negative consequences, as the pogroms of history tell us.
3. Exodus 1:7 - The Torah goes out of its way to describe to us the miraculous population explosion the Israelites experienced. Where there are no Jews, there is no anti-Semitism. It is only when they become a large visible minority that their presence becomes resented. (See also Deuteronomy 26:5.) As the word “metzuyon” (“remarkable”, something which causes one to remark) implies, they were notable and stood out. The Jews were becoming too prosperous.
4. Exodus 1:8 - - How can any human being persecute someone who has been so beneficial to them? It can only be done by erasing from the national conscious and memory all the good that the victim had contributed. In Germany, Jews had been the cream of society. Through propaganda, all of their accomplishments were soon forgotten and buried under the anti-Semitism.
5. Exodus 1:10- The spectre of dual loyalty was raised. Pharaoh claimed that the Israelite’s allegiance lay elsewhere and not with their own country. In various armies at various times, Jews were forbidden to serve in the army because of suspicion as to their loyalty. Thus they were in the unbearable position of being accused of disloyalty without being able to disprove it.
6. Exodus 1:11 - - According to Rashi, “misim” is from the word for taxes. The Israelites were forced to pay excessive taxes, this time in the form of forced labour. Traditionally, heavy taxes were always levied upon the Jewish communities, further crippling already depressed economies.
7. Exodus 1:12 - Rashi says, according to one explanation, that the Egyptians were disgusted by themselves. Germany between the world wars was suffering from just such a national malaise, having been subjected to a humiliating surrender at Versailles after World War I. War reparations forced Germany to relinquish huge sums of money, plunging the economy deep into debt and deeper into depression. At times like these, political leaders arise to take advantage of the frustration and channel the hatred onto a convenient scapegoat. The Midrash quoted by Rashi is also very revealing. “Kikotzim hoyu bieineihem” - The Jews appeared to them as mere thorns. They were not human beings, certainly not full-fledged humans. Psychologically, it is impossible for such unspeakable crimes to transpire, with the tacit approval of the multitudes, unless the victims are reduced to something less than normal. It is only when Jews are thought of as a sort of sub-human species, that they can be exterminated like rats, or cut down like thorns. This attitude toward Jews has been common throughout many Christian and Muslim societies. The ‘pure’ Aryan blood and ‘contaminated’ Jewish blood pseudo-science of the Nazis was not a new phenomenon, merely an updated version of the past.
8. Exodus 1:12 - According to the Midrash, the Egyptians lured Bnei Yisroel into servitude by appealing to their patriotism. Pharaoh declared a sort of ‘National Service Day’ for the country, and Bnei Yisroel all showed upen masse. When they did, officials were there to note their names and addresses so they could not hide in the future. There was nobody more German than the German Jews. A large majority did not even refer to themselves as Jews, preferring instead more cumbersome constructions like ‘German of Hebrew extraction’, ‘Mosaic persuasion’, etc. Countries aren’t impressed when Jews become more patriotic than the natives. When Stalin took control of the Soviet Union, he rewarded the tens of thousands of Jewish communists who had helped bring about the revolution by purging them. The Holocaust started in assimilated Germany, not Jewish Poland.
9. Exodus 1:11 - The Jews were forced to build large buildings and towers, only to watch them crumble because of the un-firm foundations upon which they were built. They repeated this process again and again, becoming completely demoralized by the frivolous work - for the sake of - work. In one infamous Nazi death camp, a favourite execution involved forcing Jews to carry heavy rocks up some 192 steps, throw them down and retrieve them, repeating this ‘game’ until they dropped. Even before the war, Jews were made to clean streets and sidewalks with toothbrushes and water. Thus, the Jews were broken.
10. Exodus 1:23 - Because of Pharaoh’s obsession to kill out Jewish males, even the Egyptian boys were killed because he was unsure where the redeemer would come from (Rashi). Hitler, too, tied up valuable transport cars, weaponry and railroads in his pursuit of the final solution, directly condemning tens of thousands of German soldiers to their death. These materials could have been used to evacuate soldiers or advance the war effort! Even so, it was worth the sacrifice of Gentiles, in order to kill more Jews.
11. Exodus 2:6 - Informants were everywhere and nobody could be trusted. Hiding became increasingly difficult. Not that there were no exceptions. Just as Basya, the daughter of the king, with little to gain and a lot to lose, risked her life to save a Jew, so did such great men like Raul Wallenberg, the King of Denmark and others stand out for their valour in situations of great sacrifice where they stood to gain very little. But men like these were few and far between.
12. Exodus 4:23 - According to the Midrash, Pharaoh became stricken withtzora’as and bathed in Jewish blood as a cure. At first blush, this would appear a figurative statement, as one might say about the Second World War, “It was a bloodbath”. However, after reports about human skin used for lampshades, Jewish bones for soap, and Jewish hair for pillowcases, one is not so sure.
13. Exodus 5:6 - Israelites were put in charge of their own, with responsibility to Egyptian overlords. The comparison to Jewish Kapos, or the Judenratt in World War II is exact. (That was only the most recent manifestation. In the 19th century, during Czar Nikolai’s decree of Jewish child conscription, it was the leaders of the community who were responsible to come up with the conscripts. If they failed, it was they who were punished, not the individual families.)
14. Exodus 5:7 - Jews were denied the necessary tools to make the bricks and then accused of laziness when they failed to produce. Echoes of this can be discerned throughout the Middle Ages when Jews were denied entry into the various workers guilds and professions, and then accused of being usurers, the only profession open to them. (Sadly, certain Jews, wondering why the defenceless Jews did not mount a stronger defence, have also accused them of ‘passivity’.)
15. Nuremberg Laws - According to these laws, one could be considered Jewish if he had even one Jewish grandparent. The Talmud, (Chullin 79b), concerning the prohibition of slaughtering a sheep and its child on the same day, discusses how much ‘sheep’ is enough to make a sheep. The conclusion is that even a sheep which mates with a doe, producing an offspring which in turn has an offspring - it is forbidden to slaughter these two on the same day, as the prohibition stretches to even a semi-sheep. Even though the animal is a hybrid of uncertain status, there is enough sheep blood there to include this animal in the prohibition. We, too, were judged to be sheep on the basis of one qualifying grandparent. Nechshavnu katzon, latevach yuval.
16. There are many ways that the German Holocaust differed from its Egyptian precursor. However, even within these differences we find strange and striking parallels. The Midrash says that the Jews distinguished themselves from their hosts by not adopting their speech, their clothing or their names. Compare this to Germany:Names - Jews were forced by law to attach the name of Israel (for the males) or Sarah (for the females) on all passports and documents, to mark the Jews as such.Clothing - Jews were forced to wear a Jewish star on their garments, again to distinguish them from the Germans.Language - Germany was from the first areas to introduce sermons and drashos in the vernacular rather than the traditional Yiddish. Thus, while in Egypt, basic cultural differences were preserved, in Germany they were not.
17. (Update 2013) I am currently involved in a close study of Midrash Rabbah, and it has become apparent thatChazal, as seen in Shmos Rabbah, viewed Pharaoh or the institution of the Pharaoh as weak, at least from after the time of Joseph’s death. Consider the following four statements found scattered throughout the Midrash in the (unusually long) discussion on the first chapter of Shmos.
  • Pharaoh originally did not want to disturb the Jews out of gratitude to Joseph, but he was deposed for three months, until he “changed his mind.”
  • In order to get the Jews out to work, the people (or the ruling oligarchy) placed a brick around Pharaoh’s neck, so as to demonstrate that “even the King was working, should the Jews be any different?” Although their point is not for purposes of what is discussed here,Chazal note from the language that it was others who put the brick around the King’s neck, not he himself.
  • Pharaoh asked the people to “lend him” their children, so thatall the male children of Egypt, including Egyptians, would be drowned. But no one listened.
  • When the daughter went down to bathe and saw the baby in the reeds, her attendants told her, “it is the nature of people not to listen to the King, but should the King’s own daughter disobey him?”
Additionally, in discussing this with friends, Eliezer Bulka pointed to the comment of the Ramban that Pharaoh felt the people would have raised a backlash had he put the servitude upon the Jews quickly, and thus felt compelled to do it only gradually. (I do not know how or if this view can be squared with the midrashim above, because the “they” in the Midrashim is not spelled out.) Eliezer likewise observes, astutely, that Pharaoh seemed to accept the midwives’ excuse that the Israelite mothers delivered before they arrived. Now, why didn’t he just tell them that if the mothers delivered early, they should kill the babies when they arrived? Again, it seems Pharaoh was careful to conduct his murder campaign clandestinely, under the cloak of the “delivery room”, always dangerous but especially in the ancient world. Apparently a “partial birth abortion” was not regarded as heinous as the murder of an already-born baby, or perhaps while in birth it could more easily be covered up from the public. Regardless, had he been a bolder king, or had less to fear from the populace, he could simply have ordered the children killed, regardless of whether they were already born or not.
Rabbi Raphael Davidovich observes that all of this is evidence of the fact that the people were willing accomplices of the Pharaoh, or worse, active leaders of the campaign. This is very similar to what happened in Germany, where the people were quite happy to go along with Hitler’s decrees. The book, “Hitler’s Willing Accomplices” demonstrates this in exhaustive detail. (Cf. my notes to Genesis 34:27, where I note that the verse implies the whole town was complicit in the rape of Dinah, not merely Shechem alone.)
18. – (2013) Shmos Rabbah (9:2) observes that Egypt was compared to a snake, because just as a snake kills silently, Egypt too, put people in prison, and then killed them silently. The commentators there explain they were put to death without trial and without witnesses. The equivalent of secret trials, in other words, a common tactic employed in anti-Semitic campaigns throughout history.
Some of the above comments have been based upon the lectures of Rabbi Berel Wein, to whom I am greatly indebted. To create a smooth reading, I did not make any footnotes or quote any sources beyond the primary sources. Most of the material, though, can be found in the classical Midrashim on Chumash. Points concerning German or Gentile history can also be confirmed by any good reference books.
There are many other points that should be considered. Pharaoh’s step-by-step strategies, advancing from hard labor to infanticide through midwives to drowning children in the Nile, seem to reflect the German march from temporary measures to the final solution. Midrash HaGadol (beginning of Chapter 5) describes what Moshe saw when he came to Egypt to liberate the Jews - piles and piles of Jewish corpses, and the Jews burning in the ovens. All of this should serve to gives us pause.

Labels:

Thursday, December 25

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayigash

A special Mazal Tov to noted Weekly Shtikle reader, critic and contributor David Farkas and his wife Sara on the birth of their son, Chanan Nachman. In honour of the bris today, I am quoting David below.

Another special Mazal Tov to my nephew, Yitzchak Levy, along with the extended Levy and Bulka mishpachos on his Bar Mitzvah this Shabbos. 

This Shabbos is the yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, Rabbi Dr Israel Frankel, a"h. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel Aryeh ben Asher Yeshayahu.
 
    As the showdown between Yoseif and Yehudah escalates at the beginning of the parsha, Yoseif finally realizes that he could no longer go on deceiving his brothers and hiding his identity. He reveals to them that he is in fact Yoseif. However, he is able to keep up this chicanery for quite some time despite numerous hints. Rashi (42:8) writes that it was Yoseif's newly grown beard that prevented his brothers from discerning that it was him.
 
    However, David Farkas, author of Ha-Doresh Vi-Hamivakesh, suggests another approach. Indeed, one looks different with a beard than without. But after all of the dealings the brothers had with him, could not one of them figure out that this Egyptian viceroy looks an awful lot like their brother? Rather, the Egyptian Pharaohs were known to have worn masks. While Yoseif was only the Prime Minister to the monarch, it is possible that he wore a mask as well. In such a case only his voice would serve as any hint to his identity. It is thus much easier to understand that the brothers were unable identify him. [Note that the pasuk recounts Yoseif's recognition of his brothers immediately upon their arrival. However, we are not told that they didn't recognize him until after he speaks. This seems to suggest that until Yoseif spoke, the brothers had nothing with which they could possibly have identified him.]
 
    While this suggestion might seem slightly outlandish at first, it seems Ramban in this week's parsha concurs. He writes (46:29) that Yaakov did not recognize Yoseif right away because his face was covered with some sort of head covering as per the custom of Egyptian royalty. And so too, Ramban adds, his brothers did not recognize him. Ramban clearly asserts that it was more than just a beard that concealed Yoseif's identity.
 
    As mentioned above, Yoseif did drop numerous hints to his brothers and while they were baffled on occasion, they failed to come to the realization that it was Yoseif. R' Nosson Meir Wachtfogel, zt"l, mashgiach of Lakewood Yeshivah, asks if Yoseif was trying to conceal his identity, why did he in fact drop all those hints? And why did the brothers not pick up on them?
 
    He explains that when the brothers first encountered Yoseif in Egypt, the pasuk recounts (42:9) that Yoseif remembered his dreams and proceeded to charge his brothers with espionage. It's not that Yoseif necessarily used his dreams as a rationale for badgering his brothers. Rather, Yoseif developed a scheme by which he would allow his brothers to come to their own realization that he was the viceroy of Egypt. If they could discover this by themselves, it would be an acceptance of the integrity of Yoseif's dreams. An outsider might have easily identified Yoseif. The brothers, however, had an inner struggle to contend with. Yoseif kept on hinting to them. The facts were there in front of them. But inside, they could not bring themselves to accept it. Finally, it reached a point where Yoseif could no longer play his game. He tried to no avail. He had to spell it out for his brothers on his own.
 
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon / Dikdukian: Can you count to 70?
Dikdukian: Pain in the Neck
Dikdukian: Just Do It!
Dikdukian: Ram'seis
Dikdukian: Dikdukei Vayigash by R' 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

Labels:

Friday, October 18

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeira

A very special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my good friend, and avid Weekly Shtikle reader, David Farkas on completing Shas Bavli. Chazak Ve'ematz!

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 Yahrtzeit is this coming Tuesday, the 18th of Cheshvan.

This week's shtikle is courtesy of R' Ari Storch: In the beginning of the parsha we see that Avraham Avinu went to tremendous lengths in order to prepare feasts for the passersby that were lucky enough to be his guests. During the feast that he served the three angels that visited him after his bris, he had Sarah Imeinu make bread from three se'ah of fine flour, he had three oxen slaughtered to serve three separate tongues with mustard, and he had butter and milk brought to them. We see clearly how dedicated Avraham was in his hachnasas orchim. (See Bereishis 18 and Rashi's commentary.)


It is interesting to see that Avraham did not seem to have anything prepared for these wayfarers. We are taught that Avraham epitomized kindness. One would have thought that he would have had food prepared for the occasional guest that might accept an invitation. Nevertheless, in this week's storyline we see that Avraham clearly asked the visitors to rest for a bit while he went to prepare their food. Why would Avraham risk losing these guests by not having food ready for their possible arrival? The answer is simple. Avraham wanted evrything to be fresh. What sojourner could pass up a fresh meal filled with the choicest foods? Avraham knew that he would not lose guests if he asked them to relax while he prepared them a meal that was fit for a king. Therefore, he purposefully did not have food ready for their arrival. Additionally, while they rested Avraham would have ample time to strike up a conversation with them and teach them about HaShem.


It is interesting to note that Avraham clearly wanted everything to be fresh so that he could serve his guests the finest delicacies. The meat was freshly slaughtered and the bread was freshly baked. Why then was the milk and butter only brought to the meal and not milked and churned that day? (See Bereishis 18:8) Perhaps, the answer lies in the date of this monumental feast, Pesach. (RashiBereishis 18:10) It is prohibited to milk animals in order to drink their milk on Yom Tov, and it is also prohibited to churn butter on Yom Tov. (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 505:1; and Rema 510:5) As such, Avraham would not want to violate this holy day. Therefore, he had butter and milk prepared in anticipation that guests might arrive, but the rest of the meal was prepared on the spot.


Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: A Scratch on the Wall
AstroTorah: The Mysterious Midrash by R' Ari Storch
AstroTorah: Lot's Twilight Escape 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

Labels:

Friday, December 30

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayigash

Tomorrow, 5 Teves, is the Yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, Rabbi Dr Israel Frankel, o"h.
This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel Aryeh ben Asher Yeshayahu.
    After Yoseif finally reveals his identity to his brothers the atmosphere appears to be rather tense. The tension is apparently broken when Yoseif engages in a tearful embrace with Binyomin, followed by a similar gesture with each of the other brothers (45:14-15). As the pasuk clearly states, only then did the brothers begin to talk with Yoseif. Rashi explains that they were so ashamed that they were left literally speechless. It was only after they saw Yoseif crying and they knew his intentions were peaceful that they were able to speak with him.
 
    What is puzzling about this comment of Rashi was that Yoseif's revelation was clearly preceded by a very genuine, whole-hearted cry which was heard throughout the land of Egypt. Yoseif was not one to hide his emotions and there did not seem to be a hint of anger in the dialog that followed. Nevertheless, the brothers were still nervous. What seems to have put the brothers at ease was not necessarily Yoseif's crying alone. It was the equal treatment of all his brothers. Surely, they expected Yoseif to deal kindly with Reuvein, who truly attempted to save him, or the other brothers who were less involved. But what about Yehudah, the mastermind behind the sale of Yoseif, or Shimon, who is "credited" with throwing him into the pit. But the pasuk clearly equates all brothers when recounting Yoseif's tearful embraces. Not only was he crying and full of loving, brotherly emotion, it was clear to the brothers that his feelings were equal for all the brothers, regardless of their involvement in his sale. Only then did they feel comfortable conversing with Yoseif. (Perhaps this interpretation can be read into Rashi's comment as well.)

    Another approach is offered by David Farkas in HaDoresh ViHamivakesh:
The words "after this" seem extra. To me this seems to be the precise culmination of the events that occurred so long ago. Before, in 35:5, the brothers were described as "not being able to speak with [Joseph] in peace". Now, after they had seen the Hand of God in all it's awesome clarity, only "after this" were they finally able to speak with their brother! 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: The Goodnes of Teves by R' Ari Storch
AstroTorah: NEW BOOKThe Secrets of the Stars by R' Ari Storch
Dikdukian: Just Do It!
Dikdukian: Ram'seis
Dikdukian: Dikdukei Vayigash by R' 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

Labels:

Friday, March 25

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemini

This past Wednesday, the 17th of Adar II, marked the third yahrtzeit of R' Moshe Fuller, z"l, of Ner Yisroel. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso. Here is a link to what I wrote following his petira three years ago.

Exciting news: I am happy to announce a new sefer that just hit the market. A long-time friend and avid Weekly Shtikle reader, R' David Farkas, has published Ha-Doresh Vi-Hamivakesh, a work more than a decade in the making. It is full of illuminating and original insights not only on the parsha but on the entire Tana"ch. He has been quote a number of times here and I believe I am quoted in the sefer on occasion. I urge you all to take a look ... and buy the book. (Use Coupon Code SPRINGREAD for 20% off)

The pasuk says (9:7) regarding Aharon's personal chatas offering that it should be an atonement for him and for the nation. R' Moshe Mintz of Ner Yisroel asks why Aharon's korban involved an atonement for the nation. The Ohr HaChaim answers that Aharon's involvement in the sin of the Golden Calf was brought about by the nation who coerced him into aiding them in the making of the Golden Calf. Therefore, the nation could not achieve a full atonement until Aharon, for whom they were responsible, achieved his own atonement.


Rabbi Mintz explains the important lesson that is learned from this. We must be ever so careful with all our actions within the "kahal" for all of our actions have a spiritual effect on the kahal as a whole. If one were to (chas ve'shalom) have a part in leading another to sin through his actions, full atonement can only come once all involved have achieved atonement.  


Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Let your Soul not be Desolate (Haftarah)
AstroTorah: The Sin of the Golden Sheep 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

Labels:

Friday, October 22

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeira

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben Avi Mori Reuven Pinchas, a"h, whose Yahrtzeit is this coming Tuesday, the 18th of Cheshvan.

    As the evil city of Sedom is destroyed, Lot and his family are escaping the mayhem when his wife disobeys her orders and looks back at the carnage. She is instantly turned (19:26) into a pillar of salt.

    Why salt? David Farkas offered the following explanation of R' Moshe Eisemann of Ner Yisroel: 

     The reason why salt was chosen, is because salt is a retardant, used to curtail growth. Marauding armies would thus sow their enemy's lands with salt to prevent it from being farmed, and even today we use it for pickling, to prevent the growth of decay. The reason why Lot and his family were commanded not to look behind them is because they had become part of the Sedom culture. It was only in the merit of Avraham that they were saved. For their own merit, they needed to show that fleeing the city was a complete divorce from that evil society. They needed to move on and to grow to become new people. If they were to look back, it would show that they simply were not ready to leave their previous life. When Lot's wife looked back, she showed just that. She was unable to grow. As the saying would go, "You could take Lot's wife out of Sedom, but you just couldn't take the Sedom out of Lot's wife." This was most accurately symbolized by her transformation into a pillar of salt.


      A little humour related to the above: Apparently, Lot's daughters wrote a book called "Our mother the Netziv." (I didn't make it up. Not sure where I heard it.)

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: Lot's Twilight Escape by R' Ari Storch

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

Labels:

Thursday, January 19

Getting Started

If this blog is to be about you, the reader, what better way to kick it all of than to link to an essay from my good friend, the one and only David Farkas, renowned author of הדורש והמבקש. In this article he explores the frightening yet fascinating similarities between the Egyptian persecution and the Holocaust.

Labels: