The Weekly Shtikle - Naso

This coming Monday, 16 Sivan, is the 23^rd yahrtzeit of R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated l'iluy nishmaso, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi.

This week's parsha includes extensive discussions of the laws pertaining to the sotah and the nazir, one after the other. Their respective tractates of gemara, aptly named Nazir and Sotah, also appear side by side, although in the opposite order. The juxtaposition of these two topics is discussed in the gemara at the beginning of maseches Sotah. Rebbi would say that anyone who is present and witnesses the public humiliation of the sotah should make sure he is not adversely affected by his experience and restrict himself from drinking wine, one of the principal requirements of the nazir. Refraining from wine will make sure that any impure thoughts do not translate into indecent behaviour.

Perhaps another understanding may be offered. Sotah represents the epitome of reckless conduct, a blatant disregard for the sanctity of the marriage bond. Although there are many other instances of sinful behaviour in the Torah, this is elaborated upon in much greater depth. Perhaps more importantly, it impresses upon us how seemingly innocent conversation between a man and woman has the potential to lead to destructive consequences. Sotah symbolizes brazen disregard of Torah values.

Nazir, however, is at the other end of the spectrum. The nazir abstains from (some of) the pleasures of this world and leads a life of extreme holiness. Although curbing one's level of indulgence is often looked upon as commendable, the practice of nazir is surprisingly not. The gemara, on a number of occasions (Taanis 11a, Nedarim 10a, Nazir 19a, 22a, Bava Kamma 91b) dwells on the pasuk (6:11) in this week's parsha, concerning the nazir's sacrifices, "and it shall atone for him from that which he sinned on the soul." What sin did the nazir commit? R' Elazar HaKefar teaches that his sin was that he caused himself undue anguish in refraining from wine. And if one is called a sinner for merely refraining from wine, all the more so one who restricts himself excessively from all other pleasures.

With this perspective, sotah and nazir represent the two extremes of behaviour discouraged by the Torah. The sotah is one who is overindulgent and runs after pleasure. The nazir is one who withdraws himself from pleasure and inflicts upon himself excessive suffering. By putting the two side by side, the Torah is impressing upon us the importance of following the middle path. While we are required to do our utmost to avoid the temptations of indulgence, we must not do so by completely withdrawing from the pleasures of this world. The Torah does not favour extremism in either direction. As it is said, (Devarim 5:29) "And you shall be watchful to do as HaShem your God has commanded you, do not stray to the right or to the left." Do not act liberally with respect to Torah and mitzvos, but be not overly conservative in your observance.

This idea is also supported linguistically as the words chosen for these two diametrically opposite individuals are in fact quite similar. As Rashi (5:12) explains, the basic understanding of the word sotah is one who turns away, deviates from the path of modesty and from her responsibilities as a married individual. Nazir, as well, means one who is separated. Not only has he detached himself from this-worldly pleasures, he has removed himself from the conventional ways of the world. Indeed, the Torah has classified both of these individuals as deviants of sorts.

Have a good Shabbos.

 

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayin'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 - Shavuos

In the same shiur I referenced last week for the shtikle on Bemdibar, I heard a beautiful thought on Megillas Rus from R’ Avigdor Nebenzahl. Rus’s lineage traces back to some well-known characters in the Torah. We read about Rus to highlight her triumphant journey from a member of the nation of Moav to her conversion and ultimately becoming the great grandmother of David HaMelech. Perhaps the most dramatic exchange occurs when Rus resists all of Na’ami’s attempts to convince her to return to her nation. She declares (1:16-17) “Where you shall go, I shall go. Where you sleep, I will sleep. Your nation is my nation and your God is my God. Where you will die, I will die and there I will be buried.”

R' Nebenzahl explains that with each phrase, Rus was seeking to correct a deed from ancestral past. “Where you go, I will go” is meant to negate the actions of her forefather Lot, who chose to go to Sedom when his entourage was forced to separate from that of Avraham. “Where you sleep, I will sleep” is a reference to the actions of his daughters which, although well-intentioned, required correction. “Your nation is my nation” is a rejection of Balak who dismissed B'nei Yisrael (Bemidbar 22:5) as merely a nation that had left Egypt. "Your God is my God" rejects the actions of the women of Moav who seduced B'nei Yisrael into idol worship. 

“Where you will die, I will die” harkens back to the demise of Lot’s father Haran. The midrash recounts that he waited to see what would happen to Avraham when he got thrown into the furnace at Ur Kasdim. He chose to follow him not out of conviction but simply because he saw he survived. Haran, due to his lack of true faith, did not.  Finally, "there I will be buried" recalls the demise of Lot's wife who was turned into a pillar of salt and did not merit a burial.  

Have a chag samei'ach and good Shabbos!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Shavuos takes it on the chin... or under the shin

Dikdukian: Letzeis and On top of Old Smokey

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 - Bemidbar

Towards the end of this week's parsha, the Torah (3:44-51) details a redemption process that affected an exchange between the firstborn of the nation at large and the Leviim who were now assigned to the holy service in their stead. There was a direct exchange between 22,000 first born and 22,000 Leviim. But one problem remained. The firstborn totaled 22,273. A separate process was employed for the extra first born which consisted of a 5-shekel payment, to be distributed "le'Aharon ulvanav." Intuitively, one might assume that the money was split 3 ways between Aharaon, Elazar and Isamar. However, the gemara (Bava Basra 143a) relates that le'Aharon ulvanav indicates one half going to Aharon and the other half going to the sons. 

(I heard in a shiur last night:) Meshech Chachmah provides a brilliant proof that this is how this money was divided. We find the shekel being used at various different times. In some instances, we are told that the shekel was the value of 20 geirah. But in some instances we are not. The pattern is as follows: if the shekel in question is going to be broken up, such as in the case of the half shekel used for the census (Shemos 30:13), we need to know the value in a smaller denomination. However, when it comes to arachin, as discussed at the end of Vayikra (Vayikra 27), only whole shekalim are used and so we do not need to be told that it was 20 geirah.  Only later (27:25) when the redemption of land is discussed and fractions are heavily involved are once again reminded.

In our specific case, it is once again mentioned (3:47) that the shekel is 20 geirah. Now, the total collected for the 273 extra firstborn would be 273 x 5 = 1,365 total shekalim. That number is evenly divisible by 3. If each individual were to receive a third, they would be given 455 shekalim even. There would be no need to mention 20 geirah. But since 1,365 is an odd number, dividing by 2 would result in each receiving 682 ½ shekalim. So it follows that the Torah would mention 20 geirah. 

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

 

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: No Population Increase

Al Pi Cheshbon: Tens and Ones by Ari Brodsky

Al Pi Cheshbon: Rounded Numbers

Al Pi Cheshbon: Discrepency in Levi's Population

Al Pi Cheshbon: Explaining the Uncounted Levi'im

Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability

Dikdukian: Be or Ba?

Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar 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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar / Bechukosai

This Sunday, 23 Iyar, marks the 16^th yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

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

This week's parsha begins with the promise of the blessings for those who follow the ways of the Torah. There are two conditions given: im bechukosai teileichu, and es mitzvosai tishmeru. Rashi's comment is a common subject for discussion. Bechukosai teileichu refers to toiling in the study of Torah. However, we must certainly be sure to toil enough to realize that there are in fact two conditions. Indeed, there is only one instance of the word im, if, in the pasuk. This would appear to indicate that one must accomplish both conditions to be deserving of the blessings. We must toil in the study of Torah but also fulfill the mitzvos diligently. Contrarily, the mirroring pasuk which introduces the curses contains two instances of im. If we falter in either of these two categories, there are grave consequences.

 To put it in computer logic terms for those for whom it is helpful:

if ((bechukosai_teileichu) && (mitzvosai_tishmeru))

    getBerachos();

else

    getKelalos(); // Chas veShalom

However, even if one is able to accomplish the two conditions, there is still a delicate balance that must be met. This is where the haftarah connects with the parsha. In Pirkei Avos, Perek 3 (Mishna 17) R' Elazar ben Azaria teaches what is arguably the paradigmatic lesson of all of Pirkei Avos. One whose wisdom and knowledge is greater than his deeds is like a tree whose branches are greater than its roots, lacking support and easily toppled over. One whose deeds are greater, however, is like a tree whose roots are greater in number than its branches, providing support against all sorts of nasty conditions. The pesukim used to illustrate this are from this week's haftarah (Yirmeyahu 17:5-8). "And he shall be as a tree by the waters..." (Interestingly, the navi is clearly contrasting someone who puts his trust in man with someone who places his trust solely in HaShem. R' Elazar ben Azaria seems to borrow this imagery from its clear application in Tana”ch and apply it to one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom.) Nevertheless, these pesukim, as understood by R' Elazar ben Azaria, establish a direct connection between the parsha and the haftarah.

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

Parshas Emor always falls in the middle of sefiras ha'omer and it is also the parsha which contains the commandment for sefiras ha'omer (23:15). This unique mitzvah seems to give rise the most interesting halachic discussions ranging from the theoretical, such as counting the Omer in alternative number bases, to the more practical, such as the effect of crossing the International Date Line on the fulfillment of the mitzvah. There is an interesting discussion as to whether or not writing may qualify as a valid means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. That is, if one was to write, "Hayom yom ֹ𝑥 la'omer," would that be sufficient to fulfill one's obligation and would this action disallow one from repeating the count with a berachah?

The discussion of this halachic quandary trickles down a family tree. This issue is first dealt with in the responsa of R' Akiva Eiger, siman 29. The teshuvah is actually written by R' Akiva Eiger's uncle, R' Wolf Eiger. Unable to attend his nephew's wedding, he made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. He wrote to his nephew about this halachic issue, which was discussed at the banquet. He cites a number of related issues which he builds together to try to reach a conclusion. The gemara (Yevamos 31b, Gittin 71a) teaches that witnesses may only testify by means of their mouths and not by writing. The gemara (Shabbos 153b) states that mutes should not separate terumah because they cannot say the berachah. It is assumed that writing the berachah would not have been sufficient. Also, there is a discussion among the commentaries with regards to the validity of a vow that is written and not recited. R' Wolf Eiger concludes that writing is not a sufficient means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. However, this sparks a debate between him and his nephew which stretches out to siman 32.

This issue is eventually discussed in the responsa of Kesav Sofer (Yoreh Dei'ah siman 106) by R' Avraham Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, R' Akiva Eiger's grandson who was, in fact, named after R' Wolf Eiger. He covers a host of related topics and eventually discusses the exchange recorded in his grandfather's sefer. The debate, although it encompasses various pertinent issues, never produces any concrete proof directly concerning the act of counting. However, Kesav Sofer quotes his father, Chasam Sofer, in his footnotes to R' Akiva Eiger (his father- in-law) where he provides a more concrete proof. The gemara (Yoma 22b) teaches that one who counts the number of B'nei Yisrael transgresses a prohibition as it is written (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of B'nei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea that shall not be measured nor counted." The gemara cites two examples (Shmuel I 11:8, 15:4) where Shaul HaMelech went out of his way to avoid this prohibition by using pieces of clay or rams in order to perform a census. Chasam Sofer suggests that Shaul could simply have counted the men by writing down the numbers and not saying them. Since Shaul went to far greater lengths, we are compelled to say that writing the number of men would still have qualified as counting them and he would not have sufficiently dodged the prohibition. Thus, concludes Chasam Sofer, if one has explicit intention to fulfill the mitzvah, writing is a valid means of counting Sefiras HaOmer. However, Kesav Sofer suggests that perhaps the berachah should not be recited in this case.

It's hard to imagine what the practical implications might have been in those days. Why would someone write down the day of the omer if not for the fact that they were completely unable to talk. However, perhaps this issue has more practical implications in our modern age. Suppose someone sends his friend a text message asking what night of sefirah it is and he responds, "tonight is 6." Perhaps there might be a problem counting with a berachah after that?

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 - Tazria / Metzora

The main topic of this week's parshios, Tazria and Metzora is the sickness known as tzara'as. Tazria deals mainly with the assessment of tzara'as. In Metzora, we begin to discuss the recovery process. We find that a metzora must bring two birds after his tzara'as has gone away (14:4). One of the birds is slaughtered and the other is sent away. Why?

Rashi there writes that the reason why birds are brought is because they talk a lot and the reason why one becomes afflicted with tzara'as is because he spoke leshon hara. Be'er Moshe, in the introduction to chelek 3 of his teshuvos, (as well as a number of other commentaries,) explains that the slaughtering of the bird is to symbolize how we must be aware of when to keep our mouths shut and to prevent whatever negative words we were going to say. However, the most complete way to battle leshon hara is not by complete verbal repression. One must be able to speak normally, using his mouth for good, for divrei Torah. He must be able to converse with individuals but in a way that he watches his words and doesn't say anything wrong. Therefore, the second bird is sent out into the world symbolizing how one is supposed to go out and talk naturally, but the bird is first dipped in the blood of the dead bird, to show how he must always keep in mind his responsibilities to refrain from speaking evil.

The Chofetz Chaim encountered numerous challenges trying to get haskamos for his sefer on leshon hara. On one occasion, he was given a test where someone engaged him in conversation for 6 hours on all sorts of issues of the day. Yet, any time the conversation would gravitate towards the denigration of individuals, he would put a quick end to it. Indeed, the Chofetz Chaim was the true embodiment of the above.

See also this year's offering from Noam Jacobson. He points out that many of the procedures that the metzora follows resemble those of aveilus. As we are told, someone who contracts tzara'as is compared to one who has died. Indeed, part of him has. The two birds symbolize these two aspects of the metzora himself – the part of him that died and the part that has survived and is now integrating back into society.

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Eliezer Bulka

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: White Hair

Dikdukian: Meaning 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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Pesach and the Final Days

As the loss of Rabbi Moshe Hauer, z"l, is still a fresh wound for many of us, I felt it would be appropriate to quote a beautiful thought I heard in a shiur from him a number of years ago.

While refraining from all leavened products for a week or so always proves to be quite the undertaking, in the Beis HaMikdash, it was the norm, with only a few exceptions. As we read a number of weeks ago, we are told (Vaikra 2:11) that all minchah offerings must be free of any leaven or sweetener. Allegorically, we find in the gemara (Berachos 17a) that se'or, leaven, is commonly associated with the yeitzer hara. However, Netziv in Haamek Davar offers another understanding of se'or and why it is forbidden on the mizbei'ach and relates it to Pesach as well.

The process of making bread will always require a significant degree of human contribution to process wheat into flour and then dough and then to bake it. However, the addition of a leavening agent represents an added degree of meddling with the natural process to alter the final product. (Those of us whose family has recently taken up the hobby of sourdough baking are certainly quite familiar with this reality.) The complete absence of all leaven represents the refraining from trying to inject our own intervention to manipulate the nature that HaShem has put in place, rather than letting things take their own Divine path.

Certainly, in the beis hamikdash, where our primary goal is to become closer to HaShem, it is appropriate to minimize our own machinations and submit ourselves to the will of HaShem. That is why leaven is not appropriate. As Netziv continues to explain, this is similarly the theme of the yom tov of Pesach – the rooting of emunah in HaShem in the collective hearts of our nation. With very little action on our part, we were witnesses to unimaginable miracles leading to our exodus from Mitzrayim.

Rabbi Hauer, z"l, (audio link, start at 24:38 mark) discusses this idea in a shiur on Netziv and extrapolates it to extend throughout Pesach to the last days of yom tov when we commemorate the splitting of Yam Suf. There too, amidst all of the panic in the wake of the steadily advancing Egyptian army at the apparent dead end, Moshe commands the nation (Shemos 14:13) not to fear but rather, to simply stand and witness HaShem's great deliverance. What better time to drive home this message for the ages than the end of a full week without any bread.

Have a chag samei'ach.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Omer Counting in Different Bases

Dikdukian: Exceptions Ahoy!

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.