The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas / Balak

Wednesday, 9 Tammuz, marked the 11^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.

This week's parsha follows in great detail the escapades of Balak and Bil'am. The pesukim (22:2-4) that introduce us to Balak are quite intriguing. We are told about Balak's observation of the war with Sichon and the subsequent fear instilled in the Moavites. Seemingly as an afterthought, we are then informed that Balak was the king of Moav at the time. Why not simply introduce him in the very first pasuk as Balak, the king of Moav?

This oddity is addressed by a number of commentaries. Ramban and Seforno suggest that the pesukim are suggesting that Balak was in fact a great warrior and was therefore significant to the story regardless of his being king. That's why his title was only mentioned secondarily. And this puts even greater focus on the fear that gripped the region as even their great warrior to whom they turned to lead them was petrified of what fate he might meet at the hands of B'nei Yisrael.

Shaarei Aharon explains based on Rashi and his accompanying elucidators that Balak was not really fit to be king. In fact, as the midrash points out, Balak was Tzur, one of the 5 princes of Midyan. Sichon's demise created a void and Balak was chosen, perhaps only temporarily. This explains why he is not introduced as the king of Moav because when all of this began, he wasn't. Sichon's defeat caused Moav and Midyan to join forces and through that, Balak became king. The words "ba'eis hahi," in that time, also indicate that not only was he not king before this episode, he wasn't king after either as he was completely shamed by the interaction with Bil'am.

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

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 - Korach

Beginning with the first mitzvah we received while still in Mitzrayim (Shemos 12:3) there is a word that is used quite often to refer to the community or congregation – eidah. The word is featured quite significantly in last week's parsha as (14:27) it is used to teach us (Berachos 21b) that 10 men are required for a minyan. But in this week's episode with Korach and his followers, there is a very precise nuance in the use of the word which may shed some light on how all the events went down.

It would take quite some time to analyze each and every use of the word as it appears 18 times (see concordance.) There are three different contexts in which it is used. Adas Korach (or adasecha, when Moshe is talking directly to Korach) refers to Korach's own cohort. Adas Yisrael is the larger population of B'nei Yisrael – perhaps not all, but at the very least, a large portion of it. The one context which is not as easy to define is eidah without a qualifier which would seem to also refer to the greater population. The group of 250 are referred to as nesi'ei eidah. It would be superfluous to understand that as chiefs of Korach's group. They were Korach's group.

A careful reading of the exchange between Korach and Moshe reveals another aspect of Moshe's great humility. At no point does he call for a national spectacle to expose the flawed campaign of Korach. He demands a showdown simply with (16:6) "Korach vechol adaso," (16:16) "ata vechol adasecha." Moshe did not feel the need to prove himself to the entire population. Only Korach and his group needed to be rebuffed. But Korach had other plans. He wanted the entire nation to bear witness so he, on his own (16:19) summoned "kol ha'eidah." Before his demise, HaShem commands that ha'eidah – the nation – remove themselves from their midst to not follow their fate. (Some of these points are discussed in Ramban to 16:21.)

Have a good Shabbos.

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shelach

This week’s parsha begins with the tragic story of the spies. Following those events immediately is the commandment regarding the wine and flour offerings that are to accompany each type of korban. Then, we are told of the mitzvah of taking challah from the dough each time we make a large batch of bread. The timing and wording of this mitzvah are somewhat intriguing, to say the least. It begins with (15:2) “When you enter the land that I am giving you…” This is, of course, mere moments after it was decreed that nearly the entire generation would not merit to enter that very land. Surely, there must be a deeper meaning.

Sure enough, this very topic is covered by this year’s offering from Noam Jacobson. Some commentaries suggest simply that this commandment is meant as a reassurance that it will take time but the nation will indeed merit to enter and perform mitzvos in the land. But Noam takes it even deeper.

One of the many interpretations of the true driving force behind the sin of the spies is that in truth they greatly valued the high level of Divine Providence that they were currently experiencing. They were fed by the manna, protected by the Clouds of Glory and dwelled close to the mishkan. Once they would enter the land, a lot of that heightened kedushah would seemingly disappear. They would have to work the land and engage in so many this-worldly matters. They preferred to stay in their current state.

This mitzvah of challah directly addresses this fear. When they will enter the land, the realities will change but in a positive way. There is kedushah in every single grain of wheat. And the language of the commandment is also very deliberate. The spies decried that Eretz Yisrael was (13:32) “a land that devours its inhabitants.” Conversely, we are commanded to take challah (15:19) “when you eat from the bread of the land.” The land doesn’t eat the inhabitants – it’s the other way around. This commandment is meant to directly address the claims of the spies and the motivations behind them.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: What's Different About Efrayim? 

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 - Beha'alosecha

In this week's parsha we have the famous two pesukim (10:35-36) regarding the traveling and resting of the aron. The two pesukim are encapsulated by the irregular upside-down nuns, thus dividing sefer Bemidbar into two (three, really, counting what is in between) parts. The exact placement of this separation is quite significant. The divided parts of Bemidbar are rather divergent periods in B'nei Yisrael's sojourn in the midbar. Until this point, everything is proceeding beautifully. B'nei Yisrael are camped as a united nation at Har Sinai. They complete the building of the mishkan and its consecration. Everything seems to be going fine. And then everything seems to go wrong. The rest of Bemidbar seems to be a drastic sequence of struggles that B'nei Yisrael face. Moshe seems constantly challenged with complaints. B'nei Yisrael are faced with the challenging episodes of the spies, Korach and Midyan. These two pesukim are the border between these two eras.

The first challenge is that of the mis'onenim, the complainers. The Torah does not tell us what they were complaining about but the ensuing consequences are quite clear. The site of this disaster is named Tav'eirah, after the great consuming fire. R' Chaim Kanievsky notes that in parshas Mas'ei, when all the checkpoints that B'nei Yisrael passed through are enumerated, there is no mention of Tav'eirah.

Ramban (11:3) posits that B'nei Yisrael did not move from there before the next challenge after which that very same place was renamed Kivros HaTa'avah which is mentioned as the first stop after Har Sinai (33:16). However, R' Chaim dismisses this suggestion based on the pasuk in parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:22) which seems to clearly refer to Tav'eirah and Kivros HaTa'avah as separate places. R' Chaim quotes from his son that the list of checkpoints in parshas Mas'ei is only a list of locations where B'nei Yisrael camped and rested. While the Torah does not tell us directly what the mis'onenim complained about, Rashi does offer some insight into the matter. He writes (11:1) that B'nei Yisrael were complaining about the discomfort of having traveled three consecutive days without resting. It therefore seems that this place was not a place where they rested at all. They were certainly traveling until the tragedy occurred and seemingly picked up and continued immediately afterward as well. Therefore, it is not listed in parshas Mas'ei.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

 

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail 

Dikdukian: The Impure

Dikdukian: In My Humble Opinion

Dikdukian: To Make Travel 

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 - 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.