The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Seitzei

Did you have unusual difficulty reciting kiddush levanah last week? You are not alone. See my post on the subject.

I also direct you to an intriguing (short) shiur from Rabbi Dovid Heber regarding the special uniqueness of tonight's kiddush al hakos. Don't worry if you only see this after Shabbos. Next week's is even more special. View or listen on TorahAnytime.

In this week's parsha we are taught of the prohibition against plowing with an ox and a donkey together (22:10). Rashi writes that this prohibition applies to any combination of two animals. Rambam, however, is of the opinion that this applies only to a combination of a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal. Ba'al HaTurim explains that if the non-kosher animal sees the kosher animal chewing its cud it will think that it was fed and this will cause unnecessary distress to the non-kosher animal. R' Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes l'Yaakov notes that this reasoning is not sufficient for Rambam's opinion. According to that reasoning, it would be permitted to plow with an ox and a camel, both of which chew their cud. However, Rambam clearly holds that it is forbidden.

Sifsei Kohein explains this pasuk in a symbolic manner. He writes that the words lo sacharosh beshor uvachamor yachdav are indicative of a prohibition against the extensive discussion and deliberation on the matter of the two צessiahs, Mashiach ben Yoseif and Mashiach ben David. The shor is a reference to Mashiach ben Yoseif, as we see that on Yoseif it is said (33:17) bechor shoro.. The chamor refers to Mashiach ben Dovid who is described (Zechariah 9:9) as ani verocheiv al chamor. The word tacharosh refers to thinking, plowing of the mind so to speak, as it does in Mishlei 3:29.

Sha'arei Aharon cautions, however, that this position of the Sifsei Kohein is not to be confused with the constant requirement we have to anticipate the coming of mashiach as stated in Chavakuk 2:3 and stressed more strongly in the gemara (Shabbos 31a). We are commanded to yearn for the deliverance of mashiach constantly and, as stated in the Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith, based on the pasuk in Chavakuk, even if he tarries, still we wait for him every day that he shall come. The unnecessary deliberation over the technicalities involved in the coming of mashiach, explains Sha'arei Aharon, ultimately facilitates a lapse in the fulfillment of these duties. If we know too much of when and how he will come, we will no longer yearn for his appearance daily as we are required.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz by R' Ari Storch

 

        Shiluach HaKein Game

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 - Shofetim

At the end of this week's parsha, we are taught of the intriguing laws of the eglah arufah. The elders of the city that are required to bring the calf wash their hands over the beheaded animal and declare their innocence, stating that their hands did not shed this blood, nor did they see it. Rashi (21:7) quotes the very well-known exchange from the mishnah (Sotah 45b), "Would we even consider that the sages of the beis din were murderers? Rather, they are stating that they were not guilty of sending him away without food and escort.

The subsequent gemara (46b) extolls the virtues of providing escort as an act whose merit knows no bounds. It is certainly a nice thing. But what is it that makes the act of escorting so great? I heard a beautiful explanation last year from R' Eli Cohen of Baltimore.

First, let us examine the more general charitable act of hachnasas orchim, bringing in of guests. Why is this the name that is chosen? If you provide a meal for a person in need, shouldn't that be titled the feeding of guests? Why do we focus on bringing in? The first mishnah in meseches Shabbos uses the metaphor of the ba'al habayis and the pauper to illustrate the act of carrying from a private domain to a public domain. The walls of the house provide a natural barrier between the homeowner and the poor man for whom he is providing. He can certainly provide a charitable gift without breaking that barrier. But when you bring the needy into your home, you are making quite the significant statement. "I am not simply satisfied with giving you a gift. I want you to come into my domain to become a part of what I have." This brings the charitable act to a whole different level.

Levayah, providing escort, is the flip side of that gracious act. The host can simply remain comfortably in his chair and bid farewell to his guest as he continues on his way. At that moment, the virtual barrier is re-established. Escorting the guest is the "cherry on top," showing that the host insists on keeping that barrier broken. He has invited the guest to share his experience and now, with just a few steps he is sharing in the guest's experience as he leaves.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Additional Symbolism of the Shofar

Dikdukian: Two of a Kind

Dikdukian: Clean Blood

 

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 - Re'eih

This week's parsha presents the contradiction of the following two pesukim. First we are told (15:4) that with the proper fulfillment of the laws of shemitah as they pertain to loans "there will not be any needy among you." In the very same perek we are told (pasuk 11) "For the needy shall never cease from within the land." Rashi explains homiletically from the Midrash (Sifrei Piska 114) that when we are performing HaShem's will, the needy will be among others and not among us. But when we are not performing HaShem's will, there will be needy among us.

On a simpler level, however, perhaps the contradiction may be reconciled as follows: The first pasuk is indeed giving us an assurance that with the proper performance of the laws of shemitah, poverty will be wiped out from the community. The second pasuk, however, is stated regarding the mitzvah of tzedakah. It is not a prediction of the future. Rather, the Torah is stating a practical fact as a reason why charity is always necessary. You should never say, "someone else will take care of him, he'll make it somehow." The Torah is teaching us a lesson that the poor will never just cease to be. In order to tackle poverty, you must take the initiative and give tzedakah and never rely on someone else to do the job.

 

 

On a related note, an observation I recently made: There are a number of instances in the Torah where the word tzedakah is used. In some cases, the commentaries discuss how the word tzedakah is appropriate in this specific case. For example, when HaShem promises Avraham that he will have a son (Bereishis 15:6) and Avraham trusts HaShem's word. Additionally, in the parsha from two weeks ago, (6:22) we are told that it will be for us as a tzedakah when we take heed to do the mitzvos.

In this week's parsha we have the actual passages directing us to "give a little tzedakah – for the poor and needy" in the pesukim discussed above (15:7-11). Interestingly, there is no use of the word tzedakah or any derivative thereof. The root of the word actually means truth and justice. I am unsure – but would be intrigued to learn – how the word became synonymous with compassionate acts of charity.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Oh Deer!

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

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 - Eikev

Traditionally, preventative prohibitions tend to fall under the purview of rabbinic decrees. For example, the laws of muktzeh were instituted to preserve the sanctity of Shabbos and prevent the transgression of biblical prohibitions. However, there are significant instances – particularly in the realm of interaction with surrounding societies – where the Torah declares a prohibitive commandment as a means of preventing further, more serious transgressions. Just at the end of last week's parsha, (7:2-4) we are prohibited from rendering free provisions or making treaties with the 7 nations. We are restricted from allowing our children to marry theirs. All of this, as stated in the pasuk is so that they do not turn future generations away from the service of HaShem. Elsewhere (Bemidbar 33:55) we are warned that if we neglect to expel the nations from the land, they will ever remain a thorn in our side.

 

This sentiment is expressed again in the beginning of this week's parsha in what seems like a rather bizarre warning. After being promised a series of gracious blessings we are warned (7:16) not to show any pity and not to worship their gods for that will be a trap for you. The framework for the above prohibitions is simple – do not do such-and-such slightly less major transgression, in order to avoid one far more grave. But what is the trap to which this pasuk refers? Worshipping other gods is rock bottom. That is the ultimate sin which other prohibitions are designed to prevent.

 

Some commentaries (Seforno, Malbim, Ohr HaChayim) conclude that the phrases in this pasuk must be rearranged in order to properly understand the message. Do not show pity to these nations for this will set a trap for you that will lead to you worshipping their deities. The term mokeish hu, it will be a trap, is still puzzling as it is in the singular form, whereas the nations are mentioned in the plural. Ohr HaChayim explains that it is either a reference to each one of the nations, or a reference to the act of pity we are being warned against.

 

However, other commentaries (Ibn Ezra, Haamek Davar) actually interpret the pasuk in its actual form and understand the foreign gods to be the trap. Netziv explains that you might be inclined to worship their gods without genuine intent in order to please our enemies. But even that will prove to be a trap that will ultimately lead to the actual worship of those gods. Ibn Ezra explains that the singular form refers to each one of those gods.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: To Afflict the Corrector

Dikdukian: To Make a Misnaged Cringe

Dikdukian: Those Bad Egyptians

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 - Va'eschanan

A very special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my nephew, Eliyohu Boruch Shonek and his wife, Tova (née Fine) upon their marriage this past Wednesday. Mazal tov to the extended Shonek and Bulka mishpachos.

Monday, the 15th of Av, marks the 15^th yahrtzeit of my Opa, Mr. George Jakobovits. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a"h.

 

I got a bit of a late(r) jump this week so I will throw out a question that has been bothering me lately – one which we have a whole 8 months to work on.

 

In the Haggadah Shel Pesach, we explore the diverse experience of the four sons, their questions – if they are able – and the answers we should be providing them. While three of the four sons have their source texts deriving from Shemos, the chacham is discussed in this week's parsha (6:20). The Torah lays out a very thorough response to give to the chacham, leading with the well-known phrase of "avadim hayinu." However, as beautiful as this answer is, it is not at all the answer we provide in the haggadah. Similar questions may be asked on some of the other sons but the contrast seems most glaring with the chacham. I did see that Malbi"m does address this in his haggadah. However, I am not able to fully grasp and paraphrase his approach at this time. I was wondering if this ever jumped out at anyone else and what other explanations anyone has to offer.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: You were shown

Dikdukian: Raise the Valleys

Al Pi Cheshbon: Moshe's Pleas

Al Pi Cheshbon: Gemtrias off by 1

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 - Devarim

As part of Moshe Rabbeinu's introduction to his review of the last forty years, he makes mention of the fact that (1:10) "HaShem has caused you to multiply and you are now numerous like the stars in the sky." Rashi is bothered by the obvious exaggeration. B'nei Yisrael were a nation of merely 600,000 men which is infinitesimal compared to the infinite stars. Rashi offers an alternate understanding of the pasuk. However, I believe it is possible that Moshe was indeed comparing B'nei Yisrael to the stars in the sky at that very time.

This understanding is based on a commentary of R' Chayim Kanievsky in parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 15:5). HaShem brings Avraham Avinu outside and tells him to observe the uncountable stars and tells him that his progeny will be likewise uncountable. Rashi there quotes a midrash that states that HaShem removed Avraham from the atmosphere and placed him above the stars to observe them. R' Chayim questions, why was this necessary? Why was it not sufficient to simply look at the stars from where he was? He answers that we are taught in the adjacent commentary to Rambam's Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah (3:8) that there are a finite number of stars visible from Earth, 1022 to be exact. (See AstroTorah for a discussion as to the accuracy of that figure.) Beyond the scope of our vision there exists an abundance of stars which are too many to be counted. Avraham had to be removed from Earth in order to appreciate that.

Therefore, when Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to B'nei Yisrael, they were very much comparable to the stars in the sky. In a very short time, B'nei Yisrael had indeed multiplied from a mere 70 to an impressive 600,000. Like the stars that are visible from Earth, they were great in number, yet still countable.

The word larov here is assumed to be a noun, meaning "for multitudes" which would imply that the multitudes have already been achieved. This is what is bothering Rashi. While this is, in fact, the meaning of the word in most of its many occurrences in Tanach, it may also be used as a verb, to multiply (as in Bereishis 6:1). Perhaps Moshe was not stating that B'nei Yisrael were multitudes like the stars, but rather, they will multiply like the stars. Just as the visible stars may be a countable, finite group, yet "potentially" infinite, B'nei Yisrael were a countable many, with the potential to become infinite. After all, has anyone ever calculated how many total Jews have lived in the history of the world?

Moshe Rabbeinu was speaking to B'nei Yisrael as they were on the verge of crossing over into Eretz Yisrael and realizing the ultimate goal of their deliverance from Egypt. This was a reminder of the star-like potential they were promised to realize following this auspicious moment in their history. It is therefore fitting that Moshe followed this statement with a blessing that HaShem will indeed multiply B'nei Yisrael thousand-fold, to develop them from a modestly small nation like the countable, visible stars, to a prolific nation like the infinite stars of the universe.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Don't you worry!

Dikdukian: Past and Future

Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your name?

AstroTorah: Like the Stars of the Heavens

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 - Matos / Mas'ei

Today, 27 Tammuz, is the 6^th yahrtzeit of my cousin, Mrs. Michelle Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Rochel Mirel bas Shmuel HaLevi.

 

Towards the end of the parsha, we are taught of the mitzvah of exiling one who killed by mistake, shogeig. If he leaves his designated city of exile, the close relative of the victim is allowed to kill him. There is a discussion in the mishnah (Makkos 11b) as to whether or not the killing of the killer is a mitzvah or not. R' Chaim Kanievsky makes an interesting observation on the exact wording of this parsha. Almost everywhere else that the Torah commands us to kill someone, the verb of the root misah is used, usually in the form "v'heimis." This is because it is considered killing but not murdering. Here, however, the verb veratzach is used, the same root as the commandment, "lo sirtzach," do not murder. He explains that even according to the opinion that it is a mitzvah to kill the killer, it is not an obligation but only a mitzvah if he does it. It is his choice. Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah, whether it is a mitzvah or not, as murdering.

 

It is interesting to note, that the part of the parsha dealing with the willful murderer (meizid) states that the relative of the victim shall kill the murderer and there the word "yamis" is used. According to the explanation of R' Chaim, it would suggest that in this instance, it is in fact an obligation for the relative to kill the murderer.

Chazak, Chazak, veNischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Cold has Passed

Dikdukian: Watch out for those Mapiks!

Dikdukian: To Afflict or to Answer

Dikdukian: The Interrogative

Dikdukian: The first aliyah in Mas'ei

Dikdukian: They are Correct, Sir!

Dikdukian: Whose Tribe is it Anyway?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Splitting up the Animals

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.