The Weekly Shtikle - Re'eih

A special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my nephew, Tovia Yehuda Bulka of Yerushalayim on his bar mitzvah this shabbos.

In this week's parsha a word not used anywhere else in the Torah (although it is found 20 times in NA"CH) appears twice. The inhabitants of the ir hanidachas, the city that has been led astray, are referred to (13:14) as b'nei beliya'al. Later, when discussing the requirement to reach out to the needy and lend them money, we are warned (15:9) lest there be an inclination of beliya'al in your hearts not to lend to the needy since the shemitah year is approaching. This unique word is used to describe idolaters as well as those who refuse to lend money as shemitah approaches. The gemara (Kesubos 68a) draws a parallel between the two based on this one word and declares that one who averts his eyes from the mitzvah of tzedakah is as if he has engaged in idol worship. But what is the intrinsic connection?

I have purposely left beliya'al untranslated. It is difficult to attach an exact meaning to the word and we must therefore turn to the commentaries for the etymology of the word. Rashi writes that it is a contraction of b'li ol, without a yoke. It refers to someone who has thrown off the yoke of the service of HaShem. Clearly, one may only throw off a yoke if it was once upon him. This presents a difficulty regarding the reference to tzedakah as we are referring to someone who manages to completely escape the situation. Perhaps we may explain in the second case that it is referring to one who has thrown off the yoke of communal responsibility. The Torah is talking of someone who might very well appear to appreciate the importance of charity. But when push comes to shove and his loan is in danger of having to be forgiven, he is unwilling to fulfill his duty to society. He bears the yoke when it suits him, but is quick to unload it when it does not.

Another insightful rendering of the word is given by Rav Hirsch. He explains that it is a contraction of bli al, without one above, someone who acts as if there is no one above him. This may also be applied to the apprehensive lender. The shemitah year is one of the primary tests of faith. A farmer is required to put all his faith and belief in HaShem that despite the land being unworked for a full year, he will still pull through. The lender has to have a little faith as well. Someone who fears that the shemitah will interfere with his financial dealings fails to see HaShem's Hand and considers himself a master of his own destiny. It is this behaviour specifically that is labelled as beliya'al and is, by association, likened to avodah zarah.

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

This past Wednesday, the 15^th of Av, marked the 17^th yahrtzeit of my Opa, Mr. George Jakobovits. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

While last week's parsha contained the first paragraph of keriyas shema, in this week's parsha we find the second. Both begin with the subject of our obligation to love HaShem. Although the two seem quite similar, there is one obvious difference. The first parsha demands of one to love HaShem bechol levavecha, with all your heart, uvchol nafshecha, with all your soul, uvchol meodecha, which Rashi explains to mean with all of your money. The second parsha mentions bechol levavchem uvchol nafshechem but there is no mention of bechol meodechem.

Meharsh"a (Berachos 35b) offers an explanation for this omission. In the gemara it is explained, according to one opinion, that the scenario of the second parsha of Shema is that of ainam osim retzono shel Makom, those who do not fulfill the will of HaShem. Meharsh"a points out that it is clear from the very beginning of the parsha that we are talking about people who perform the mitzvos and demonstrate a love of HaShem. Rather, he concludes in accordance with Tosafos that this parsha is surely referring to people who do fulfill HaShem's will, only not on the same level of complete tzadikim who can rely on their work being done by others and need not worry about plowing their fields. He uses this to explain the discrepancy between the two parshios. The first parsha, outlining the ideal service of HaShem, includes even the devotion of one's property and assets. The reward for that level of service is, as the gemara explains, that your work will be performed by others. The second parsha speaks to those on a slightly lower level for whom that degree of dedication is too difficult. Consequently, they will have to do their work themselves.

R' Moshe Shternbuch, in Ta'am Vada'as offers an alternate explanation. The two parshios speak of different forms of love. He understands the first parsha to be speaking of true devotion to HaShem and not to serve other gods for which we are indeed commanded to give up our lives. For this aspect of our service of HaShem we are certainly expected to part with our monetary possessions as well. However, the second parsha refers specifically to the service of HaShem through the performance of mitzvos. We are required to devote all of our heart and soul toward this cause. However, we are not expected to dispose of all our assets for this purpose. After all, we may give no more than a fifth to tzedakah (Kesubos 50a) and spend no more than a third on the fulfilling of a mitzvah (Bava Kamma 9a). Therefore, uvchol meodechem is left out of the second parsha.

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 special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my nephew, Yeshaya Shonek of Columbus and his wife on the bris of their son, Reuven Pinchas, named after my father a”h. It is indeed a fitting event for the theme of Nachamu. Mazal tov to the extended Shonek and Bulka families.

In this week's parsha, the aseres hadibros are repeated. When I was younger, a guest at our Shabbos table offered me a prize (which ended up being a sticker) for every difference I could find between the Yisro version and that of Va'eschanan. I found ten.

In the fourth commandment, the mitzvah of Shabbos, we find a reference to the subjugation in Mitzrayim that was not mentioned in parshas Yisro. We are told (5:14) "And you shall remember that you were a slave in Mitzrayim and HaShem, your God, took you out from there with a Mighty Hand and Outstretched Arm. Therefore, HaShem, your God, has commanded you to make a Shabbos day." Rashi writes that this is simply a reminder that HaShem brought us out of Mitzrayim in order to perform his mitzvos, of which this is one. In other words, there seems to be no direct connection between Shabbos and yetzias Mitzrayim.

It would seem, however, that there is an intrinsic connection between the mitzvah of Shabbos and the exodus from Mitzrayim. There is no reason to assume that the Egyptians gave us a day off on Saturday. Rather, a more conceivable assumption would be that we had a full seven-day work week. With the exodus from the enslavement in Mitzrayim came the freedom and autonomy to set our own weekly schedule. We are thus commanded to set aside Shabbos as a way of reminding us of this great gift. [However, see the midrash (Shemos Rabba 1:28 and 5:18) which imply that there was a reprieve on Shabbos.]

When immigrants first came over to North America, they were forced, so to speak, to work on Shabbos, creating a new flavour of the Egyptian subjugation. But miraculously, the society has changed and now, even in exile, we are free to take Shabbos off from our work. The very concept of a seven-day week in the secular world is itself a miracle. The week is the only calendrical component with no clear astronomical significance. A day represents one full rotation of the earth on its axis. A year is one full revolution of the earth around the sun. But a week is nothing more than a group of seven days. The secular world could easily have chosen a six or eight-day week and that would have spelled eternal trouble for the Jews. (In fact, there have been a number of proposed changes to the calendar designed to maintain the same day of the week for each calendar day by using a “Worldsday” which would not belong to any day of the week.) On the day of Shabbos these miracles must be realized, in combination with the miracle of yetzias Mitzrayim.

Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, seems to concur with this approach. He writes that the two mentions of Shabbos in the aseres hadibros teach us two separate aspects of Shabbos. In parshas Yisro, we are taught why HaShem chose to sanctify the day of Shabbos and its significance in the days of creation. Here, in Va'eschanan, we are taught why it is that we must keep the Shabbos, namely, to remember the enslavement in Mitzrayim when we had no days off and appreciate HaShem's great deliverance of us from there.

Perhaps we can summarize simply: The ma’aseh bereishis aspect of Shabbos celebrates HaShem’s own greatness. The yetzias Mitzrayim aspect celebrates the greatness that HaShem chose to bestow on us as a nation.

 

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 / Chazon

As sefer Devarim begins, and with it a recounting of the events that befell B'nei Yisrael in the midbar, we seem to bounce around quite a bit chronologically. While we begin somewhere towards the beginning, this week's parsha eventually discusses the wars with Sichon and Og which took place towards the end. There is an interesting linguistic discrepancy in the account of those wars. In 2:36 regarding the war with Sichon, the pasuk recounts, "lo haysa kirya asher sagva mimenu," there was no city that overpowered us. Only a few pesukim later (3:4) with regards to the war with Og, we find a very similar, yet slightly different phrase: "lo haysa kirya asher lo lakachnu me'itam." There was no city that we did not take from them.

I suggest that perhaps the explanation behind the different choice of words is that Sichon was stronger than Og - or at least his kingdom was stronger. After all, the Midrashim do go out of their way to mention how powerful and fortified his kingdom was. Therefore, the pasuk establishes only that there was no city that was able to overpower us. In other words, there were no defeats. That still leaves it to be interpreted whether or not B'nei Yisrael wiped them out on every front. Perhaps there were cities which were unable to defeat our army but we were unable to completely defeat them.

Regarding Og, however, the pasuk need not mention that there was no front on which Og won the battle. Rather, there wasn't even one city which B'nei Yisrael didn't take cleanly. It would seem that the Torah describes a more complete and decisive victory against Og than Sichon.

(Above, I mentioned that the order of the recounted episodes in Devarim is not chronological. As well, the introductory pesukim at the very beginning are interpreted by Rashi as referring to the numerous different challenges throughout the 40-year sojourn. There, too, it is hard to make sense of the order. I would love to see an explanation of the sequence.)

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

This coming Sunday, 27 Tammuz, is the 8^th yahrtzeit of my cousin, Mrs. Michelle Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Rochel Mirel bas Shmuel HaLevi.

The beginning of parshas Mas'ei includes a quick rundown of every single resting point along the journey out of Mitzrayim towards Eretz Yisrael. It is difficult to read through this account without wondering about the necessity to recount each and every stop. We know where they left from and we know where they end up. We even already know about the more significant events in between and where they took place. But why do we need to know every single other location?

I discovered an inspiration towards this idea from a very unlikely source, although it does not fully answer the question. There is a quadrennial international sporting event currently captivating much of the entire world – the World Cup of Soccer (or football, depending where you are from.) One of the more intriguing aspects of the game (in which I, like many others, only have but a quadrennial interest) is the way the ball is passed around. The statistics actually keep tallies of the total passes and they are in the hundreds and can sometimes even be in the thousands during a single match. Additionally, although most other team sports do not have the ball or other object typically passed back further than a certain point – and some sports even forbid it – in soccer, the passes range throughout the entire field and often retreat all the way back to the goalkeeper. These numerous passes are necessary to build a scoring a chance which can often take many minutes to develop. If even one of these passes is off the mark, it can spell immediate doom.

Similarly (lehavdil), our journeys in the midbar often did not move in the forward direction. If they had, the whole sojourn would have culminated in a matter of days. But each change of course in whichever direction was necessary, whether for positive reasons or otherwise. We may not know the true purpose behind each of the individual stopping points, aside from some insights offered by Chaza"l. But we can certainly rest assured that there was a Divine calculation every step of the way as each was (33:2) "al pi HaShem."

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Pinechas

Monday, 14 Tammuz was the 39^th yahrzeit of R' Yaakov Yitzchack (ben Yehuda Leib HaLevi) Ruderman, zt"l, the first Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel.

Tuesday, 15 Tammuz was the 23^rd yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Mrs. Shirley Yeres, Chaya Shaindel bas Alexander HaLevi.

Yesterday, 17 Tammuz, was the 5^th yahrtzeit of my dear father, Reuven Pinchas ben Chaim Yaakov, a"h. As well, it was the 27^th yahrzeit of R' Shmuel Yaakov (ben Yitzchok Matisyahu) Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel.

The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

This past week featured the brisos of two great nephews – Yehoshua Shonek and Shimon Moshe Ash. In their honour, I figured it would be apropos to focus on the pesukim at the beginning of the parsha which - according to some customs - are recited at the beginning of the bris. 

HaShem, speaking to Moshe, begins by declaring (25:11) that Pinechas's act removed HaShem's wrath and prevented the destruction of the nation. "Therefore," He continues, "say that I grant him my covenant of peace." There is much discussion in the commentaries as to the exact nature and meaning of this covenant. Was it protection from the tribes of Zimri and Kuzbi? Was it an allusion to his eternal life in the form of Eliyahu Navi?

However, not as much attention is given to the exact forum in which this declaration was to be delivered to Pinechas. Moshe is instructed to "say," but apparently not to say to him. This would seem to imply that this declaration was to be made in the public eye for all to see and hear. This appears to be the approach of Alshich who writes that this covenant was a reward for Pinechas having sanctified HaShem's name in public. Tur and HaKesav vehaKabbalah are even more overt in their position that this was a public display in front of the nation.

Nevertheless, Targum Yonasan renders "eimar leih," say to him, filling in the missing word. Netziv, in Haamek Davar, seems to take this approach as well. He explains with a parable why Moshe was required to personally approach Pinechas to convey his reward.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian:  Shabbas be'Shabbato

Dikdukian:  I say Yericho, you say Yereicho
Dikdukian:  All of the brothers

Dikdukian: One Big Happy Family?

Dikdukian: Pinechas: What's in a Name?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Probability of the Goral

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 - 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.