The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav

    At the end of this week's parsha, we are described the ceremony of the consecration of the Kohanim. As part of the proceedings, Moshe brought three korbanos: a chatas, an olah, and the eil hamiluim. In the pasuk that deals with the slaughtering of the last korban, the note on the word "vayishchat" is the unique shalsheles, found only in four places in the Torah and three others in the rest of NA"CH.

    R' Chaim Kanievsky explains why specifically this of the three korbanos has a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat." He says he saw in a sefer that a shalsheles denotes an extension or elongation of whatever word it is on. For instance, as Sedom was about to be destroyed, Lot lingered and did not go along with the angels. The pasuk (Bereishis 19:17) says "vayismahmah," with a shalsheles, for he lingered excessively.

    Here, the other two korbanos required only a spilling of the blood on the mizbeiach. The last korban, however, in addition to the spilling of blood on the mizbeiach required also the putting of blood on the thumb and big toe of Aharon and his four sons. Therefore, Moshe required to deal at greater length with the slaughtering of this korban so that he could make sure enough blood was gathered for all the necessary tasks. This is why there is a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat."

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a) 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Nusach of Birkas HaIlanos

Dikdukian: Shabbos/Shabbas HaGadol

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayikra

This Sunday, 2 Nissan, marks the yahrtzeit of my Bubbie. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Yehudis bas Reuven Pinchas.

In this week's parsha, we are taught the procedures involved in the various sacrifices. The Kohanim, the ones performing most of the duties, are almost always referred to as "B'nei Aharon HaKohanim."  In one instance, however, with regards to the placing of the fire on the Mizbei'ach, (1:7) the term "B'nei Aharon HaKohein," is used. Initially, I understood that the reference to the Kohanim was reconstructed. Instead of being referred to as "The sons of Aharon," COMMA, "The Kohanim," here they were simply referred to as "The sons of 'Aharon HaKohein.'" The sudden change was quite puzzling.

 

However, a number of commentaries comment on this anomalous structure. The sefer Moshav Zekeinim suggests that the placing of the fire took special skill and thus, a specially appointed Kohein was needed. R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that the other procedures were in fact performed by numerous Kohanim whereas this particular one was performed only by one. Clearly, they are understanding that this term is merely a singular version of the common term used to refer to the Kohanim. "HaKohein" refers to the Kohein himself, not to Aharon as I had suspected.

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah (see Rashi, bottom of Taanis 29a)

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayakheil / Pekudei

    In the beginning of this week's parsha, the sum total of all the metals used for the Mishkon is given. The Ibn Ezra (38:24) and many other commentaries point out that the total of the gold is given without telling us what the gold was used for. But when the totals of the silver and copper are given, we are told exactly what they are used for.

    A number of answers are offered. Ramban answers that the silver and copper were used for parts made completely of silver and copper so their exact weights could be measured out in order to count how much was used. The gold, however, was often used to coat different utensils such as the Mizbe'ach or the Aron and thus it was not possible to weigh out the amount of gold used for each utensil.

    Netziv in Hemek Davar explains that the gold was used for the more holy parts of the Mishkon such as the covering of the Aron and the Menorah and it would not have been respectful to weigh these items on a scale and thus, none of the gold was weighed.

    Meshech Chachmah points out that while all the silver and copper that was used was already mentioned in Vayakhel, the making of the vestments of the Kohen Gadol were yet to be described and thus, the gold had not yet been finished so the Torah could not yet give a full account of its uses.

    R' Moshe Shternbuch explains in Ta'am VoDa'as that the Midrash Tanchuma tells us that the fools of the generation were accusing Moshe of taking some of the metals for himself and thus, Moshe gave a full account of all the totals. R' Shternbuch points out that the giver of gold obviously gave with more generosity than the giver of silver. Thus, the really generous givers were so pure-hearted that they didn't demand an account of where their money had gone. Those who gave only silver or copper, however, were more stingy and thus demanded to know where every last penny (for the copper givers, silver coin for the silver givers) went.

CHAZAK, CHAZAK, veNISCHAZEIK!

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'Simchah!
 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Ve'asa Vetzalel

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Parshas Ki Sisa

Tomorrow is th Yahrtzeit of Moshe Fuller, z"l, of Ner Yisroel. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Moshe ben Chaim Tzvi. 

    Moshe Rabbeinu, in his defence of B'nei Yisroel, pleas with HaShem (32:13) to "remember Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov to whom You vowed by Your Self..." Rashi explains Moshe's plea. You did not swear to them by something that is perishable and impermanent, not by the heavens, not by the earth; not by the mountains and not by the hills, but by Your Self."

    Rashi to Devarim 32:1 explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu gave B'nei Yisroel their final discourse, the song of Ha'azinu, he made the heavens and the earth the witnesses for he will ultimately pass from this world but the heavens and the earth are everlasting. With these two Rashis presented beside each other, the difficulty is rather obvious. Here the heavens and earth are considered to be passing entities with no lasting life and suddenly, in Devarim, they become eternal.

    I found a simple, practical answer in the Silberman Chumash. In Devarim, the heavens and earth are being compared to Man. They are surely more everlasting than Man. However, here they are being compared to HaShem, who is surely far more everlasting than the heavens and the earth.

    Perhaps another way to resolve this discrepancy is that the heavens and earth may very well be eternal, everlasting entities from a practical perspective. However, what Moshe is saying here is that their very existence is at the whim of HaShem's will. Although in all likelihood they will never cease to be, they very well could if HaShem so desired. And that lends a special significance to the fact that HaShem swore by His very Self to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim be'Simchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Kol Anos

Dikdukian: Yeiaseh vs.Taaseh by Ephraim Stulberg

Dikdukian: Velo Shasu

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Purim

    The reading of the Megillah is capped off by the singing of the joyous poem "Shoshanas Yaakov." It ends with the words "vegam Charvonah zachur latov," so too Charvonah (is blessed)... So what was so great about Charvonah that merited his placement in this song - and the "good side" of the song. Charvonah was the one who pointed out that Haman had prepared a gallows for Mordechai and Achashveirosh subsequently ordered Haman's hanging on that very gallows. So. There were plent of other players in the story. What about Hasach? What made Charvonah special?

 

    If one reads only the text of the Megillah without any awareness of the talmudic materials on it or the history surrounding it, Achashveirosh seems like a pretty neutral king. However, having been the one personally responsible for the halting of the building of the Beis HaMikdash, he was certainly part of the problem in many respects. What one can see simply from the text of the Megillah is a glimpse into his personality. He was very impulsibve decision maker who always acted on the moment. Once the moment was gone, it was gone. His anger with Vashti spelled her demise almost instantaneously. He didn't hesitate to grant Haman's request on the spot. "Kill the Jews? Sure." When Mordechai saved his life, he was certainly most grateful but nothing was ever done. So he forgot about it completely and had to be reminded. Even with Haman's decree, he does seem to have totally forgotten about it later on.

 

    Although Achashveirosh was not from Amaleik this trait is very much in step with the theme of Amaleik - chance and happenstance. Rashi (Devarim 25:18) explains that Amaleik "happened" upon B'nei Yisroel as they came out of Egypt (despite Midrashim to the contrary). The live-in-the-moment mentality of Amaleik is diametrically opposed to that of the Jews who understand that there is no chance and nothing happens without purpose. Not only was Achashveirosh physically a threat to B'nei Yisroel, his mentality was spiritually in opposition with ours.

 

    Charvonah understood this about Achashveirosh. He knew Haman was evil but he knew that for Achashveirosh to adequately punish him, he needed to seize the moment. Achashveirosh was already quite agitated and might not have appreciated Charvonah's intervention. But he knew that Achashveirosh could easily forget about this if time were to go on. So Charvonah jumped in and gave Achashveirosh a great idea that was too ironic to pass up. Charvonah was responsible for making sure Haman met his just and immediate demise. If not for him - who knows what would have happened?

**********

     I have yet to receive an answer to the question I posed last Purim: The gemara (12a) recounts that the students of R' Shimon bar Yochai asked: Why was it that the Jews of that generation (in the megillah) deserved to be destroyed. The final answer is that they were deserving of destruction since they bowed down to an idol. Rashi there indicates that this refers to the time of Nevuchadnezzar. There are two difficulties with this, both of which stem fro the simple historical fact that Nevuchadnezzar's reign was many decades before the story of Purim. (Nevuchadnezzar reigned approximately 26 years after the churban - Megillah 11b.) If they deserved to be destroyed, why did it take so long for this punishment to (almost) be meted out? Furthermore, this generation was not the one that sinned in the days of Nevuchadnezzar. Why does the gemara list this as the reason why the Jews of that generation deserved to be destroyed?

**********

     Another thought that occurred to me this year: Haman suggests to Achashveirosh that the one in whom the king finds favour should be brought through the city on the king's own horse and it shall be declared, "kacha yei'aseh la'ish..." We see that phrase once again when the suggestion is actually carried out. We also see the exact phrase with regards to the mitzvah of chalitzah. After the woman spits in front of the man, she declares "kacha yei'aseh la'ish" - this is what is done to the man who neglects to build his brother's house. Not only is the phrase the same, the trop on the words is exactly the same. So what is the connection?

 

Purim Samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Fighting the Good Fight

Dikdukian: Something Else that was Hidden in the Megillah

Dikdukian: Balaila Hu by R' Binyamin Marwick

Dikdukian: Megillas Esther, general

Dikdukian: Megillas Esther Advisory - Floor or coal?

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Tetzaveh / Zachor

This past Shabbos, 2 Adar, was the yahrtzeit of my Zadie, R' Yaakov Bulka, z"l. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Chayim Yaakov ben Yitzchak.

As part of the process of producing the priestly vestements, pasuk 28:40 commands "Velivnei Aharon ta'ase kutanos", and for the sons of Aharon you shall make tunics. This can be interpreted in two ways - one tunic for each Kohein or many tunics for each Kohein. This is the subject of a dispute in the Yerushalmi Yoma (Perek 3 Halachah 6). Rabanan hold two tunics for each Kohen and R' Yose holds one tunic for each Kohein suffices.

In the gemara in Megilla 7a Rav Yosef learns that when it says in Megillas Esther "matanos la'evyonim" it means 2 total matanos for 2 evyonim - only one for each poor person. Turei Even in Chagiga and Avnei Shoham in Megilla (same author) comment that this gemara goes like R' Yose in the Yerushalmi who holds one tunic for each Kohein. However, asks Mitzpe Eisan in Megilla, from Tosafos in Chagiga (3a) we see that the halachah in regards to the dipute in the Yerushalmi is like the Rabanan - two tunics for each Kohein. If Rav Yosef in Megilla is going only according to R' Yose then it is not in accordance with halachah.

Mitzpe Eisan answers from Pri Chadash (Orach Chaim 694) who writes that if the pasuk had written "vela'evyonim matanos" then it would have implied two to each but now that it says it the other way around it only means one to each. Therefore, the rule is that if the subject is written before the object then it may imply that to these subjects you will give objects to each. That then is the subject of dispute in Yerushalmi where the pasuk in question is "Velivnei Aharon ta'ase kutanos", the subject coming before the object. However, with Matanos la'evyonim where the object comes first, it means that these objects shall be distributed amongst the following subjects and everyone will agree that it is one per person. [This also explains why the gemara in Yoma entertains the possibility that there were two lots on each goat in the Yom Kippur procedure because the pasuk is "al shnei hase'irim goralos" the subject before the object.]

**********

In the special haftarah that is read for Shabbas Zachor, Sha'ul wages war against Amaleik and, in contradiction of his specific instructions from Shmuel HaNavi, he has pity on the king, Agag, and lets him live. Additionally, he does not heed the command to kill all the animals belonging to the Amaleikim and brings back those that were fit for sacrifice. Shemuel does his best to remedy the situation by personally disposing of Agag. Before smiting him with the sword, Shmuel declares poetically (Shemuel I 15:33) "As your sword has made rendered women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women."

This statement may be understood merely as poetic irony. However, R' Chaim Kanievsky understands it literally and points out that we see from that statement that Agag's mother was still alive. Wasn't he the only Amalekite left alive? Agag's mother must have been from another nation.  R' Chaim therefore concludes that a foreigner who marries an Amaleiki is not included in the commandment to wipe out Amaleik. However, in accordance with the guidelines of the gemara (Kiddushin 67) pertaining to the lineage of gentiles, her children are considered Amaleikim.

With this, R' Chaim explains another interesting twist in the story. According to the Ba'alei Tosafos on Parshas Beshalach, on that one night of captivity, Agag had relations with a donkey. This donkey was, in fact, a woman who made herself appear as a donkey through witchcraft. It was this propensity for witchcraft which demanded that even the animals had to be killed. This woman gave birth to a son from whom came Haman. It is clear that this woman was among the Amaleikim. Why was she not killed? Only the animals fit for sacrifice, donkeys not included, were saved. Therefore, she must have been spared when in the form of a human. Once again, the only justification for this could be that she was the wife of an Amaleiki who in fact hailed from another nation.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Zachar Amaleik? What was he smoking?

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings

Dikdukian: Tarshsih veShoham

Dikdukian: Sham and Shamah

AstroTorah: What's that in the West? by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Invisible Signs from Heaven 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