The Weekly Shtikle Blog

The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas / Balak

2009-07-03T16:00:00.001-04:00

This coming week is unfortunately full of Yahrtzeits. This Monday is the Yahrzeit of R' Yaakov Yitzchack Ruderman, zt"l, the first Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel. This Tuesday is the Yahrzeit of my wife's grandmother, Mrs Shirley Yeres, Chaya Sheindel bas Alexander. Thursday, Shiv'ah Asar B'Tamuz, is the Yahrzeit of R' Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

Towards the end of this week's parsha, B'nei Yisroel are confronted by Sichon and his mighty army (21:1-3). B'nei Yisroel made a vow to HaShem. The vow itself is cause for discussion in and of itself. Whatever it was, HaShem delivered them and they defeated the Canaanites and destroyed their cities. They then named the place of their battle Charmah, destruction.

Charmah - that should sound familiar. Only two parshios ago, a small group from B'nei Yisroel rose up and charged towards Eretz Yisroel in an attempt to vindicate themselves for the sin of the spies which had doomed them to 40 years in the desert. As we know (14:45) They were quickly wiped out by the Amalekites and Canaanites who dwelt on the mountain and were beaten unto HaCharmah. Rashi comments that the place was named for the events that transpired there, namely the destruction of that group from B'nei Yisroel. Being that the battle site in this week's parsha was named on the spot, it is safe to assume that these were not the same place.

I believe the identical names given to these places is surely no coincidence. The Charmah of parshas Shelach was named for a tragic destruction of a group of over-zealous fighters. More importantly, it symbolized that HaShem had put His final stamp on the 40 year decree. It became clear that no act of repentence could possibly overturn the decree. The Aron stayed put and did not go out to accompany the fighters, thus devoiding them of Divine protection. This defeat brought home the reality of B'nei Yisroel's failure.

It was now many years later. Most of B'nei Yisroel was now made up of those who would merit to enter Eretz Yisroel. This was the first battle that B'nei Yisroel would fight since that fateful defeat at the hands of Amaleik and Canaan. It did not get off to a good start, either. But B'nei Yisroel endured with prayer and devotion and through their prayers HaShem led them to victory over their adversaries. This battle symbolized the turnaround from the previous generation. The dramatic defeat of decades ago made the clear statement to their forebearers that they would not enter Eretz Yisroel. Contrarily, this dramatic victory over Sichon indicated that the conquest of Eretz Yisroel had begun. To accentuate this turnaround, they named the site of this great battle the very same name as the site of the previous battle. The name of the site where B'nei Yisroel were once smitten by the Amalekites and Canaanites was now the very same name of the place where they destroyed Sichon and his army on their way to entering Eretz Yisroel.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Korach

2009-06-26T12:35:00.001-04:00

This week's shtikle is dedicated to our new nephew Pinchas Elimelech Yeres who received his bris and his new name this past Tuesday.

After the episode of Korach, B'nei Yisroel continue to challenge Moshe and Aharon's authority. After yet another plague strikes B'nei Yisroel, Moshe is instructed to perform a demonstration that would show, through Divine intervention, the authenticity of Aharon's leadership as Kohein Gadol. He was told (17:17-18) to gather twelve staves from the twelve leaders of the tribes and to write their names on their respective staves. Aharon's name was to be written on the stave belonging to the tribe of Levi. Later, when the demonstration is performed, the Torah recounts (17:21) that the leaders gave the staves to Moshe - twelve staves with the stave of Aharon among them. Throughout the episode it is unclear whether Aharon's stave was one of the twelve or if it was in addition to the twelve for a total of thirteen.

Ramban, citing an apparent tradition that the Tribes of Israel shall never be counted as more (or less) than twelve, asserts that the stave of the tribe of Levi was one of the twelve. He suggests that to compensate, the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh were not separate this time but were considered as one tribe. Malbi"m posits that the leader of the tribe of Ephraim was the one whose stave was used as per Yaakov Avinu's command (Bereishis 48:20) that Ephraim be placed before Menasheh at all times.

Netziv, in Hemek Davar, challenges Ramban's position. He proposes that there is no problem with counting B'nei Yisroel as more than twelve in this case because the end result of the demonstration was to be that on of the staves would blossom, thus removing the tribe to whom it belonged from the group of twelve. Rather, Aharon's stave was indeed the thirteenth.

Although Netziv does address Ramban's issue of a maximum of twelve, Ramban's opinion is based on a textual inference as well. Moshe was commanded to collect the twelve staves and write Aharon's name on the stave of Levi. There is no command to take a separate stave for Levi. Ramban infers, therefore, that the stave of Levi was among the twelve. Netziv does not address this inference.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shelach

2009-06-19T15:30:00.001-04:00

A very special Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Yisroel and Hindy Yeres, on the birth of their little baby boy this past Monday night. Mazal Tov to the respective mishpachos. I will hopefully dedicate next week's shtikle to him when he has a name.

In the end of the parsha we have the episode of the "mekosheish eitzim" the one who gathered wood on Shabbos who was given the death penalty for transgression of Shabbos. Targum Yonasan writes that the mekosheish acted with good intentions. Until that time it was only known that a transgressor of Shabbos is given death but it was not known which of the four forms of capital punishment were to be administered. The mekosheish transgressed the Shabbos in order that we are exposed to the true halacha.

Maharsha (Bava Basra 119a) asks how could he take such drastic measures as to transgress Shabbos just to learn this Halacha. He answers that really, since he did so only to find out the halacha, it is considered a "melacha she'eina tzricha le'gufa", a work that is not needed for its principal purpose for which one is not liable. For example, if one digs a ditch because he needs the dirt, he is not liable for digging a ditch because he did not need the ditch. So too here, the mokosheish's purpose had nothing to do with the actual melachah. However, since he did not tell this to the witnesses, he was liable for the death penalty. But "min haShomayim" he did not transgress Shabbos.

**********

The sentence given to the mekosheish was sekilah, stoning. The mishnah (Sanhedrin 45a) discusses the sekilah procedure. One of the witnesses pushes the offender of a cliff and if he does not die from that, they throw a large rock on him and if he still doesn't die, then everyone stones him until he dies. The gemara (45b) quotes a braysa which states that it never occurred that they actually reached the third step of the entire nation throwing stones. The gemara answers that the mishnah was indeed not telling us that it happened but rather that if it were to come to that, that would be the procedure. However, it seems to state clearly in the parsha (15:36) that the entire nation stoned him. How are we to interpret the braysa or the pasuk?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Beha'alosecha

2009-06-12T15:48:00.001-04:00

One of the numerous topics discussed in this week's parsha is the commandment to make two silver trumpets to be used under specific circumstances. The Torah decrees that the trumpets are to be blown at times of war so that we may be remembered before HaShem and we may be saved from our enemies. The pasuk begins with a puzzling wording, (10:9) "Vechi savo'u milchamah be'artzechem..." The word milchamah is singular but the "tavo'u" is a plural verb, thus making the exact translation of this pasuk unclear.

According to Targum Onkelos, the pasuk is read as if it were written "Vechi savo'u lemilchamah," when you come to [wage] war. The Sifrei (Beha'alosecha 76) states very simply, based on this pasuk, that the trumpets are to be blown whether you are waging war on your enemy or your enemy is attacking you. Eimek HaNetziv suggests that it is the grammatical incongruity of the pasuk that is the reasoning behind the midrash. Because it is unclear whether the pasuk is talking about B'nei Yisroel waging war or war being waged, we may understand that it is referring to both.

Sha'arei Aharon points out, however, that according to Rambam (Hilchos Ta'aniyos 1,2) it is clear that this does not include a "milchemes reshus," voluntary war. Therefore, when the Sifrei includes B'nei Yisroel waging war on its enemies, it refers only to "milchemes mitzvah," a Divinely sanctioned war. Rambam defines this elsewhere (Hilchos Melachim 5:1) as the wars against the seven nations, Amaleik and any act of defence. [According to this, it would seem that any military or political move which clearly undermines the efforts of National security and defence may in fact be a transgression of failure to engage in "milchemes mitzvah."]

Rav Hirsch makes an insightful observation in support of the above interpretation. The Torah, in reference to war, will sometimes use the verb "tavo," but at times it uses the word "teitzei." The word "teitzei," to go out, implies a voluntary act of going out to war and thus, it is used in reference to an uncommanded war. The word "tavo," indicating the coming to or coming of war, implies a more passive acceptance of the realities and necessities of war. Therefore, it is used, as it is here, in reference to a "milchemes mitzvah," which is carried out only by Divine decree.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Naso

2009-06-05T16:37:00.001-04:00

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 don't 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 separates himself from the pleasures of this world and leads a life of extreme holiness. Although curbing one's level of indulgence is often looked upon as a 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 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.

From 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 all 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.

--
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shavuos

2009-05-28T11:03:00.001-04:00

On Shavuos, we celebrate the giving of the Torah to B'nei Yisroel after they came out of Mitzrayim. On this day we experienced a level of spirituality higher than ever before. This high level of spirituality is meant to be experienced, to a certain degree, every year when Shavuos comes around. There are (at least) to instances where we find Shavuos as an exception, perhaps to convey this very idea.

The first is found in Parshas Vayikra. We are told (Vayikra 2:11) that leaven and honey may not be brought with any (communal) Korban. The very next pasuk, as Rashi there explains, comes to tell us that there is one exception to this rule. The avodah of Shavuos involves the bringing of the "shtei halechem," the two loaves which did consist of chameitz, and the "bikurim," which had in them the honey of dates. Why is Shavuos different? Klei Yakar explains that honey represents the desires that every human has in this world. Just like honey is very sweet but an overdose of it can be harmful, so to there are desires in this world that are very necessary, but an overdose of them is harmful as well. One must be careful to indulge in only those that are necessary, and make do without the rest. Se'or, leaven, represents the Yeitzer Hara, as demonstrated in Berachos 17a "Our desire is to fulfill Your desire, but the 'se'or sheba'isa' is interfering." Both desire and the Yeitzer Hara are necessary components of our being. One must eat and drink to stay healthy. One must want to marry in order to start a family, or the world would not last. Being that these aspects of our being are not necessary within themselves, but only to reach an ultimate goal, it is not fitting that they be brought for any korban during the duration of the year. However, on Shavuos, we are celebrating the giving of the Torah, the only antidote to keep the Yeitzer Hara and this-worldly desires at bay. With this in mind we may bring leaven and honey for on this day, Torah is the principal focus. On all other days, it is forbidden.

The second example is from Parshas Pinechas, where the korbanos for all the holidays are discussed. On every Yom Tov, a se'ir izim, a kid goat is brought as a korban. On all days it is referred to as a se'ir... chatas, a goat for a sin offering. However, when the Torah discusses Shavuos, we find a different wording, (Bemidbar 28:30) "se'ir izim echad," with no mention of the word chatas. The Yerushalmi (Rosh HaShanah 4:5) teaches us why the word chatas was left out here. R' Mesharshia said in the name of R' Ida, HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to Yisroel, "since you accepted upon yourself the yoke of My Torah, I consider it as if you have never sinned in your days." R' Chaim Paltiel points out that in Emor (Vayikra 23:19) the korban is referred to as "se'ir izim echad l'chatas." However, there too there is a missing phrase. The words "lechapeir aleichem," to atone for you, are left out, as if we do not require atonement. We see clearly from examples in the Torah that the spiritual high of Matan Toraseinu is meant to be experienced every year. May we all experience it at the greatest possible level.

Have a good Yom Tov and good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com
http://astrotorah.blogspot.com
http://alpicheshbon.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Bemidbar

2009-05-22T16:20:00.001-04:00

I am proud to announce another blog in the Shtikle series (I think this might be my last.) Please check out Al Pi Cheshbon, a blog dedicated to mathematical computations in the parsha and elsewhere. The beginning of the book of Numbers was a perfect time to release this. There are already numerous posts pertaining to this week's parsha.

This week's Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my mother, o"h, Tzirel Nechama bas Tuvia Yehuda, whose Yahrtzeit was this past Tuesday.

R' Elie Wolf connects this week's haftarah with the upcoming chag of Shavuos:

This week we do not read the regular haftarah but rather the special haftarah of Machar Chodesh which is read when the first day of Rosh Chodesh falls out on Sunday. The haftarah is from Shmuel I perek 20. Towards the end, Sha'ul gets rather annoyed at his son Yonasan for siding with his friend, Dovid. In the midst of his outburst, he exclaims, (pasuk 30) "Son of a rebellious woman! Do I not know that you choose ben Yishay to your own shame and the shame of your mother's nakedness!?" What is the reason for such an outburst and what does Yonasan's mother have to do with anything?

Rashi on this pasuk tells the story of how Sha'ul met his wife. After most of the tribe of Binyomin were wiped out following the gruesome episode of "Pilegesh b'Giv'ah" at the end of Shoftim, the tribe was in danger of extinction. They were told to go out to the vineyards and watch as the daughters of Shiloh come out and dance and they were to pick wives from them. Sha'ul was embarrassed and did not partake in this exercise until finally, his potential wife uncharacteristically ran after him and, well, the rest is history.

In Yevamos 76b, the story is told of how the validity of Dovid's lineage was questioned due to the fact that he descended from Rus the Moabite, a gemara with obvious implications to Shavuos when we read Megillas Rus. Avner maintains that the prohibition of a Moabite (or Amonite) to marry into B'nei Yisroel (Devarim 23:4) applies only to males (Amoni v'lo Amonis, etc.) and therefore Rus was allowed to marry Bo'az and Dovid's lineage is clean. The reasoning he suggests is that the reason given for the prohibition is that they did not come out and greet B'nei Yisroel with food and bread. This can only be a claim on the men for it is not the way of the woman to go out and greet. Do'eg retorts that they should have brought out the men to greet the men and the women to greet the women, to which Avner is silent. The gemara later concludes that the rebuttal to Do'eg's claim is that even still, the pasuk says, (Tehillim 45:14) "Kol kevudah bas melech penimah," the honour of the princess is to dwell within. Even to greet the women, it would not have been right to make the women come out. Aruch LaNer suggests that the reason why Avner neglected to offer this rebuttal is because he did not want to insult Sha'ul haMelech for the manner in which his wife seized him was clearly a breach of this maxim. Therefore, he chose to remain silent.

Chid"a and Chasam Sofer suggest that this is the explanation of Sha'ul's rebuke of Yonasan. If Yonasan is choosing to side with Dovid, he is affirming the legitimacy of Dovid's kingship which is based on the adage "Kol kevudah bas melech penimah." By doing so, he is effectively shaming his own mother for the way she seized Sha'ul.

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

--
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar / Bechukosai

2009-05-15T16:44:00.001-04:00

Tomorrow, we will be making a kiddush at our home, 3410 Olympia Ave in Baltimore, in honour of the birth of our daughter, Yehudis. The following is what I plan to say so don't read further if you plan on coming.

I am sure many of us still have the memories of the Birkas HaChamah experience fresh in our minds. One of the emerging themes of Brikas HaChamah was that of cycles - recognizing that HaShem created the world with various recurring cycles. The 28-year cycle, which is one we don't necessarily pay much attention to, was brought to the forefront on that special day. But the truth is there are many cycles we observe on a regular basis. The 7-day cycle of the week which renews itself every Motzaei Shabbos. The new moon and the new year also constitute times to refresh ourselves and start anew. (See an old shtikle for a discussion involving next week's haftarah.) The Yomim Tovim we celebrate each year also give us a chance to relive the miracles of the past as if they were happening today.

The beginning of this week's parsha also presents us with a number of important cycles. We have the Shemittah cycle which resembles that of the week and then the Yovel cycle when we essentially hit the "reset" switch at the end of 50 years. Another time when we are able to experience the "circle of life" is when we name a child after a close relative who has passed on. As Shelomoh HaMelech stated (Koheles 1:4) "Dor holech vedor ba." We have now been fortunate to name our three daughters after three special women who each had a profound impact on our lives. Our Nechama being named after my mother, o"h, whose Yahrtzeit is this coming Tuesday, and is Shaindy named after my wife's grandmother.

Yehudis is named after my Bubbie, my father's mother, o"h. I was able to spend a lot of time with my grandparents - when I was younger and they lived in New York and later when I spent a couple of years in Israel. Although many people probably remember my Bubbie for her delicious food she made, as grandchildren we can never forget the unconditional love she showered upon us with just a simple smile. We obviously wish she were with us today and we wouldn't have to name our daughter after her. But as we reflect on the "dor holech," the generation that has passed and how fortunate we were to be inspired by them, we can only hope and pray that our daughter Yehudis follow in the ways of her great grandmother.

--
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

2009-05-08T13:24:00.001-04:00

This week's parsha ends off with the tragic episode of the megadeif, the blasphemer who cursed HaShem out of anger. When Moshe is taught how to proceed, he is instructed (24:14) that the man is to be brought outside of the camp where those who heard (i.e. the witnesses and judges) place their hands on his head. He is subsequently stoned. This follows standard procedure for stoning except for one step. In no other instance do we find the placing of hands before an execution. It is unique to the case of a blasphemer.

The Da'as Zekeinim miBa'alei haTosafos cite a Midrash explaining what makes the case of the blasphemer different in this regard. The judicial process as mandated by Torah Law makes it extremely difficult to impose capital punishment. The witnesses must be able to report every minute detail. In the case of the blasphemer we are faced with a difficult dilemma. The witnesses must tell the judges what they heard. Therefore, as the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 56a) explains, the judges and witnesses would leave the courtroom for a private session and the witnesses would indeed verbalize the exact words that came out of the mouth of the blasphemer, at which point the judges would tear their clothes to signify the mournful distress at having to hear such words uttered. The placing of hands on the head of the blasphemer, a process more common to sacrifices, is symbolically transferring the burden of responsibility for one's sins. Normally, we place the hands on the animal, allowing it to be an atonement for our sins. Here, the witnesses make a clear statement absolving them of responsibility for having to repeat the curses and the judges for having heard them. Since it was all brought about by the actions of the blasphemer it is he who bears the responsibility even for the repetition.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Acharei Mos / Kedoshim

2009-05-01T12:42:00.001-04:00

In Bemidbar 3 and 26 when Nadav and Avihu are referred to, the pasuk recounts "vayamusu... bahikravam eish zara..." the pasuk recounts the specifics of their sin in bringing the ketores which they were not commanded to bring. However, here, it only says at the beginning of the parsha "b'karvasam ... vayamusu." The pasuk refers to their coming close to HaShem and their subsequent death but there is no specific mention of the "aish zara" as there is in the other references.

The reference to the death of Aharon's two sons is followed directly by the instruction of Aharon as to the proper procedure for entering the Kodesh HaKadashim on Yom Kippur. The procedure is briefly prefaced by the warning that one may not enter the Kodesh HaKadashim whenever they please. Rashi connects the two topics with the parable of the doctor who tells his patient, "Follow these directions so that you don't die the way so-and-so died." But what in fact is the connection between Nadav and Avihu's death and entering the Kodesh HaKadashim?

The simplest answer might be that according to Bar Kappara in the Midrash, the actual sin of Nadav Avihu was entering the Kodesh HaKadashim. However, R’ Ephraim Eisenberg, zt”l, offers an answer which is concurrent with all the opinions in the Midrash. There are quite a number of opinions quoted in the Midrash as to the actual sin of Nadav Avihu. But with close examination, there emerges a pattern amongst all of them. The central theme seems to be that Nadav and Avihu were trying to reach a degree of closeness to HaShem which was beyond their reach. Their actions indicated a desire to become closer to HaShem but this yearning brought them to act inappropriately. Therefore, their actions serve as a lesson that there are limits when it comes to closeness to HaShem. This is the theme of the Yom Kippur avodah. A Kohein Gadol may not enter the Kodesh HaKadashim whenever he pleases, even if it is to become closer to HaShem. There is a time and place for this practice and it is on Yom Kippur only.

Perhaps this answers the original question. In this specific reference to the demise of Nadav and Avihu, we are not concerned with the actual actions that lead to their tragic death. We are merely concerned with the motives behind their actions and how they relate to the principal topic, the avodah of Yom Kippur.

**********

In perek 19 (9‑10), we are taught four different mitzvos with regard to the poor: peah, leket, peret and olalos. The required quantity for these mitzvos is quite small. For instance, the Mishna in Peah teaches that one or two sheaves constitutes leket but three do not, i.e. if one dropped as few as three sheaves, it is still considered too much and may be retrieved by the owner.

R' Moshe Mintz asks why the Torah commanded us a number of mitzvos of such small quantity instead of perhaps commanding us one mitzva of greater quantity. He answers that perhaps we can understand this with a Rambam on a mishna in this week's perek of Pirkei Avos, perek 3. Mishna 19 teaches "hakol l'fi rov hama'aseh". The Rambam explains that it is better for a person to give a little tzedaka at a greater frequency than to give a larger amount of tzedaka less often (assuming the total amount is the same). Doing mitzvos more often has a more profound impact on a person, even if the quantity of the mitzvos is small. Therefore, the Torah specifically commanded us to do many different acts of tzedaka in the field in smaller quantities, rather than less acts in larger quantities.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Tazria/Metzora

2009-04-24T15:54:00.001-04:00

Most of this week's parshios deal with the laws of the metzora. We are told (13:46) that the metzora must be sent outside of the camps and must dwell alone, "badad yeisheiv." The commentaries note that tzora'as comes as a punishment for loshon hora, which comes as a result of engaging in idle chatter with one's friends and others. Therefore, the punishment is fitting that the metzora must be 'excommunicated' so he can not converse with his friends and thus, surely can not tell any more loshon hora. This will give the opportunity to examine his sins and repent. According to this reasoning, it would seem that the metzora should be in total solitary confinement, without even the company of other metzoraim. This, however, is the subject of much discussion.

The first source that must be considered is an incident in Navi which is, in fact, the haftarah for Parshas Metzora which we will not be reading this year. In Melachim II 7:3 we are told that there were four metzoraim at the gateway. In the events that ensue it is clear that these men were together. However, this may not be brought as a proof one way or the other for a number of reasons. First, Chaza"l tell us that these four men were Geichazi and his sons. In the sefer Nachalas Shimon (by Rabbi Shimon Krasner of Ner Yisroel) it is pointed out that if a metzora would require absolute solitary confinement it would be because it follows the laws of "nidui," excommunication, in which no one may be within four amos of the "menudeh." However, in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 3l4:2) it is stated clearly that even one who is in nidui may be with his kids. Additionally, many commentaries point out that this particular instance of tzora'as is anomalous in that it was the result of a curse from Elisha that the tzora'as of Na'aman (see this week's haftarah) should inflict Geichazi and his sons.

Rashi on the words "badad yeisheiv" writes that "other 'temai'im' should not dwell with him." This might seem to indicate that he does in fact require solitary confinement. However, Rashi's intent is made more clear in his commentary on the gemara in Pesachim which Rashi is quoting here. There it is clear that the meaning is that other "types" of temai'im such as zav and tamei meis may not dwell with the metzora but it would seem that other metzoraim are allowed to dwell with him.

Nachalas Shimon on Melachim II deals with this issue at length and the conclusion is that it seems to be permissible. Tzafnas Pane'ach, as well, reaches the conclusion that it is allowed. Malbim here also writes that a metzora may dwell with other metzoraim and he fits into the precise definition of the word "badad," that it implies a separation but not an absolute confinement for we see the word badad referring to an entire nation at once (Bemidbar 23:9).

Nevertheless, the sefer Minchah Belulah writes that metzoraim may not dwell with each other for they are not equals.

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov!

Eliezer Bulka

http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com

http://weeklyshtikle.baltiblogs.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemini

2009-04-17T13:20:00.001-04:00

Apropos for parshas Shemini coming on the heels of Pesach (and on the eighth day of the Omer, no less )

At the end of the parsha, the pasuk (11:45) says "Ki ani HaShem hamaale eschem..." Rashi comments that in all other instances it says "hotzeisi" but here it says "hama'ale" and quotes from Tana d'Bei Eliyahu that the term ma'ale implies that this mitzva itself is a ma'ala, a virtue in and of itself, for which B'nei Yisroel merited exodus from Egypt. The obvious inference is from the change of terminology from 'yetzia' to 'aliyah'.

However, perhaps there is another inference to be made. In all other instances, the word "hotzeisi" is used. It is in past tense. Here, had the pasuk said "asher he'eliesi" then there would not have been such a strong implication that this mitzva is a ma'ala but only that HaShem took us out and therefore we should keep it. Now that it is written in the present tense, it implies that with this mitzva HaShem brings us up to a higher level and it is a virtue for us. The Midrash is clearly not making this inference but it may still be used to arrive at the same conclusion.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shevi'i Shel Pesach

2009-04-14T06:18:00.001-04:00

The seventh day of Pesach fits perfectly into the scheme of the chag. We begin by celebrating the grand miracles of the actual exodus from Mitzrayim and we end by celebrating the miracles at Yam Suf. However, there is a bigger picture. Our counting of Sefiras HaOmer beginning on the second day of Pesach ties Pesach to Shavuos such that the 50-day period constitutes one long chag celebrating Yetzias Mitzrayim and the purification process which culminated in Matan Torah. How does Shvi'i shel Pesach fit in to this big picture? It is not Yom Tov of itself like Shemini Atzeres but it is a Yom Tov nevertheless. What was the necessity of the events that transpired at Yam Suf and what part do they play in the progression towards Matan Torah?

In parshas Vayeira we have discussed the purpose of the warning to Lot and his family not to look behind them when they fled Sedom and why his wife became a pillar of salt when she did so. It was not enough to leave Sedom. They had to leave and never look back. Looking back upon the destruction indicated Lot's wife's inability to truly remove herself from her environment.

We find that there was a similar problem with certain factions in B'nei Yisroel who still thought they were better off in Mitzrayim. This is made evident by the arguments presented as the Egyptians approached. B'nei Yisroel had physically left Mitzrayim but their past was still fresh in their minds, to the point that they were not convinced that they were currently in a better situation.

There is apparently excessive emphasis put on the destruction of the Eqyptians at Yam Suf. Moshe declares (14:13) "as you have seen Mitzrayim today, you will cease to see them ever again." And as the Midrash recalls, the dead Egyptians were washed ashore to make it clear to B'nei Yisroel that they had not survived the ordeal. It was seemingly insufficient for B'nei Yisroel to merely escape the clutches of the Egyptians to safety on the other side of the sea. The Egyptian army needed to be destroyed and B'nei Yisroel needed to bear witness to their destruction. Perhaps this was all necessary as a means of closing the chapter of Mitzrayim in our history. We left a nation which had been ravaged by the ten plagues and brought to its knees. But it was still a viable nation, one worth returning to if the situation were to necessitate it. But the complete decemation of the army at Yam Suf dealt the finally deathly blow, as if to say, "the Mitzrayim you once knew is no longer and there is no going back."

In order for us to properly and wholeheartedly look to the future, it was necessary for us to completely detach ourselves from the past, to know that we may never look back and must only look forward. This allowed us to spend the remaining days to build and to grow as we approach Matan Torah.

Have a good Yom Tov!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Birkas HaChamah and Erev Pesach

2009-04-06T03:21:00.001-04:00

I simply could not let this momentous occasion pass by without a shtikle. But in addition to that, this shtikle inaugurates my latest blog, Astro Torah, whose topics will include just about anything to do with zemanim. I plan to add more content soon. Please check back regularly.

One would have been hard pressed to escape all the "media hype" over the upcoming recitation of Birkas HaChamah. It's everywhere your turn. It's on various informational internet sites with explanatory videos and pictures. It is the subject of a number of worthy new publications as well as shiurim around the globe. And of course, let's not forget all of those tzedakah mailings. And it is with good reason. After all, this only happens once every 28 years. Of course, this year's recitation is yet more rare. We are required to recite the berachah amidst all of the hustle and bustle of Erev Pesach preparations. The last times this occurred were 1309 and 1925 and it won't happen again before the year 6000.So what is the significance of it all?

There are 13 individual beliefs that are delineated as the tenets of faith. However, there are two individual assertions of our belief in HaShem that are repeated in our daily and weekly routines at a much greater frequency. We are commanded to remember HaShem's deliverance of our forefathers from Mitzrayim every day of the year, at least twice a day. Additionally, the kiddush and tefillah for each Yom Tov incorporate a reference to the holiday as "zecher litziyas Mitzrayim."

The recalling of Yetzias Mitzrayim is so prevalent that many are troubled by the specific commandment to tell over the story on Pesach night. After all, how is this night different from all other nights? One thing is for certain, the mitzvah on Seder night takes on a different flavour from that which we find the rest of the year. Instead of a brief mention of Yetzias Mitzrayim, we are required to delve deeply into the story, to realize all of the wondrous miracles HaShem performed for us and to express our gratitude in many ways.

Another fundamental belief which appears nearly as frequently in our liturgy is the belief in HaShem as the Creator of the world. It is indeed the very essence of Shabbos which, although it only comes once a week, it is meant to be the focal point of our week. Our entire week is essentially a "zikaron le'maasei Bereishis." Interestingly, though, we find ourselves commemorating HaShem's day of rest without nearly as much attention given to the actual creation. Although Rosh HaShanah is meant to commemorate the creation of Man, it is so saturated with other various themes, it can easily get lost in the mix. Birkas HaChamah, recited when the sun begins a new cycle and the vernal equinox occurs at the same time in the week as it did during creation, demands of us to reflect on the creation itself and to give us renewed appreciation of the creator.

The timing of this year's Birkas HaChamah allows us to, in a matter of mere hours, take two of our most fundamental and basic assertions of faith in HaShem and elevate them and express them in new and special ways.

It is also worthy of note that in a year such as this, not only does the equinox occur at the same time of the week as it did when the sun was created, but the days of Pesach also fall out on the same days of the week as they did the year of Yetzias Mitzrayim.

Have a Chag Kasher ve'Sameiach!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Tzav

2009-04-03T03:13:00.001-04:00

    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 Kunyevsky 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.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayikra

2009-03-27T16:12:00.001-04:00

Today marks the 3rd yahrtzeit of my dear Bubbie, after whom our baby girl is named. 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 Kunyevsky 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
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayakheil/Pekudei

2009-03-20T15:16:00.001-04:00

In this week's parsha, (35:30-35) Moshe Rabbeinu informs B'nei Yisroel that Betzalel will be in charge of overseeing the construction of the Mishkon. He states that HaShem has instilled in him a special spirit of wisdom and understanding. After explaining this wisdom in more detail, Moshe adds (35:34) "Ulhoros nasan belibo," and to teach He has placed in his heart. It was not sufficient for Betzalel to be familiar with all the crafts necessary for the construction of Mishkon. He needed to be able to teach it to others so that they may participate as well.

In examining this pasuk more thoroughly, there are two very important lessons that are taught in this seemingly simple phrase. The first is that no wealth of knowledge ever guarantees the ability to teach. Betzalel was brought to the highest levels of knowledge and understanding but that was not enough. In addition to the wisdom vested in him by HaShem he also required a separate Divine inspiration for the ability to teach. The art of teaching is a necessary wisdom unto itself. This point is made by the Ohr HaChayim and R' Moshe Shternbuch on this pasuk.

This pasuk also teaches us that while other areas of wisdom are specific to the brain, the essence of teaching is in the heart. It is not even enough for one to spend day and night learning how to teach. No matter how much knowledge one is able to place in his brain, without a teaching heart it just doesn't work. Therefore in addition to enriching Betzalel's intellect with the wisdom and knowledge to perform all the necessary tasks, HaShem instilled in him all the necessary components to make the training process as smooth as possible.

Chazak, chazak venischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Sisa

2009-03-13T13:27:00.001-04:00

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

In pasuk 32:26, following the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe calls out "Mi l'haShem elai!" Who is for HaShem, come to me! And all of shevet Levi joined him. They then proceeded to wipe out all those who participated in the worshiping of the Golden Calf. It is known that the sinners in the episode of the Golden Calf represented a small minority of Bnei Yisroel (3000 men were killed). How is it then, that only the tribe of Levi joined Moshe in carrying out the punishment? B'chor Shor suggests that there were really many others from other tribes who did not worship the calf and joined Moshe. The reason that Levi was singled out by the pasuk is, as the pasuk says "kol b'nei Levi", all of the sons of Levi. It was only Levi whose tribe completely separated itself from this great sin and joined Moshe in carrying out justice. Each of the other tribes had at least part of the tribe worshiping the calf.

Netzi"v in Hemek Davar suggests a very novel interpretation. Moshe and his followers were about to carry out a great Mitzvah. We know that a "sheliach mitzvah" is protected from any damage. This, however, does not apply in a case where there is evident danger (see Kiddushin 39b). How then could Moshe bring people together to carry out this task which surely included the danger of being killed by a Golden Calf worshipper defending himself? Netziv suggests that this applies only to those who do a mitzvah in the regular, natural manner that humans perform mitzvos, with at least some sort of a personal interest, be it a reward in this world, or be it a reward in the next world. However, someone who has dedicated himself solely to the service of HaShem with the lack of any personal desires, even in the case of evident danger, need not fear to perform any mitzvah. Therefore, Moshe exclaimed "Mi l'haShem, elai!", Who is for HaShem and HaShem only. Who has dedicated himself completely to the service of HaShem. Only shevet Levi, who were not subjected to servitude by the Egyptians but rather left alone to serve as spiritual leaders (Ramban), only they were able to reach this level of service of HaShem. Therefore it was only they who were on the spiritual level to join Moshe in carrying out justice in such a dangerous manner.

R' Yosef Miller, of Yeshivas Merkaz HaTorah in Yerushalayim, in his sefer Hadras Kodesh, suggests that this idea may be used to answer a famous question in Parshas V'zos haBerachah. In Levi's blessing it says "ubris'cha yintzoru". Rashi comments that this refers to the fact that while Bnei Yisroel did not perform the mitzvah of Bris Milah in the desert, shevet Levi did. The obvious question is that the reason why B"Y did not do Milah in the desert is because there was a specific Northern wind that was not present in the desert which made a Bris a very dangerous operation. How then could Levi go ahead and give their kids a Bris? With this idea of the Netziv, however, we can understand that shevet Levi were on a level higher than the rest of the nation. They could go ahead and perform the mitzvah of Bris Milah without any fear of the inherent dangers.

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Purim

2009-03-09T12:04:00.001-04:00

There are certainly no shortage of interpretations out there for the exact understanding of the "ad delo yada" obligation on Purim. However, I would like to share yet another which R' Kulefsky, zt"l, would unabashedly repeat nearly every year in the name of the Nesivos. R' Kulefsky would often repeat certain vortlach in their applicable time over and over but would make it clear that he was well aware of the repetition but that it was nevertheless worthwhile for all who have heard it to hear it again.

As an introduction, the gemara (Pesachim 50a) states that whereas in this world, we make the berachah of "Hatov veHameitiv" on joyous news and "Dayan HaEmes" on unfortunate, saddening news, in the world to come we will only make the berachah of "Hatov veHameitiv." The Tzelach asks, what unfortunate saddening news will there be on which to recite "Hatov veHameitiv?" Rather, we will look back in retrospect at the events in history we regarded as sorrowful and realize the truth purpose of each and every one and realize that it was all for the good.

In fact, even for us in this world, a certain degree of this realization can be reached. The sefer Orchos Tzaddikim (Sh'ar HaSimchah) describes the highest levels of joy, citing the gemara (Berachos 48b and others) which states that just as we recite a blessing on the good, we must recite a blessing on the bad and unfortunate. He understands that when the gemara says "kesheim," just like, it means that we should recite a blessing on the bad with the same degree of joy and happiness as that which we do on the good.

In the story of Purim we read about the evil decree of Haman, a mournful moment for the people of that time. And yet, that decree was a catalyst to unprecedented levels of teshuvah and the ultimate deliverance from that imminent threat. And so, suggests Nesivos, the obligation to rejoice on Purim until one does not decipher between "cursed Haman" and "blessed Mordechai" is not to say we should lose our ability to judge and not see the difference between them. Rather, we should reach a level of joy such that, with the utmost clarity, we realize that there is no difference and that even the gravest calamities that befall us are part of a greater good.

We certainly live in turbulent times on many fronts. (Have there ever been times that weren't turbulent?) Our nation faces threats to its very existence at nearly every turn. The global economic crisis has taken its toll on the masses and seems to only be getting worse. But perhaps these dire times present an even greater opportunity to use this Purim to strive to reach the realization that everything HaShem does is for the good.

Chag Purim Samei'ach!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Tetzaveh

2009-03-06T12:50:00.001-05:00

In general, of the two parshios that deal in depth with various technical details, parshas Terumah is dedicated to the architectural detail of the Mishkon and related structures whereas parshas Tetzaveh deals primarily with details relating to the Kohanim. This exception that proves this rule is found at the end of this week's parsha. After all the procedures pertaining to the Kohanim have been discussed, the Torah details the golden altar that was placed inside the Mishkon. One would have expected this to be dealt with in parshas Terumah, when the Torah dealt with the Menorah and Shulchan. Instead, it is mentioned here.

Meshech Chachmah offers an explanation for the placement of the instructions for the golden altar. Every one of the structures and utensils had a specific purpose. If any of the structures were missing, their purpose could not be performed. If the Menorah was not present, the lighting could not take place. In the absence of the outer altar, the sacrifices could not be slaughtered and offered. A Kohein certainly could not perform any service without the proper garments. In this, the golden altar differed. The principal function of the golden altar was for the "ketores," incense. The gemara (Zevachim 59) teaches that if the altar is not present, one may still offer the incense in its proper place. The golden altar is excluded from all the other components to show its uniqueness in this respect.

The GR"A offers an insight into this issue which may shed some light on the reasoning behind the above law. The primary purpose of the entire Mishkon undertaking was for HaShem's Divine Presence to rest on the nation. This is stated clearly at the very beginning (25:8) of the instruction and stated once again at the end (29:45) "And I will dwell amongst B'nei Yisroel..." Everything within these two statements shared the same purpose. However, the golden altar, which is mentioned afterward, was not for the purpose of affecting the Divine Presence. The principal role of the golden altar was atonement. The daily incense was an atonement offering. The incense was also used in emergency situations to halt the breakout of a plague. Indeed, it is here that we learn that the Kohein Gadol was to sprinkle blood on the golden altar once a year on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. Since the golden altar served a different purpose than the rest of the components of the Mishkon, it is separated and dealt with on its own.

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Terumah

2009-02-27T13:13:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, 2 Adar, was the third Yahrtzeit of my Zadie, R' Yaakov Bulka. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Chaim Yaakov ben Yitzchak.

A few years ago, I posed the following question and received back a number of suggestions which I would like to share. Additionally, if anyone has any new suggestions, please send them:

At the beginning of the parsha Moshe is told to collect numerous different materials for the purpose of building the Mishkan. He is told to collect gold, silver, copper and various other materials without any indication as to what they will be used for. Then he is told to collect oil for lighting, spices for the anointing oil and the Ketores and stones for the Eifod and Choshen. Why is the specific purpose listed for these materials but not for the others?

The relative value of the metals and fabrics was known to be greater and thus their importance was easily understood. It was more difficult for the people to understand the importance of the oil and the spices. They therefore needed to be informed right away of the important tasks for which these items were needed. (This answer would not suffice for the stones, however.)
This week's parsha deals at length with the construction of the Mishkan using the wood, the metals, and the skins. The oil, spices and stones are not dealt with more thoroughly until the next parsha. Since their purpose isn't discussed until later, it is mentioned briefly at the outset.
The other materials were more readily available to B'nei Yisroel. The oil, spices and stones took greater toil to seek out. As in answer 1, they needed to be informed of the special purpose they would serve in order to motivate them to find the materials and bring them in

Have a good Shabbos. Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Mishpatim

2009-02-20T12:32:00.001-05:00

One of the laws dealt with in this week's parsha is that of damages incurred when one's animal gores another. The pasuk says (21:35) "V`chi yigof shor ish es shor rei'eihu..." The Ibn Ezra explains these words as follows: And if the ox of a man gores the ox of his (this man's) friend. However, he brings an alternative explanation from Karaite by the name of ben Zuta. He interprets: And if the ox of a man gores his (the ox's) friend - another ox. Ibn Ezra rejects this ridiculous interpretation based on the notes of the pasuk which clearly indicate that it should be read otherwise. Besides, adds the Ibn Ezra sharply, an ox has no friends - except for ben Zuta!

It is not often that the commentary of a rishon on chumash will have one rolling in laughter but this one did it to me. However, Ibn Ezra's sharp attack on ben Zuta is not so clear. Daniel Scarowsky, z"l once pointed out to me that we find in the Mishnayos in Bava Kamma Perek 5 (bottom of 48b) "Shor shehaya miskaven l`chaveiro...," an ox that had intention to gore 'his friend.' It seems the ox is not the social outcast the Ibn Ezra had perceived him to be. But Daniel explained that the answer must be that there is a difference between the term "rei'ah," used in our pasuk, and the term "chaveir," used in the Mishna. Chaveir comes from the same root as "chabura," a group. A chaveir is merely one who is a member of the same group. Any two oxen are part of the "ox" group and thus, they are chaveirim. A rei'ah, a term used to denote a more serious friendship, a friendship in the mind, involving real feelings that only a human being can experience and an ox surely cannot... except, of course, with ben Zuta.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Yisro

2009-02-13T11:36:00.001-05:00

In this week's parsha, Yisro advises Moshe that he could not possibly handle the entire nation's legal issues on his own. Rather, he should "discern from among the entire people, 'anshei chayil,' God-fearing people, men of truth, people who despise money..."(18:21) However, when Moshe actually goes about choosing the men to take care of the lower-level cases, he chooses "'anshei chayil' from among all Israel"(18:25) The burning question is, what happened to all those other traits that Yisro advised him to seek out? The answer may lie in the definition of 'anshei chayil' which is why I left it undefined.

First is the rather disheartening opinions of Rashi, Chizkuni and Siforno. Rashi in Devarim 1:15 writes that Yisro instructed Moshe to seek out seven traits and he only found 3. Chizkuni interprets 'anshei chayil' as wealthy men. Of the traits recommended by Yisro, only the trait of wealth was one that could be recognized by one's peers. The other three were "traits of the heart" which one could not discern on the surface and therefore, Moshe was only able to be choosy about the 'anshei chayil.' Siforno writes that Moshe could not find men who possessed all the characteristics recommended by Yisro. Therefore, he decided that the most important one was 'anshei chayil,' well versed, deep, sharp men who are determined to get to the bottom of things and willing to fight for the truth. He reasoned that a God-fearing individual who does not possess this attribute is of inferior quality to a less God-fearing individual who does.

Ramban and Malbim offer more optimistic views. On pasuk 21, Ramban writes, and Malbim likewise, that 'anshei chayil' simply means men who are fit to lead a large nation, for the word 'chayil' is used to refer to large assembly. The term 'anshei chayil' was used as a general term. The next three attributes were only a description of the three components of 'anshei chayil.' Since 'anshei chayil' was the general and the others the specific, pasuk 25 only refers to the general and we understand from that that all the necessary characteristics were included.

Netziv in Hemek Davar writes Moshe chose from the scholars of B'nei Yisroel. Therefore, he could take for granted that these great men would be God-fearing men of truth who despise money for this is the way of the Torah. However, the trait of 'anshei chayil,' which Netziv interprets as leaders who can guide the nation (like Ramban) is not necessarily found in all. Therefore, amongst the scholars, it was only this trait that he had to seek out but the rest were assumed.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Beshalach

2009-02-06T02:59:00.001-05:00

It is with abundant joy and gratitude that we announce the arrival of the latest addition to our family - a baby girl born last Shabbos afternoon. We named her Yehudis after my Bubbie (paternal grandmother) a"h.

The timing of the birth of our older two daughters allowed me to focus on the significant role of women in the parsha. For parshas Beshalach, the female heroine is certainly more prevalent in the haftarah than in the parsha itself. Devorah leads B'nei Yisroel as they wage with the Canaanites and then leads the nation in songs of praise.

There is a different form of heroism found in the parsha, however. We are told briefly that following Moshe Rabbeinu's song of praise to HaShem for the great miracles at Yam Suf, Miriam separately leads the women in their own song of praise which mirrored that of Moshe. The one very obvious difference between Miriam's song and Moshe's was that Miriam's was accompanied by flutes. Rashi is bothered why they would even have been in possession of flutes. He writes (based on the Midrash) that the righteous women of the generation were so certain that HaShem would save them, that they prepared flutes while still in Mitzrayim in anticipation of one day singing the praises of HaShem's miraculous deliverance.

While the heroism in the haftarah was much more of a public nature, the heroism of Miriam and the other righteous women of the generation was more quiet and assuming. They expressed their unwavering faith in HaShem in their own private deeds.

The name Yehudis has an interesting history. I imagine many are under the impression that Yehudis is simply the feminine version of Yehudah. But if anything, the opposite is true. The name Yehudis actually predates Yehudah. One of Eisav's wives was named Yehudis bas Be'eiri (Bereishis 26:34). However, the very next pasuk indicates that these wives were hardly role models after whom we would want to name our girls. However, Rashi later (36:2) reveals that Yehudis was not her real name. Her real name was Ahalivamah but Eisav gave her the name Yehudis to fool his father into believing she rejected Avodah Zarah.

Later on in the annals of Jewish history, we find the name Yehudis in the story of Chanukah. As recounted by Mishnah Berurah (670:10) Yehudis was the daughter of Yochanan, the Kohein Gadol. There was a decree that all betrothed maidens must first spend the night with the evil general. Yehudis fed him cheese while he was drunk causing him to doze off at which point Yehudis removed his head, allowing all the women to escape. Ironically, Yehudis seems to have learned this technique - using the power of dairy - from an episode in this week's haftarah. Sisera asks Ya'eil for a glass of water but she gives him milk instead causing him to doze off and the rest is history.

But of course, it is neither of those two Yehudises after whom our Yehudis is named. The virtues of my Bubbie, a"h, were most apparent not in the public arena but in the private confines of the home. Her love and support of my Zaidie, a"h, allowed him to become the leader he was to so many throughout his rabbinic career. The love she showered upon her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and the pride she could so vividly express with just a smile were her hallmark. It is our wish that our Yehudis grow up to truly emulate these virtues.

--
Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Bo

2009-01-30T02:16:00.001-05:00

This week's parsha begins with the warning of the forthcoming plague of "arbeh," locusts. Moshe Rabbeinu warns Paroah (10:4) that if he refuses to set B'nei Yisroel free, HaShem will bring locusts in his midst tomorrow. He then proceeds to explain that the locusts will cover the view of the land, will not be able to see the land and will devour the remaining crops that survived the hail. The pasuk does not explain who it is that will not be able to see the land. Rashi comments, as he often does, that the Torah sometimes leaves out the subject of the sentence and instead, uses a shorter form. Essentially, it is as if the Torah would have written "and the looker will not be able to see the land." This interpretation is supported by Rashba"m and Ibn Ezra.

However, Klei Yakar objects to this interpretation. The fact that the Egyptians will not be able to see the land is insignificant with regards to the damage caused by the plague and need not be mentioned. It is certainly not as significant as the fact that they will wipe out all the remaining crops and should certainly have been mentioned afterward. Yet, it seems there is some degree of cause and effect alluded to in this pasuk, as well as the pasuk describing the plague itself (10:15).

Therefore, Klei Yakar offers an alternate explanation of the pasuk. There is a natural phenomenon that blind people tend to get much less satisfaction out of their food. The gratification that one derives from eating is apparently contingent upon their ability to see the food. The pasuk is not telling us that the Egyptians wouldn't see the land but rather, the locusts would not be able to see the land. As a result of the locusts' inability to see where they are going or what they are eating, they will never become satisfied and they will eat and eat until everything is gone. This is why Moshe goes on to warn that the locusts, after destroying the fields, will make their way into each and every home to find more food. This was apparently such a compelling prediction that Paroah rushed to call Moshe after the locusts had consumed everything outdoors that survived the hail. This is the only plague in which Paroah is said to have rushed to call Moshe. This is because he understood and believed that once the locusts were finished devouring the outdoors, they would not be satisfied and would then invade the houses.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
EzBulka@hotmail.com
http://weeklyshtikle.blogspot.com
http://dikdukian.blogspot.com