The Weekly Shtikle Blog

The Weekly Shtikle - Terumah

2012-02-24T14:15:00.000-05:00

The story goes that R' Chaim of Volzhin had trouble understanding a certain passage of Zohar and appeared before his rebbe, R' Eliyahu of Vilna (GR"A) and asked him to explain it to him. The GR"A then proceeded to give him the following pshat on a pasuk in this week's parsha. The pasuk (25:11) tells us that the Ark be made of wood and be coated inside and out - "mibayis umichutz" - with gold. Rashi explains from the Yerushalmi in Shekalim that Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood. He put the wooden ark in the larger gold one and then the smaller gold one inside the wood one and then coated the top of it. If such was the order, asks the GR"A, then why does the pasuk say "mibayis umichutz"? It should say "michutz umibayis" because the Ark was coated first on the outside and then on the inside. He answers that "mibayis umichutz" is not referring to the wood but rather to the gold. This to say that the larger golden ark coated the wood "with its inside" and the smaller golden ark coated the wood "with its outside". So instead of the pasuk telling us to coat the wood on its inside and its outside, it is in fact saying to coat the wood with the inside of the gold and with the outside of the gold.

And why did the Torah go out of its way to explain this process in such a strange manner? The GR"A explained that it was to express the following symbolism. (This is where it gets deep.) The wood refers to man as the pasuk says (20:19) "Ki haAdam eitz hasadeh" and the two coatings of gold refer to the two portions of Torah that must envelop man, the "niglé," the revealed portions, and the "nistar," the hidden. Torah is compared to gold in Tehillim (19:11) "hanechemadim mizahav". The Torah is telling us that as far as the niglé, represented by the outer coating of gold, is concerned, one has the ability to reach the deepest depths of this chelek haTorah. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is the inside of the gold that coats the wood. But in the nistar, symbolized by the inner gold, one may only reach the surface and may not be able to reach the full depth of the chelek hanistar, as it is only the outside of this layer of gold that coats the wood. Following this explanation, the GR"A refused to explain that particular passage in Zohar to R' Chaim.

One issue I have with the above: I looked up that particular Yerushalmi referenced by Rashi and the order is actually the other way around that the inner layer of gold was first placed in the wooden ark and then they were placed in the larger layer of gold. According to this, the order of the pasuk is fine the way it is. Perhaps Rashi had a different "girsa" in the Yerushalmi for in Yoma 72b Rashi explains this process in the same way he does here in Parshas Terumah.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Amudei HeChatzeir
Dikdukian: Venahapoch hu

Dikdukian: Watch out for that kamatz

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings

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 - Mishpatim

2012-02-17T09:42:00.000-05:00

At the beginning of this week's parsha, we are taught a number of different offences for which the punishment is death. Among them are the striking and cursing of one's parents. One would certainly have expected to find the two pesukim next to each other. However, surprisingly, after the pasuk dealing with the hitting of a parent (21:15) we are taught that one who kidnaps an individual and sells him is also subject to the death penalty. Only after that are we taught the punishment for cursing a parent.

    Ramban explains in the name of R' Sadiah Gaon that the placement of the pasuk dealing with kidnapping gives us an insight into the gravity of the crime and why it is punishable by death. Kidnapping victims are often younger children. When a young child is kidnapped he is taken from his family and forced to grow up away from the warmth of a loving family. He grows up not knowing his parents and thus is more likely to hit or curse them when he is older. This would have been a truly unfathomable act coming from a child who was the beneficiary of a full life of parental love and nurture. Since the kidnapper is responsible for creating this scenario, his act is punishable by death as well.

    Another approach offered by the Rishonim is that the pesukim are actually following a logical progression of increasing novelty, commonly referred to as "lo zu af zu." First, we are taught (21:14) that someone who plans and premeditates the murder of his fellow Jew is to be put to death. This is understandable. The next pasuk, dealing with hitting a parent, teaches us that it is not only murder that warrants the death penalty. One can even get capital punishment for merely hitting. The death penalty for kidnapping then teaches us that one can be guilty of a capital offence without causing any physical harm whatsoever. Finally, we are taught that one can even be put to death for the improper use of his words in the form of a curse.

    Bechor Shor offers a fascinating take on the issue. When the kidnapper stands before the court and is accused of his crime, he is likely to curse his parents and blame them in order to vindicate himself. That is why the pasuk dealing with kidnapping is snuck in here to be juxtaposed to the pasuk dealing with cursing. (I am not sure why a kidnapper is more likely to do so than any other criminal.) This idea teaches a very poignant lesson which is most applicable in our time. We live in a society where crimes are very often justified by outside causes. When a heinous crime is committed, too often we get wrapped up in the perpetrator's background, his upbringing, what kind of music he listened to or what he watched on TV. What made him do this? The Torah teaches us - HE made him do this. Regardless of what influences might have played a part, one is always responsible for his own actions and must face the consequences thereof.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Ox and his Friend
Dikdukian: Answer vs. Torture
Dikdukian: Give it to me
Dikdukian: Ha'isha viladeha

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 - Yisro

2012-02-10T12:24:00.001-05:00

As Matan Torah approaches, HaShem ensures Moshe (19:9) that with this great event, B'nei Yisroel "will believe in you forever." The difficulty with this promise is that we have already seen that with the splitting of the sea (14:31) "they believed in HaShem and in Moshe his servant." Why does Moshe need to be assured once again of B'nei Yisroel's trust?

Ramban here and Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 8) explain along similar lines that the mere witnessing of great miracles still did not accomplish complete belief in Moshe's prophecy for there was still room to suspect witchcraft of some sort. They had never actually witnessed the actual procedure of prophecy. The events at Har Sinai showed not only Moshe heeding HaShem's word but HaShem actually commanding Moshe directly, to which all of B'nei Yisroel were witness. Now there was certainly no room for any doubt whatsoever in the authenticity of Moshe's prophecy.

One of the most prevalent proofs offered by common kiruv organizations as to the authenticity of Judaism over other religions is based on these events. For the most part, each religion has a figure who claimed to have been in contact with God. Their religion is based largely on these prophecies. The Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel, HaRav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l offered a famous joke found in an old Hebrew joke book as a parable to prove the futility of this belief:

A certain Rabbi passed away and left two sons who argued over which was to be their father's successor. One day one of the sons gathered all the elders of the community and proclaimed that his father had come to him an a dream and told him that he wants him to be his successor. The elders, rather impressed by this revelation, were just about to appoint him rabbi when one man objected from the back, "Excuse me, but if your father really wanted us to appoint you rabbi, then he would have come to US in OUR dream!"

All the other religions choose to believe in the prophecy of one man. But why? So-and-so says he spoke to God. Why should you believe him? Only the Jews are different. Every single Jew stood at the foot of Har Sinai and witnessed HaShem talking to Moshe with their very own eyes and ears. This is a level of belief that is irrefutable. Also, due to its foundation upon nationwide testimony, it is a claim that could not possibly be fabricated. That explains why none of the other religions have ever dared make such a claim.

With this we can understand that the promise given here to Moshe was not about whether or not B'nei Yisroel believed in his prophecy. This was already established earlier. Rather it was a promise of the longevity and perseverance of this belief. A prophet who performs miracles may convince his generation to believe in him, but who will believe it in the generations to come? With the awesome events at Har Sinai, the belief in Moshe Rabbeinu's supreme prophecy became one that is sure to be everlasting and could never be challenged.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Many Who Fear God

Dikdukian: Letzais

Dikdukian: On top of Old Smokey

Dikdukian: Ram veNisa by Eliyahu Levin

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Beshalach

2012-02-03T13:34:00.001-05:00

The second to last of the many episodes that make up this week's parsha is the confrontation at Masah uMerivah. The double name seems anomalous. B'nei Yisroel quarrelled with Moshe saying, "Give us water so that we may drink!" Moshe counters "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test HaShem?"

Ibn Ezra explains that there were two distinct groups involved in this episode. The first group were truly in need of water and this led to their altercation with Moshe. However, there was another group that still had water which they brought from Alush (their previous stop as per Bemidbar 33:14). They wanted to challenge HaShem to see if He would provide water. To the first group, which had at least some semblance of a legitimate complaint, Moshe answered "Why do you quarrel with me?" To the second, he charged, "Why do you test HaShem?"

The site is therefore aptly named Masah uMerivah after the two separate aspects of the confrontation. However, notes Ibn Ezra, the second group surely angered HaShem more than the first. Thus, in Sefer Devarim (6:17) we are warned "Do not challenge HaShem as you did at Masah." Merivah is not mentioned.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Exceptions Ahoy

Dikdukian: Mikdash, HaShem ...

Dikdukian: Leave us Alone

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 - Bo

2012-01-27T13:21:00.001-05:00

This week, Ner Yisrael and the Baltimore community at large lost another of its great pillars. Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg, wife of Rosh HaYeshiva R' Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l and daughter of Rosh HaYeshiva R' Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman, zt"l passed away. A nice write-up summarizing the hespedim can be found here and full hespedim are available here. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Shayna Chana bas Yaakov Yizchack HaLevi.

There is much disussion regarding the exact methodology and pattern behind the ten plagues - what the plagues represented individually and as a whole and why they were in ther specific order. I would like to focus on a specific subset of the ten plagues. In four out of the ten plagues, Egypt was invaded by animals. This animal invasion seems to have a theme of its own. Rashi (Bereishis 1:26) writes that man was created to rule over the fish, the birds and the animals. However, if man is not worthy, he will become subservient to the animals. This four-pronged attack from the animal kingdom served to prove that the Egyptians had reached that level of unworthiness and they needed to be shown that they were no longer in charge.

The first animal invasion was that of frogs. Although the frogs invaded the land, there is very specific mention of their emergence from the water and their subsequent return to the water after the plague was over. The Nile, which the Egyptians worshipped as a deity of sorts, was completely out of their control.

The invasion of lice came from the ground beneath the feet of the people. The attack of the wild beasts sybolized the Egyptians' defeat above ground as well as being invaded from the outside. Finally, the locusts represented the animal kingdom's establishing aerial supremacy, as it were, over Egypt. The four animal infiltrations together symbolized Egypt's loss of power and ultimate subservience to the animals in all physical realms of our world.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Talented Locusts

AstroTorah: Korban Pesach in the Sky 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Va'eira

2012-01-20T13:36:00.001-05:00

After being rejected by B'nei Yisroel "out of anguish of spirit and hard work," Moshe Rabbeinu is instructed to appear once again before Paroah. Moshe responds with a logical argument, (6:12) "behold, B'nei Yisroel has not listened to me. How then will Paroah listen to me for I am of uncircumcised lips." Rashi comments that this is one of the 10 instances of the use of á fortiori argument, better known to most as "kal vachomer," in the Torah. The full listing is discussed in the Midrash (Bereishis Rabba 92). However, many ask that this "kal vachomer" does not follow logically. The Torah tells us exactly why B'nei Yisroel did not listen Moshe. If this reason did not apply to Paroah, then Moshe's logic is faulty.

Sefas Emes takes a very practical approach to this difficulty, one with which Rabbeinu Tam preceded him by many hundreds of years. The Torah may tell us why B'nei Yisroel did not listen to Moshe, but Moshe, at the time, was not necessarily aware of that reason. Without the knowledge of B'nei Yisroel's inner feelings, Moshe's "kal vachomer" did, in fact, follow logically.

R' Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, offers a deeper insight into this episode. When Moshe Rabbeinu came before B'nei Yisroel to lead them out of bondage, they should have come to a realization of their importance and sanctity for which they merit such a great deliverance. They chose, instead, to spurn this opportunity and reject Moshe. If B'nei Yisroel could not come to realize their own sanctity and merit, argued Moshe, how could Paroah possibly come to this discovery?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Strange thing about Frogs

Dikdukian: Dikdukei Va'eira by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: Leshon Yachid veRabbim by Eliayhu Levin

AstroTorah: Stars Fell on Egypt 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemos

2012-01-13T13:57:00.000-05:00

After Moshe grows up, we learn of the famous incident where he kills the Egyptian officer. The Abarbanel asks some fundamental questions on the episode. The pasuk says (2:11) that Moshe saw an Egyptian hitting an "ish Ivri mei'echav," a Hebrew man from his brethren. The word "mei'echav" seems superfluous. Surely, if he is a Hebrew, he is from his brethren. Then, when Moshe kills the Egyptian it says that he looked both ways and saw that there was no man. If that is the case, how did Dasan know that he had done it as we see from the events that followed?

Abarbanel offers a novel interpretation of the events. There were in fact many present at the time. The word "mei'echav" is telling us that the Egyptian grabbed this one man from amongst his (Moshe's) brothers and began to beat him only. Moshe saw this and looked both ways and saw that there was no man, that no one was man enough to stick up for his fellow Jew. Then Moshe saw that he needed to be the one to stand up and do something about it so he killed the Egyptian. But, it was indeed in front of many.

There is an alternative answer to Abarbanel's second question. According to the Midrash (Shemos Rabba) the man being flogged by the Egyptian was none other than Dasan himself. It is therefore no surprise that he was aware of Moshe's having killed the Egyptian. But it paints an even uglier picture of what went on. Dasan challenges Moshe the next day, saying, (2:14) "are you going to kill me like you killed the Egyptian?" Not only is he pointing a finger at Moshe for a noble deed, he is showing complete ingratitude for having saved his own life.

The above interpretations fit well with Rashi's second interpretation of Moshe's reaction when he states, (Ibid) "Alas, it is known." The obvious meaning is that his killing of the Egyptian is known. But Rashi offers another angle. "I was always bothered, why the Israelites were deserving of such oppression. Now I know they are deserving." This episode brought out the worst in B'nei Yisroel. First, a crowd watches idly as their brother is beaten. And then Dasan fails to acknowledge Moshe's virtuous bravery.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikduian: Bas Paroah (Guess what I have to say about that!)
Dikduian: From the Children of the Hebrews
Dikduian: The Strange Thing about Straw
Dikduian: Affliction
Dikduian: Raamseis

Dikdukian: Random Dikduk from Shemos by Eliyahu Levin

AstroTorah: Reflections of the World, Klal Yisrael, and the Sky 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayechi

2012-01-06T12:35:00.001-05:00

The following is a story told to me by a friend that directly pertains to this week's parsha. He heard it in a schmooze from R' Aharon Kahn in YU. R' Kahn tells that one day his rebbe approached him, grabbed by the lapels and exclaimed, "It's refraction!" (For an explanation of refraction, see below.*)

"What is? What is?" he answered.

"Refraction," he repeated.

"What? What's refraction?"

The following was his explanation: Rashi explains (48:16) that the word "veyidgu" comes from the same root as the word "dag," meaning fish. The blessing given to Efrayim and Menasheh is that they should multiply like the fish in the sea over which "ayin hara," the evil eye, has no power. Why does the evil eye have no power over fish? The gemara (Sotah 36b) explains that the ayin hara has no power over fish because they are covered by water. This rebbe explained that since fish are always in the water, when you look at them you are really not looking directly at the fish but rather, due to refraction, you are seeing some sort of distorted image of the fish and the image is somewhat shifted. Therefore, the evil eye has no power over them. Unbelievable!

*Refraction is the phenomenon that occurs when light passes through media of different densities.

If the light passes through at an angle, the angle is slightly altered as it passes from one medium to

the next, depending on their densities. This phenomenon is responsible for a pencil looking bent when half of it is inserted into water and is also the concept behind eye glasses.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: NEW FEATURE: I have added a new feature on the side bar on the Dikdukian page - a "View by Parsha" dropdown which allows you to instantly jump to Dikudkian entries which pertain to any given parsha (so long as they exist.)
Dikdukian: You Make the Call: Aveil Mitzrayim

AstroTorah: Was Yissachar Really the One to Regulate the Calendar? 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayigash

2011-12-30T11:58:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow, 5 Teves, is the Yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, Rabbi Dr Israel Frankel, o"h.

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel Aryeh ben Asher Yeshayahu.

After Yoseif finally reveals his identity to his brothers the atmosphere appears to be rather tense. The tension is apparently broken when Yoseif engages in a tearful embrace with Binyomin, followed by a similar gesture with each of the other brothers (45:14-15). As the pasuk clearly states, only then did the brothers begin to talk with Yoseif. Rashi explains that they were so ashamed that they were left literally speechless. It was only after they saw Yoseif crying and they knew his intentions were peaceful that they were able to speak with him.

What is puzzling about this comment of Rashi was that Yoseif's revelation was clearly preceded by a very genuine, whole-hearted cry which was heard throughout the land of Egypt. Yoseif was not one to hide his emotions and there did not seem to be a hint of anger in the dialog that followed. Nevertheless, the brothers were still nervous. What seems to have put the brothers at ease was not necessarily Yoseif's crying alone. It was the equal treatment of all his brothers. Surely, they expected Yoseif to deal kindly with Reuvein, who truly attempted to save him, or the other brothers who were less involved. But what about Yehudah, the mastermind behind the sale of Yoseif, or Shimon, who is "credited" with throwing him into the pit. But the pasuk clearly equates all brothers when recounting Yoseif's tearful embraces. Not only was he crying and full of loving, brotherly emotion, it was clear to the brothers that his feelings were equal for all the brothers, regardless of their involvement in his sale. Only then did they feel comfortable conversing with Yoseif. (Perhaps this interpretation can be read into Rashi's comment as well.)

Another approach is offered by David Farkas in HaDoresh ViHamivakesh:

The words "after this" seem extra. To me this seems to be the precise culmination of the events that occurred so long ago. Before, in 35:5, the brothers were described as "not being able to speak with [Joseph] in peace". Now, after they had seen the Hand of God in all it's awesome clarity, only "after this" were they finally able to speak with their brother!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: The Goodnes of Teves by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: NEW BOOK: The Secrets of the Stars by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Just Do It!

Dikdukian: Ram'seis

Dikdukian: Dikdukei Vayigash by R' Eliyahu Levin

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Mikeitz / Chanukah

2011-12-23T02:14:00.001-05:00

I have always found the text detailing the birth of Efrayim and Menasheh (41:50-52) rather intriguing. We are told that two sons were born to Yoseif before the onset of the years of famine. Perhaps the second one was just before the years of famine, but the first would have been a considerable number of months before then, at the least. Admittedly, this is not a very strong question for a number of reasons. We are then told the names that Yoseif gave his sons and the reasonings behind each. I cannot recall any other instance where we are informed in detail of the birth of two children simultaneously. The pasuk does not state that a son was born to Yoseif, he named him Efrayim and then he had another whom he named Menasheh. Rather, we are told that two sons were born to him.

This has always led me to believe that Efrayim and Menasheh were actually twins. I have not found any actual evidence in the Midrashim (although I would be very satisfied to find it.) But it would certainly explain how both sons were born just before the years of famine. It would also explain Yaakov's apparent difficulty in discerning between Efrayim and Menasheh. Indeed, it is stated that Yaakov's eyesight had deteriorated. But an older son is usually taller than his younger brother and Yaakov shouldn't have needed his sight to determine that. But if they were twins and were approximately the same height (and perhaps similar appearance) that would explain everything.

**********

The gemara (Shabbos 21b) explains the origins of Chanukah. After the great miracle, the rabbis instituted an eight day festival of praise and thanks. Although it would appear that the recitation of Al HaNisim is an integral part of this institution, it is not a requisite part of the Birkas HaMazon or davening as one need not repeat if it is forgotten. Indeed, Rambam does not include the laws pertaining to Al Hanisim in the laws of Chanukah but rather, in the laws of Tefillah. This implies that it is merely a general requirement to mention the day, "mei'ein hameora," in the tefillah but not an integral component of Chanukah itself.

R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l explains that when the Rambam discusses the halachos of Chanukah (3:3), he makes it clear that the lighting of the candles is mitzvah that was instituted as a manifestation of the praise and thanks. We show our appreciation not merely by thanking HaShem but by publicizing the miracle.

The underlying lesson is that the theme of Chanukah is praise and thanks. I therefore believe that the common reference to Chanukah as the Festival of Light is somewhat misleading. Focusing merely on the lights and not on the message behind them simply misses the point. The name is also likely related to an erroneous assumed connection to the other holiday that often falls around the same time. The Mishnah (Midos 2:3) recounts that the soreg, the wall that marked the point past which gentiles could not pass on the Har HaBayis, was breached in 13 places by the Greeks. The breeches were closed up following the victory over the Greeks. The victory and commemmoration of Chanukah are the resealing of those breeches and our affirmation that we are different than all other nations. This is most important when Chanukah coincides with the end of December as it does this year. We must not lose sight of the true meaning of our holiday - the Festival of Praise and Thanks.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Who's agitating my dots?

Dikdukian: Be Strong

Dikdukian: Just Do It!

Dikdukian: You Make the Call: Ukra'ahu

Dikdukian: Clear the Halls (Chanukah)

Dikdukian: Dikdukei Mikeitz veChanukah by Eliyahu Levin

AstroTorah: Dreaming of Astronomically Fat Cows by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Was the Menorah a Planetarium? by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: NEW BOOK: The Secrets of the Stars 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeishev

2011-12-16T10:49:00.001-05:00

The Weekly Shtikle is proud to announce the release of a new sefer by AstroTorah author R' Ari Storch - The Secrets of the Stars: The significance of the night sky to the Jewish people and the world.

Depending on your location, it may be available at your local Judaica store and is also available online. Mazal Tov!

When Tamar sends to Yehudah to inform him that she is pregnant from him, the pasuk states (38:25) "And she sent to her father-in-law saying by the man to whom these are, I am pregnant. And she said 'Please recognize to whom these belong.'" The gemara in Sotah 10b learns from here that it is better for one to have himself thrown in a burning fire than to embarrass his friend, from the fact that Tamar did not say outright that she is pregnant with his child and was willing to face death if Yehudah was not prepared to face the embarrassment that such a story would cause.

Mahari"l Diskin is bothered by two points. First, considering the exact form of the message, it does not leave much to figure out that Yehudah is the father. She specifically sent to Yehuda that the father is the owner of these items, and please recognize to whom they belong. That makes it quite obvious. Why would she be begging Yehudah to recognize them if not that she knew that they belonged to him? Second, the word 'vatomer' in the middle of the pasuk seems superfluous.

He answers that Tamar put together a very clever plan. She sent two messengers. With the first she simply sent a message "by the man to whom these are, I am pregnant," without sending the actual items. Then she sent a second messenger with the items and a message "please recognize to whom these belong." This explains the appearance of the word 'vatomer' in the middle, introducing the message she sent with the second messenger. This way, neither of the two messengers could figure out on his own that it is Yehudah who is the father. Only Yehudah could figure it out and thus, she succeeded in saving him from embarrassment.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: 29 or 30? Both. 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

Re: The Weekly Shtikle - Vayishlach

2011-12-09T13:48:00.001-05:00

A special, belated Weekly Shtikle Mazal Tov to my brother, Binyomin, his wife Shira and the ganse mishpacha on the birth of a little girl, Baila, last week.

When Yaakov sends the angels to Eisav, he commands them to tell him (32:5) "Im Lavan garti", I have lived with Lavan. Rashi adds that garti has the same gematria as tarya"g, 613, and that Yaakov was saying I have lived with Lavan and, nevertheless, "vetarya"g mitzvos shamarti", I have kept the 613 mitzvos. There are two difficulties with this. Firstly, he did not. He did marry two sisters, after all. Secondly, why is he telling Eisav this? How is this supposed to affect Eisav when coming to confront Yaakov.

My Zadie, o"h, offers the following explanation: We assume that the meaning of the word 'shamarti' is 'I kept'. But this is not necessarily so. We see in next week's parsha, after Yosef had his dreams, the pasuk says (37:11) "ve'aviv shamar is hadavar." Rashi there interprets this to mean that he waited and watched [to see] when it would come. Perhaps this is the meaning of 'shamarti' here as well. Yaakov may not have kept all 613 mitzvos while in Lavan's house. But being outside of Eretz Yisroel, there were many mitzvos he could not keep. In fact, the Ramba"n is of the opinion that all the mitzvos did not apply to the avos while outside of Eretz Yisroel. So for 20 years, Yaakov had been waiting and yearning for his opportunity to once again be in the position to keep the 613 mitzvos. He was telling this to Eisav to show him how long he had been waiting for this moment, and how determined he was and therefore, there will be no stopping him.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: The Great Dishon Confusion

Al Pi Cheshbon: Goats and Amicable Numbers by Ari Brodsky

AstroTorah: Ominous Eclipse Predictability by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The Gemara's Aliens or Others' Ignorance? by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Yaakov and the Angel by R' Ari Storch

Keep an eye out for The Secrets of the Stars - a new sefer from R' Ari Storch coming to bookstores soon!

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 - Vayeitzei

2011-12-02T11:17:00.001-05:00

At the beginning of this week's parsha, Yaakov leaves his home to Charan where he would spend the next 20 years. In his famous dream, he sees a ladder with angels ascending and descending. Rashi writes that the angels of Eretz Yisroel were leaving him because they could not leave Eretz Yisroel and the angels of Chutz La'Aretz took over.

At the end of the parsha (32:2) we find another changing of the guard as Yaakov prepares to return to Eretz Yisroel. However, he has not yet returned to Eretz Yisroel. He is clearly on the eastern side of the Yardein. How were the angels permitted to leave the boundaries of Eretz Yisroel to greet Yaakov as he returned?

Shaarei Aharon quotes an even stronger question from Panei'ach Raza. In next week's parsha, Yaakov sends angels (32:4 see Rashi) to Eisav. According to the Midrash, these angels were from the angels that he met at the end of this week's parsha. So these angels were sent to Sei'ir which is even furthere from Eretz Yisroel. Panei'ach Raza concludes that since Sei'ir was from the three nations, Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni, that were promised to Avraham, but reserved for the end of days, it was considered part of Eretz Yisroel and the angels were allowed to go there. Charan, of course, was not within any boundaries of Eretz Yisroel so the angels certainly could not have followed him there at the beginning of the parsha.

Sha'arei Aharon raises an issue with this answer from Panei'ach Raza. The gemara (Bava Basra 91a) discusses the unfortunate circumstances that befell Elimelech and his family (Megillas Rus). It is clear from the gemara that their trials and tribulations were punishment for having left Eretz Yisroel to go to Chutz La'Aretz. However, they only went to Moav which would have been within the "safe zone" that Panei'ach Raza defined. Why then would they be punished?

Sha'arei Aharon suggests that the three nations promised to Avraham which were not given to us were a result of the sin of the spies. From Avraham until the generation of the midbar, those nations were considered part of Eretz Yisroel. Only afterward was it considered Chutz La'Aretz. Therefore, the angels in Yaakov's time were permitted to travel to those nations but Elimelech was not.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Wordsthatsticktogether

Dikdukian: From his Sleep

Dikdukian: Complete it

Dikdukian: Different Types of Kissing

Dikdukian: Come on, People - Part II

AstroTorah: Did Yaakov Leave the Solar System by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Yaakov's Lesson on Zemanei HaYom 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Toledos

2011-11-25T11:28:00.001-05:00

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my rebbe and Rosh HaYeshivah of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, Harav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l (Yaakov Moshe ben Refael Nissan Shlomo) whose Yahrtzeit is this coming Tuesday.

As Rivkah Imeinu endured her difficult pregnancy, she began to ask herself questions. She ponders (25:22) "Im kein, lama zeh anochi," if so, wherefore am I thus? Or, more simply, why am I doing this? Rashi explains that Rivkah was questioning why she had yearned and prayed for this pregnancy. On the surface, this certainly seems like doubt on her part. But I believe the end of the pasuk shows that not to be the case.

Rivkah is teaching us a great lesson in dealing with the emotions of doubt. Inside, she was certainly feeling that this pregnancy was not "what she bargained for." Her approach, however, was not to give up and to declare her efforts a lost cause. Rather, she knew that certainly there was a purpose in all of this, a reason for her to endure and fight on. This is evidenced by her immediate visit to Sheim to seek guidance from HaShem. Rivkah teaches us that everything has a purpose. As we face trials and tribulations in our lives, whatever feelings we may have emotionally, our first course of action must always be "lidrosh es HaShem," to search for a higher purpose. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, "Why?" The challenge is to make sure that it is not a rhetorical question.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: (From the) The Fats of the Land

Dikdukian: Be'er Sheva / Shava

Dikdukian: I will eat, You will eat

AstroTorah: Yaakov and Eisav's Interesting Birthdays by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: When is Rosh Chodesh? by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Fighting in Kislev by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Sweet Fifteen 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Chayei Sarah

2011-11-18T13:20:00.001-05:00

Today, the 21^st of Chesvan, is the Yahrtzeit of my great uncle, Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, z"l. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yisroel be Yoel.

When Avraham requests an audience with Efron HaChiti, the pasuk (23:10) recounts "And Efron was sitting in the midst of B'nei Cheis. Rashi here comments that the word "yosheiv," meaning sitting in the present tense, is written without a vav. Without vowels, it may be read "yashav," in past tense. This, suggests Rashi, implies that he only now sat amongst them. The term sitting amongst them implies a position of stature. Here, Efron had just been appointed judge.

This explanation of Rashi should sound rather familiar. Just one week ago we had almost the comment fro Rashi with regards to Lot. When the angels arrived (19:1) Lot was sitting at the gates of Sedom. Rashi interprets sitting at the gates to refer to a position of judgement and again the missing "vuv" insinuates that this promotion had just taken place. Certainly, this abnormal spelling must be addressed in both instances. But why is this a necessary fact for the Torah to convey us on these two occasions?

The position of judge is certainly one that involves a great deal of responsibility. Certainly in a culture such as that of Sedom, the task of a judge was quite daunting. Even though both Lot and Efron seemed to have been appointed, it still takes a great deal of courage and feeling of responsibility to accept the appointment. It also pertains directly to one of the seven mitzvos that even gentiles are required to keep.

Perhaps, the Torah is conveying to us in both these instances the great reward that is allotted to those who bravely take upon themselves this responsibility for the greater good. It was this noble act that gave Lot the merit to be saved from the destruction of Sedom. Indeed, it was in Avraham's merit as well that he was saved. But had Lot truly been as wicked as the rest of the city, perhaps Avraham's merit would not have been enough. And it was Efron's accepting of his position as judge for which he merited to be a part of this historic acquisition.

Moreover, when one seizes the reins of responsibility, they are realizing that they cannot simply wait for this void to be filled by someone else. Often times the position of responsibility is one that could, in theory, easily be filled by another candidate. But the man of responsibility seizes the moment and does not delegate or shirk these duties. For this reason, it is not enough that they simply be rewarded. Rather, it is on the very day, as Rashi notes, that they accepted these positions that they are instantly rewarded.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

AstorTorah: Sarah's 127 Years by R' Ari Storch

AstorTorah: Avraham's Non-Yisrael Stellar Descendants 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Vayeira

2011-11-11T13:23:00.001-05:00

This week's shtikle is dedicated le'ilui nishmas my brother Efrayim Yechezkel ben Avi Mori Reuven Pinchas, a"h, whose Yahrtzeit is this coming Tuesday, the 18^th of Cheshvan.

After Avimelech mistakenly takes Sarah from Avraham, HaShem comes to him in a dream at night and tells him that he will die for his sin. Avimelech then proceeds to plead his innocence after which HaShem responds and lets him off the hook. The response begins (20:6) "Elokim said to him in the dream..." From pasuk 3 we are already aware that HaShem was speaking to Avimelech "bachalom halaylah," in a dream of the night. Why is it necessary to repeat this point?

We have discussed before the many differences in the conduct of Avimelech as opposed to Par'oah in just about the same circumstance. In addition to those points, Paroah was not even given the honour of a visit or warning from God, presumably because he simply was not worthy of such a revalation. Avimelech, on the contrary, did merit that visit. Instead of mere hints that something was not right, he received a message directly from HaShem, much in the way, it would seem, that any other prophet did. Yet, we do not ever see Avimelech referred to as a prophet. Wouldn't this dream constitute prophecy?

I therefore suggest, although without any textual source to support this theory, that true prophecy consists not only of a message from HaShem but the ability to converse with Him in the context of that prophecy. What happened here is that Avimelech actually awoke after receiving the message from HaShem in his dream. His words, quoted in the pasuk, were exclamations uttered while awake. He then went back to sleep and HaShem answered him in yet another dream. There was never an actual two way conversation going on within the dream itself. Contrarily, when HaShem comes to Bil'am in his dream (Bemidbar 22:9-12) there is a clear dialog, although I suppose it is not clear that that was even a dream. Nevertheless, due to this nuance, Avimelech is not considered a navi.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: A Scratch on the Wall

AstroTorah: Witnesses to Sedom's Destruction

AstroTorah: The Mysterious Midrash by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: I Can't Believe it's not Fresh by R' Ari Storch

Dikdukian: Different Forms of Yirash

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 - Lech Lecha

2011-11-04T00:59:00.001-04:00

This week's parsha features the epic battle between the short-handed four kings, Amrafel, Aryoch, Kedarla'omer and Tid'al and the five kings, Bera, Birsha, Shin'av, Sem'ever and... wait, was the name of the fifth king? When the five kings are mentioned, the last is "melech Bella, hi Tzo'ar." Rashi explains that the city of Bella was also known as Tzo'ar. The pasuk could not be naming Tzo'ar as the king of Bella because of the feminine "hi." If Tzo'ar were the name of the king of Bella, it would have read "melech Bella, hu Tzo'ar." So what was his name and why is it left out?

A number of answers are suggested. Ramban states that Bella was a small city and so the name of its king was left anonymous due to his relative insignificance. Sha'arei Aharon points out that the names of the four other kings are apparently nicknames alluding to each one's wickedness as Rashi thoroughly explains. From the story of the destruction of Sedom in next week's parsha we learn that Tzo'ar was the least wicked of the five wicked cities slated for destruction. Thus the king's name is left out due to his relatively insignificant wickedness.

Suprisingly, however, Chomas Anach and Sefer HaYashar actually write that the name of the king was Bella. I am not sure how the grammar of the pasuk works and why this king is differently introduced than the others but this is the only offering we have as to the actual name of the king.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

AstroTorah: Quality not Quantity by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The Uncountable Stars

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 - Noach

2011-10-28T01:54:00.001-04:00

A good handful of dedications this week. First, an overdue one: A couple of weeks ago, a little baby boy was born to my brother-in-law, Aharon Yeres, and his wife, Rachelle. His dedication slipped through the cracks as he was born after Rosh HaShanah and I did not send anything for Yom Kippur. So this week's shtikle is dedicated to little Yaakov Simcha Yeres.

Staying in the realm of Simcha (in more ways than one), this Shabbos is the Bar Mitzvah of my wife's cousin, Simcha Karoly in Toronto. A special Mazal Tov shtikle dedication to him and the extended mishpachah, as well.

Finally, this past Wednesday, 28th of Tishrei, was the 10th Yahrtzeit of my dear friend, Daniel Scarowsky, o"h. This week's shtikle is dedicated leiluy nishmaso, Daniel Moshe Eliyahu ben Yitzchak.

The world was created with Adam HaRishon as its first inhabitant. Thus, the generic Hebrew word for a person is "ben-Adam," son of Adam. However, the world was destroyed and civilization began anew with Noach taking on the roll as the father of all humans. Nevertheless, in the Talmud and other halachic sources, the term "ben-Noach" is used specifically to refer to gentiles. We do not include Noach as one of the forefathers. Rather, Avraham is considered the father of Judaism. Considering that Noach is lauded as a righteous man in his generation, why is it that he is dismissed as a forefather and is not a vital player in our ancestry?

R' Ephraim Eisenberg, z"l, of Ner Yisroel, offers a possible approach. Rashi writes (7:7) that although Noach fulfilled HaShem's every command, he did not enter the ark until the rain actually began to fall. Although there are many interpretations offered to shed a more positive light on this comment, Rashi undeniably describes Noach as "miketanei amanah," from the lesser believers. It is this trait that disqualifies Noach as a forefather. There are two types of believers. There are those who obey HaShem's word for no reason other than to fulfill their Divine command. Others, although faithful, are influenced by other forces and influences. Noach was not faithless. However, with this display, he placed himself firmly in the second category. He did not enter the ark because he was told to but because it began to rain.

In next week's parsha, Avraham Avinu exhibits the exact opposite trait. He is asked by HaShem to leave his place of birth and journey to a foreign land. Rashi comments that Avraham was told that the move would be to his benefit. Nevertheless, the pasuk recounts, (12:4) "And Avram went as HaShem told him." Avraham did not pick up and leave because of the personal gain that was promised to him, but merely because he was told to do so by HaShem. This is the virtue to which we aspire in the service of HaShem and that is why Avraham is a forefather and not Noach.

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: The Weight of the Teiva and The Constant Rate of Recession (not about the current economy)
AstroTorah: Sailing the Friendly Skies by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The World's First Boat?

Dikdukian: Noach's Three Sons

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 - Bereishis

2011-10-19T13:03:00.001-04:00

On the second day of creation, HaShem declares that there should be a firmament amidst the waters that shall divide between the waters. The next pasuk (7) describes that HaShem did so and ends with "vayhi chein," and it was so. Four other pesukim dealing with the creation end with the very same words. However, this one is decidedly different. The other four are pesukim dealing with a declaration of HaShem. The pasuk tells nothing of HaShem actually performing the said tasks. The words "vayhi chein" are therefore needed to tell me that it was done. However, here the pasuk details the actual task as it was performed. Why then does the pasuk need to reiterate that it was so?

Or HaChayim answers simply that the words are going back on the previous pasuk. After detailing the performing of the steps of creation declared in the previous pasuk, it is evident that it was so.

However, Ramban and the GR"A suggest that this phrase is teaching us something extra. With regards to the firmament and the splitting of the waters, the seemingly superfluous "vayhi chein" is not teaching us that it was then but rather that so it was and so it will always be. This step of creation had a certain eternal permanence to it.

Perhaps we can build upon the answer of the Or HaChayim which, at first, seemed overly simplistic. While this instance of "vayhi chein" is different, it is also the first of the five. Perhaps here it is acting as an example. It is quite clear that everything HaShem declared to be done in pasuk 6 was in fact performed in pasuk 7 - no more, no less. This then becomes the definition of "vayhi chein." From here we know that with every other step of creation, any time we see the words "vayhi chein," it carries with it the same precision and exactness as it did on day two. (Pasuk 11 and Rashi's commentary seem to contradict this approach. However, I did see an explanation from R' Ovadia miBartenura which would reconcile the two.)

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
AstroTorah: The Two Luminaries

AstroTorah: Emunah in Time and Space

Dikdukian: Do you Sea what I Sea

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 - Shemini Atzeres

2011-10-19T12:59:00.001-04:00

This past Sunday was the Yahrtzeit of HaRav Naftali Neuberger, zt"l of Ner Yisroel.

This shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Naftali ben Meir.

On Shemini Atzeres we begin to recite "Mashiv haruach umorid hagashem" in the middle of the second berachah of Shemonah Esreih. This phrase is so integral to the Shemonah Esreih that if it is omitted, Shemonah Esreih must be repeated. A question arises when one is in doubt as to whether or not they have recited it. Tur (OC 114) writes that this uncertainty, like many uncertainties in halachah, is decided by means of chazakah, an inclination that indicates which way to resolve the uncertainty. After thirty days of reciting the phrase properly, it is considered habitual and if one is uncertain as to whether or not they have recited it, they may assume that they have. Within the thirty days one must assume that they have not become accustomed enough and have likely omitted it and must repeat Shemonah Esreih.

Tur cites a tactic from Maharam MiRutenberg (and adds that his father, the Rosh agreed to this) to remedy this problem even within the first thirty days. On Shemini Atzeres, he would recite the beginning of the second blessing until "Mashiv haruach, etc." 90 times corresponding to the 90 times he would say it during the 30 days. This allowed him to be considered accustomed immediately and if he ever was unsure whether or not he said "Mashic haruach" he would not have to repeat Shemonah Esreih.

Tur also cites the source for this trick. The mishnah (Bava Kamma 23b) relates a dispute between R' Yehudah and R' Meir regarding the establishment of an ox as a goring ox. The Torah (Shemos 21:29) teaches that if an ox has gored already yesterday and the day before, i.e. three times, it is considered "muad," prone to gore and the consequences change. R' Yehudah takes the words of the pasuk literally and requires that three gores take place on three separate days. R' Meir, however, considers an ox prone for goring even if it gored three times in one day. His reasoning, employed by Maharam MiRutenberg, is that if spaced out gores establish the ox as prone, certainly more frequent gores will establish the same. So too, if the recitation of "Mashiv haruach" 90 times in 30 days establishes one as accustomed, certainly doing so in one day should accomplish the same.

The Magen Avraham and Taz attack this reasoning as the halachic conclusion of the gemara is in accordance with R' Yehudah. How then can Maharam MiRutenberg employ the reasoning of R' Meir?

The Drishah and Noda Bihudah give the identical answer to this difficulty. The reason why R' Yehudah disagrees with R' Meir is due to his literal interpretation of the pasuk. In theory, however, he totally agrees with R' Meir's logic. Therefore, although we rule halachically like R' Yehudah with respect to the laws of the ox, the reasoning of R' Meir is still valid and may be employed in our situation.

Have a good Yom Tov.

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 - Sukkos

2011-10-12T12:23:00.000-04:00

As part of the requisite mitzvos pertaining to Sukkos, we are told (Vayikra 23:42) "You shall dwell in sukkos for a seven day period." It is interesting to note that the word sukkos is in plural. The first inclination would be that this because the nation as a whole will dwell in many sukkos. However, the adjacent mitzvah of the four species refers to the esrog and the lulav in singular form, despite the fact that the nation as a whole will be taking many of those. Why, then is the wording for the mitzvah of sukkah different?

There is a big difference between the mitzvah of sukkah and that of lulav and esrog. The mitzvah to take a lulav and esrog is very personal and private in nature. This is epitomized by the fact that one must own his own four species and cannot fulfill the mitzvah with someone else's.

The mitzvah of sukkah, by contrast, is one that naturally includes others. Everyone makes the sukkah their temporary dwelling, the place where they eat all of their meals. Some are unable to make their own. Families and individuals, whether they have their own sukkah or not, are almost certain to share this mitzvah with others, either by eating in others' sukkah or inviting them eat in their own. Therefore, the mitzvah of sukkah is given in the plural because it is the intention that one should eat in many sukkos whereas the mitzvah of lulav and esrog can only be fulfilled with one's own set of the four species.

Have a good Yom Tov and good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Harachaman hu yakim...

Al Pi Cheshbon: How Many Bakashos in Ya'aleh veYavo

Al Pi Cheshbon: The Search for Worthy ... Humans (Koheles)

AstroTorah: Sukkahtarium

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 - Rosh HaShanah

2011-09-28T02:23:00.001-04:00

On the first day of Rosh HaShanah, the Torah reading comes from Parshas Vayeira. It begins with the conception and birth of Yitzchak to Avraham and Sarah after many years of barrenness. This is a fitting section to be read on this day as the gemara (Rosh HaShanah 10b) teaches us that it was on Rosh HaShanah that Sarah, Rachel and Chanah were "remembered" and their prayers answered. Then ensuing episodes of Yitzchak's weaning and the expulsion of Hagar and Yishmael are all directly pertinent to Yitzchak's upbringing and are justly included in the reading. The last two aliyos deal with the pact made between Avimelech, king of the Pelishtim, and Avraham that they and their descendants shall do no harm to each other. On the surface, there does not seem to be any relevance to Rosh HaShanah. The first three aliyos contain 21 pesukim, conceivably enough to comprise a complete Torah reading, even on Shabbos when we require seven aliyos. Why, then, is this section included in the reading?

I suggest that this section of the reading does in fact have a significant connection to the Rosh HaShanah experience. The central theme of the Mussaf service on Rosh HaShanah is the trio of malchios, zichronos and shofaros - kingship, remembrances and shofars . The middle of the three, remembrances, refers specifically to recalling the various covenants made with our forefathers. This section which is read at the end of the day's Torah reading impresses upon us the significance of a covenant. The pact made between Avimelech and Avraham, later reaffirmed by Yitzchak, was binding over many generations. Despite being gravely mistreated and persecuted by the Pelishtim, Avimelech's descendants, after entering Eretz Yisroel, on two occasions (Yeshoshua 15:63, Shmuel II 5) B'nei Yisroel refrained from any offensive against the Pelishtim. In the Midrash (Sifrei Re'eih 12:17) R' Yehoshua ben Levi teaches that it was within their powers to do battle with them, but they were not allowed because of the covenant between Avraham and Avimelech.

Perhaps, the inclusion of this episode in the Torah reading is in parallel with the zichronos aspect of our prayers. Indeed, we are guilty many times over of violating our covenant with HaShem to keep the Torah in its entirety. Nevertheless, we beseech of HaShem to remember, so to speak, the covenant made with Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov never to forsake us despite our transgressions, in the same manner in which we faithfully upheld our accord with the Pelishtim.

Have a Good Yom Tov, a Kesivah vaChasimah Tovah and a Good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Good Remembrance

AlPiCheshbon: The Most Possible Seudos in a Year

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 - Nitzavim / Vayeilech

2011-09-23T16:08:00.001-04:00

The central theme in this week's parsha, not in the least bit coincidentally, is theme of teshuvah, repentance. After the pesukim dealing with the harsh punishments of the man, woman, family or tribe who "goes his own way," we are told of all the good that is bestowed upon us when we return to HaShem.

Perek 30 begins, "And it sall be when these things come upon you, the blessings and the curses which I have put before you...And you shall return to HaShem, your God." It is common, especially at this time, to look back and reflect on recent tragedies - those that affect us personally or as a nation more directly, such as the passing of a loved one or the trials and tribulations endured by our bretheren in Eretz Yisroel, and those that might seem to affect us less directly, such as various world events - and try to understand it as HaShem's call for us to do teshuvah. It is certainly not uncommon for such events to be invoked in a Rosh HaShanah or Shabbas Shuva drasha. However, there is a small yet important nuance in this week's parsha that might easily be overlooked in this process. It is not merely the curses, the tragedies and misfortunes, that are meant to be catalysts to our repentance. The berachah, the blessings and the good fortune are meant to serve the same purpose. It is simply insufficient to look back at the tough times that befell us, either personally or nationally, and declare "God was telling us something." We must also reflect upon the wonderful blessings we have enjoyed, for He was telling us something then too. Appreciating the love and the Divine Providence with which our lives are governed, can and should lead us to teshuvah just the same.

Have a good Shabbos and a kesivah vachasimah tovah.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Don't you worry

AstroTorah: The Great Rabbinic Cover-up 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Savo

2011-09-16T14:25:00.000-04:00

B'nei Yisroel are commanded (27:4) that after they cross the Yardein they are to set down the rocks on Har Eival, etc. In the gemara Sanhedrin 44a, R' Shaila teaches that Yehoshua did not act accordingly as the pasuk instructed to perform this ceremony immediately after crossing the Yardein but he travelled for 60 mil. Tosafos asks an obvious question. B'nei Yisroel were clearly commanded to do all this on Har Grizim and Har Eival. Is it Yehoshua's fault that these mountains were 60 mil from the Yardein?

Tosafos puts together a rather creative answer. In the gemara (Sotah 33b) there is a dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Elazar. R' Yehuda holds that Har Grizim and Eival were far away from the Yardein while R' Elazar holds that they were right next to it. Tosafos explains that R' Elazar holds that there were two sets of mountains and that they carried out the commandment on the closer one. The Yerushalmi statesthat according to R' Elazar, they actulally built two mountains upon crossing the Yardein and called one Grizim and one Eival. Tosafos explains that R' Shaila here is of the opinion that the commandment to B'nei Yisroel R' Elazar's interpretation and was supposed to be carried out on the nearer mountain. What they in fact did in practice follows R' Yehuda's interpretation and that is why Yehoshua is rebuked for having delayed 60 mil.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim

AstroTorah: Goodbye Moon 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

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Seitzei

2011-09-09T16:13:00.001-04:00

In this week's parsha, (23:5), we are told that an Amonite and Moavite are not allowed to come 'bikhal HaShem', that a convert from Amon or Moav may not marry into B'nei Yisroel. The reasons given are because they did not come forth with bread and water as we passed their land and for their hiring of Bilam to curse us. The question that is asked by many of the commentaries is that in 2:29, and particularly with the explanation of Rashi, it seems that Edom and Moav both provided B'nei Yisroel with bread and water, albeit at a price. Also, we do not see in the pesukim anywhere that Amon had anything to do with the hiring of Bilam. There is much discussion amongst the commentaries concerning this question, too much to deal with at one time. I will focus on the answer of the Sma"g. He simply interprets the pasuk as giving one reason for each nation. The Amonites are forbidden to marry into our nation because they did not come forth with bread and water. The Moavites are forbidden for their involvement in the hiring of Bilam. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that in the Gemara Yevamos 76b we learn that women are excepted from this prohibition. We learn this because the reason of not having come forth with bread and water would not apply to women whose nature is not to come forth in that manner. It seems from there that this reason applies to both Amon and Moav, for it is specifically Moavites that are the subject of that Gemara. The only possible explanation for the Sma"g is that just like it is not the nature of women to go out and greet a nation with bread and water, it is not their nature to go out and hire hitmen. The only difficulty with this, of course, is that such a reasoning is not mentioned in the Gemara itself. Nevertheless, the Rashba in Yevamos interprets the gemara in accordance with the Sma"g.

Another interesting nuance in the pasuk is that the language used in the failure to bring bread and water is 'asher lo kidmu eschem', B'nei Yisroel are referred to in plural. But in the hiring of Bilam it states 'va'asher sachar alecha', referring to B'nei Yisroel in singular. I think that the explanation for this is that when Bilam was to curse B'nei Yisroel, it was to be done on the entire nation at once. Therefore, the nation is referred to in singular form. However, from the aforementioned gemara in Yevamos it seems that it was expected of the Amonites to come forth with the men giving food to the men, and the women to the women. Since they were expected to come and give individual attention to separate groups of B'nei Yisroel, they are referred to in the plural.

**********

If you have a few extra minutes, this cute game was developed a couple of years ago to demonstrate the mitzvah of "Shiluach HaKein." The site which hosted it is not up anymore but I was able to rescue the file and host it: http://weeklyshtikle.com/shaleach.html

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: Time before Creation 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