The Weekly Shtikle Blog

The Weekly Shtikle - Noach

2026-10-16T17:21:46.789-04:00

After HaShem instructs Noach on how to bring the animals into the ark, we are told (6:22) that "Noach did all that HaShem commanded him to do, so he did." Later, (7:5), we are told again that Noach did all that HaShem commanded him. Rashi, obviously bothered by the apparent redundancy, says that this pasuk refers to Noach's coming into the ark (whereas the previous one referred to his gathering of the animals).

R' Shimon Schwab in Ma'ayan Beis HaShoeiva points out that the first pasuk ends with the phrase kein asah whereas the second does not. He explains that Rashi tells us (7:7) that Noach did not enter the ark right away but waited until it actually began to rain because he was of "little faith." Therefore, his coming into the ark was not done with complete devotion to the word of HaShem. The phrase kein asah usually refers to a higher level of observance, a more complete carrying out of the command. That is why with regards to the bringing in of the animals, which Noach performed completely, we find the words kein asah. But with regards to the coming into the ark, in which Noach lacked the same level of faith, we do not.

It is also of interest to note that the first pasuk uses the word Elokim to refer to HaShem whereas the second pasuk uses the word HaShem. As Kli Yekar explains, this actually mirrors the original commands. The first passage begins (6:13) "Vayomer Elokim leNoach." This is the introduction of the massive destruction HaShem is soon to bring about. It is fitting that Elokim, denoting strict judgment, is used. The second passage begins (7:1) "Vayomer HaShem leNoach." This passage deals with the instructions to save the animals as well as one last delay for one last chance for teshuvah. So the use of the Name of Adnus, denoting mercy, is used.

*****

On the lighter side (since, as illustrated below, the teiva was quite heavy): A good friend of mine and noted author, Mordechai Bodek, wrote a homourous book called Extracts From Noah's Diary. Check it out! For a limited time, the Kindle version is being offered for free!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: The Weight of the Teiva and The Constant Rate of Recession
AstroTorah: Sailing the Friendly Skies by R' Ari Storch

AstroTorah: The World's First Boat?

AstroTorah: Interesting Calendrical Facts About the Mabul

Dikdukian: Noach's Three Sons

Dikdukian: Different Ways to Wake Up

Dikdukian: Take it Easy

Dikdukian: Geshem vs. Gashem

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Bereishis

2026-10-09T17:42:11.825-04:00

A special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my nephew Yitzchak Yeres of Cherry Hill, NJ on his bar mitzvah this Shabbos.

Today, 28 Tishrei, is the 22^nd yahrtzeit of my dear friend, Daniel Scarowsky, z"l.

This week's shtikle is dedicated leiluy nishmaso, Daniel Moshe Eliyahu ben Yitzchak.

All the matter in the universe exists in three dimensions - length, width and height. We do not live in the two-dimensional world of comics and cartoons, nor can our minds conceive of something physically consisting of more than three dimensions. When a cube of a given volume is removed, it leaves behind a space, filled with air, of identical volume. However, before the creation of the world, there was nothing. The second pasuk of the Torah asserts that before creation, the world was tohu vavohu. Rashi explains vohu as emptiness and void. He writes that tohu connotes astonishment and wonderment, as one would have been astounded by the emptiness that existed. Indeed, we are astonished to the point of incomprehension at the very idea of nothingness. It is beyond the grasp of human thought and will never be understood. An integral component of creation was the establishment of the infrastructure necessary for the existence of the world as we know it. On the second day, the waters are divided into the upper and lower waters. This is the first evidence of a dimension in creation. However, at this point there was only one dimension. Left, right, forward and backward did not yet exist - only up and down. The next day the waters were collected to form the oceans and reveal land. The three dimensions were now in place.

Although a physical object may be comprised of no more than three dimensions, there is another dimension commonly included as the fourth - time. Before the creation of the world, time did not exist either. In fact, the word "before" is probably a misnomer. It implies temporal precedence. If there is no time, there can be no precedence. This, too, is beyond the comprehension of the human mind. With the first day of creation, the concept of time was implicitly infused into the universe. Indeed, as we recount the events of creation, we are declaring HaShem’s dominion over all of three-dimensional space and time as we know it.

This perspective is directly pertinent to one of the central laws of keriyas shema. The essence of shema is the acceptance of HaShem’s kingship upon us. One is required to include this concentration with the recitation of shema or he does not properly fulfill the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch OC 60:5.) Ideally, this is accomplished with specific focus on the ches and dalet of echad, as explained in 61:6. The ches corresponds to HaShem’s rule over the earth and the seven levels of Heaven. This is a one-dimensional focus in concurrence with the events of the second day of creation. The dalet corresponds to the four directions - essentially, the other two dimensions, over which HaShem rules. This coincides with the events of the third day. Hence, HaShem’s dominion over the three physical dimensions.

The Mishnah Berurah (63:11), in the name of Levush and Magein Avraham, writes that "Baruch Sheim Kevod, etc." is subject to the same concentration requirements as the first pasuk. In this passage, as the words clearly indicate, we assert the eternity of HaShem’s kingship. In essence, we are declaring HaShem’s rule over the fourth dimension, time.

This perspective on Bereishis fits nicely into the month of Tishrei and the yamim tovim which have occupied a majority of our time throughout the month. We begin, of course, with Rosh HaShanah whose principal thematic element is affirming HaShem’s ultimate kingship. As we have pointed out on a separate occasion, the pesukim of malchios are meant to declare not only HaShem’s present Dominion but His Dominion in the end of days as well and therefore His Dominion over time.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian:Do you Sea what I Sea?

Dikdukian: And the Days Was

AstroTorah: Emunah in Time and Space

AstroTorah: The Two Luminaries

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shemini Atzeres

2026-10-02T01:33:56.866-04:00

In the book of Koheles, which we read tomorrow, Shelomoh HaMelech declares, (10:8) "He who breaches the fence shall be bitten by the snake." The term poreitz geder, the breacher of the fence, is often used to refer to someone who defies a decree or ordinance of Chaza"l, as indicated by Rashi on this pasuk. The penalty for this defiance is the venomous bite of the snake.

But perhaps Shelomoh HaMelech is coming to teach us much more than a matter of crime and punishment. There is a greater lesson to be learned. In the earlier generations, a man walking freely in a proverbial field might have been subjected to certain spiritual dangers. The chachamim therefore put up various boundaries and fences to keep these dangers out. A good example of this would be the laws of muktzah. The chachamim also instituted certain proactive laws, such as the laws of tefillah, to better define the life of a Jew in a manner necessary for the time. As generations pass, the defiant one might approach these fences. He might look over and see no danger in the distance. Questioning the need for these barriers, he breaks down the fences that were built in generations past. But his presumptuous actions prove costly, for he does not see the clear picture his predecessors did before erecting these fences. He might see on his eye level or slightly below and determine that there is no danger. But it is the low-lying creatures, the snakes that he cannot see from behind the fence, that are waiting there to attack.

Shelomoh HaMelech is teaching us that someone who fails to heed the decrees of Chaza"l, and other sages who have preceded him, assumes that he is fully aware of their deep calculation in establishing these decrees. He doesn't realize that there might be more to them than meets the eye. This is not a punishment. It is simply a matter of fact. We must approach these aspects of our laws with utmost faith and trust that they saw further and deeper than we, lest we stumble and fall prey to the very dangers they set out to protect us from.

(A number of years ago, I learned from none other than Ben Shapiro that this approach is a well-known philosophical idea called Chesterton's Fence. Its origin is a book called The Thing, written by G.K. Chesterton in 1929. The concept is essentially the same: you should never remove a rule, system, or physical structure until you understand why it was originally put there. I doubt Chesterton, who faced some charges of anti=semitism over the years, was aware that he was preceded by almost 3000 years.)

Pesach provides much opportunity for us to explore the prohibitive components of this idea in the many strict prohibitions set forth by the sages to protect us from consuming chameitz. One might not understand why we can't eat corn if the Torah told us not to eat chameitz. But there were some very serious concerns at the time and the gravity of the chameitz prohibition was deemed far too risky to take chances. Sukkos, however, gives us a window into the proactive realm of rabbinic ordinances. The seven days of lulav shaking is not a Torah decree but rather a zeicher lamikdash, instituted by Raban Yochanan ben Zakai (Rosh HaShanah 30a). The hoshanos ceremony, Hoshana Rabba itself and certainly Simchas Torah are great examples of how our yearly practices have been shaped by the prophets and sages before us.

But this year (and next,) we are able to see the prohibitive aspects during this time as well. Although we are clearly instructed in the Torah to blow the shofar on Rosh HaShanah and take the lulav on Sukkos, the sages decreed that this should not be done when Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos. Although the reasoning behind these decrees might be difficult to understand, we follow them to the letter, trusting that the sages knew what lay behind the fence.

Have a good Shabbos and good Yom Tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Do you sea what I sea

Dikdukian: And the Days Was
Dikdukian: Come on, people!

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Sukkos

2026-09-25T16:15:05.510-04:00

Unfortunately, the forecast around these parts has taken some twists and turns and suggests that rain is possible over the first days of Sukkos, making the following shtikle most apropos:

As we make the move out of our house and into the sukkah to spend all of our meals and for many, our nights as well, one of our principal fears is the threat of rain. Excessive precipitation negates the mitzvah of sukkah and forces us back into our homes. It is for this reason that we delay the commencing of the “mashiv haruach umorid hagashem” prayer until after Sukkos (whereas the “morid hatal” prayer is initiated at the beginning of Pesach). The mishnah (Sukkah 28b) relates the following parable: “To what is this comparable (rainfall on Sukkos)? To a servant who came to dilute his master’s wine and the master spilled out the pitcher in front of him.”

The GR”A offers a fascinating insight into this parable. The month of Tishrei begins with Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur which are days of judgement. The chag of Sukkos is given to us immediately following as a gesture of mercy by means of the numerous mitzvos we are given to increase our merits and get the year off to a good start. The concept of strict judgement is symbolized by the sharp wine which, in earlier days, needed to be diluted before drinking. We, the servants, wish to dilute the strict judgement of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur with mercy by means of the numerous mitzvos we perform. By bringing down rain, HaShem, the Master, shows that (Heaven forbid) He does not desire this modification of judgement and rejects the dilution. He therefore spills the pitcher of water (not of wine) in front of the servant to show that He does not wish for the wine to be diluted.

Let us hope that we can all avoid the rain and the negative implications thereof as much as possible over Sukkos.

Have a good Shabbos and good Yom Tov

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Sukas Dovid Hanofeles

Al Pi Cheshbon: Number of bakashos in Ya'aleh veYavo

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Ha'azinu

2026-09-18T17:25:53.193-04:00

In the beginning of this week's parsha in the song of Ha'azinu, HaShem is praised (32:4) as "Keil emunah v'ein avel," a God of trust with whom there is no wrongdoing. R' Eilyahu Lopian asks, in Lev Eliyahu, what should be an obvious question. What kind of praise is this? If we were to praise a dignified individual, would it be fitting to say that he was "not bad?" What is the meaning of this praise?

He answers that when a court of humans pronounces a judgement upon an individual, it may be what the defendant himself deserves. However, it is possible that this judgement could be a wrongdoing for others. It is possible that this judgement could affect someone else in an adverse way which he does not deserve. This man's friends and family may be righteous individuals who don't deserve to have to suffer through the hardship of this verdict. Nevertheless, the judgement must be made. However, when HaShem passes judgement on an individual, He takes into account how it will affect everyone around him. Someone who is deserving of a certain punishment may actually be saved from it due to the effect it will have on an undeserving friend or relative. It is for this reason that it is said that one who wants to merit a good judgement should make himself needed to the public. The saying goes, "ish haklal, nidon kiklal," a man of the community is judged as a whole community. Thus, with HaShem's judgement there is no wrongdoing - not for the judged one, and not for anyone else to whom he is close.

With this concept he explains the gemara (Rosh HaShanah 18a) in reference to the mishnah which states that all of us pass in front of HaShem on Rosh HaShanah like a herd of sheep, in a single file line. Rabba bar bar Chanah states "vechulam niskarim biskirah achas," all are marked with one marking. (A possible alternate translation: examined with one examination.) The marking of the sheep symbolizes the passing of judgement, but it is one long marking that marks all of us. With every one person's judgement, the effect on the rest of the community is considered.

Have a good Shabbos and chasimah tovah!

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Weekly Shtikle Blog Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Skipping around the haftarah

Dikdukian: HAL

Dikdukian: A Happy Ending

Dikdukian: Remember Us for the Good

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Rosh HaShanah

2026-09-11T01:36:48.500-04:00

I heard the following in a shiur this week from R' Tzvi Mordechai Feldheim. On the first day of Rosh HaShanah, we read about the birth of Yitzchak Avinu and the events that follow. There is a lot of laughter surrounding this momentous event. Although the same word is used every time, there is a different meaning to each. Avraham first expresses his joy in the form of laughter when he learns of the impending news. Sarah laughs internally and is chided for her reaction. And after his birth, Sarah declares (21:6) that all who hear the good tidings will rejoice for her. But then, Yishmael is immediately observed by Sarah to be playing. The same word – metzacheik – is used. This is a cynical, mocking laughter of Yishmael realizing that he is not on Yitzchak's level and thus putting him down. For this, Sarah declares that he can no longer remain in the house.

In the ensuing episode, Hagar is forced to leave with her son and they very soon run out of water and are in danger of death. There is quite an intriguing nuance in the pesukim that follow (21:15-17). Hagar places Yishmael under a bush. Certain that he will soon die, she sits a distance and raises her voice and cries bitterly. As the well-known story goes, HaShem hears the voice of the boy – ba'asher hu sham – and reassures Hagar. But at no point does it ever mention that the boy cried, only that Hagar did. R' Feldheim suggests that Yishmael was not crying or even praying. He was lying in the bushes in persistent cynicism, lamenting his situation and everything that has befallen him, being abandoned by everyone around him. But HaShem hears that behind that bitter contempt is a cry of pain and of yearning that HaShem should help him and he wants to be better. This is not a cry that is heard by anyone. It is one that only HaShem can discern.

This certainly speaks to the theme of every Rosh HaShanah. While we may fall short in our attempts to capture the essence of the day to declare HaShem as our King, we wish that HaShem hear our deeper unheard cries that perhaps we cannot fully vocalize. Even more so, in a year such as this when we do not blow the shofar on the first day. The crying sound of the shofar is not heard. Instead, it is our desire that HaShem hears the cry from within our hearts that we cannot express or articulate, our desire to improve and become better people.

Have a good Shabbos, a good Yom Tov and a shanah tovah umsukah.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikkdukian: Remember us for the Good

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Nitzavim / Vayeilech

2026-09-04T18:31:48.927-04:00

At the beginning of parshas Vayeilech, Moshe proclaims to the people (31:2) "I am 120 years old on this day. I can no longer go out and come in, and HaShem has told me 'You shall not cross the Yardein.'"

Rashi comments that when Moshe says he can no longer "go out and come in," we know he could not possibly be referring to any physical deficiencies. His first interpretation is that Moshe is not referring to his ability to lead B'nei Yisrael - not that he is not able, but that he is not allowed. Rashi suggests that the rest of the pasuk is in fact an explanation of this statement. Moshe is saying "I can no longer lead you because HaShem has told me that I may not cross the Yardein."

The difficulty with this explanation is the use of the vuv hamosif – "vaShem amar eilai…" - the additive vuv which is usually meant to add something separate, rather than to imply causation.

Perhaps Moshe is indeed referring to his leadership as Rashi suggests initially, but is still making two separate statements. First, he conveys to B'nei Yisrael that his ultimate desire is to lead the people into the Promised Land. Alas, he has been told that he will not lead the people and Yehoshua will take over. But lest one think that it is Moshe's ambitions of grandeur and craving for honour that are fueling that desire, Moshe assures the people that he would have been more than happy to forgo his position of leadership and enter the Land as a layman while Yehoshua leads. All he wanted was just to enter Eretz Yisrael. But even this was not to be, for HaShem had told him that under no circumstances would he be crossing the Yardein. So, in this pasuk, he is indeed making two separate statements relating to his desire to either bring or accompany the nation into Eretz Yisrael.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Nitzavim Takes it on the Nee

Dikdukian: Don't you Worry

Dikdukian: A Happy Ending

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Savo

2026-08-28T18:12:35.325-04:00

This coming Wednesday, 20 Elul, is the 2^nd yahrtzeit of my uncle, Rabbi Dr. Israel Rivkin. The shtikle is dedicated le’iluy nishmaso, Yisrael ben Refael Ze’ev.

The bulk of this week's parsha is taken up by the tochacha, literally the rebuke, in which we are warned of the terrible consequences of not heeding HaShem's word. The tochacha is preceded by a shorter, yet significant list of blessings that are bestowed upon us when we do perform the will of HaShem. There is a phraseology that is expressed almost identically in both the blessings and the curses. With regards to the blessings, it is written (28:2), "uva'u alecha kol haberachos ha'eileh vehisigucha," and these blessings will come upon you and overtake you. Regarding the curses, it is written (28:45), "uva'u alecha kol hakelalos ha'eileh urdafucha vehisigucha," and these curses will come upon you and chase you, and overtake you.

Although these pesukim seem extremely similar, R' Chayim Kanievsky, in Ta'ama D'kra, notes that when speaking of the blessings, vehisigucha is written without a vuv. However, when speaking of the curses, it is written with a vuv. He offers a fascinating interpretation of this discrepancy.

In parshas Naso (Bemidbar 6:23) the kohanim are instructed as to how to bless the nation. The Torah commands "amor lahem," say unto them. Rashi points out that although the word "amor" could have been written without a vuv, aleph-mem-reish, here it is specifically written with a vuv. The midrash (Bemidbar Rabbah 11:4) learns from this that the kohanim must not bless the nation hurriedly but rather carefully, intently and wholeheartedly. R' Chayim extrapolates from here that in general, a word written in its shortened form denotes hurry, whereas if it is written completely, it denotes a lack thereof. The meaning in our case, therefore, is that the blessings will come swiftly and rapidly. The curses, however, if they must come, will come slowly and gradually. An example of this is the slow progression with which tzara'as inflicts a person, rather than inflicting his body, clothes and house all at once. The purpose of this is to give a person the opportunity to react early and repent before the punishments grow and overtake him.

As one reader pointed out, this idea is found even more explicitly in the tochacha of Bechukosai where there is a clearly delineated progression associated with the curses whereas the blessings come all at once.

This theme may also explain the appearance of the word urdafucha, and they shall chase you, regarding the curses but not regarding the blessings. This refers to the "chasing" period when the retribution is only starting out gradually. At this point, the person is being chased to repent. It is only when he does not answer this call that the curses will overtake him. The blessings, conversely, will not chase you but simply come full force immediately.

This theme is quite pertinent to the month of Elul, in which this parsha always falls out. We are always given a window of opportunity, even an encouraging push, to repent for our sins before being punished fully. The month of Elul is prescribed for repentance and mending of ways so that we may achieve a favourable judgment for the coming year.

Have a good Shabbos.

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim

Dikdukian: Tough Day at the Office

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Seitzei

2026-08-21T14:22:55.618-04:00

Early on in the parsha, we are taught of two different mitzvos between man and his neighbour which share a common warning. We must expend great effort to return a lost object to its rightful owner, be it an inanimate object or an animal. Immediately following, we are told that we must help our fellow Jew who is having difficulty loading his animal. In both cases, we are warned against ignoring the situation. (22:1-4)

What is curious about these warnings is the specific words used by Targum Onkelos. You shall not see the lost object - vehis'alamta. You shall not see the struggling animal - vehis'alamta. In both cases, Onkelos renders vesiskeveish. This is in line with Rashi who translates it as a closing of one's eye as if he does not see. But for the lost object, the pasuk repeats at the end - lo suchal lehis'aleim. The word seems to be the same but here Onkelos renders l'iskasa'ah. One might translate this to mean you cannot conceal yourself. Interestingly, this is the same word that Onkelos uses in last week's parsha in the introduction to the case of the zakein mamreh - 17:8 ki yipaleh mimecha davar - when a certain case is baffling. The targum is arei yitichsei, when the matter is concealed from you.

Unfortunately, I haven't come to a clear understanding as to why the translation changes in our case. However, I did reveal a significant clue. This root does appear many times in the Torah (see Concordance.) There appears to be a pattern as to how Onkelos translates the word. Any time it is used in a passive sense such as referring to something being forgotten, he uses kasah. When the pasuk refers to an active ignorance, such as our cases and the case of a nation refusing to prosecute the crime of giving one's child to the molech, (Vayikra 20:4), the word kavash is used. The Commentaries on Rashi make quite an issue of the fact that Rashi repeats the same commentary on the second instance. Perhaps, their understanding of Rashi sheds some light on how Onkelos understood these two phrases.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz by R' Ari Storch

Shiluach HaKein Game

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shofetim

2026-08-14T18:13:35.674-04:00

This week's parsha discusses a wide range of topics. Among them are the unique laws of eidim zomemim, the false, plotting witnesses who are given the exact punishment they planned to cause to the defendant. The manner in which they are refuted must be very specific as well as the timing of their disproof. The mishnah (Makkos 1:6) teaches that the refutation must come after the defendant had been sentenced but before the sentence was carried out in order for these laws to take effect. This is the famous conundrum of eidim zomemim, that the false witnesses are punished accordingly only if they ultimately fail but not if they succeed. The mishnah learns this law in cases of capital punishment from the pasuk (19:19) "And you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother." The fact that the Torah refers to the defendant as his brother indicates that he is still alive. If he has already been given the death penalty, the punishment referred to in this pasuk does not apply.

Similarly, the gemara (Sanhedrin 10a) learns from the pasuk (25:3) "And your brother shall be flogged before your eyes" that the punishment of lashes must not result in death for after the lashes, he must remain your brother.

Many commentaries question this understanding of the word ach, brother. After all, the pasuk (Vayikra 21:2) teaches us that a regular kohein may become tamei for the purpose of the burial of an immediate family member. There, the word ach is clearly referring to someone who is no longer alive. How can the aforementioned sources assume ach to be a living person?

Rasha"sh on the gemara in Sanhedrin offers an interpretation. The Torah uses the word ach in two different contexts. Sometimes it used to refer to an actual brother with a familial relationship. In this case, the relationship is not broken by death and thus, he remains a brother even after passing on. However, when the Torah uses the word ach to refer to a fellow Jew, the rationale is that he is your brother in mitzvos. He shares the same obligations as you. When he dies, he is absolved of his obligation to perform mitzvos and this brotherly relationship is severed. Therefore, the gemara justifiably extrapolates from the usage of ach that we are referring to someone who is still alive.

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Additional Symbolism of the Shofar

Dikdukian: Two of a Kind

Dikdukian: Clean Blood

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Re'eih

2026-08-07T19:05:57.352-04:00

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

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

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

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Oh Deer!

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Eikev

2026-07-31T18:00:09.232-04:00

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

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

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

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: To Afflict the Corrector

Dikdukian: To Make a Misnaged Cringe

Dikdukian: Those Bad Egyptians

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Va'eschanan

2026-07-24T18:19:58.187-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: You were shown

Dikdukian: Raise the Valleys

Al Pi Cheshbon: Moshe's Pleas

Al Pi Cheshbon: Gemtrias off by 1

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Devarim / Chazon

2026-07-17T18:25:49.424-04:00

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

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

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

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Don't you worry!

Dikdukian: Past and Future

Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your name?

AstroTorah: Like the Stars of the Heavens

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Matos / Mas'ei

2026-07-10T17:49:36.761-04:00

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

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

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

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

Chazak, chazak, venischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: The Cold has Passed

Dikdukian: Watch out for those Mapiks!

Dikdukian: To Afflict or to Answer

Dikdukian: The Interrogative

Dikdukian: The first aliyah in Mas'ei

Dikdukian: They are Correct, Sir!

Dikdukian: Whose Tribe is it Anyway?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Splitting up the Animals

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Pinechas

2026-07-03T18:41:45.363-04:00

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

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

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

The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasam.

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

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

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

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian: Shabbas be'Shabbato

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

Dikdukian: One Big Happy Family?

Dikdukian: Pinechas: What's in a Name?

Al Pi Cheshbon: Probability of the Goral

Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Judges

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Chukas / Balak

2026-06-26T18:15:09.204-04:00

Wednesday, 9 Tammuz, marked the 11^th yahrtzeit of my sister-in-law, Batsheva Yeres. The shtikle is dedicated le’iluy nishmasah, Batsheva Blima, a”h bas HaRav Moshe Yosef HaLevi, ybl”t.

This week's parsha follows in great detail the escapades of Balak and Bil'am. The pesukim (22:2-4) that introduce us to Balak are quite intriguing. We are told about Balak's observation of the war with Sichon and the subsequent fear instilled in the Moavites. Seemingly as an afterthought, we are then informed that Balak was the king of Moav at the time. Why not simply introduce him in the very first pasuk as Balak, the king of Moav?

This oddity is addressed by a number of commentaries. Ramban and Seforno suggest that the pesukim are suggesting that Balak was in fact a great warrior and was therefore significant to the story regardless of his being king. That's why his title was only mentioned secondarily. And this puts even greater focus on the fear that gripped the region as even their great warrior to whom they turned to lead them was petrified of what fate he might meet at the hands of B'nei Yisrael.

Shaarei Aharon explains based on Rashi and his accompanying elucidators that Balak was not really fit to be king. In fact, as the midrash points out, Balak was Tzur, one of the 5 princes of Midyan. Sichon's demise created a void and Balak was chosen, perhaps only temporarily. This explains why he is not introduced as the king of Moav because when all of this began, he wasn't. Sichon's defeat caused Moav and Midyan to join forces and through that, Balak became king. The words "ba'eis hahi," in that time, also indicate that not only was he not king before this episode, he wasn't king after either as he was completely shamed by the interaction with Bil'am.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: What land was Sichon king of?

Dikdukian: Watch out for that Chirik
Dikdukian: Yahtzah, what is your real name?

Dikdukian: It wasn't thrown

Dikdukian: I say Yericho, You Say Yereicho

Dikdukian: The Dead of the Plague

Al Pi Cheshbon: Counting the Judges

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Korach

2026-06-19T18:14:13.792-04:00

Beginning with the first mitzvah we received while still in Mitzrayim (Shemos 12:3) there is a word that is used quite often to refer to the community or congregation – eidah. The word is featured quite significantly in last week's parsha as (14:27) it is used to teach us (Berachos 21b) that 10 men are required for a minyan. But in this week's episode with Korach and his followers, there is a very precise nuance in the use of the word which may shed some light on how all the events went down.

It would take quite some time to analyze each and every use of the word as it appears 18 times (see concordance.) There are three different contexts in which it is used. Adas Korach (or adasecha, when Moshe is talking directly to Korach) refers to Korach's own cohort. Adas Yisrael is the larger population of B'nei Yisrael – perhaps not all, but at the very least, a large portion of it. The one context which is not as easy to define is eidah without a qualifier which would seem to also refer to the greater population. The group of 250 are referred to as nesi'ei eidah. It would be superfluous to understand that as chiefs of Korach's group. They were Korach's group.

A careful reading of the exchange between Korach and Moshe reveals another aspect of Moshe's great humility. At no point does he call for a national spectacle to expose the flawed campaign of Korach. He demands a showdown simply with (16:6) "Korach vechol adaso," (16:16) "ata vechol adasecha." Moshe did not feel the need to prove himself to the entire population. Only Korach and his group needed to be rebuffed. But Korach had other plans. He wanted the entire nation to bear witness so he, on his own (16:19) summoned "kol ha'eidah." Before his demise, HaShem commands that ha'eidah – the nation – remove themselves from their midst to not follow their fate. (Some of these points are discussed in Ramban to 16:21.)

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Just do it!
Dikdukian: Flee Market
Dikdukian: Vayikach Korach

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shelach

2026-06-12T18:12:51.275-04:00

This week’s parsha begins with the tragic story of the spies. Following those events immediately is the commandment regarding the wine and flour offerings that are to accompany each type of korban. Then, we are told of the mitzvah of taking challah from the dough each time we make a large batch of bread. The timing and wording of this mitzvah are somewhat intriguing, to say the least. It begins with (15:2) “When you enter the land that I am giving you…” This is, of course, mere moments after it was decreed that nearly the entire generation would not merit to enter that very land. Surely, there must be a deeper meaning.

Sure enough, this very topic is covered by this year’s offering from Noam Jacobson. Some commentaries suggest simply that this commandment is meant as a reassurance that it will take time but the nation will indeed merit to enter and perform mitzvos in the land. But Noam takes it even deeper.

One of the many interpretations of the true driving force behind the sin of the spies is that in truth they greatly valued the high level of Divine Providence that they were currently experiencing. They were fed by the manna, protected by the Clouds of Glory and dwelled close to the mishkan. Once they would enter the land, a lot of that heightened kedushah would seemingly disappear. They would have to work the land and engage in so many this-worldly matters. They preferred to stay in their current state.

This mitzvah of challah directly addresses this fear. When they will enter the land, the realities will change but in a positive way. There is kedushah in every single grain of wheat. And the language of the commandment is also very deliberate. The spies decried that Eretz Yisrael was (13:32) “a land that devours its inhabitants.” Conversely, we are commanded to take challah (15:19) “when you eat from the bread of the land.” The land doesn’t eat the inhabitants – it’s the other way around. This commandment is meant to directly address the claims of the spies and the motivations behind them.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: What's Different About Efrayim?

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Beha'alosecha

2026-06-05T18:05:09.184-04:00

In this week's parsha we have the famous two pesukim (10:35-36) regarding the traveling and resting of the aron. The two pesukim are encapsulated by the irregular upside-down nuns, thus dividing sefer Bemidbar into two (three, really, counting what is in between) parts. The exact placement of this separation is quite significant. The divided parts of Bemidbar are rather divergent periods in B'nei Yisrael's sojourn in the midbar. Until this point, everything is proceeding beautifully. B'nei Yisrael are camped as a united nation at Har Sinai. They complete the building of the mishkan and its consecration. Everything seems to be going fine. And then everything seems to go wrong. The rest of Bemidbar seems to be a drastic sequence of struggles that B'nei Yisrael face. Moshe seems constantly challenged with complaints. B'nei Yisrael are faced with the challenging episodes of the spies, Korach and Midyan. These two pesukim are the border between these two eras.

The first challenge is that of the mis'onenim, the complainers. The Torah does not tell us what they were complaining about but the ensuing consequences are quite clear. The site of this disaster is named Tav'eirah, after the great consuming fire. R' Chaim Kanievsky notes that in parshas Mas'ei, when all the checkpoints that B'nei Yisrael passed through are enumerated, there is no mention of Tav'eirah.

Ramban (11:3) posits that B'nei Yisrael did not move from there before the next challenge after which that very same place was renamed Kivros HaTa'avah which is mentioned as the first stop after Har Sinai (33:16). However, R' Chaim dismisses this suggestion based on the pasuk in parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:22) which seems to clearly refer to Tav'eirah and Kivros HaTa'avah as separate places. R' Chaim quotes from his son that the list of checkpoints in parshas Mas'ei is only a list of locations where B'nei Yisrael camped and rested. While the Torah does not tell us directly what the mis'onenim complained about, Rashi does offer some insight into the matter. He writes (11:1) that B'nei Yisrael were complaining about the discomfort of having traveled three consecutive days without resting. It therefore seems that this place was not a place where they rested at all. They were certainly traveling until the tragedy occurred and seemingly picked up and continued immediately afterward as well. Therefore, it is not listed in parshas Mas'ei.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Piles of Quail

Dikdukian: The Impure

Dikdukian: In My Humble Opinion

Dikdukian: To Make Travel

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Naso

2026-05-29T15:22:47.583-04:00

This coming Monday, 16 Sivan, is the 23^rd yahrtzeit of R' Ephraim Eisenberg, zt"l of Ner Yisroel. The shtikle is dedicated l'iluy nishmaso, Ephraim Zalman ben Chayim HaLevi.

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 do not 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 abstains from (some of) the pleasures of this world and leads a life of extreme holiness. Although curbing one's level of indulgence is often looked upon as 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 (6:11) 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.

With 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 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.

This idea is also supported linguistically as the words chosen for these two diametrically opposite individuals are in fact quite similar. As Rashi (5:12) explains, the basic understanding of the word sotah is one who turns away, deviates from the path of modesty and from her responsibilities as a married individual. Nazir, as well, means one who is separated. Not only has he detached himself from this-worldly pleasures, he has removed himself from the conventional ways of the world. Indeed, the Torah has classified both of these individuals as deviants of sorts.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Aleph's and Ayin's

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Shavuos

2026-05-21T09:57:47.634-04:00

In the same shiur I referenced last week for the shtikle on Bemdibar, I heard a beautiful thought on Megillas Rus from R’ Avigdor Nebenzahl. Rus’s lineage traces back to some well-known characters in the Torah. We read about Rus to highlight her triumphant journey from a member of the nation of Moav to her conversion and ultimately becoming the great grandmother of David HaMelech. Perhaps the most dramatic exchange occurs when Rus resists all of Na’ami’s attempts to convince her to return to her nation. She declares (1:16-17) “Where you shall go, I shall go. Where you sleep, I will sleep. Your nation is my nation and your God is my God. Where you will die, I will die and there I will be buried.”

R' Nebenzahl explains that with each phrase, Rus was seeking to correct a deed from ancestral past. “Where you go, I will go” is meant to negate the actions of her forefather Lot, who chose to go to Sedom when his entourage was forced to separate from that of Avraham. “Where you sleep, I will sleep” is a reference to the actions of his daughters which, although well-intentioned, required correction. “Your nation is my nation” is a rejection of Balak who dismissed B'nei Yisrael (Bemidbar 22:5) as merely a nation that had left Egypt. "Your God is my God" rejects the actions of the women of Moav who seduced B'nei Yisrael into idol worship.

“Where you will die, I will die” harkens back to the demise of Lot’s father Haran. The midrash recounts that he waited to see what would happen to Avraham when he got thrown into the furnace at Ur Kasdim. He chose to follow him not out of conviction but simply because he saw he survived. Haran, due to his lack of true faith, did not. Finally, "there I will be buried" recalls the demise of Lot's wife who was turned into a pillar of salt and did not merit a burial.

Have a chag samei'ach and good Shabbos!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Shavuos takes it on the chin... or under the shin

Dikdukian: Letzeis and On top of Old Smokey

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Bemidbar

2026-05-15T12:10:54.928-04:00

Towards the end of this week's parsha, the Torah (3:44-51) details a redemption process that affected an exchange between the firstborn of the nation at large and the Leviim who were now assigned to the holy service in their stead. There was a direct exchange between 22,000 first born and 22,000 Leviim. But one problem remained. The firstborn totaled 22,273. A separate process was employed for the extra first born which consisted of a 5-shekel payment, to be distributed "le'Aharon ulvanav." Intuitively, one might assume that the money was split 3 ways between Aharaon, Elazar and Isamar. However, the gemara (Bava Basra 143a) relates that le'Aharon ulvanav indicates one half going to Aharon and the other half going to the sons.

(I heard in a shiur last night:) Meshech Chachmah provides a brilliant proof that this is how this money was divided. We find the shekel being used at various different times. In some instances, we are told that the shekel was the value of 20 geirah. But in some instances we are not. The pattern is as follows: if the shekel in question is going to be broken up, such as in the case of the half shekel used for the census (Shemos 30:13), we need to know the value in a smaller denomination. However, when it comes to arachin, as discussed at the end of Vayikra (Vayikra 27), only whole shekalim are used and so we do not need to be told that it was 20 geirah. Only later (27:25) when the redemption of land is discussed and fractions are heavily involved are once again reminded.

In our specific case, it is once again mentioned (3:47) that the shekel is 20 geirah. Now, the total collected for the 273 extra firstborn would be 273 x 5 = 1,365 total shekalim. That number is evenly divisible by 3. If each individual were to receive a third, they would be given 455 shekalim even. There would be no need to mention 20 geirah. But since 1,365 is an odd number, dividing by 2 would result in each receiving 682 ½ shekalim. So it follows that the Torah would mention 20 geirah.

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: No Population Increase

Al Pi Cheshbon: Tens and Ones by Ari Brodsky

Al Pi Cheshbon: Rounded Numbers

Al Pi Cheshbon: Discrepency in Levi's Population

Al Pi Cheshbon: Explaining the Uncounted Levi'im

Al Pi Cheshbon: Pidyon HaBen Probability

Dikdukian: Be or Ba?

Dikdukian: Discussions on Bemidbar 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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Behar / Bechukosai

2026-05-08T17:19:10.113-04:00

This Sunday, 23 Iyar, marks the 16^th yahrtzeit of my great aunt, Lady Amélie Jakobovits, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Mayla bas Eliyahu.

Tuesday, the 25th of Iyar, marks the 25^th yahrtzeit of my mother, a"h. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Tzirel Nechamah bas Tovia Yehudah.

This week's parsha begins with the promise of the blessings for those who follow the ways of the Torah. There are two conditions given: im bechukosai teileichu, and es mitzvosai tishmeru. Rashi's comment is a common subject for discussion. Bechukosai teileichu refers to toiling in the study of Torah. However, we must certainly be sure to toil enough to realize that there are in fact two conditions. Indeed, there is only one instance of the word im, if, in the pasuk. This would appear to indicate that one must accomplish both conditions to be deserving of the blessings. We must toil in the study of Torah but also fulfill the mitzvos diligently. Contrarily, the mirroring pasuk which introduces the curses contains two instances of im. If we falter in either of these two categories, there are grave consequences.

To put it in computer logic terms for those for whom it is helpful:

if ((bechukosai_teileichu) && (mitzvosai_tishmeru))

getBerachos();

else

getKelalos(); // Chas veShalom

However, even if one is able to accomplish the two conditions, there is still a delicate balance that must be met. This is where the haftarah connects with the parsha. In Pirkei Avos, Perek 3 (Mishna 17) R' Elazar ben Azaria teaches what is arguably the paradigmatic lesson of all of Pirkei Avos. One whose wisdom and knowledge is greater than his deeds is like a tree whose branches are greater than its roots, lacking support and easily toppled over. One whose deeds are greater, however, is like a tree whose roots are greater in number than its branches, providing support against all sorts of nasty conditions. The pesukim used to illustrate this are from this week's haftarah (Yirmeyahu 17:5-8). "And he shall be as a tree by the waters..." (Interestingly, the navi is clearly contrasting someone who puts his trust in man with someone who places his trust solely in HaShem. R' Elazar ben Azaria seems to borrow this imagery from its clear application in Tana”ch and apply it to one whose deeds are greater than his wisdom.) Nevertheless, these pesukim, as understood by R' Elazar ben Azaria, establish a direct connection between the parsha and the haftarah.

Chazak, chazak, venischazeik!

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Life as we Know It

Dikdukian: Hearing Los

Dikdukian: How Lo Can You Go?

Dikdukian: Even Lo-er

Dikdukian: Qualification of the AHOY rule
Al Pi Cheshbon: An Ironic Observation

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.

The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

2026-05-01T17:41:14.553-04:00

Parshas Emor always falls in the middle of sefiras ha'omer and it is also the parsha which contains the commandment for sefiras ha'omer (23:15). This unique mitzvah seems to give rise the most interesting halachic discussions ranging from the theoretical, such as counting the Omer in alternative number bases, to the more practical, such as the effect of crossing the International Date Line on the fulfillment of the mitzvah. There is an interesting discussion as to whether or not writing may qualify as a valid means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. That is, if one was to write, "Hayom yom ֹ𝑥 la'omer," would that be sufficient to fulfill one's obligation and would this action disallow one from repeating the count with a berachah?

The discussion of this halachic quandary trickles down a family tree. This issue is first dealt with in the responsa of R' Akiva Eiger, siman 29. The teshuvah is actually written by R' Akiva Eiger's uncle, R' Wolf Eiger. Unable to attend his nephew's wedding, he made a simultaneous banquet of his own to celebrate the occasion. He wrote to his nephew about this halachic issue, which was discussed at the banquet. He cites a number of related issues which he builds together to try to reach a conclusion. The gemara (Yevamos 31b, Gittin 71a) teaches that witnesses may only testify by means of their mouths and not by writing. The gemara (Shabbos 153b) states that mutes should not separate terumah because they cannot say the berachah. It is assumed that writing the berachah would not have been sufficient. Also, there is a discussion among the commentaries with regards to the validity of a vow that is written and not recited. R' Wolf Eiger concludes that writing is not a sufficient means of fulfilling the mitzvah of sefiras ha'omer. However, this sparks a debate between him and his nephew which stretches out to siman 32.

This issue is eventually discussed in the responsa of Kesav Sofer (Yoreh Dei'ah siman 106) by R' Avraham Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, R' Akiva Eiger's grandson who was, in fact, named after R' Wolf Eiger. He covers a host of related topics and eventually discusses the exchange recorded in his grandfather's sefer. The debate, although it encompasses various pertinent issues, never produces any concrete proof directly concerning the act of counting. However, Kesav Sofer quotes his father, Chasam Sofer, in his footnotes to R' Akiva Eiger (his father- in-law) where he provides a more concrete proof. The gemara (Yoma 22b) teaches that one who counts the number of B'nei Yisrael transgresses a prohibition as it is written (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of B'nei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea that shall not be measured nor counted." The gemara cites two examples (Shmuel I 11:8, 15:4) where Shaul HaMelech went out of his way to avoid this prohibition by using pieces of clay or rams in order to perform a census. Chasam Sofer suggests that Shaul could simply have counted the men by writing down the numbers and not saying them. Since Shaul went to far greater lengths, we are compelled to say that writing the number of men would still have qualified as counting them and he would not have sufficiently dodged the prohibition. Thus, concludes Chasam Sofer, if one has explicit intention to fulfill the mitzvah, writing is a valid means of counting Sefiras HaOmer. However, Kesav Sofer suggests that perhaps the berachah should not be recited in this case.

It's hard to imagine what the practical implications might have been in those days. Why would someone write down the day of the omer if not for the fact that they were completely unable to talk. However, perhaps this issue has more practical implications in our modern age. Suppose someone sends his friend a text message asking what night of sefirah it is and he responds, "tonight is 6." Perhaps there might be a problem counting with a berachah after that?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to shtiklelist+unsubscribe@weeklyshtikle.com.