The Weekly Shtikle - Leil Seder

For this year's thought on the Pesach seder, I wish to focus on a pasuk which is not traditionally part of the "meat and potatoes" of the Haggadah and was only added around the 12^th century, possibly as a response to the devastating crusades. It has recently gained more prominence and recognition as it is featured the ominous perek 79 of Tehillim which has become a common part of the rotation since the tragic events of Shemini Atzeres.

We open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi and recite (Tehillim 79:6-7, followed by two pesukim from elsewhere in Kesuvim) "Shefoch chamascha el hagoyim asher lo yeda'ucha, v'al mamlachos asher beshimcha lo kara'u." We beseech HaShem to pour out his wrath upon the nations who do not know Him, and the kingdoms who do not call His name. I was puzzled by the use of el hagoyim vs. al mamalachos. Intriguingly, any commentaries I could find that address the usage of el and al suggest that they are more or less interchangeable. (Try asking for a ticket on an Al El flight and see where that gets you.) But why use different words in the very same pasuk? (It should be noted that this pasuk has a nearly identical mirror in Yirmiyahu 10:25 in which the word al is used both times.)

Perhaps the precise wording can be explained as follows: el denotes towards, in the direction of, whereas al means directly upon. We ask that HaShem mete out retribution towards the nations – the common folk who do not know HaShem but perhaps might still maintain an inkling of innocence and might still deserve the opportunity to repent. This is a somewhat softer tone. On the mamlachos – the kingdoms, I.e. the leadership – we ask that HaShem heap his anger directly upon them. They are the true source of the evil that confronts us and their due should come more swiftly and precisely. It is in fact this approach which – to some degree – governs the very delicate operation we are currently engaged in. There is a sinister entity which can be afforded nothing more than complete demise. At the same time, there is a nation in their midst – by no means innocent – but perhaps not deserved of the same fate.

Despite the apparent fit of this interpretation with the words, it is interesting to note that the plagues in Egypt seemed to follow a diametrically opposite pattern. Many plagues took a heavier toll on the citizens of Egypt than they did on Paroah himself.

Have a chag kasher ve'sameiach!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

For a collection of previous seder night shtikles, please check out my archive of past Seder shtikles.

Dikdukian: Shiras HaLevi'im

Dikdukian: Hagieinu vs Yagieinu

Dikdukian: Chad Gadya 

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 - Tazria

This past Wednesday, 2 Nissan, marked the 18^th yahrtzeit of my Bubbie. This week's shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Yehudis bas Reuven Pinchas.

 

Today, 4 Nissan, marks the 6^th yahrtzeit of my wife's grandmother, Rebbetzin Faigie Frankel. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Leah Feiga bas Aharon Tzvi.

 

In this week's parsha we are taught about the laws concerning tzara'as that is found on the walls of one's house. There is an intriguing difficulty found in pasuk 14:37, "Vera'a es hanega vehineh hanega b`kiros habayis sheka'aruros yerakrakos o adamdamos umar'eihen shafal min hakir." First, the nega is referred to in the singular. However, in the rest of the pasuk it is described in the plural.

R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, gives a fascinating, yet somewhat complicated answer in the name of R' Nota Greenblatt, zt"l, (of Memphis, Tennessee). We are taught in the gemara (Sanhedrin 71a) that the required size of the tzara'as on the house is the size of two beans whereas other negaim require only one bean. One may deliberate on the following point: Is it that the required size of nig'ei batim is twice that of other negaim or that nig'ei batim requires two negaim? The difference between the two is illustrated with the precise language used by the Rambam. He writes, in regular cases of tzaa'as, that a nega smaller than a bean is "not a nega." However, in the laws of nig'ei batim, he writes that if the spot is less than two beans, it is tahor. The implication is that it is still considered a nega, but is nevertheless tahor since it hasn't reached the required size. [The halachic ramifications of this specification arise in connection with the gemara in Shabbos that states that the prohibition of cutting tzara'as out of one's skin applies even to a nega tahor.]

 

It seems from the Rambam that the proper interpretation would be the second, that nig'ei batim require two nega'im of total size two beans. Therefore, if the spot is less than two beans, it is still a nega, only it is tahor. This, suggests R' Nota, is the explanation for the change in the pasuk from singular to plural. In the beginning, we are referring to the spot as a whole. However, since in essence we are dealing with two negaim, the pasuk describes them in the plural.

 

**********

Of note: this Shabbos, we will read the haftara of Tazria for the first time in 21 years.

 

Have a good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov.

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

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: White Hair

Dikdukian: Meaining of "kibus" by Eliyahu Levin

Dikdukian: Various Dikduk Observations 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 - Shemini

A slightly overdue book plug: I am happy to inform of the release of a wonderful biography of my father, z"l, written by my niece, Rikki Ash. Canada's Rabbi: The Life and Legacy of Rabbi Reuven Bulka is available from Ktav and Amazon.

 

This Monday, erev rosh chodesh Nisan, there will be a full solar eclipse visible to many different major cities in the US. There will not be another such event in this part of the world for another 20 years. Please check out a piece I wrote a number of years ago, Eclipses in Halachah and Machshavah.

 

The pasuk states (9:7) regarding Aharon's personal chatas offering that it should be an atonement for him and for the nation. R' Moshe Mintz of Ner Yisroel asks why Aharon's korban involved an atonement for the nation. Ohr HaChaim answers that Aharon's involvement in the sin of the golden calf was brought about by the nation who coerced him into aiding them in the making of the golden calf. Therefore, the nation could not achieve a full atonement until Aharon, for whom they were responsible, achieved his own atonement.

 

Rabbi Mintz explains the important lesson that is learned from this. We must be ever so careful with all our actions within the kahal for all of our actions have a spiritual effect on the kahal as a whole. If one were to (chas ve'shalom) have a part in leading another to sin through his actions, full atonement can only come once all involved have achieved atonement.  

 

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Mishenichnas Adar marbim b'simchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Lehavdil

 

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 - Tzav / Parah

The Shulchan Aruch states (OC 146:2 and 685:7) that both parshas Zachor and parshas Parah are biblical obligations. The source for this seems to be a variety of rishonim in Brachos 13a. Many acharonim (Ba"ch, Magen Avraham, GR"A) however, say that this is based on an error and in fact only Zachor is d'oraisa. A number of later acharonim, however, suggest justifications for such an obligation. Malbi"m, in his sefer Artzos HaChaim, as well as the Torah Temimah suggests that we see from Rashi in the beginning of Chukas that the parah adumah was an atonement for the Golden Calf. In parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:7) the pasuk says "Zachor al tishkach es asher hiktzafta es HaShem elokecha bamidbar." The Torah Temimah and Malbim learn that this is a reference to a biblical obligation to remember the sin of the Golden Calf which is materialized through the reading of parshas Parah.

R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, in Emes L'Yaakov questions the source of parshas Chukas. If we were to be commanded to remember the Golden Calf, why not remember it with a direct reference rather than an allegorical allusion? In Eikev, he points out that this pasuk does not even refer to the Golden Calf for it is the pesukim that follow that refer to the Golden Calf. Rather, he learns that the pasuk refers to Marah (parshas Beshalach) where B'nei Yisrael complained about the bitter waters and HaShem sent a piece of wood which Moshe put in the waters and sweetened them. Chazal teach us that there we were given the parsha of Parah. The purpose of this was to show us how things don't need to be logical in the world of Torah, that the word of HaShem is to be followed because it is the word of HaShem, whether there is a reason or not. This was the lesson to be taken out of the episode of Marah, where a bitter stick thrown into bitter water made the water sweet, an event which on the surface made no sense. It is this that we are commanded to remember in Eikev and therefore, we read parshas Parah to remind us of the incident in Marah and the lessons we are to take out of it.

Aroch HaShulchan (OC 685) gives his own source for the biblical obligation for parshas Parah. In the parsha, the term "chukas olam" is used twice. On the first instance, the Sifrei learns that it is to teach us that the ashes of the Parah may be used forever, even if there is no beis haMikdash. Aroch HaShulchan posits that the second instance must be a reference to the reading of the parsha and that's why we read it every year.

Have a good Shabbos

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: נעשה

Dikdukian: Vayishchat

Dikdukian: Oops (Parah)

Dikdukian: Let Your Heart Not be Desolate (Parah)

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 - Purim

I recently heard a beautiful perspective on a thematic element of the megillah from Rabbi Gershon Schaffel of Skokie, IL.

 

Esther's life is obviously turned upside down when she is chosen to become queen. Any aspirations she had of living a purely frum life feel by the wayside as she took her place in the palace of one of the most powerful kingdoms in history. Just about the only thought that could get her through this predicament was that somehow, this was all for the best and part of HaShem's master plan.

 

Although the story of the megillah moves rather quickly, in truth, it was more than five years for which Esther had to survive on this one glint of hope. Sure enough, the stage was set when Haman's decree came down. When she initially resists Mordechai's plea to beseech the king to intercede, Mordechai retorts with a mussar schmooze of sorts. He ends with (4:14) "who knows if perhaps it is for this very reason that you have been put in this royal position." Indeed, it was no longer time to wonder what greater good was behind the unfolding of events of years prior. This is it.

 

In the beginning of the next perek, as Esther prepares to make her daring appeal, the pasuk recounts (5:1) "Vatilbash Esther malchus." The simple meaning is that she put on her royal clothes, with the word malchus meaning bigdei malchus. However, on a deeper level, this pasuk is telling us that Esther, having absorbed and internalized Mordechai's message, finally embraced her role as queen. All these years, she had only tolerated her situation without any vision or understanding of why she had been put there. Now, she was truly able to seize the day and realize her destiny. And we all know the rest of the story.

 

This can certainly serve as inspiration for anyone who finds themselves in a life predicament which may just not seem right.  The true challenge is to embrace the destiny of the moment.

 

Purim samei'ach!

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'simchah

Please see my Purim archives for some more insightful (hopefully not inciteful) thoughts on Purim. 

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Dikdukian Posts on Megillas Esther

                                                                                                                                                     

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 - Vayikra / Zachor

In pasuk 3:1 we are introduced to the concept of the korban shelamim. Rashi explains the meaning of the word shelamim as coming from the word shalom, peace, that it puts peace between Man and his Master. However, the wording chosen by Targum Onkelos for shelamim is rather intriguing. In all instances it is referred to as nichsas kudshaya, meaning holy slaughtering, which clearly does not follow the simple translation. Why?

 

One sefer on Targum Yonasan ben Uziel suggests that it was to show that shelamim is excluded from the laws of kodshei kadashim and is therefore only referred to as kodesh. 

 

However, a friend of mine offered what I believe is a more insightful answer. In 17:1-5 we are taught that in the desert, slaughtering an animal for one's own pleasure as we do today, was forbidden. Rather, anyone who wanted to eat an animal was required to bring it as a korban shelamim. The purpose of this is clearly stated in 17:5 "So that B'nei Yisrael may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to HaShem..." The very essence of the shelamim was an animal that would otherwise have been slaughtered and eaten by its owner without any sanctification, but instead was brought to the mizbei'ach and made holy by being offered as a korban. This is in contrast with other sacrifices brought out of necessity, or the olah which, although it may be offered as a pure donation, is not eaten and therefore does not represent the same idea. Since the shelamim represents the sanctification of what would otherwise have been mundane it is given the name nichsas kudshaya, holy slaughtering.

 

Have a good Shabbos. 

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Keves vs. Kesev

Dikdukian: Zachar Amaleik? What was he smoking? (Including a new addendum on the true pronunciation from R' Aryeh Leib Lopiansky)

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 - Pekudei

The pasuk (40:22) recounts the placing of the shulchan in the north before the placing of the menorah in the south. However, points out R' Chaim Brisker, the mishkan was arranged from the kodesh hakadashim and out, i.e. they began in the west and moved eastward. There is a general rule in matters pertaining to the holy service, kol pinos she'atah poneh, lo yehu ela derech yamin.(Sotah 15b and various other sources). This is to say that any time there is a choice between turning to the left or to the right, one must turn to the right. If so, when facing east, one should theoretically turn right to the south and place the menorah first and then place the shulchan in the north.

 

R' Chaim answers that when detailing the layout Moshe was commanded (26:35) that aside from being in the south, the menorah should be nochach hashulchan, opposite the shulchan. Therefore, it had to be placed after the shulchan so that it would face it immediately. This is also the reason why the outer altar was put in its place before the kiyor which was closer to the mishkan for in the description of the kiyor (30:18) we find it is to be placed bein ohel moed uvein hamizbeiach, between ohel moed and the altar which is only possible if both are in place beforehand. R' Chaim Kanievsky, zt"l, gives this answer as well.

 

Chazak, chazak venischazeik!

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Dikdukian: Tarshish Shoham

Dikdukian: Sham and Shamah

 

 

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.