The Weekly Shtikle - Vayakheil

Under normal circumstances, if I am compelled to recycle a shtikle, I try to employ a 5-year rule. I'm going to break that this week by repeating my shtikle from last year, but only because I have something new to add to it.

 In the beginning of parshas Vayakheil Moshe begins to instruct the nation on how they are to proceed with the building of the mishkan. At the conclusion of Moshe's assembly, the pasuk recounts (35:20) that the congregation of B'nei Yisrael exited from the presence of Moshe Rabbeinu. R' Elya Lopian, in Lev Eliyahu, comments that it would have been sufficient for the pasuk to say that B'nei Yisrael exited. We knew where they were. Why is it necessary for the pasuk to say that they exited from Moshe's presence?

Imagine a street in a city that contained both a bar and a library. If you were to see a man walking crooked down the street, barely able to stand on his own two feet, explains R' Elya, you need only take one look at him and you know exactly from which of the two he has just emerged. (As the old joke goes – it's 5 minutes from the house to the bar, but 45 minutes from the bar to the house. The difference is staggering.) Likewise, the pasuk here is telling us that when B'nei Yisrael left Moshe's presence, they were fundamentally changed people. They were not simply B'nei Yisrael. They were a nation who had just left the presence of their great leader, Moshe Rabbeinu, having just received instructions to build a dwelling place for the Divine Presence, no less. Merely being in his midst left its mark on them.

It occurred to me this year, when going over the parsha, that this pasuk seems to mark the end of an episode. The next section deals with the actual donations that the men and women brought. Accordingly, one would have expected a paragraph break – a peh, or at the very least a samach. However, there is no such break in the chumash. Perhaps, this is to convey that the nation was so very moved by this monumental opportunity, as conveyed by Moshe Rabbeinu, that they wasted not a moment in carrying out his instructions. There was no pausing to think about it and contemplate when to actually come forward. They sprang into action immediately.

Have a good Shabbos.

Mishenichnas Adar marbim be'simchah!

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

 

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: A Wise Correction

Dikdukian: Ve'asa Vetzalel

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings
Dikdukian: Let your Soul Not be Desolate (Parah)

Dikdukian: Oops (Parah)

Al Pi Cheshbon: 10,000 Kikars

 

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

Last night, many of us on this side of the ocean witnessed a total lunar eclipse (although it was pretty late for east coasters.) Lunar eclipses on Purim are not particularly rare. It definitely happened 18 years ago, maybe some time in between, as well. Surely, there has to be a connection.

 

As previously discussed, B'nei Yisrael are symbolized by the moon. More specifically, the kingdom of beis David is likened to the cycle of the moon, its pinnacle being the rule of David and Shelomoh, the 14^th and 15^th generations from Avraham Avinu. Now, how does that relate to Purim?

 

Rashi and Radak note in Hoshea (3:5) that B'nei Yisrael rejected three things in the days of Rechavam (the 16^th generation, from which things would get progressively worse.) Amongst them was malchus beis David. The Chasam Sofer (Darshos page 169 – this is what I have in my notes, although I haven't found a good link) notes that the word yehudi is a reference to malchus beis David. In the beginning of the megillah, B'nei Yisrael were living rather peacefully under the rule of Paras and Madai and lost interest in malchus beis David and Eretz Yisrael. Had they been truly yearning for its return, surely, they would not have taken part in Achashveirosh's party. But they did. And therefore, they are not referred to as yehudim but rather kol ha'am hanimtze'im. Mordechai, however, truly yearned for the return of malchus beis David. That is why the pasuk goes out of its way to refer to him as ish yehudi even though he was from the tribe of Binyamin. The purpose of the party was to show that malchus beis David was over and done with and that the Jews would be ruled by Achashveirosh forever. Therefore, Mordechai did not attend the party as a statement to his brothers that they not give up on the return of the beis haMikdash and malchus beis David. Later in the megillah, we do in fact see the Jews referred to as yehudim. Mordechai's stand most certainly made an impression.

 

Surely, in these times, in light of the turmoil we are witnessing in Eretz Yisrael, HaShem has unfortunately made it very easy for us to realize the terrible consequences of the Jews being ruled by a body other than malchus beis David. This should serve as a strengthening for our constant yearning for the return of the beis haMikdash and malchus beis David and the biyas hago'eil bimheira v'yameinu.

 

Have a freilichen Purim and good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

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

Ki Sisa:

Dikdukian: Kol Annnos

Dikdukian: Yeiaseh vs.Taaseh by Ephraim Stulberg

Dikdukian: No More Drinking

Dikdukian: Minimizing Sin

Dikdukian: Whys and Wherefores

Dikdukian: Need to Bring this Up

 

                                                                                                                                                     

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 - Tetzaveh / Zachor

On the bottom of the me'il, the tunic that the kohein gadol wore, were golden bells. The pasuk explains (28:35), "his/its sound shall be heard when he enters the holy." Rabbeinu Bachye offers an alternative understanding that deviates from the traditional way this pasuk is translated. The voice is actually referring to the kohein gadol himself. His voice is heard when he enters the holy and he prays for the nation. This is a summary of all of the vestements that he wears. If properly worn, his tefillos will be accepted.

The traditional understanding, however, is that the bells provide a warning of the kohein gadol's approach and so he does not simply appear unannounced. This is the sound referred to in the pasuk. Rabbeinu Bachye provides a timely connection to Megillas Esther which we will be soon be reading. Esther's great fear in attempting to beseech Achashveirosh's mercy was that she had not been invited and (4:11) "everyone knows that someone who enters the inner court uninvited has but one fate – death." We see from here that appearing uninvited is not tolerated by human royalty and therefore, is certainly not suitable for Divine royalty either. 

 

This does bring up a question. When Vashti publicly spurned Achashveirosh's invitation, there was a whole tribunal to discuss her fate. It seems that appearing before the king uninvited is considered far more drastic than failing to appear when summoned. Why would this be? We have a couple of days to think about it.

 

Have a good Shabbos. 

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

 

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Dikdukian Posts on Megillas Esther

Dikdukian: Ner Tamid

Dikdukian: Of Plurals and Singulars

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings

Dikdukian: Tarshsih veShoham

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.

The Weekly Shtikle - Terumah

This past Wednesday, 28 Shevat, marked the 12^th yahrtzeit of my wife's grandfather, R' Yitzchak Yeres. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Yitzchak Chaim ben Moshe Yosef.

 

This Sunday, 2 Adar, marks the 19^th yahrtzeit of my Zadie, Rabbi Yaakov Bulka. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmaso, Chaim Yaakov ben Yitzchak, z"l.

 

After detailing the structure of each component of the mishkan, the Torah explains their arrangement. When dealing with the placement of the shulchan and the menorah, the pasuk states (26:35) "And you shall place the shulchan outside of the curtain and the menorah opposite the shulchan, on the southern side of the mishkan. And the shulchan shall be placed on the northern side." This pasuk could easily have been condensed to only mention the shulchan once. Why was the placement of the shulchan mentioned before and after the placement of the menorah?

The menorah traditionally represents Torah and spirituality while the shulchan represents wealth and sustenance. Sifsei Kohein bases his explanation on the mishnah in Pirkei Avos (3:17) "Im ein kemach, ein Torah. Im ein Torah, ein kemach." Without flour (sustenance), there can be no Torah and without Torah, there is no flour. The shulchan was brought into the mishkan first and placed in front of the curtain as a reflection of the first phrase, that there can be no Torah without sustenance first. However, its position on the northern side was not fixed until after the menorah was placed in its spot on the southern side, this to reflect the second phrase, that without Torah there is no sustenance.

Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l, explained the Sifsei Kohein based on the GR"A's explanation of the mishnah. When the mishnah tells us that without sustenance there can be no Torah, it means that we need sustenance in order to achieve Torah. However, when the mishnah says that without Torah, there is no sustenance, it means without Torah as the ultimate goal, the sustenance is futile and purposeless. That is why although the shulchan is brought into the mishkan first, it is only placed in position after the menorah is first placed in its position, to show that in the end, the Torah must be the central focus with the sustenance only a means to that end.

Netziv in Ha'ameik Davar also deals with this issue and offers an alternate explanation. The shulchan has, in fact, a two-tiered symbolism. On one level, it represents sustenance and blessing insomuch as is needed for everyday livelihood. This is represented by the lechem hapanim, the bread that was placed on the shulchan. The structure itself, however, represents wealth and majesty. It is for this reason that it is placed in the north. In order to facilitate the efficient emersion in Torah, one needs only achieve the first level of sufficient sustenance. The next level of wealth and majesty can only be reached through the merit of Torah. Therefore, the shulchan is brought into the mishkan first but is put in its place after the menorah and that is why the pasuk must mention it twice.

Have a good Shabbos and chodesh tov.

Mishenichnas Adar Marbim beSimchah!

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Al Pi Cheshbon: Amudei HeChatzeir
Dikdukian: Venahapoch hu

Dikdukian: Watch out for that kamatz

Dikdukian: Kikar Zahav

Dikdukian: The Lord and the Rings  

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

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

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Mishpatim

A special Weekly Shtikle mazal tov to my niece Rochel Leah (née Shonek) Greenwald and her husband Shua on the birth and brith of their son, Reuven Pinchas. Mazal tov to the extended Greenwald, Shonek and Bulka families and may the little one grow to be a merit for his namesake and follow in his ways.

Today, 23 Shevat, marks the 4^th yahrtzeit of my Oma Jakobovits. The shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmasah, Chayah Sarah bas Zechariah Chaim, z"l.

With the devastating news coming from Eretz Yisrael this week, there has surely been much anguish and tze'akah on a national scale. Apropos of these recent developments, I made an intriguing discovery regarding this word as it appears in our parsha and in numerous other occurrences throughout the Torah. (For a deeper look into the parsha connection, see this week's heart-wrenching video installment from Noam Jacobson.)

A Concordance lookup shows 19 instances of the root tza'ak in total in the Torah, two of which are very close to each other in the week's parsha (22:22 and 26). In both instances - regarding the persecution of widows and orphans and the improper withholding of a garment as collateral - the pasuk speaks not only of the outcry of the victim but also HaShem's heeding those cries. This reveals a fascinating nuance in the precise translation of Targum Onkelos. The word used for tze'akah is kevilteih, a kuf-beis-lamed root. The targum of eshma/veshamati, and I will heed, is ekabeil, seemingly "I will accept." Sure enough, it is the exact same root, kuf-beis-lamed.

I feel this observation is significant enough in its own right. But it gets more interesting. The very first mention of tza'ak, (Bereishis 4:10), when HaShem describes the blood Hevel crying out, the same translation is found – kavlin. There are various other instances as well. However, there are also numerous cases where a different word is used. When the Egyptians cry out to Paroah (Bereishes 41:55), when the officers do the same (Shemos 5:15) and regarding the betrothed girl (Devarim 22:27) the word tzivcha is used. This seems to denote a simple scream. There is a clear pattern. In all of those cases the cries are directed at humans. Even Esav's cry when he finds out his blessings have been stolen (Bereishis 27:34) are interpreted to be just an exclamation and not a prayer of any sort. So all of these are rendered with the tzadi-vuv-ches root.

The initial examples cited are all cries to HaShem, even if metaphoric (such as blood.) These are assigned a special word. Perhaps we can interpret this choice of root, nearly identical to that of HaShem's listening, as a means of indicating that these cries are always accepted by HaShem. By definition a call to HaShem will always be answered, whereas screaming to mere mortals can often prove futile and fruitless.

There is yet another root commonly employed by Onkelos in similar situations. Any time Moshe cries out to HaShem (Shemos 8:8, 14:15, 17:4) the root tzadi-lamed-yud is used. This is to be interpreted plainly as prayer.

There is still more analysis to be done on this topic. There is another root, zayin-ayin-kuf which is used periodically. This seems to be unique to Targum Onkelos. There might be other patterns used by the other targumim. Finally, the passage relating the apparent death of Paroah (2:23-24) does not contain the exact word tze'aka. However, the kuf-beis-lamed root is used for both shav'asam and na'akasam. Nevertheless, I believe some solid patterns in Onkelos have been uncovered.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup

Dikdukian: Tricky Vowels

Dikdukian: Answer vs. Torture
Dikdukian: Give it to me
Dikdukian: Ha'isha viladeha

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

Dikdukian: Three Strikes and you're out

Dikdukian: The Ox and his Friend

Al Pi Cheshbon: 10,000 Kikars

 

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 - Yisro

At the beginning of this week's parsha we are once again given the reason behind the naming of Gershom (18:3-4): "Ki ger hayisi b'eretz nochria", because I was a stranger in a strange land. Here, the explanation of Eliezer's name is given as well, "Ki elokei avi b'ezri, vayatzileini micherev Paroah", apparently referring to Moshe's escape from execution at the hands of Paroah. At first glance, these names seem to be out of order. The cause for the naming of Gershom seems to have been preceded by that of Eliezer. Moshe was a stranger in Midyan after he escaped from the hands of Paroah. My Rebbe in Eretz Yisrael, R' Yeshaya Greenwald suggests that perhaps there is a different explanation behind Gershom's name. In the years leading up to Gershom's birth, Moshe realized that although he seemed at home in Egypt as a prince and leading quite a good life, he was nevertheless a stranger in a strange land. So Ki ger hayisi... is in fact referring to Moshe's years in Mitzrayim rather than those in Midyan. This explanation is supported by the fact that Moshe says "Ki ger hayisi," in the past tense, even while he is still living in Midyan (2:22).

Another interesting point concerning the naming of Gershom and Eliezer: For Gershom it says "vesheim ha'echad Gershom". And than for Eliezer, "vesheim ha'echad Eliezer". One would have expected the use of ordinal numbers such as "Sheim Harishon... vesheim hasheni" in this case. Why are they both referred to as "ha'echad"? R' Greenwald suggests that the answer may lie in the Midrash on the pasuk (2:21) "Vayoel Moshe," which states that Moshe made a pact with his father-in-law to give his first son to Avodah Zarah (or some manifestation thereof.) Therefore, Gershom was the "ben ha'echad," the one son for Avoda Zarah and Eliezer was the "ben ha'echad" laShem.

Perhaps the answer to the second question could be used to answer the first. Since Moshe had this pact with Yisro, he didn't want to mention any specific praise of HaShem which would convey to Yisro that he had not kept to the deal. Therefore, Gershom was given a more generic, religion-less name while Moshe waited until his second child to mention the praise of HaShem for saving him from Paroah's sword but it indeed did come first.

Have a good Shabbos.

 

Eliezer Bulka

WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: By the Thousands

Dikdukian: Many Who Fear God

Dikdukian: Letzais

Dikdukian: On top of Old Smokey

Dikdukian: Ram veNisa by Eliyahu Levin

 

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

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

 

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

The Weekly Shtikle - Beshalach

The second to last of the many episodes that make up this week's parsha is the confrontation at Masah uMerivah. The double name seems somewhat anomalous. Indeed, the pasuk (17:7) does explain that there were two aspects to this episode but more explanation is needed to understand the nature of the two.

B'nei Yisrael quarreled with Moshe saying (17:3), "Give us water so that we may drink!" Moshe counters "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test HaShem?" Ibn Ezra explains that there were two distinct groups involved in this episode. The first group were truly in need of water and this led to their altercation with Moshe. However, there was another group that still had water which they brought from Alush (their previous stop as per Bemidbar 33:14). They wanted to challenge HaShem to see if He would provide water. To the first group, which had at least some semblance of a legitimate complaint, Moshe answered "Why do you quarrel with me?" To the second, he charged, "Why do you test HaShem?"

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

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Happy 18th Birthday, Dikdukian!

Dikdukian: Ba'al Tzefon

Dikdukian: Exceptions Ahoy

Dikdukian: Midash, HaShem...

Dikdukian: Leave us Alone

Al Pi Cheshbon: Chamushim

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

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

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

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