making the aron

The gemara (Yoma 3b) presents a stira in pesukim with regards to who was supposed to make the aron:

אַבָּא חָנָן אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים״, הָא כֵּיצַד?

The gemara answers

כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם

Rashi explains that when Klal Yisrael are doing the right thing, then they get credit for the aron; if, however, they are not behaving properly, then the credit goes to Moshe alone.

R' Shmuel Kushlevitz in Netivot Shmuel suggests derech derush a take away lesson from this gemara as Rashi reads it. When the tzibur is cooperative, עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, a leader can sit on the sidelines and inspire and cheerlead and let the people run with the ball on their own, ְוְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים However, where the tzibur does not want to pitch in and is not moved to contribute and work, אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then a leader has to not be afraid to jump in and get his hands dirty. It's not enough to sit on the sidelines and cheerlead; he has to take the reins and ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ, do the job.

Maharasha, however, explains the gemara exactly in the opposite way. When Bn"Y are עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, it means that they are living up to and fulfilling the vision of Moshe Rabeinu. In that case, it is correct to say ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ because their work is imbued with the same spirit as if Moshe himself were doing it. If, however, Bn"Y are אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then it is וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים because their work is a far cry from the effort and results that Moshe would have achieved and reflects their own shortcomings.

Ramban and Rashi are bothered by why we need the וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ at the end of the pasuk כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כׇּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ. Rashi comments that it is a mitzvah l'doros that whenever klei ha'mikdash are made, it should be like those shown to Moshe. Ramban writes:

על דרך הפשט אין צורך לכל זה, אבל בא הכפל לחזוק וזירוז, אמר: ועשו לי מקדש (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בית וכלים כמקדש מלך ובית ממלכה (עמוס ז׳:י״ג), ושכנתי בתוכם (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בבית ובכסא הכבוד אשר יעשו לי שם, ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן הזה אשר אמרתי שאשכון בו בתוכם, ואת תבנית כל כליו. וכפל וכן תעשו – כלכם בזריזות וחריצות, והוא כהכפל: ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה כן עשו (שמות ל״ט:ל״ב), כי מפני שהוא צואה אמר וכן תעשו.

Maharasha I think is in the spirit of this Ramban. Hashem was telling Moshe that כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔, in accordance with your vision of what a makom mikdash should be, your ideals, your goal, וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ, that should be how the people fulfill the task.

Adar and Binyamin; why the mishkan had to be built lishma

1) As we've discussed many times before, the Tur tells us that the 3 regalim correspond to the Avos and the 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim.  There are many shitos and variations as to which month matches which sheivet (maybe someone should compile them all into a sefer) but if you simply go by birth order the last month of the year Adar should correspond to Binyamin.

 וַיְהִי בְּצֵאת נַפְשָׁהּ כִּי מֵתָה וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן⁠ אוֹנִי וְאָבִיו קָרָא⁠ לוֹ בִנְיָמִין (35:18)

Ramban explains:

והנכון בעיני: כי אמו קראתו בן אוני ורצתה לומר בן אבלי, .. ולכן קרא אותו: בנימין – בן הכח כי החוזק הוא בימין ולכן קראו בן הכח או בן החוזק. כי הימין בו הגבורה וההצלחה כענין: לב חכם לימינו (קהלת י׳:ב׳), ..רצה להיות קורא אותו בשם שקראתו אמו, כי כן כל בניו בשם שקראו אותם אמותם יקראו, והנה תרגם אותו לטובה ולגבורה.

This is the essence of chodesh Adar, the chodesh of v'nahapoch hu.  Yaakov Avinu changed his son's name from that which connotes sorrow to that which represents strength.  

2) Rashi comments at the opening of our parsha ויקחו לי – לשמי, that the collecting of funds for the mishkan had to be done lishma.  Even though by tzedaka there is a din that הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר and she'lo lishma is praiseworthy, apparently the mishkan was an exception to the rule.  My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, explained that when it comes to avodah zarah, Hashem takes account of machshava as well as deed (Chulin 142).  The mishkan was a kaparah for cheit ha'eigel, an issur avoda zarah.  Therefore, since the cheit was one which involved the sin of tainted machshava, the tikun demands a purity of machshava.  

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ

Rav Yissachar Meir, R"Y of Yeshivat haNegev, explains that the message of בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ is that we have to have a place inside of ourselves that we can retreat into to reconnect with G-d.  L'havdil, the the secular world, when things are going bad people talk about retreating into their "happy place."  I don't know if Judaism places such a priority on having a happy place inside, but it does place a priority on having a G-dly place inside.  

It's not just caution against being sucked into the secular world that the Midrash is speaking about, but it's also speaking about how we perform mitzvos and learn Torah.  Too often we are just going through the motions.  Are we learning Torah only with our head, or with our heart as well?  The Midrash gives a mashal to a king that cannot leave his daughter, and in that same was כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל.  A human king, neicha, there are limits to what he can or can't do, but how is that applicable to Hashem?  What does  אֵינִי יָכוֹל here mean?  R' Dovid Povarski explains that the "can't" here is not a din in Hashem's ability c"v, but rather it's a din in Torah. נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל because Torah without Hashem's presence is not Torah -- it's just a book.  Without the mishkan, without a life of avodah to accompany the intellectual depths and pursuit of Torah, all you have is a book, not a life, not a lifestyle.  Rav Yissachar Meir spesks in that same way about the mishkan as a space inside ourselves to reconnect our thoughts to our values, to reconnect to ויקחו לי – לשמי the right machshava, so that mitzvos themselves do not lose their meaning.  

each piece in its proper place -- Netziv and Meshech Chochma on the Yerushalmi's issur to move beams from the north to the south side of the mishkan

The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 12:3) has a din that a board placed on the north side of the mishkan could not at some other point be used on the south side, because that would be a lowering of its kedusha.  Kodshei kodashim can be shechted only on the north side but not the south.

Netziv comments on the pasuk  וְיִֽהְי֣וּ תֹֽאֲמִם֮ מִלְּמַ֒טָּה֒ וְיַחְדָּ֗ו יִהְי֤וּ תַמִּים֙ עַל⁠־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ אֶל⁠־הַטַּבַּ֖עַת הָאֶחָ֑ת כֵּ֚ן יִהְיֶ֣ה לִשְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם לִשְׁנֵ֥י הַמִּקְצֹעֹ֖ת יִהְיֽוּ (26:24):

״יהיו״ מיותר, וכן במעשה (להלן לו,כט) כתיב ״כן עשה לשניהם לשני המקצועות״. אלא בא ללמדנו דשתי הטבעות כשרים יהיו לשני המקצועות, בלי דקדוק איזה כאן ואיזה כאן, ולא כמשפט הקרשים דאיתא בירושלמי הוריות פ״ג (סוף הלכה ה׳) מדכתיב ״והקמת את המשכן כמשפטו״ (פסוק ל׳) דקרש שזכה לצפון לא יעמוד בדרום, אבל לא כן משפט הטבעות. והטעם כמו שכתבתי, שלא באו הטבעות לכוון איזה ענין בעולם אלא לשמש הקרשים, על כן אין להם משפט [ומזה למדנו דכל תשמישי קדושה בבית הכנסת וכדומה, אין להם משפט הקרשים, ולא כמגן אברהם בסימן ח׳ (ס״ק ו׳) שכתב לענין טלית של מצוה. ואי אפשר ללמוד מקרשים אלא במעלות אנשים, כדאיתא בירושלמי שם, משום שכל איש יש לו משפט וזכות שהגיע למעלה זו]

According to Netziv, the Yerushalmi is speaking only about the beams, but not about the taba'ot.  He explains that the mishkan was a microcosm of the world at large, but that doesn't mean every thumbtack and nail had omni significant meaning.  It means in the larger sense, the main kelim had significance, and therefore their location and makeup was precise.  The same did not apply to the taba'ot.

A few pesukim earlier, commenting on the description of the adanim  וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים אַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם כָּ֑סֶף שְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֗ים תַּ֚חַת הַקֶּ֣רֶשׁ הָֽאֶחָ֔ד וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲדָנִ֔ים תַּ֖חַת הַקֶּ֥רֶשׁ הָאֶחָֽד (26:21) the Meshech Chochma quotes that same Yerushalmi:

וארבעים אדניהם כסף – יתכן דאמר בירושלמי שבת פי״ב דקרש שזכה להנתן בצפון כו׳, רואים אנו דצפון קדוש יותר מדרום ואדנים שהיו לצפון מוכרחים להיות בצפון, ואינם רשאים לשנותם לדרום משום דאין מורידין בקדש כדיליף מויקם המשכן ואת אדניו, אבל בדרום כתיב אדני כסף משום דרשאי לשנותן לצפון דמעלין בקדש ודו״ק.

M.C. applies the chiddush of the Yerushalmi not just to the boards, but to the adanim.  

Is there a machlokes here between the Netziv and M.C. as to the scope of the Yerushalmi, or would you distinguish between the adamin and taba'ot?

groundwork for geulah

Daas Zekeinim comments on the dimension of the mizbeiach:

ארכו כנגד הלוחות חמש דברות על לוח זה וחמש על לוח זה ושלש אמות קומתו כנגד שלשה גואלים שעמדו להן לישראל משה ואהרן ומרים.

In the weekly parsha sheet "Chashukei Chemed" based on the shiurim of R' Yitzchak Zilberstein, they ask where it is that we find that Miriam is a "go'el"[es].  Moshe took us out of Mitzrayim; Aharon spoke to Pharoah and had a hand in the makkos.  What did Miriam do?

R' Chaim Elazari beat R' Zilberstein to asking this kashe.  In his sefer Darkei Chaim he reminds us that when Amram separated from his wife in response to Pharoah's decree to drown the babies, it was Miriam who encouraged her father to change course and not give up hope.  Rashi in parshas Beshalach (15:20) tells us that Miriam had a prophecy before Moshe was born that her mother would give birth to the go'el.  Without Miriam, Moshe's message might have fallen on dead ears (as it was, Bn"Y were not very receptive to Moshe's message when in response, Pharoah tightened the reins.)  She laid the groundwork of belief in redemption that enabled her brothers to be successful.  She therefore gets equal credit for bringing geulah.

We ask Hashem in every tefilah ומביא גואל לבני בּניהם.  Yes, we want mashiach, we want full geulah.  But that is the final step in the process.  Before we are zocheh to the go'el who is a poor guy riding a donkey who will get lions and lambs to live in peace, we need the go'el who will get us to believe it can and will happen, who will lay the groundwork of hope, expectations, and belief.  

That go'el, I think, perhaps can be any one of us, or all of us together.  

when is a kli not a kli

I saw a beautiful diyuk quoted in the name of R' Yechezel Abramsky:

וְנָתַתָּ֖ אֶל־הָאָרֹ֑ן אֵ֚ת הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ (25:10) 

וְ וְנָתַתָּ֧ עַֽל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד (25:30)

וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת⁠־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ (25:37) 

The common denominator among these pesukim is that the mitzvah of making the particular kli contains a statement about what that particular kli is used for.  Yet if you look at the command to make a mizbeiach, there is no similar statement of purpose:

וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים חָמֵשׁ֩ אַמּ֨וֹת אֹ֜רֶךְ וְחָמֵ֧שׁ אַמּ֣וֹת רֹ֗חַב רָב֤וּעַ יִֽהְיֶה֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְשָׁל֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת קֹֽמָתֽוֹ:

בוְעָשִׂ֣יתָ קַרְנֹתָ֗יו עַ֚ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פִּנֹּתָ֔יו מִמֶּ֖נּוּ תִּֽהְיֶ֣יןָ קַרְנֹתָ֑יו וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹת֖וֹ נְחֽשֶׁת:

גוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ סִּֽירֹתָיו֙ לְדַשְּׁנ֔וֹ וְיָעָיו֙ וּמִזְרְקֹתָ֔יו וּמִזְלְגֹתָ֖יו וּמַחְתֹּתָ֑יו לְכָל־כֵּלָ֖יו תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה נְחֽשֶׁת:

דוְעָשִׂ֤יתָ לּוֹ֙ מִכְבָּ֔ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה רֶ֣שֶׁת נְח֑שֶׁת וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ עַל־הָרֶ֗שֶׁת אַרְבַּע֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת נְח֔שֶׁת עַ֖ל אַרְבַּ֥ע קְצוֹתָֽיו:

הוְנָֽתַתָּ֣ה אֹתָ֗הּ תַּ֛חַת כַּרְכֹּ֥ב הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ מִלְּמָ֑טָּה וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה הָרֶ֔שֶׁת עַ֖ד חֲצִ֥י הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:

ווְעָשִׂ֤יתָ בַדִּים֙ לַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ בַּדֵּ֖י עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹתָ֖ם נְחֽשֶׁת:

זוְהוּבָ֥א אֶת־בַּדָּ֖יו בַּטַּבָּעֹ֑ת וְהָי֣וּ הַבַּדִּ֗ים עַל־שְׁתֵּ֛י צַלְעֹ֥ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ בִּשְׂאֵ֥ת אֹתֽוֹ:

חנְב֥וּב לֻחֹ֖ת תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹת֑וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר הֶרְאָ֥ה אֹֽתְךָ֛ בָּהָ֖ר כֵּ֥ן יַֽעֲשֽׂוּ:

We are told how to make a mizbeiach, but not what to do with it.  Why the difference?

Brisker affiliated achronim develop the idea that there are two dinim in construction of the kelim: 1) klei ha'mikdash as utensils; 2) klei ha'mikdash as part of the tzuras ha'bayis, as part of the architecture of the mikdash building.  

That could be the difference between the mizbeiach and the other items on the list. When it comes to the menorah, the shulchan, etc., the Torah defines the kli based on its function.  It's a utensil, and a utensil is defined by what it's used for.  However, the mizbeiach is not a utensil.  It's not defined by function because it's part of the building.  

Rashi comments on  כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ (25:9) that

 אם יאבד אחד מן הכלים, או כשתעשו כלי בית עולמים, כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות שעשה שלמה, בתבנית אילו תעשו אותם.  

If a kli needs to be replaced, or in the future, when a beis ha'mikdash will be built and will need kelim, the instructions remain the same as given in our parsha.  There cannot be any deviation from the template.

Ramban on the spot jumps on this assertion and wonders how it can be true.  We know the size of the mizbeiach in the beis ha'mikdash did not match the size of the mizbeiach in the mishkan, and so there was a deviation from the template!

 ולא ידעתי שיהיה זה אמת שיתחייב שלמה לעשות כלי בית עולמים בתבנית אלו, ומזבח הנחשת עשאו שלמה עשרים אמה ארך ועשרים רחב 

Ohr haChaim defends Rashi and suggests לפי דעתי אין דברי הרב נראים כי מה שכתב כי וכן תעשו לדורות לא באה אלא על תכונת הבנין ולא על שיעורו that the details of the measurements of the kelim are not part of the template that has to be preserved.  Mizrachi suggests that what is important in making kelim is to preserve the relative measurements, i.e. the mizbeiach made by Moshe was 5x5 amos, so Shlomo could make a 20x20 mizbeiach, preserving the ratio between the sides.  See Gur Aryeh who addresses this question as well.

In their robust defense of Rashi, none of these meforshim note that if you look at the list of kelim Rashi mentions -- כגון: שולחנות ומנורות וכיורות ומכונות -- the mizbeiach is not on the list.  Rashi deliberately left it out because the mizbeiach is not a kli like all other kelim, but is part of the tzurah of the building.  

The dimensions of the mikdash building that Shlomo made were far greater than the dimensions of the mishkan made by Moshe.  TAs part and parcel of the building, the mizbeiach could therefore also change in dimensions from the size made by Moshe.

an ongoing relationship

The Midrash opens our parsha:

וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה – הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ (משלי ד׳:ב׳), אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ אֶת הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח, יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב אֵין בּוֹ כֶסֶף, יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף אֵין בּוֹ זָהָב, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אִמְרוֹת ה׳ אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף (תהלים י״ב:ז׳). יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפָּז רָב (תהלים י״ט:י״א). יֵשׁ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ שָׂדוֹת אֲבָל לֹא כְרָמִים, כְּרָמִים וְלֹא שָׂדוֹת, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח הַזֶּה יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׂדוֹת וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּרָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים (שיר השירים ד׳:י״ג). יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח וּבְנֵי אָדָם אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין מַהוּ, אֲבָל מִשְּׂכַר הַסַּרְסוּר נִתְוַדַּע מַה לָּקַח. כָּךְ הַתּוֹרָה אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ מַה הִיא, אֶלָּא מִשָּׂכָר שֶׁלָּקַח משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו בְּדַבְּרוֹ אִתּוֹ (שמות ל״ד:כ״ט). וְיֵשׁ לְךָ מִקָּח שֶׁמִּי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ נִמְכָּר עִמּוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ (שמות כ״ה:ח׳).

The Midrash understands כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ not simply as a warning not to forget the Torah, but as a warning not to forget the sale, the exchange, the mekach, of the Torah that took place between G-d and Bn"Y.  It's not what was given which is paramount, but it's the relationship forged by the exchange.  This is what the Mishkan was designed to perpetuate.  Ramban in many places writes that the Mishkan was modelled after Har Sinai.  It had an inner section that was off limits just like Har Sinai itself was off limits except to Moshe; Hashem revealed himself and spoke to Moshe from between the keruvim just as he had revealed himself and spoke to Moshe at Sinai.  The mekach is ongoing, not a one time event.

Rav Bakshi Doron points out that in the entire discussion of the building of the mishkan it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What are we supposed to do with it?  Where is the instructions about avodah, korbanos, etc.?  Yes, we will get to it all in Sefer VaYikra, but how can we go through these parshiyos witout even a passing reference to any of that?  

If we look back to maamad Har Sinai as our model, there too Moshe was told early on in Shmos that  בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ (3:12)  No mention is made of kabbalas haTorah, just "avodah."  Again, it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What could be more important than kabbalas haTorah; what "avodah" did we actually do at Sinai apart from receiving the Torah?

The answer is that we forged a relationship.

When a chassan gives his kallah a ring, hopefully it's not the ring itself which the kallah is happy to get, but it's the relationship the ring represents that she is happy about.  Korbanos, ketores, all that good stuff will come later in VaYikra.  What our parsha is about is  וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם, about the relationship.  The "avodah" of Sinai was our forging a bond with Hashem, a mekach, that is ongoing.

standing upright

 Rashi comments (25:16):  יעקב אבינו נטע ארזים במצרים, וכשמת ציוה את בניו להעלותן עמהן כשיצאו ממצרים, שעתיד הקב״ה לצוות אתכם לעשות משכן במדבר מעצי שטים, ראו שיהו מזומנין בידכם.

Where did the wood to build the mishkan come from?  Yaakov planted cedar trees in Egypt and instructed his children that when they leave, they should take the wood with them, as it would be needed to build a mishkan.  

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Just like Hashem made a miracle and the winds blew the precious stones needed for avnei shoham and avnei miluim into the camp of Bnei Yisrael, so too, Hashem could make a miracle and somehow Bnei Yisrael would find the wood needed for the mishkan.  Why did Yaakov go out of his way to plant trees?

There is a big difference between precious stones and wood for beams.  You can't make a diamond or a ruby or an emerald.  You can just discover them.  A tree, however, can be planted, nourished, tended to, cared for.  Yaakov was not concerned that some raw material would be lacking for the creation of the mishkan.  His concern was that the human effort to procure those materials would be lacking.  It is the toil and effort, the preparation that goes into making something from the earliest stages, which is what sanctifies the outcome. The gemara (B"M 85) tells us that R' Chiya trapped animals, made parchment, and wrote the scrolls that he then used for teaching Torah. He could have bought the parchment in a stationary store, but R' Chiya knew that preparation done b'kedusha ensures an outcome of kedusha.  Therefore, he made the parchment himself.  Yaakov planted trees to allow his children to invest their efforts in their growth, to take a hand in the earliest preparations and toil to make the mishkan.  

The Torah describes the wood for the beams of the mishkan as "atzei shitim omdim."  Chazal learn from the word "omdim" that the beams had to be stood upright in the same way as they grew, "derech g'deilasan."  Achronim debate what the scope of this din is.  Some apply it very broadly to any cheftza shel mitzvah.  Some go far as to say that if you hold a branch of a hadas upside down, for example, you can't say the bracha of "borei atzei besamim" on it because an eitz that is not held derech g'deilasan is not an eitz.  Meshech Chochma narrows the scope.  He is medayek that this requirement of "omdim" is mentioned only in connection with the beams, but not in connection with the aron or mizbeyach, which also were made of wood, and therefore writes that it does not even apply to all the kelim in the mishkan.  Why the difference?  He explains that the mishkan was dismantled when the camp moved; the beams had to be taken down and then put back up.  The aron and mizbeyach were never broken apart and put back together.  Once assembled, they remained as-is.  The din of derech g'deilasan only applies to things that are constantly being re-constructed or moved, not to things in a static state.

With this he explains the view of the Tur that there is no din of derech g'deilsasan for walls of a sukkah -- you don't have to ensure each year that the sukkah wall is always stood with the same side up.  Shibolei haLeket writes that it is better to do so.  The Tur disagrees because derech g'deilsasan does not apply to sukkah which is set up once and you are done for the week.  (The other view is interesting because the wall of a sukkah is not even a cheftza shel mitzvah.  The mitzvah is yeshivas sukkah, not building a sukkah.)

R' Noson Gestetner ties together the machshava idea behind Yaakov's planting of the trees that we started with with this din of derech g'deilasan.  Yaakov planted trees because trees grow and change and need our care.  It is that precisely items that are not static -- beams that are taken apart, a lulav and esrog that we pick up and put down --  where the din of derech g'deilasan applies.  

yikchu terumah -- you have something to contribute

1. Mi’shenichnas Adar marbim b’simcha.  How?  It’s hard to decipher the Rogatchover, but at least I get the first line (Shu”T II:23) – “ain simcha b'lo achila v'shetiya.”  You can't rejoice and be happy without food.  I guess it's a bad month for dieting.

 

2. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say “V’yikchu li nedava mei’eis kol is hasher yidvenu libo” instead of saying “yikchu li terumah...?” 

 

The Midrash comments: “Ani y’sheina v’libi er,” I am asleep, but my heart is awake (Shir HaShirim 5:2)  Klal Yisrael said, “We are sleep, but Hashem is always awake… we are asleep and not doing mitzvos, but our zechus Avos is awake… we are asleep due to cheit ha’eigel, but Hashem is …. 

 

What can you tell someone when they feel that their avodas Hashem is asleep, when they feel disconnected? 

 

Pshat in “V’yikchu li terumah” is not “make a donation.”  Pshat in "V’yikchu li terumah” is “give -- because you have something to contribute.” 

 

The former is all about the $$$ -- the “nedava”.  The latter is all about the person giving – “terumah” = “haramah,” to lift up, as it lifts up the spirit of the person.  When someone thinks their contribution matters, then they want to be part of the program. 

 

What does the Midrash mean when it says that Hashem is awake, that zechus Avos is awake, if we are asleep?  The answer is that Hashem’s presence is ingrained within us, zechus Avos is ingrained within us.  The Midrash means that there is always something inside of us, deep down, that remains awake.  We just need a little uplift to get back on track.  We need to be reminded that there is something worthwhile inside of us that we can give over, that we need to give over.

 

3. “K’chol asher ani mareh oscha….”  We would have expected the pasuk to say “mareh lecha,” as the vision of the Mishkan was shown to Moshe.

 

The Midrash presents a parable: a Ki   mar  off his daughter, but could not bear to leave her.  He therefore requested that she set aside a little room in her house for him so that he knows there is always a place for him.  So too, Hashem could not part with the Torah, so he asked for us to make a Mishkan for him to be with us.    

 

Everybody is familiar with the derasha of “v’shachanti b’socham” -– it doesn’t say that Hashem will dwell in the Mishkan, but rather that he will dwell within the people.

 

To become a kli for hashra’as haShechina is something that requires a role model to achieve, not something you wake up one morning and figure out.  “Mareh oscha” =  Hashem is showing off Moshe Rabeinu, so to speak, and telling people to look toward him, as he is a model of what a Mishkan means.  

a mitzvah to believe in angels?

1) R' Bachyei says something extraordinary on last week's parsha.  He writes that the keruvim are there to remind us of the existence of angels, "because just as we are commanded to believe in G-d, which is the primary ikar of the ikkarim... so too we are commanded to believe in angels and this is the second ikar."  (25:18)

Since when does belief in angels rank up there with the ikkarei emunah?  

But that's what he says, so take it up with R' Bachyei.    

2) Why does the Torah include the command to put the lechem ha'panim on the shulchan (25:30) in the instructions of how to build a shulchan?  The Torah does not stick the command to light the menorah in the middle of the instructions of how to build a menorah, or stick the command to offer korbanos in the description of what the mizbeiyach looked like.  Why is the shulchan different?

My son did a post quoting sources to prove that putting lechem ha'panim on the shulchan is not just an independent mitzvah, but it part of how the mitzvah of building a shulchan.  A shulchan without lechem is not a shulchan.

(In a similar vein, the Da'as Zekeinim asks why in the list of items donated to the Mishkan recorded at the beginning of the parsha -- zahav, kesef, nechoshes, etc. -- the Torah singles out only three of those items and tells us what they were used for: shemen la'ma'or, besamim l'shem ha'mishcha u'l'ketores ha'samim.  He answers that when you construct a new house you want it to smell nice, you want it to be light and bright, you want everything to have a new house look.  The menorah, ketores, shem ha'mishcha are not being mentioned here in their role as as independent mitzvos, but rather they are being mentioned in their role as part of the mitzvah of binyan ha'mishkan.)

I saw R' Nevenzahl has a different suggestion.  The lechem ha'panim was usually placed (and the old lechem removed) on Shabbos.  The chanukas ha'mishkan took place on a Sunday.  Therefore, one might have thought that the shulchan should remain empty all week until the next Shabbos, kah mashma lan our pasuk that from day #1, from its inauguration, the shulchan should have lechem on it.

bri'ach ha'tichon of chessed.

1) The Rambam writes in Hil Beis HaBechira (1:12):

והכל חייבין לבנות ולסעד בעצמן ובממונם אנשים ונשים כמקדש המדבר.

"Everyone has to participate in the mitzvah of building a mikdash, both men and women, just like all participated in building the Mishkan in the desert."

Why does the Rambam add that last phrase?  Why can't he just say that men and women must participate -- why add the comparison to the Mishkan?

Thoughts?

2) According to Chazal the "bri'ach ha'tichon," the central beam that went through the middle of all the boards of the Mishkan, miraculously curved itself around the entire structure.  Where did this special beam come from?  Targum Yonasan (26:28) writes that it came from the tree planted by Avraham, "Va'yita eisehel b'Be'eir Sheva," to provide shade and a place to rest for his guests.  When Klal Yisrael left Egypt the angels came and cut down that tree, threw it into Yam Suf, and from there it was retrieved by Bnei Yisrael.

Why did the angels bring davka that tree?  Was there no closer place to get wood from?  R' Yaakov Kaminetzki has a wonderful insight regarding the "atzei shitim," which Chazal tell us were planted by Yaakov Avinu (see my son's post here).  The gemara (Yoma 72) writes that the word "omdim" used to describe these boards means they are eternal.  R' Yaakov points out that the word "omdim" is part of the tzivuy, the command of how to build the Mishkan.  It's not a bracha -- it's something we have to make happen.  So where do you get wood that will last for an eternity?  The answer is you get wood that Avraham used for hachnasas orchim; you get wood that Yaakov invested his kochos in to prepare for the future and give his children bitachon that they would one day get out of galus and have a Mishkan.  That's wood saturated with kedusha that will therefore be with us forever. 

The world stands on three things: Torah, avodah, and chessed.  Which of these values would you most associate with the Mishkan?  The  obvious choice is avodah = offering korbanos.  The slightly less obvious choice is Torah.  Ramban writes that the revelation of Shechina in the Mishkan parallels the revelation of Shechina at Har Sinai.  The aron containing the luchos was the focal point of the Mishkan.  Yet we see from the Targum Yonasan that the ingredient of chessed must be there as well.   Only the wood that served as a vehicle for Avraham's welcoming of guests could serve to connect and hold that walls together.

My wife added that the Mishkan is a microcosm of the world.  "Olam chessed yibaneh" - the world is built on chessed.  The Mishkan follows suit.

The keruvin that stood atop the aron stood "pneihem ish el achiv" -- facing each other.  R' Shternbruch suggests that the Torah is telling us that the key to being able to enter the kodesh kodashim, to be able to come close to the aron, to Torah, is to always look toward your fellow Jew -- to be aware of the needs and plight of your fellow man.  Chessed is at the heart of the Mishkan.

What is true of the "house" of Hashem should be equally true of our own homes.  Hashra'as haShechina requires avodah, requires Torah, but without chessed, it will all fall apart.

zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel -- 3 coins or 1 -- Rama vs GR"A

The Rama (O.C. 694) writes that the minhag is to give three machtzis ha'shekels (bad dikduk, I know) on Ta'anis Esther because the word terumah appears 3x in parshas shekalim.  However, GR"A in Ma'aseh Rav (282) writes that the minhag is to give only one machtzis ha'shekel.

Aside from trying to understand the nekudas ha'machlokes between them, it's very hard to understand the Rama.  The reason we read parshas shekalim is to remember the annual donation of machtzis ha'shekel given to the mikdash to pay for korbanos tzibur expenses.  We once a year do something to remember this once a year donation. The additional shelakim alluded to in parshas shekalim were one-in-history donations used in constructing the mishkan.  Why do we need an annual remembrance for that?

My son pointed out that the GR"A in S"A on this Rama points you to Tos in Megillah (21) which says that on ta'aneisim we give tzedaka at mincha time.  My son suggested that the GR"A is perhaps not just explaining to us when the machtzis ha'shekel is given, but is defining for us the geder ha'din, what machtzis ha'shekel is -- it's not a zecher, but a din in hilchos tzedaka, just like tzedaka given on any ta'anis.  Therefore, the shiur is machtzis ha'shekel, not 3x a machtzis shekel.  The Rama understood that it is a zecher.

I'm not yet convinced that the GR"A there is doing anything more than explaining why the machtzis ha'shekel is given on ta'anis esther afternoon -- why not give it sometime close to when we read the parsha?   I would formulate the issue a little differently.  The GR"A sees our machtzis ha'shekel as a zecher to the machtzis ha'shekel of the mikdash.  The Rama perhaps sees giving machtzis ha'shekel as part and parcel of our kiyum of parshas shekalim.  By way of analogy, RYBS and others understood that our eating matzah on pesach night is not just a kiyum in achilas matzah, but is a kiyum in sipur as well -- it's part of how we tell the story.  So too here, perhaps Rama means that reading parshas shekalim also entails donating 3 machtzis shekalim --- davka 3, because 3 are alluded to in the parsha, and our giving is in some way an extension of the mitzvah of reading the parsha.  (I don't know if my explanation is any less dachuk, but I have no other ideas yet.) I found that R' Yisachar Shlomo Teichtel hy"d, who these days is better known as the author of Eim haBanim Smeicha, discusses this topic in his shu"t, Mishne Sachir.  (O.C. 34).  He quotes what appears to be two contradictory gemaras: On the one hand, the gemara (Meg 13) quotes Reish Lakish as teaching that the shekalim that Klal Yisrael gave in the midbar served to nullify the money Haman paid to bribe Achashveirosh.  We proved with our pocketbooks that we are dedicated to good before he even had the idea of showing his financial dedication to evil.   On the other hand, Chazal tell us (Meg 16) that Haman chanced upon Mordechai teaching hilchos kemitza of the korban mincha and remarked that the small offering of kemitza outweighed all the thousands he had poured into doing evil (Meg 16).  So which was it -- was it the shekalim donated to the Mishkan, or was it the actual offerings of the Mikdash, e.g. kemitza -- which foiled Haman's plans?

In a simplified nutshell, these two views represent the roots of the GR"A vs Rama.  According to Reish Lakish's view, the "kesef ha'kipurim" donated to the mishkan served as a kaparah not just for that generation, but for future generations as well -- for Mordechai and Esther's time, for our time, for all time.  Therefore, according to Rama we make a zecher even for the machtzis ha'shekel donated for the building of the mishkan.  However, if Haman's downfall was brought about by hilchos kemitza, it is the korbanos themselves, purchased with the single machtzis ha'shekel given annually, which is what saved us, and therefore, as GR"A writes, it is this single machtzis ha'shekel that we make a remembrance for.

the mishkan embassy

An amazing vort from R' Shmuel Birenbaum: among the items collected for the Mishkan were precious stones to be used in the choshen.  The Torah calls these stones "avnei milu'im" (25:7) because, as Rashi explains, they were used to fill the holes that they were set in.  Why would the Torah focus on the fact that these stones served as filler instead of focusing on their inherent precious value and beauty?  We see from here, answered R' S Birenbaum, that true value comes from being able to make something, or someone, whole.  

The idea I have below is admittedly half-baked and probably needs some work. 

The gemara (Kesubos 62) writes that when Rebbi's son was getting engaged, he made a deal with the in-laws that he would learn for 12 years before the wedding.   The kallah then passed in front of the chassan, and after he saw her, he said, "How about we make it 6 years?"  The kallah came by again, and he said, "How about we first get married and then I go learn?'  He was a little embarrassed by the change of heart, but the shverr said to him not to be concerned, as Hashem did the same thing.  When we crossed Yam Suf, the plan was "tivi'eimo v'sitaeimo b'har nachalascha," that we will come to Eretz Yisrael, and only then "mikdash Hashem konenu yadecha," we would get a Mikdash.  However, as we read in our parsha, Hashem decided to speed things up and give us a Mishkan while we were in the midbar.

Hashem doesn't change his mind like an anxious chassan.  What was the hava amina here and what's the maskana?

The Yismach Moshe quotes a Midrash that writes that when Klal Yisrael said na'aseh v'nishma, Hashem responded by giving them the command of "v'yikchu li terumah."  What's the connection?  According to Ramban, the revelation of Torah that took place at Sinai continued in the Mishkan, and we find many parallels between the two.  Just as people had to keep their distance from Sinai, so too, no one could enter the Mishkan if not for the sake of avodah.  Moshe was called to ascend Sinai; Moshe heard Hashem calling to him from the Mishkan.  The Midrash opens our parsha with a warning of "ki lekach tov nasati lachem torasi al ta'azovu" -- the purpose of the Mishkan was to be a Torah center.  Therefore, Hashem originally presented the plan to Klal Yisrael for the Mishkan to be built only after they had time to spend immersed in learning Torah, growing in their love for Torah.  By the time they reached Eretz Yisrael they would be ready.  Klal Yisrael, however, rose to the occasion, and by saying "na'aseh v'nishma" they demonstrated that they loved Torah already -- there was no need to wait. 

I would suggest a slightly different twist.  The gemara in Brachos writes that R' Yochanan wondered how there could possibly be old people in Bavel when the Torah promises that the bracha of "l'ma'an yirbu y'meichem," of long life, would be given "al ha'adamah asher nishba Hashem l'avoseichem," only in Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara answers that those people blessed with long life earned that reward because they came to shul on time for davening.  How does that answer the question -- bottom line, they are not living in Eretz Yisrael?  The meforshim quote another gemara that teaches that the shuls and batei midrash of chutz la'aretz will, in the time of geulah, be transported to Eretz Yisrael.  In other words, the shuls and batei midrash of Bavel were, in potential, "al ha'adamah asher nishba Hashem l'avoseichem."  Just like when you are in a foreign country, if you enter the embassy of your home country, you are on home soil, so too, when one enters a shul or beis midrash one is breathing "avira d'Eretz Yisrael."

Perhaps this is what the gemara in Kesubos means.  Originally Hashem presented the plan for the Mikdash as something that could be built only in Eretz Yisrael, not simply, like the Yismach Moshe suggests, as a delay tactic to give people time to acquire a love ofTorah, but because "KI mi'Tzion teitzei Torah" -- it requires geographically being in Eretz Yisrael to truly absorb Torah.  However, when Klal Yisrael declared "na'aseh v'nishma," the proved that like the old people of Bavel, a taste of the "avira d'Eretz Yisrael" could be felt in chutz la'aretz as well, and Torah could find a home in an "embassy" there.  

textual variants and the Ohr haChaim

1) The Abarbanel at the end of Terumah addresses the question that probably bothers you or should bother you when reading the parshiyos of Terumah, Tetzaveh, VaYakhel, Pekudei: so many pesukim about a Mishkan that we will never see again?  The Abarbanel asks it more broadly.  We've been in galus for hundreds of years and yet we read these parshiyos about mishkan, about korbanos, about the service of kohanim -- what meaning can it have for us?  When I mentioned this question at the Shabbos table, daughter #1 suggested that it's preparation for when we will once again have a Mikdash, have korbanos, etc.  Abrabanel offers a more philosophical answer.  The goal of doing the mitzvah, he explains, is perfection of the mind, perfection of character.  The physical act is just a means of mental arousal.  If one cannot offer a korban or build a mishkan, one can still by studying these parshiyos attain the same chochma and same mental perfection as doing would engender.  "K'mo she'yo'il ha'ma'aseh... la'ha'amid neged ra'ayonecha yiras Elokim v'romemuso, kacha y'chonu machshivosecha l'askil gedulaso v'chochmaso u'l'hidabek bo b'haskil ha'inyan."  When Chazal say that when studies the laws of korbanos it is as if one has brought a korban, it is because the whole purpose of bringing the korban is to put one in a mental state of dveikus and connection to chochmah.  Studying the parsha achieves the same goal.

2) Rashi (BaMidbar 7:1) explains that the Torah writes the word "kalos" in the pasuk "B'yom kalos Moshe l'hakim es hamishhan..." chaseir, missing the vav, i.e. KLS, because Klal Yisrael was like a kallah going to chuppah.  The Ohr haChaim (BaMidbar 7:1) there gets very worked up about this comment:

רז''ל אמרו (במד''ר פי''ב) כַּלַּת כתיב, ורואני כי בספר תורה כתובה בוא''ו, ואני אומר כי דברי תורה כאלו וכיוצא באלו אינם נמסרים לכל מרים יד בתופשי התורה, כי יסובב הדבר הכפירה והזלזול בכבוד מורים, ויש לך לדעת כי סדר תורתינו הקדושה, ותיבותיה ואותיותיה ספורות מזוקקות, חצובות ממחצב קדוש ונורא, נפלאים המה למכיר בהם ויותר פליאות נעלמים מעין כל, ואעירך גרגיר אחד והוא, הלא תמצא כי יש אותיות נרגשות במבטא התיבות ואינם בכתב, כגון יהושע כי במבטא ישנו להרגש של אות הוי''ו בין שי''ן לעי''ן ואינה במכתב, וישנה במקום שאינה נרגשת שהיא בין ה''א לשי''ן, והערה זאת תרונן דעת משכיל, להכיר כי אותיותיה ספורות מזוקקות, ואי אפשר להוסיף אפילו אות אחת. הגם כי תצטרך למבטא הקריאה ותהיה נקראת, הגם שאינה כתובה, ותהיה קרי ולא כתיב, וקבעה התורה הוא''ו שלא במקומה להעיר בנסתרות.

Our sefer Torah has a vav in the word.  How could Rashi/Chazal comment on a missing vav that is not missing?  And so he comes up with an explanation.

I thought of this Ohr haChaim when I noticed the Ohr haChaim NOT commenting on a pasuk in this week's parsha.  Here's the pasuk:

וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ שָׁם וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
And here's the Rashi:

הרי וי"ו זו יתירה וטפלה, וכמוהו הרבה במקרא, וכה תפתר ואת אשר אדבר עמך שם, את כל אשר אצוה אותך אל בני ישראל הוא:
And just for good measure, the Ibn Ezra:

וטעם וי"ו ואת כל אשר אצוה. ככה הוא.
Both meforshim right on the page, as the Minchas Shai notes, are trying to explain away an extra vav that does not appear in our text!

Where's the Ohr haChaim here?  Why wait until Parshas Naso to comment on Rashi having a different text? 

Two answers occur to me: 1) the more obvious one: the Ohr haChaim here had the same text as Rashi and Ibn Ezra and so it didn't bother him; 2) maybe he was only bothered in Naso where Rashi is quoting a Chazal (I am not convinced this is right.)

kelim without a Mishkan

The gemara (Brachos 55) writes that when Moshe instructed Betzalel to build a Mishkan, he first told him what kelim to make. Betzalel thought to himself that it’s no good to have kelim if you have no place to put them, so he first built the Mishkan. When Moshe saw what Betzalel had done, he remarked that Betzalel’s name is most appropriate, as he must have been “b’tzel K-l,” hidden in the shadows when G-d spoke, as he had intuited exactly what Hashem had commanded, i.e. to first make a Mishkan, and only then to make the kelim.

The obvious question: what was the hava amina? Did Moshe not convey the instructions correctly, or, even more inconceivably, did he misunderstand them, and therefore did not mention the need for a Mishkan before the kelim? Didn’t Moshe realize,as Betzalel had, that there would be no place to put the kelim he was telling Betzalel to make?

A few years I quoted a yesod from R’ Goldvicht zt”l based on a Seforno, who comments on the pesukim in parshas BeChukosai, “V’nasati mishkani b’sochichem, v’lo tigal nafshi eschem v’halachti b’sochichem v’hiyisem lachem l’Elokim” (VaYikra 27) that these are two separate ideas.   Mishkan is necessary only to avoid “lo tigal nafshi eschem,” G-d being repulsed by our sins, but when things are going well, then “v’hishalachti b’sochichem,” Hashem’s presence is everywhere, not located in a single building or at a single address. The Mishkan is a b’dieved, not an ideal. According to Ramban, the command to build a Mishkan came only after cheit ha’eigel, as a response to sin, not beforehand.

Based on this yesod, we can explain our gemara as follows (see Chasam Sofer): in an ideal world, the klei haMiskan can stand on their own – there is no need for walls to house them in. When there is a state of “v’halachti b’sochichem,” you don’t need a specific place to store your holy kelim – every place and everyone is holy. Moshe presented Betzalel with that ideal. However, when it came time to actually build the Mishkan, Betzalel realized that Klal Yisrael was not on that ideal level. There had to be a building, one place that was holy above and beyond the lower level of the rest of the camp, for without that the kelim would be out of place amidst the mundane.

The gemara (Baba Basra 99) points out a contradiction in the description of the keruvim. One pasuk tells us that they faced each other, but another pasuk tells us that they faced the wall of the bayis. Chazal explain that when Klal Yisrael was doing what Hashem wants, they faced each other, otherwise not. 

The two keruvim represent the Yisachar – Zevulun relationship (Ksav Sofer) or perhaps, according to other meforshim, the relationship between talmidei chachamim. When Bnei Yisrael are not acting correctly, the keruvim turn to face the walls -- when there are walls between people, walls between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem, then there needs to be walls of a Mishkan. However, when Klal Yisrael show concern for each other and do what's right, those keruvim face each other as well, ignoring the walls that are no longer necessary, as Hashem dwells everywhere among us.

ta’aroch lifanay shulchan neged tzorerai - talmud torah

It's been a busy week, but I finally found a moment to get in a few follow up notes on some things I wrote last week.  I mentioned Rashi’s analogy that the teaching of mishpatim must be like a “shulchan aruch,” like a banquet that people will enjoy eating. My wife suggested that David haMelech was perhaps alluding to this when he said, “Ta’aroch lifanay shulchan neged tzorerai.” (The 23) David was asking that Torah should be for him like this “shulchan aruch” that he will enjoy delving into, and in this way, “neged tzorerai,” he will be able to overcome his yetzer ha’ra, and maybe through the power of Torah defeat his external enemies as well. “Dishanta ba’shemen roshi” – oil is a symbol of chochma, which is found in the head, so this too is perhaps an allusion to the study of Torah.   

Last week I also mentioned the the pasuk, “Lo te’hiye m’shakeila v’akarah b’artzecha.” The Lubavitcher Rebbe has a beautiful interpretation of this pasuk. The word “eretz” shares ther same root as “ratzon,” e.g. the Midrash (Braishis 5:8) says that Hashem called the land “eretz” because “she’ratzta la’ason retzon konah,” it desired to fulfill G-d’s will. The bracha in our pasuk can be read to mean that your desires (artzecha – your ratzon) should not be barren and given to fruitless endeavors. 

Finally, on to this week: if I were making an appeal for building funds, I would first paint a picture of the wonderful edifice that would be built, and then ask people to pony up the cash. Parshas Terumah presents things exactly the reverse way.  The parsha first opens with the command, “V’Yikchu li terumah,” asking people to pony up their money, and only then gets into the details of what exactly would built. Maybe this just proves I would make a lousy fundraiser, or maybe why the parsha is put in that order is worth thinking about.

the one pasuk that says it all

If you had to choose one pasuk that encapsulates the essence of what Torah is all about, which would you choose?

The Tanaim asked this question and gave different answers.

 Ben Zoma chose a pasuk that would undoubtedly be on many of our lists: Shema Yisrael.

Ben Nanas chose a pasuk that again, I am sure many of us would think of: V’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha.

The surprise is the view of Shimon ben Nanas, who chose the pasuk, “Es hakeves echad ta’aseh baboker…”  That one is probably on no one’s list, yet the Midrash continues that this pasuk is the best choice.  The Midrash brings proof from another pasuk in our our parsha: “K’chol asher ani mareh oscha es tavnis hamishkan v’es tavni kol keilav v’kein ta’asu.”

The pasuk of “Es hakeves ha’echad…” refers to the daily korban tamid offering.  How does this idea encapsulate the entire Torah?  And what does the pasuk in our parsha that talks about the construction of the Mishkan have to do with it? 

Ksav Sofer explains as follows:

Shema Yisrael is not only a personal statement of kabbalas ol, acceptance of the yoke of Torah and mitzvos, but is also a call to one’s fellow Jew.  When we say (as commonly translated), “Hear Israel…,” we are addressing others and declaring to them that G-d is one.  The essence of Judaism is not just belief in G-d, but also encompasses concern for the spiritual welfare of our brothers and sisters.

Ben Nanes went a step further.  It’s not just the spiritual welfare of others which we must be concerned for, but also their physical needs as well.  “V’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha” means whatever I would do for myself, I would do for my fellow Jew as well.

Ben Zoma and Ben Nanes both recognize that a man cannot live for himself, but in both of their worlds there is still a “Me” that reaches out to a “You.”  Shimon ben Nanes went yet one step further.  “Es ha’keves ha’echad ta’aseh baboker,” we are commanded “ta’aseh,” in the singular, to offer a korban tamid.  There is not a “Me” or a “You” doing the offering, but rather there is a new collective entity called the community of Klal Yisrael, in the singular. 

The truth is that the Mishkan could have been built with the donations of a few mega-wealthy donors.  It did not require the participation of the community as a whole.  Nonetheless, the Torah invited everyone who wanted to contribute to do so.  “V’kein ta’asu” is not just a command that applies to the immediate mitzvah of building the Mishkan, as the “vav” in “v’kein” would be extra were that the case (see Rashi, Ramban).  Rather, it is a command that extends to all mitzvos.  Just as the community as a whole involved itself in the building of the Mishkan, so too, all mitzvos are strengthened and become more meaningful when the community as a whole participates in their performance.

not just planting trees -- planting emunah

Rashi quotes from Chazal that the atzei shitim wood that was used in the Mishkan came from trees that Ya’akov Avinu had planted when he came down to Mitzrayim.  Ya’akov knew that one day a Mishkan would be built and he wanted to make sure that Bnei Yisrael would have the  material they needed to construct it.

Ya’akov had a lot of other things to take care of when he came down to Mitzrayim.  He had to oversee Yehudah’s setting up a yeshiva.  He had at least one audience with Pharoah.  He reunited with Yosef.  Undoubtedly, then and in the years that followed he also did the things he always had done – he must have been learning, giving shiurim, inspiring his children and grandchildren in their avodah.  Why did he take the time to go out in the fields and start planting trees?  “Lechteiach acharai bamidbar b’eretz lo zeru’ah…”  Bnei Yisrael are praised for their willingness to leave Mitzrayim and go out to a desert with no food, no preparation, nothing other than their faith in G-d.  Have you ever seen a Jewish family out on a trip without a shopping bag of food and nosh?  This was probably the one time in history that it happened.  G-d provided mon to eat, a be’er to drink from, etc.  If they needed wood, it's fair to assume he would have provided wood as well.  Yes, you could be mechaleik and say that because there was a mitzvah to build a Mishkan they had to prepare mi'din hechsher mitzvah, but still the question remains, why was Ya’akov so concerned about it years in advance?

R’ Avraham Yafen answers that Ya’akov wasn’t just planting trees – he was planting emunah. 

When you are in the midst of a long, harsh galus it can seem like there will never be and end.  Ya’akov could have spoken to his children and grandchildren about the promise of geulah, but let’s be real: even if your Rabbi gave a speech every week that the geulah was coming, who would listen?  Who would take it seriously?  Words, words, and more words.  But imagine if you met your Rabbi at the travel agent booking a one way trip, open ticket, to Eretz Yisrael.  You walk into his house and his suitcase is packed, his furniture sold.

“Rabbi, did you decide to quit?  Are you leaving us? 

“No, I’m still your Rabbi, but I’m preparing for geulah and want to book my flight before all the tickets are snatched up.”

Suddenly it’s real, it's a message you need to take seriously.  Lots of people talked about moshiach coming before the Chofetz Chaim, but the Chofetz Chaim lived with his suitcase packed -- he made it real.  Ya’akov personally went out to plant the trees well in advance of the need for them because he wanted the vision of geulah and the Mishkan to not just be a derasha, a promise, a vision of the future -- he wanted it to be part of the reality that Klal Yisrael would live with.

building a shul -- mitzvah or hechsher mitzvah?

Our parsha discusses the mitzvah of binyan mikdash.  Is there any mitzvah to build a shul?

The Rambam writes in Hil Tefilah 11:1

כל מקום שיש בו עשרה מישראל, צריך להכין בו בית שייכנסו בו לתפילה בכל עת תפילה; ומקום זה, הוא הנקרא בית הכנסת.

From the Rambam is sounds like building a beis knesses is only a hechsher mitzvah.  If you have 10 people, then you need to set aside a place to daven; however, if not for tefilah b'tzibur, then it sounds like there would be no mitzvah.

Once upon a time we discussed the first Rambam in Hil Beis haBechira:

 מצות עשה לעשות בית לה', מוכן להיות מקריבים בו הקרבנות, וחוגגין אליו שלוש פעמים בשנה--שנאמר "ועשו לי, מקדש"

Here too, the Rambam's language implies that it is the need to offer korbanos that is the driving force behind building a mikdash.  That being said, there is still a mitzvah to build a mikdash independent of the mitzvah to offer korbanos.  In no way is one chiyuv dependent on the other. 

Perhaps with respect to building a shul as well, although the Rambam sees tefilah as the driving force, the building still counts as an independent chiyuv.

One possible nafka minah: According to the Rama that allows amira l'aku"m m'makom mitzvah, can you allow non-Jewish workers to build a shul on Shabbos?  If building a shul is only a hechser mitzvah, perhaps not (Machtzis haShekel on MG"A 276:8).

See Rav Wahrman's She'eiris Yosef vol 5 for more.

the larger picture

V’asu li mikdash… k’chol asher ani mareh oscha... v’chain ta’asu (Shmos 25:8-9)

Rashi writes “v’chein ta’asu” is a mitzvah l’doros to make the klei hamikdash (when needed) exactly as made during the building of the Mishkan.  Ramban disagrees and proves that this is not a mitzvah l’doros from the fact that the mizbeiach built by Shlomo did not have the same dimensions as that built by Moshe.  The simple answer in defense of Rashi is that although the size of the mizbeiach may not have been the same, its essential features were.  Shiur is a measure of the amount of something that there is; it’s not the essence of what the thing is.  Maharal suggests that Rashi may have been referring to the kli hamikdash in particular, meaning those items that were portable.  The mizbeiach was connected to the ground, to the building of Mikdash/Mishkan, and was therefore different than a normal kli.

The Tiferes Shlomo has a beautiful answer.  The Radomsker writes that “v’chein ta’asu” is not talking about the physical making of the kelim, but rather is talking about the “k’chol asher ani mareh oscha.”  Moshe did not just make kelim the way he thought fit – he had a vision of what the Mikdash should look like and made kelim to fit that ideal.  The mitzvah l’doros is similarly to make kelim not according to one’s own standards or needs, but according to the vision that Hashem shows of what a Mishkan or Mikdash should be.  Every generation has its Moshe who is privy to that vision and can direct the work accordingly. 

I don’t think the Radomsker is telling us a din in the mitzvah of building Mikdash; I think he’s telling us a general din about life.  You can’t build unless you have vision.  The nitty-gritty of how-to can only be addressed if one starts with an image of the ideal one would like to achieve.  And it’s true that the end product many times will not match and it’s true that how to meet that ideal will not always be simple or clear.  “Nitkashe Moshe” is part of the process.  But without an overarching philosophy and dream to guide them, piecemeal solutions will ultimately never have any coherence or direction.

L’havdil, to take an example from the outside world, when JFK made his famous speech challenging the county to land a man on the moon within a decade, he didn’t specify whether to use rocket X or Y or how to build a lunar lander.  He pointed the space program in the direction he wanted it to go, gave his bracha and got funding, and left the details to the engineers.  He trusted that the how-to would eventually work itself out; his job was to get people dreaming and aspiring to achieve a goal. 

It seems to me that our leaders these days are experts in nitty-gritty detail, but short on vision.  We hear a lot these days about what not to read and what not to do and how not to dress and not act etc.  We hear about who to vote for to get the most benefit to yeshivos and avoid yeshiva bachurim from serving in Tzahal.  What we don't hear is an overarching vision of how to bring together the various factions in society in a way that balances the needs of a modern state with the religious needs of our community.  If you don't accept the philosophy of Rav Kook or Mizrachi, what is the answer -- how do you think we can achieve that goal?  I am more than willing to acknowledge that it may be my ignorance; maybe I am just not reading the right books so I'm not getting the message.  How we are going to have doctors, pay bills, keep our yeshivos running if the only path in life that is approved is klei kodesh?  I exaggerate, but you can think of your own examples so I won’t belabor the point.  I don't see the vision; I don't see how the particulars add up to make a strong Torah society of diverse personalities that fill different rolls and can contend with economic, political, ideological, and existential challenges in the modern world. 

We need to start with “k’chol asher ani mareh oscha,” with the larger vision.  We need Moshe's that see that vision and can guide us to make the kelim that match that ideal.

when kavanah alone is enough

Ramban comments based on Midrash that the reason the Torah uses the term “v’asu es ha’aron,” in the plural even though the rest of the commands to build the Mishkan (and the aron as well) are in the singular is because each and every member of Klal  Yisrael participated in the building of the aron.  The symbolic message is obvious: each and every member of Klal Yisrael has some portion in Torah. 

On a practical level, how exactly did everyone participate – what did they do?  Ramban gives three possibilities: 1) They donated gold that was designated specifically for use in the aron; 2) They helped in the physical crafting of the aron; 3) They had kavanah.

It’s the third option that caught my attention.  How exactly does kavanah count as participation?  It sounds just like what managers do where I work – You guys bring the gold, you guys do the work, and I’ll stand here and supervise by thinking deep thoughts of kavanah.  If the aron is the symbol of Torah, I’m even more perplexed.  There are people who contribute to Torah by learning – the parallel to fashioning the aron.  There are people who contribute to Torah by supporting Torah study – the parallel to donating gold for the aron.  But can someone participate in Torah study by watching someone else learn or contribute and just having kavanah?  How does that work?

I told my daughter (who I learned this Ramban with) that next time she forgets her homework she should tell the teacher that she had kavanah to do it and that's enough.  I figure if she quotes this Ramban the teacher should give partial credit.