learning hilchos ha'chag -- a din in talmud torah or a din on Y"T?

The gemara (Pesachim 6a) has a din that one is supposed to start to learn hilchos pesach 30 days before the chag שואלין ודורשין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שתי שבתות. The gemara on the last daf in Megillah gives a different time frame and says one is supposed to learn the laws of the chag on the chag itself ת"ר משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג. So which is it?

Ran answers, based on the girsa of the RI"F who had the text שואלין and not שואלין ודורשין, that the din of 30 days does not require you to learn hilchos ha'chag. All it means is that if two different peole pose shaylos to a Rav at the same time, one that has to do with the chag and one that does not, from 30 days before the holiday onward all questions that relate to the holiday take precedence. (see Biur Halacha in siman 429 who discusses this Ran at length. Rashi and Tos clearly do not learn this way).

The Beis Yosef answers that the din of 30 days applies only to chag haPesach, as there is a large body of complex laws that are associated with the chag. As I've written before, the laws of Pesach touch on every area. You have your orach chaim halachos of the chag, you have to know choshen mishpat to sell your chameitz properly, you have to know yoreh de'ah to get into the laws of koshering and taaroves. You maybe get off light in the even ha'ezer dept.

The simplest answer to the question I think is that it's not an either/or choice -- embrace the power of "and." You are obligated to learn the halachos 30 days beforehand and are also supposed do so on Y"T itself (see Tos Meg 4a). The only problem with this approach is that it begs the question of why one would need to study the halachos of the chag on the chag if one already covered that material beforehand.

To help resolve this problem Rav Wahrman in Orot Pesach points out that the Rambam does not formulate the gemara in Megilah's din as an obligation to specifically learn halacha. The Rambam in tefilah 13:8 writes:

ומשה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קוראין בכל מועד ענינו. ושואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום בכל מועד ומועד.

While the gemara refers to הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג, the Rambam just refers to ענינו של יום, a far broader term that encompasses any time of limud.

The Rambam in hil megillah (1:13) gives us another clue to how he understood this din. Rambam tells us that when Purim falls out on Shabbos:

ושואלין ודורשין בהלכות פורים באותה שבת כדי להזכיר שהוא פורים:

The point of learning the ענינו של יום (and I am not sure why he does not use that phrase in hil megillah, which would have bolstered R' Wahrman's argument) is not to familiarize oneself with the halachos. If you don't know what to do after studying the laws for 30 days before the chag, it is a bit too late. Rather, the point is to help in the commemoration of Y"T -- להזכיר שהוא פורים. The same would seem to hold true with respect to learning on the other Yamim Tovim. It is like a pirsumei nisa din.

I would note as well that the Rambam doesn't quote the gemara's din in hil talmud torah, where you might have expected it to be, but rather it's in hilchos tefilah, in the context of telling us what kri'as haTorah should be read on each Y"T. Just like the specific kri'ah of the day reflects and helps establish the character of the day, so too, focusing one's learning on topic matter related to the chag helps establish the character of the day.

Apart from the Rambam's chiddush as to what content matter should be studied, Rav Wahrman suggests a second nafka minah to this approach. Rashi (Meg 4) comments שואלין ודורשין. מעמידין תורגמן לפני החכם לדרוש אגרת פורים ברבים: The learning done on the day of Y"T has to be a public shiur. If the point was simply to study and know halacha, it would suffice to study shulchan aruch in the privacy of one's home. However, if the point is pirsumei nisa, or pirsum ha'chag, it makes sense that it must be a public display.

It is striking to me that Rav Wahrman does not point out that the Yerushalmi seems to say the exact opposite.

שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג בבית ועד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

Pnei Moshe: שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח. כ״א ואחד בביתו אבל בבית ועד שמתקבצין הרבה בביה״מ ללמוד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

The Biur Halacha quotes Chok Yaakov as suggesting that this is the resolution to the Ran's question that we started weith. The din of learning 30 days before the chag means that the topic of the chsag is the curriculum in the beis medrash where the pubic gathers to learn. The din of learning hilchos ha'chag on the chag is what one does in private, in one's home.

Rav Wahrman does raise a problem with his chiddush based on the Yalkut Shimoni on VaYakehl, our parsha:

רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג

The gemara describes Moshe's gathering of Bn"Y on Shabbos to teach them halachos, לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, and extrapolates from that to the chiyuv to do the same on Y"T. Sounds like the din of studying hilchos ha'chag on the chag is to know halacha, and not a pirsumei nisa like din.

Rav Wahrman says אכתי ישׁ לדון בּזה, but he doesn't explain further. My guess is that while his question highlights the words ְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, it does not do justice to the second half of that sentence: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי. That line suggests a motivation for learning that goes beyond simply knowing issur v'heter. It sounds like the purpose of the study of the halacha was to give shevach to Hashem, not the knowledge for its own sake.

A couple of years ago I suggested that this Yalkut is not a din in talmud torah, i.e. that the mitzvah of talmud torah requires greater committment on shabbos than on a weekday, but rather the Yalkut is a din in Shabbos, i.e. a Shabbos without torah is an incomplete kiyum of mitzvas Shabbos. It would be like Shabbos without kiddush, or Shabbos without cholent. The same is true of Y"T. The chiyuv to learn hilchos ha'chag 30 days before the chag is a din in talmud torah, but learning on the y"t is a kiyum in hil' Y"T. (See this post discussing R' Zolti's chiddush that talmud torah can be a kiyum in simchas Y"T).

hava'ra -- one of the 39 melachos with a lesser onesh, or not a melacha?

1)  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר

Rashi comments:  זה הדבר אשר צוה – לי,⁠ לאמר – לכם.   Moshe was telling Bn"Y that Hashem had spoken to him and he was charged with the task of conveying the information to them.  Isn't that how every mitzvah in the Torah was given?  (See the meforshei Rashi)

I found a pshat in a sefer called Ramat Shmuel by one of the chachmei Morocco that fits the words very nicely.  Moshe was about to ask Bn"Y for donations for the mishkan.  When the Rabbi or the President of the shul makes an appeal for some cause and people give, sometimes they feel like they are giving because the Rabbi or President twisted their arm, or gave a great speech, or maybe they like the Rabbi or think it really is a great cause.  Moshe said to Bn"Y that he doesn't want to hear any of that. "Don't say I am giving because of Moshe."  Rather, Moshe said,  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, that  לֵאמֹ֑ר, to say when you give:  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר "This is what Hashem told Moshe to say."  It's not my arm twisting, the cause is not my idea, don't give because you like me -- I'm just the middleman.  It all comes from Hashem; it's His message.

R' Shimon Sofer says a similar pshat.  Chazal extol the virtues of someone who motivates others to give even more than someone who just gives himself.  Moshe did not just want people to give, but   לֵאמֹ֑ר, tell others about it, tell others  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר, so that word gets out and they will be motivated as well.  

 

2) The parsha singles out for mention the issur of lighting a fire on Shabbos.  לֹא⁠־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת.  The meforshim offer various reasons in pshat why this issur in particular was singled out, and why davka here when the mitzvah of Shabbos had been given earlier (see R' Chaim Kanievski in Taama d'Kra).  Rashi quotes the halachic derush of Chazal: יש מרבותינו אומרים (בבלי שבת ע׳.): הבערה ללאו יצאת, ויש מהן אומרים: לחלק יצאת.  One view is that this is the source for the rule that you are chayav a chatas on each individual melacha done on shabbos and you don't have to violate all 39 at once to be chayav for chilul shabbos.  The other view is that lighting a fire is an exception and is only an issur lav, not kareis/chatas. 

 

Yesh lachkor: according to the view that hava'ra is a lav, does that mean it is not one of the 39 melachos, or it is a melacha, just it has a lesser punishment?

 

Nafka minos:

 

1) Would the hasra'ah for violating hava'ra be "lo taaseh kol melacha" (putting aside the Minchas Chinuch's discussion of whether one needs to include the specific melacha being violated in the hasra'ah), or would it be "lo tiva'aru eish?"

 

2) Is there an issur of hava'ra on Yom Tov?  The 39 melachos carry over to Y"T, but if hava'ra is a seperate issur, maybe not (similar question is asked about the issur of shevisas b'heima.)

 

The gemara in Pesachim (5a-b) quotes R' Akiva as proving that "ba'yom ha'rishon tashbisu chametz" must mean erev Pesach and not the first day of chag because burning one's chametz on Y"T itself is assur.

 

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם וכתיב כל מלאכה לא (תעשו) ומצינו להבערה שהיא אב מלאכה

 

The gemara deduces from this proof that R' Akiva holds that hava'ra is singled out l'chaleik, not because it is a lav.  How do we see that from the proof?  Rashi explains that since R' Akiva refers to hava'ra as an אב מלאכה, it must be the same as any of the other 39 melachos.   Tos quotes a Riv"a that the proof is from the fact that hava'ra is prohibited on Y"T.  Had it been a lav, it would be a specific din in hil shabbps (point 2 above).

 

Why didn't Rashi accept the interpretation of Riv"a?  It could be that according to Rashi the din הבערה ללאו יצאת just means the punishment is diminished, but hava'ra still has a shem melacha and therefore would be assur on Y"T too.

 

Rabeinu Chananel has a different pshat entirely in the sugya.  He writes that R' Akiva must hold havra'ra is like any other melacha because if הבערה ללאו יצאת the mitzvas aseh of biur chametz would be doche the lav and it would be allowed on Y"T.  This just begs the question -- even if hava'ra is a melacha like any other, why isn't the aseh of biur chametz doche the lav of doing melacha?  And if you  tell me it's because on Y"T there is not only a lav but an aseh of shabbason as well that goes with it, why can't you say the same thing if הבערה ללאו יצאת and there would be no dechiya?

 

The R'Ch apparently holds (this is the shitas haRashba in Yevamos 6) that the aseh of shabbason only goes hand in hand with items that fall in the basket of the issur melacha of Y"T.  It does not come into play when dealing with other issurim, whether it is mechamer achar be'hemto, or the lav of hava'ra.

Do hasbara and havana go hand in hand? Ibn Ezra, R' Chaim Brisker, and Gardner's multiple intelligences

It is attributed I think to R' Chaim Brisker that if you can't explain an idea, it means you don't really understand it. Or, as they say in yeshivish אז ס'פעהלט אינעם הסברה פעהלט אינעם הבנה  Or as they put it in other parts of the world: חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה 

R' Shteinman points out that in our parsha aside from being praised for his brilliance, וַיְמַלֵּ֥א אֹת֖וֹ ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹקים בְּחׇכְמָ֛ה בִּתְבוּנָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכׇל־מְלָאכָֽה, the Torah says Betzalel had the gift of  וּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבּ֑וֹ (35:34).  Ibn Ezra explains:

כי יש חכם גם חרש לא יוכל להורות היטב

Ohr haChaim similarly writes:

 שיש חכמים רבים שתהיה חכמתם בלבם לבד שלא ידעו ללמדה, לזה אמר ולהורות נתן בלבו השכיל חכמת הלימוד

Not everyone who is an expert can pass on that expertise and teach it to others.

R' Shteinman asks: What happened to the rule of חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה? 

Lulei d'mistafina I would say there is a difference between understanding a sevara and mastering a skill.  The former is theoretical knowledge and the only thing required is sufficient brainpower.  It falls under the logical-mathematical heading in Gardner's breakdown of seven intelligences.  Not so the latter.  I can perfectly understand the mechanics and theory of hitting a baseball, but that doesn't mean I can play for the Yankees.  Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, as Gardner calls it, is a different ballgame.  

The greatness of Betzalel is that he was a master of both, and a master teacher of both, something that is rare indeed.

mitzvos as a national mandate

 וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ׃  At first glance it seems that the pasuk here (39:32) is backwards.  First it should tell us that the people did the work, וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל ..., and then tell us that they completed the job, וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן .  Instead, it first tells us that they finished the job and only then tells us that the people did the work!  

Some of the meforshei Rashi write that this is the difficulty Rashi is trying to address in his short cryptic comment ויעשו בני ישראל – את המלאכה.

The Oznayim laTorah offers a different answer, but before getting to it, I want to point out the Ohr haChaim's comment to the pasuk and then come back and combine the two.  Ohr haChaim writes that in fact it was not everyone who participated in the work on the mishkan.  It was Betzalel and the artisans who did the work.  However, the pasuk credits everyone -- וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל.  He explains:

 והוא מה שאמר הכתוב כאן ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ כינה לכולם יחד מעשה כולם הגם שמהם הביאו הנדבה מהם עשו מלאכה יאמר על כללותם שעשו הכל

This is not just a din in shlucho shel adam k'moso (which he suggests at the start of his explanation), but is a different principle entirely.  

עוד נראה כי כאן עשה הכתוב מחברת הכללות בקיום התורה והראה כי בני ישראל יזכו זה לזה והתורה נתנה להתקיים בכללות ישראל כל אחד יעשה היכולת שבידו ויזכו זה לזה. ואולי כי לזה רמז באומרו (ויקרא י״ט י״ח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך, פירוש לצד שהוא כמותך כי בשלומו ייטיב לך ובאמצעותו אתה משלים שלימותך ואם כן אינו אחר אלא אתה עצמך וכאחד מחלקיך.

ובזה מצאנו נחת רוח כי ה׳ צוה תרי״ג מצות ומן הנמנע שימצא אדם אחד שישנו בקיום כולם וזה לך האות כהן ולוי וישראל ונשים, יש מצות עשה בכהנים שאין מציאות לישראל לעשותם, ויש מצות לישראל שאינם בכהנים, וכן בלוים, וכן בנשים, ומה מציאות יש ליחיד לקיימם להשלים תיקון לרמ״ח איבריו ושס״ה גידיו אשר יכוונו להם, אלא ודאי שתתקיים התורה במחברת הכללות ויזכו זה מזה

What he is saying is that even though particular individuals may have done the work, the nation as a whole gets credit.  You could argue that this is a unique din in making the mishkan because it's a chovas ha'tzibur, but Ohr haChaim generalizes to all mitzvos. No single individual can do all 613 mitzvos, nor is he expected to.  The 613 mitzvos are a mandate to the nation.  The individual gets credit and can accomplish all the mitzvos by virtue of being part of the whole.

Now for the Oznayaim laTorah.  He writes that the second half of the pasuk is not speaking about the mishkan, but is speaking more generally about the observance of any and all mitzvos.  We have a principle that mitzvah goreres mitzvah.  When you do one good thing, you are inclined to do another.  Positive energy begets more positive energy.  The reverse is of course also true.  Once you are on a downward slope, the negative energy reinforces itself.  The cheit ha'eigel was a steep downward drop that sapped the energy and upward momentum out of Bn"Y.  It was the collective effort to build the mishkan, with all the positive energy that went into the many steps to get the job done, that reversed the trend.  Now that that job was complete, וַתֵּ֕כֶל כׇּל־עֲבֹדַ֕ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן, the momentum was changed and וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה it became easier for Bn"Y to once again do what G-d asked of them.  

Let's maybe put 2 and 2 together. The eigel was not just a tragedy and a failure for the 3000 people who actually committed the sin of idolatry.  It was a tragedy and a failure for the nation as a whole.  The people were now splintered and divided between those like the bnei Levi who were willing to carry out the punishment of misa against their own relatives, and those like the 3000 who had gone and worshipped an eigel.  In a situation like that, even the people who remain loyal to doing Torah and mitzvos do so as individuals, without the centripetal force of a national identity to bind them together.

It was this cohesion that the mishkan restored.  It was not a project of individuals, but it was a collective project of the nation.  It's completion therefore made it easier for us to do mitzvos not just as individuals, but mitzvah goreres mitzvah, to do mitzvos together as a united people.  

This same idea is reflected in the placement of the mitzvah of shabbos.  Terumah/Titzaveh gave us the details of the mishkan, and then in Ki Tisa we have the mitzvah of shabbos, but in VaYakhel, the order is reversed, first comes the mitzvah of shabbos and then the details of the mishkan.  Sefas Emes quotes in the name of the Ch' haRI"M, whose yahrzeit is today, that before cheit ha'eigel we were able to build a mishkan and afterwards have shabbos.  When we get to Vayakhel it's after the cheit, and after the cheit we need shabbos to pull us together first.  We need shabbos to pull us together, to renew our upward momentum as a people, and only then will we have the unity and the ability to make a mishkan.

limud torah as a kiyum of shabbos

Rashi at the end of last week's parsha (34:32) quotes the gemara in Eiruvin (54) that describes how Moshe taught Torah:

. תנו רבנן: כיצד סדר משנה:

• משה היה למד מפי הגבורה.

• נכנס אהרן – שנה לו משה פירקו. נסתלק אהרן – ישב לו לשמאל משה.

• נכנסו בניו – שנה להן פירקן. נסתלקו הם – אלעזר ישב לימין משה, איתמר ישב לשמאל אהרן.

• נכנסו הזקנים אחריהם – שנה להן משה פירקן. נסתלקו זקנים – ישבו לצדדין.

• נכנסו כל העם – שנה להן משה פירקן.

נמצא: ביד כל העם – אחד, ביד זקנים – שנים, ביד בני אהרן – שלשה, ביד אהרן – ארבעה כו׳, כדאיתה בעירובין

Yet right at the start of our parsha, that whole seder is upended. וַיַּקְהֵ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־עֲדַ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל -- Moshe taught the parsha to all of Klal Yisrael together.

R' Chaim Feinstein (grandson of the Brisker Rav) offers two explanations for this phenomenon.  1) This parsha was taught right after Yom Kippur, when Hashem said "salachti ki'devarecha."  Building the mishkan served as a means of kaparah for cheit ha'eigel, and by teaching the parsha b'rabim, Moshe informed Klal Yisrael of G-d's forgiveness.  2) Ramban writes that just as there was a bris created by mattan Torah, post-cheit ha'eigel there was a new bris created through the command to build a mishkan. 

 ואמר לכולם ענין המשכן אשר נצטוה בו מתחלה קודם שבור הלוחות, כי כיון שנתרצה להם הקב״ה ונתן לו לחות שניות וכרת עמו ברית חדשה שילך השם בקרבם, הנה חזרו לקדמתםא ולאהבת כלולותם  

A bris requires both parties present, and so Moshe gathered all of Klal Yisrael.

The Midrash (I am quoting the version from Yalkut Shimoni) writes:

. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג.

I would suggest that the gemara in Eiruvin quoted by Rashi in last week's parsha is a din in hil talmud Torah.  However, gathering the people to study Torah together on shabbos, as the Midrash explains our parsha, is a din in hil shabbos.  Part of the "seder ha'yom" of how to spend shabbos is to learn Torah b'rabim.  If you were writing a shulchan aruch, you wouldn't put this in Yoreh Deah in hil talmud Torah, but rather in Orach Chaim, in hil shabbos.  

2) In the same parsha we have the din of לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת.  Based on this pasuk Rambam (lav 322 -  הזהיר מענוש הגדרים על החוטא ולהעביר הדינין עליהם ביום השבת. והוא אמרו ״לא תבערו אש״ וגו׳ (שמות ל״ה:ג׳) ״ביום השבת״ (שמות ל״ה:ג׳), רצה בזה שלא ישרף מי שנתחייב שריפה, והוא הדין לשאר מיתות) and Chinuch count as a separate mitzvah that beis din cannot administer punishment on shabbos.  

Yesh lachkor with respect to this din as well whether it is a din in shabbos or a din in beis din?  Would you put it in Orach Chaim in hil shabbos, or would you put in in Choshen Mishpat in the rules of beis din?  Maybe that's the safeik of MG"A (339:3) as to whether only specifically punishments that entail chilul shabbos are assur (i.e. it'd a din in shabbos) or whether all punishments given by beis din (e.g. niduy?) are assur (i.e. its a din in beis din).  See Avnei Nezer #228 (and since we are getting closer to Pesach, worth noting his hesber there of Ramban's shita that chameitz is isura bala.)

motivation to give

 וַיִּקְח֞וּ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֵ֤ת כׇּל־הַתְּרוּמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִמְלֶ֛אכֶת עֲבֹדַ֥ת הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לַעֲשֹׂ֣ת אֹתָ֑הּ וְ֠הֵ֠ם הֵבִ֨יאוּ אֵלָ֥יו ע֛וֹד נְדָבָ֖ה בַּבֹּ֥קֶר בַּבֹּֽקֶר(36:3) 

Why mention that the donations for the mishkan were given specifically in the morning?  

Maybe zrizim makdimim, people wanted to rush to do the mitzvah first thing.

Netziv suggests there is something more to it.  

There is something else that happened every morning -- the mon fell.  In fact, we even have in connection with the mon the repetition of the same phrase "ba'boker ba'boker":  וַיִּלְקְט֤וּ אֹתוֹ֙ בַּבֹּ֣קֶר בַּבֹּ֔קֶר אִ֖ישׁ כְּפִ֣י אׇכְל֑וֹ (16:21)  

Netziv writes:

 ויש להוסיף, לפי שהיה נודע לכל ישראל בבוקר איך הוא נחשב לפני ה׳ ע״פ ירידת המן, כמו שכתבתי לעיל (טז,ו), על כן היתה ירידת המן בבוקר גורמת להרבות נדבות.

Every morning, as soon as they got up, each person was reminded that Hashem cares about them.  Every morning, there was that pile of mon waiting that showed that Hashem was there to address their needs.

When you wake up to that, then wouldn't you be motivated to do something more in return, to give more in return? 

don't just give -- collect

Just because I had the Oznayim laTorah open and I know everybody loves hearing a story with R' Chaim, here's another piece about an episode R' Sorotzkin says that he remembered from when he was learning in Volozhin.  This comes up because he is bothered by the second pasuk in the parsha קְח֨וּ מֵֽאִתְּכֶ֤ם תְּרוּמָה֙.  Everyone is there -- remember,  וַיַּקְהֵ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־עֲדַ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, Moshe is speaking to the ENTIRE Jewish people -- so who exactly are they being told to collect from?  If every single person is collecting, who are the givers?  

The yeshiva in Volozhin was short cash and deep in debt, so R' Chaim Brisker went to Minsk to meet with some heavy hitters to try to raise the necessary funds.  R' Chaim was put up in in the home of one of the wealthy askanim who offered to go out and raise the funds while R' Chaim sat and learned.  After a week or two R' Chaim asked what the story was, and this person said not to worry, he had half the money raised.  R' Chaim went back to learning.  A month went by, and again, R' Chaim approached his host and asked what's going on, and this time he was told that the entire sum had been raised.  R' Chaim was overjoyed, and he returned home.  

Some time later a din Torah was brought to the Rabbonim in Volozhin by the gvirim in Minsk against R' Chaim's host.  Apparently his host had donated the entire sum the yeshiva needed from his own pocket, and the other wealthy people were upset that they were deprived of the opportunity to bail out the great Volozhiner yeshiva (if only every din Torah was like this one... right?)  When R' Chaim heard the issue, he went back to his former host and told him he was confused.  "If you were going to donate the entire sum out of your pocket," he asked, "Why did you keep me sitting in your house for a month?"  To which R' Chaim's host answered, "Do you think giving that kind of big donation is easy!?  First I worked on myself and talked myself into giving half of what was needed.  Then I worked on myself some more, and after a month I talked myself into writing a check for the whole amount."  

R' Sorotzkin writes that this is קְח֨וּ מֵֽאִתְּכֶ֤ם -- you have to work on taking the $ from yourself, on collecting, not just give the first amount that pops into your head.  When it came to the mishkan it was "ish k'terumas yado," whatever every individual chose to donate, no outside coercion.  But that doesn't mean a person could not coerce himself/herself to take a little more out of his/her pocket than he/she ordinarily would do.  

Don't just be be a giver -- be a collector and twist your own arm.  

no sneaking out

1) The fact that Rashi does not comment on the repetition of all the details of the mishkan that we find in Vayakhel/Pekudei seems like a glaring omission.  The case of the dog that didn't bark, as Sherlock Holmes might say.  Rashi comments on the repetition of the story of Eliezer's encounter with Rivka (Braishis 24:42), so why is the repetition here any less bothersome, any less deserving of explanation?  

(The L. Rebbe speaks about this question.)

2)  וַיֵּ֥צְא֛וּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה׃ (35:20) 

The Torah ordinarily does not mention that class was dismissed, so to speak, and the people went home when Moshe was done speaking.  It goes without saying, or should go without saying.  So why is it mentioned here?  See Netziv.

My son on his blog writes:

Rav Elya Lopian says that you could tell on the faces of Bnei Yisroel that they just left Moshe.  Being in the presence of a Moshe Rabbenu changes a person and that change must be present in the viewer's life.  He says this a mussar for the end of the zman.  Those entering bein hazmanim must carry with them the appearance of those that just came out of yeshiva.  

(See there for an amazing pshat on parshas Shmos based on the same idea.)

Fair point, but why does the Torah single out this instance to bring it up?  The same point could be made any time Moshe spoke to the people.  

Also, compare with "Vayeitzei Yaakov mi'Beer Sheva..."  There Rashi comments that the departure of the tzadik left an impact on the place he departed from.  Here, the idea is the opposite -- Moshe left an imprint on the people with their departure from him.  

R' Eliezer Sorotzkin (quoted by his son here) also addresses this question and suggests that the yetzi'a here is not just a "davar shlili," which would not be worth mentioning, but the yetzi'a is significant because it is to do a dvar mitzvah, to collect for and start building the mishkan.  The Torah is telling is that Bnei Yisrael took heed of Moshe's words and carried out his instructions.

Still a bit difficult because it was not leaving Moshe's presence which was the mitzvah, but rather the positive act of engaging in making the mishkan.  So why not emphasize the positive and tell us something like "Va'yasu Bnei Yisrael..." or "Vayeilchu Bnei Yisrael...?"  

There is a comment from another Sorotzin -- R' Zalman Sorotzkin, in Oznayim laTorah -- that sheds more light on things.  The Oznayim laTorah raises another interesting question:  The parsha opens by telling us that Moshe gathered all of Klal Yisrael to speak to them,  וַיַּקְהֵ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־עֲדַ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם.  He then speaks about Shabbos, and then 4 pesukim later we again have  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר, and Moshe starts to speak about the mishkan.   Why do we need this second וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ?  The whole point of gathering all the people (see Rashbam, Ramban), as mentioned in that first pasuk, was to speak about the mishkan.  Pasuk 4 is not a new idea, but is a continuation?

He suggests as follows: when it comes time to give a fundraising speech, no Rabbi calls together his congregation telling them that's the topic.  Who would show up knowing that's the agenda?  What the Rabbi does is give a nice derasha on some other topic, and then once he has the audience hooked, he sneaks in the appeal.  

וַיַּקְהֵ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־עֲדַ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם to give a nice shiur in hilchos shabbos.  Now that Moshe had his audience captive,  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר he switched topics and hit them in the pocketbook to appeal for funds for the mishkan.

The thing is, as clever as the Rabbi is, the audience knows this trick as well, and so what happens is that as the Rabbi meanders through his opening topic, the crowd will begin to dwindle.  This guy has an important phone call to take, the next guy davka then has to rush home to help watch TV his kids, another guy suddenly remembers he set up a seder with some chavrusa that he hasn't met in a year, but no time like the present, etc.  By the time the Rabbi gets to the appeal, he is talking to the few stragglers who probably are not the people who can write the big checks.

יֵּ֥צְא֛וּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה׃ -- here, EVERYBODY got up to leave at the same time, at the end of the speech.  No one snuck off in the middle, before the appeal started or was over.  Klal Yisrael was willing to listen to Moshe hitting them up for money, and they proved more than willing to give.

onshei beis din on Shabbos

 1) אלה פקודי – בפרשה זו נאמרו ונמנו כל משקל נדבת המשכן לכסף ולזהב ולנחשת, ונמנו כל כליו וכל עבודתו.

I don't understand what this first Rashi in Pekudei is doing.  It's like an introduction to the parsha; it tells us what the parsha is about.  But what is the difficulty in the parsha or pasuk that prompted the comment?  Rashi doesn't give an introductory comment like this is any other parsha as far as I can recall so why here?

2) The gemara in Yevamos 6 learns from לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽתthat there is a special issur of B"D carrying out capital punishment on Shabbos:

 מכדי שבת חובת הגוף היא וחובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ בין בח"ל מושבות דכתב רחמנא בשבת למה לי משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפי שנאמר וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות והומת שומע אני בין בחול בין בשבת ומה אני מקיים מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממיתת ב"ד או אינו אלא אפילו מיתת ב"ד ומה אני מקיים והומת בחול ולא בשבת או אינו אלא אפילו בשבת ת"ל לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ולהלן הוא אומר והיו אלה לכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם מה מושבות האמורים להלן בב"ד אף מושבות האמורים כאן בב"ד

The Rambam for some reason counts this as a separate mitzvah in his minyan ha'mitzvos and extends it to all punishments, even malkos (Shabbos 24:7):

אין עונשין בשבת אף על פי שהעונש מצות עשה אינה דוחה שבת. כיצד הרי שנתחייב בבית דין מלקות או מיתה אין מלקין אותו ואין ממיתין אותו בשבת שנאמר לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת זו אזהרה לבית דין שלא ישרפו בשבת מי שנתחייב שריפה והוא הדין לשאר עונשין:

The Avnei Nezer writes that even putting someone in cheirem would be prohibited on Shabbos according to the Rambam.

(If someone refuses to do a mitzvah, B"D has the right to coerce the person to do it.  See Kesubos 86: תנינא במה דברים אמורים במצות לא תעשה אבל במצות עשה כגון שאומרין לו עשה סוכה ואינו עושה לולב ואינו עושה מכין  אותו עד שתצא נפשו:   The Pri Megadim in his Pesicha haKolleles points out that B"D seems to be allowed to do this even on Shabbos/Y"T --  עשה סוכה ואינו עושה לולב ואינו עושה.  Apparently this does not fall under the category of "punishment."  

The Mishneh laMelech similarly has a safeik whether it is permitted to kill a rodeif who is about to violate an issur arayos on Shabbos.  This is the classic chakirah of whether taking out the rodef is a form of punishment, or simply a means to the end of saving the nirdaf.)

The difficulty is the din in Yevamos appears in context of the gemara trying to prove that an aseh can be doche a lav that is a chiyuv kareis.  The gemara continues:

מאי לאו רבי נתן היא דאמר לחלק יצתה וטעמא דכתב רחמנא לא תבערו הא לאו הכי דחי 

Rashi דאמר הבערה אב מלאכה היא ובכרת ואפ"ה אי לאו דאשמועינן ה"א אתי עשה דוהומת ודחי ליה

Meaning, there is a machlokes Tanaim as to why the Torah singles out hav'arah in our pasuk.  R' Yosi holds that the Torah is teaching that hav'arah is only a lav, unlike the other melachos of Shabbos.  R' Noson holds that by singling out one melacha we learn that each melacha individually is mechayeiv kareis; you don't have to do all 39 to be chayav for chilul Shabbos.  According to R' Noson, even though hav'arah is a chiyuv kareis, if not for a special limud, we would say that the aseh of B"D carrying out punishment should be doche it.  QED, that an aseh can be doche even a chiyuv kareis.

According to the Rambam, what's the gemara's proof?  Maybe the aseh is not doche the chiyuv kareis of Shabbos, but you still need the extra pasuk to teach you the chiddush din that you can't administer any punishments on Shabbos, even if they don't entail any chillul Shabbos?

sometimes it's a mitzvah not to show up

"1) Va'yitzav Moshe... al ya'asu od melacha l'terumas ha'kodesh" -- Moshe commanded the people, "No more donations needed for the Mishkan." 
"Va'yikalei ha'am mei'havi" -- the people stopped bringing. (35:5) 

Chasam Sofer comments that this was a mitzvah like any other mitzvah.  No one said, "Whew, I'm glad they are done hitting me up for donations."  Aderaba, people wanted to give, but they were commanded to stop and so they couldn't.  They said a "l'shem yichud" and put the money back into their wallets l'shem mitzvah just like they would have given it away l'shem mitzvah.

Given our present circumstances, this is where we are holding.  It would be great if we could have minyanim and in-person shiurim and chavrusas.  Is there anyone who is thinking, "Wow, glad I don't have to get up for minyan anymore?"  I don't think so.  But right now our mitzvah is "u'shmarten es nafshoseichem."  Right now our mitzvah is to not go to minyan and to do so l'shem mitzvah.     

rav chessed

I don't even know where to begin in terms of thinking about the mess we are currently in.  This is more an exercise in trying to wrap my brain around something that makes sense than anything else. 

 

The Netziv on last week’s parsha comments that when we say Hashem is “rav chessed v’emes,” the vav hachibur means that “rav” modifies both terms –- Hashem is both “rav chessed” and “rav emes.”  Meaning, when a person appears before a judge, the judge may say that while it’s true/emes that the law says that for crime X the punishment is Y, he will be merciful and give a lesser punishment.  Or the judge may refuse to hear any grounds for leniency -– no chessed –- and instead, dispense exactly the punishment on the books.  It's either or: either you get the letter of the law, or the law goes out the window and you get mercy in its place.  Hashem somehow –- and this is beyond our human capacity to understand –- shows both an abundance of mercy, he is “rav chessed,” and at the same time, does not deviate one iota from being “rav emes,” from dispensing exactly what the letter of the law requires (see post here.)

 

It is always nice when we see  b’isgalya the “rav chessed” and the “rav emes” is somehow behind the scenes where we don’t pay attention to it.  But sometimes “rav emes” is b’isgalya; we become painfully aware of the midas ha’din.  At times like these the challenge is to remember that there is always “rav chessed” b’itkasya operating behind the scenes at exactly the same time.

 

There is one thing everyone wants during this crises: for things to back to the way they were.  I leave it to the big gedolim to figure out what we are supposed to take away from this whole situation, but I don't think you need to be an adam gadol to say that the one thing Hashem ***doesn’t*** want is for things to go back to the way they were.  Were that to be the case, or should we make that the case, then this whole crises would be a meaningless exercise in futility and pointless suffering.  It seems to me to be a davar pashut that if something like this happens, it means change is needed.  What needs  to change and how to bring it about is where cheshbon ha'nefesh is needed.

Everyone is talking about the need for tefilah, so let me say something about it too:  We had in last week's parsha “v’chanosi es asher a’chon v’richamti es asher a’racheim.”  The gemara (Brachos 7) darshens on both of these phrases that Hashem will have rachamanus and show chanina “af al pi she’aino hagun,” even if the person does not deserve it.  Is there anything we need more at this time?  How can we be zocheh to that?

 

Seforno asks, Netziv asks: why does the pasuk use the double-language?  Why both “chanosi” and “richamti?”  Tiferes Shlomo answers that the pasuk is speaking about two different people.  If you cry out to me, says Hashem, not for your own problems, not because you are in pain, but you cry out for your neighbor who is suffering, for your community, for others in your city, then “v’chanosi…,” I will take care of your own burdens even if you don’t deserve it.  And not only will I take care of you, says Hashem, but “v’richamti” as well on those for whom you are davening, even if they don’t deserve it either.

The Tiferes Shlomo teaches the same idea on our parsha as well.  The keruvim are "porsei k'nafayim," they have outstretched wings,  "u'pnei'hem ish el achiv," and they face each other.  The Radomsker writes that "porsei k'nafayim" is an allusion to tefilah, like the pasuk of "u'b'parischem kapeichem..." (Yishayahu 15).  Davening has to be done "pneihem ish el achiv," with an eye towards what a chaveir needs.  Put in a good word for someone else.

The Zohar famously looks askance on someone who uses tefilah simply as an opportunity to present Hashem with a laundry list of their needs -- someone who uses tefilah to become a “taker.”  When someone uses tefilah, however, to present Hashem with someone else’s needs, then they are in effect a “giver,” as they are interested in helping others. 

 

So don't just daven -- daven for others.  A tefilah of chessed is, it seems, a very good way to be zocheh to again see "rav chessed" openly.

no cheshbonos

Last in the list of items donated for the Mishkan mentioned in the opening of P' Terumah are the precious stones of the avnei milu'im and avnei sho'ham.  Chazal (see Kiddushin 31) tell us that these stones literally cost a fortune.  So why are they mentioned last?  Why not give these gifts the prominence they deserve and mention them first, at the beginning of the list of donations?

The Ohr haChaim gives two answers, both elaborated on by R' Chaim Shmuelevitz in his Sichos Mussar (5732 #22).  I want to focus on the second answer. 

Rashi in our parsha (35:27) tells us that these precious stones were donated by the nesi'im, the princes of the tribes, after everyone else had given their gifts.  The nesi'im said: let everyone else donate, and whatever shortfall is left, whatever is needed to complete the job, we'll make it up.  Because they procrastinated, says Rashi, the word nesi'im in our parsha is written chaseir, missing a letter "yud."  And, writes the Ohr haChaim, because they waited until the end of the collection to bring their gifts, these gifts are recorded last on the list, as if they were lacking in importance.

What do you think the reaction of a yeshiva administrator or shul president would be if someone were to tell them that whatever the budget shortfall for the year is, they will cover it, no matter what the amount?  That gvir just made that administrator or that shul treasurer's year!  No more having the plead people for money, no more worry about cash flow, about spending, etc. 

What's so wrong with what the nesi'im did?

Answers R' Chaim Shmuelevitz: it's a wonderful cheshbon, but when you love something, you don't make cheshbonos.  When you love something and are passionate about it, you can't stop yourself from being involved from the get-go. 

I want to add two points.

A) R' Chaim Shmuelevitz sees this idea as a general principle in avodas Hashem.  I would like to suggest that it may be especially relevant, if not exclusively applicable, to the Mishkan.  "V'asu li Mikdash... k'chol asher ani mareh oscha... kein ta'asu."  (25:8-9)  The sentence starts "v'asu...;" why repeat "v'kein ta'asu" at the end?  Answers Ramban: ba ha'keifel l'chizuk u'l'ziruz.  The Torah repeats to add emphasis because the command to build the Mishkan must be fulfilled with alacrity and with zealousness.

Maybe the cheshbon of making up the shortfall is not such a bad idea when you deal with your local yeshiva or local shul, but when it comes to building the Mishkan when there is an explicit command to act with zerizus, then all bets are off, all cheshbonos should fall by the wayside. 

B) Why do we need a command to act b'zerizus with respect to building the Mishkan in particular?  I would suggest as follows: Rashi in last week's parsha writes that the people thought Moshe Rabeinu was late in coming down from Har Sinai and they went into panic mode.  They thought Moshe was dead, they thought they were leaderless, and the rest is history -- cheit ha'eigel. 

But they had an excuse -- by their estimation, Moshe had not come back!?

That excuse is no excuse.  If you love someone, then what's a few extra hours, an extra day, of waiting to see if they will come back?   If you love someone, how do you so easily give up hope of seeing them again?

The Mishkan is a kapparah for the cheit ha'eigel.  If the sin of the eigel was because we did not love Moshe Rabeinu enough to wait for him just a little longer before throwing in the towel.  The tikun has to be showing our love and passion for the Mishkan, for Hashem.  The way to do that is by rushing to give, not making cheshbonos.

the difference a comma makes

1. Rashi 26:15 writes that the atzei shitim used to make the mishkan came from trees that Ya'akov Avinu had planted in Egypt which Bnei Yisrael took with them when they left.  R' Ya'akov Kaminetzki in Emes l'Ya'akov explains that what Ya'akov Avinu planted was not trees for wood -- in the 210 years (which had the potential to be 400 years) until they left Egypt Bnei Yisrael could have managed to find some other wood to take.  What Ya'akov Avinu planted was hope.  To simply tell Bnei Yisrael that one day there would be a geulah would not have made much of an impression.  To take action, to plant in anticipation of the geulah, showed them that it was real.  (The lesson for us in that simply talking about the beauty of Torah is not enough.  We have to act on that belief and live it.)  

Ibn Ezra at the beginning of Terumah challenges Rashi based (among other things) on a pasuk from our parsha.  The Torah writes, "...v'chol asher nimtza ito atzei shitim l'chol milechas ha'avodah hei'vi'u."  (35:26)  The term "nimtza ito" means the wood belonged to those people.  It was theirs and they were donating it of their own accord -- it wasn't something that Ya'akov had prepared beforehand just for use in the mishkan.

It sounds like the machlokes Rashi and Ibn Ezra revolves around where to place the comma in the pasuk.  Ibn Ezra read it like this: "...v'chol asher nimtza ito atzei shitim," whoever has wood, COMMA, "l'chol milechas ha'avodah hei'vi'u," brought it for the holy work.  Rashi, however, may have read it like this: "...v'chol asher nimtza ito atzei shitim l'chol milechas ha'avodah," whoever was entrusted to keep with them wood that was meant to be used [as designated by Ya'akov] for the mishkan, COMMA, "hei'vi'u," they brought it.

2.When there was no longer a need for donations for the Miskhan, the parsha tells us that an announcement went out, "al ya'asu od melacha."   When the people heard that, "va'yikaleh ha'am mei'havi," the people stopped bringing donations.  Meforshim (see Seforno, Rashbam, Chizkuni) are medayek that the announcement did not say not to bring anything, but rather not to make anything.  Ksav Sofer explains this based on the din that hazmanah lav milsa hi, designating an item for some use has no halachic effect unless some action was taken in making the item or in using the item for that purpose (see Sanhedrin 47).  It's only if something was made for the sake of the mishkan that it would become assur; therefore, the call went out to stop making things.  The people understood on their own that this meant nothing new was needed, and so they stopped bringing as well. 

I'm a little confused.  True, hazmanah lav milsa, but there is another din of amiraso l'gavoha k'mesiraso l'hedyot, that pledging something for hekdesh use makes it the property of hekdesh.  Had something been brought to the mishkan, even if not made for use there, wouldn't it become property of the mishkan by virtue of amiraso l'gavoha?  Shouldn't the people have been told to stop bringing things lest the extra become property of the mishkan by virtue of amiraso l'gavoha?

P.S. Apologies for not getting to respond to comments on last week's post.

who gave our kings their names? a chiddush of the Tiferes Yisrael

Last week I quoted the Seforno’s explanation of the double-language in language in the pasuk, “K’chu mei’itchem terumah la’Hashem kol nediv libo y’vi’eha es terumas Hashem…” (35:5) “Terumah la’Hashem,” explains the Seforno, was a voluntary donation; “terumas Hashem” was the required half shekel each individual had to bring.   The pasuk is telling us that both of these donations were brought together. Why should that be?

Rashi comments on “V’yikchu li terumah” that terumah has to be “li=lishmi,” given without ulterior motives, completely l’shem shamayim. R’ Shimon Sofer explains that this is why the two donations had to be given together. This can cut one of two ways: 1) When it comes to giving a voluntary amount, there is always the danger that someone is giving a lot just to show off. Therefore, the Torah says to bundle the voluntary donation with the required machtzis ha’shekel, where everyone gave the same amount, as a reminder to give for the right reason. 2) Since the machtzis ha’shekel was a requirement and not voluntary, there was the danger that people would be less motivated to give and not give with as full a heart. Therefore, the Torah says to bundle it with the voluntary donations.

2) Regarding the question I raised on the Netziv, pellehDin pointed out in the comments that the Netziv elsewhere identifies chochmah with yirah and inspiration, not just smarts. The Torah repeatedly refers in the parshiyos of the Mishkan to those who are “chachmei lev” – not chachmei mo’ach.  The artisans did not have a greater IQ or a bigger brain – what they had is a bigger heart. Or, as my son put it when I mentioned this topic to him, “Hein yiras Hashem hi chochmah.” The biggest chochma is to have yirah. That’s why the Netziv raised the question of how G-d can give such chochma/ inspiration when “hakol b’ydei shamayim chutz m’yiras shamayim.”  Apologies for not noticing the other Netziv until it was too late to change the post.

3) Shabbos Shekalim was a chance to review shekalim, and a Tiferes Yisrael in ch 6 caught my eye.  He elaborates on a point not directly connected to the Mishna there because, he writes, it is a peleh, something amazing, i.e. something we should take note of.  The peleh is:  the name of each king in Nach corresponds to a central theme or central event of that individual’s life.  For example, to take an easy one, Shaul – Bnei Yisrael asked, were sho’el, a king in his lifetime. Also, the monarchy was borrowed, sha’ul, from Yehudah, during his reign. David comes from the same word as “ani l’dodi,” beloved. The Tif Yisrael goes right down the list of kings until Tzidkiyahu, who was a tzadik and was matzdik the din against him. Was this just a remarkable coincidence that the names matched the events?  He suggests that there must have been nevi’im present at the royal births who suggested the names that were given. This makes sense when speaking of later kings who were part of a royal dynasty, but I don’t see how it works when comes to Shaul or David. No one knew they would be king – even Shmuel haNavi didn't suspect it.  Is it just coincidence that their names fit? My wife suggested that perhaps it was not a navi who chose the names, but it was the parents who are blessed with the special gift of ruach hakodesh when it comes to choosing names for their children.

In the same perek the Mishna refers to two gates on the western side of the azarah “she’lo haya lahem shem,” which were unnamed. The Tosfos Yom Tov points out that in fact Josephus tells us that there were no gates in the west, and there is no mention of these gates in Yechezkel.  The Tos Y”T is troubled by the discrepancy, and concludes that we have to side with Chazal’s mesorah. The Tiferes Yisrael quotes his father who read the Mishna in a way that avoids the problem. It’s not that the gates had no name, “shem,” but rather “she’lo haya lahem sham,” they were not there. As opposed to bayis rishon, where such gates might have existed, they were not present in bayis sheni. (I checked Kahati and his nikud follows the standard reading.) 

ability commensurate with desire

This article is a must read.

1) The Netziv on our parsha asks a question that I don’t completely understand. The builders of the mishkan were, “Kol ish chacham lev asher nasan Hashem chochma b’libo…,” (36:2) wise people that Hashem granted wisdom to and inspired. Netziv asks: how could Hashem grant “chochma b’libo” to certain people so that they could participate in building the Mishkan? “Hakol b’ydei shamayim chutz m’yiras shamayim” – Hashem can give a person a lot of things, but he cannot give a person yiras shamayim. That has to come through free choice. Now, I think I’m being charitable to the Netziv by using the word “inspire” for chochma, but in reality, I think the word I should have used is brains. That’s why I don’t quite get the question. G-d does not distribute smarts equally. Some people have it, some people don’t. G-d gives each of us different talents to use to the best of our ability, whether it’s the ability to build a mishkan or the ability to play violin, or the ability to think. What does that have to do with yiras shamayim?

Be that as it may, his answer is a great point. Netziv quotes the continuation of the pasuk: “…kol asher nisa’o libo l’karvah el ha’melacha.” The people who were given the talent to build were those who chose to step forward and wanted to help. Anyone could have stepped forward – but not everyone did. Those who did were rewarded with ability commensurate with their desire. 

2) “K’chu mei’itchem terumah la’Hashem kol nediv libo y’vi’eha es terumas Hashem…” (35:5) Seforno comments on the switch from "terumah la’Hashem” to“terumas Hashem” and explains that the pasuk is referring to two different gifts. The “terumah la’Hashem” was the voluntary donation; “terumas Hashem” was the required half shekel each individual had to bring.

Chasam Sofer answers that everything that we own is “terumas Hashem,” Hashem’s money -- if he didn’t give it to us, we wouldn’t have it in the first place. Any donation we give is like drawing a check against someone else’s account and then presenting it to them as a gift. So why not just cut out the middle man, i.e. us? The answer is that Hashem wants us to exercise our generosity; the money he gives us allows us the means to do so. Our job is to turn the “terumas Hashem” into “terumah la’Hashem,” a gift to G-d.     

The Sefas Emes brings out the same point using a different diyuk.  Why does the pasuk, “Kol nediv libo y’vi’eha eis terumas Hashem…” adds the word “y’vi’eha” when it could just as easily have said, “yavi eis terumas Hashem?” Sefas Emes answers that “y’vi’eha” is not talking about the terumah, the physical gold and silver that was brought, but rather is referring back to the previous clause, the nedivus lev, the spirit of generosity, of “kol nediv libo.” That’s what Hashem really wants from us. That’s the “chutz m’yiras Shamayim” that has to come from us. 

3) For something on P' Shekalim, see here from my wife.

hilchos chag b'chag -- chovas hatzibur

Rambam in Tefilah 13:8 writes:

  מפסיקין למועדות, וליום הכיפורים, וקוראין בעניין המועד, לא בסדר השבת. ומשה רבנו תיקן להן לישראל, שיהיו קוראין בכל מועד, עניינו; ושואלין ודורשין בעניינו של יום, בכל מועד ומועד. ומה הן קורין: בפסח, בפרשת המועדות שבתורת כוהנים. וכבר נהגו העם, לקרות ביום טוב ראשון "משכו" (שמות יב,כא), ומפטירין בפסח גלגל; וביום טוב שני, "שור או כשב" (ויקרא כב,כז), ומפטירין בפסח יאשייהו. בשלישי, "קדש לי" (שמות יג,ב); ברביעי, "אם כסף תלווה" (שמות כב,כד); בחמישי, "פסול לך" (שמות לד,א); בשישי, "ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח, במועדו" (במדבר ט,ב). ביום טוב אחרון, ב"ויהי, בשלח" (שמות יג,יז) עד סוף השירה, ומפטירין "וידבר דויד" (שמואל ב כב,א); ובשמיני, "כל הבכור" (דברים טו,יט), ומפטירין "עוד היום, בנוב לעמוד" (ישעיהו י,לב).

 

The Rambam continues and goes through the leining on the other Yamim Tovim as well.

Why would the Rambam stick the din that you have to learn the halachos of Yom Tov on Yom Tov in the middle of his discussion of what parsha you read on each chag? 

 

Off the cuff I would have said that the Rambam is teaching you that hearing the krias hatorah is itself a kiyum of learning hilchos chag b’chag.  The M.B. in O.C. 529 in the Sha’ar haTziyun writes that this is in fact how some Achronim learn the Rambam, and they use this as a justification for why people don’t have a seder to learn hilchos hachag on the chag itself – why bother when you can just listen to krias hatorah? 

Where did the Rambam get this idea from?  The gemara (Meg 4b) quotes R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s that when Purim falls on Shabbos one has to be “sho’el v’doresh” in the inyana d’yoma.  Rashi explains: the turgemon (the person responsible for translating pesukim into Aramaic during krias hatorah) would stand up and expound on the megillah.  Asks the gemara, what is R’ Yehoshua ben Levi telling us – we already know there is a chiyuv on every chag to study hilchos hachag on the chag? 

 ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי פורים שחל להיות בשבת שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום מאי אריא פורים אפילו י"ט נמי דתניא משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת והלכות חג בחג

Whatever the answer is, the question seems to compare apples and oranges.  The turgemon's job was to explain pesukim as part and parcel of the krias hatorah.  Where Purim falls on Shabbos and the megillah cannot be read, he did his job anyway, expounding on the text, just without a formal kriah.  What does that have to do with learning hilchos hachag?  QED, that kriah is itself a kiyum of learning hilchos hachag.  The turgemon’s job was one of talmud torah.

It's a nice idea, but only as a hava amina, because l'halacha the M.B. paskens that these Achronim are wrong and in his view even the Rambam is not mashma that way.  Hadra kushya l’ducta: why does the Rambam mix in learning hilchos hachag with krias hatorah if they are unrelated?  And how do you learn the gemara?

The Yalkut on last week’s parsha of Vayakhel writes that just as Moshe gathered Bnei Yisrael to teach them about Shabbos, so too on each Shabbos we should gather to learn hilchos Shabbos (not a bad idea...). Continues the Yalkut, not only does this law apply to Shabbos, but it applies to every Yom Tov as well.  It seems from this Yalkut that the learning of hilchos hachag is not just an obligation on the individual, but must be done in a gathering; it's a chovas hatzibur.

 

Were the chiyuv to study hilchos hachag b'chag just a din in talmud torah, a mandated curriculum for specific times of year, then what difference would it make if the study was done privately or in a public forum?  It must be that it's not talmud torah per se that is the goal here, but rather the learning of hilchos hachag b'chag is part and parcel of how we as a tzibur commemorate our Yamim Tovim.   

Returning to the sugya in Megillah, the turgemon’s darshening of the megillah in a public forum is not just a din in kriah, not just another form of talmud torah (which is what krias hatorah on shabbos is) -- it was also a means of demarcating the day as special.  The fact that we have special parshiyos  on the Yamim Tovim themselves serves the same purpose as well (see Shiurim l'Zecher Aba Mari from the Rav). 

Maybe this is what the Rambam is trying to teach us by mixing these two halachos together.  Just as krias hatorah is a chiyuv on the tzibur (see Rambam in Milchamos at the beginning of Megillah), so too, the chiyuv of learning hilchos hachag is an obligation on the tzibur as well.  They both together serve as a means of defining the keduas hayom and enhancing its commemoration.

why does the Mishkan take up so many pesukim?

The details of the Mishkan span four parshiyos (Terumah, Titzaveh, VaYakhel, Pekudei) and encompass hundreds of pesukim.  The Torah is usually very terse and sparing in its words – why here does it elaborate and repeat the details multiple times?

The Ramban answers that the parsha of the Mishkan shows G-d’s love for the Jewish people.  The eigel had us down and out, but then Hashem have us this special gift to help us achieve kapparah and come back.  Love for the Jewish people is something the Torah wants to elaborate on.

 

The Kotzker, however, takes the opposite position.  Those of you who have been married for a few years can appreciate that sometimes all it takes is a glance or a small gesture to communicate to one’s spouse what would take a mouthful of sentences to get across to anyone else.  Even I, the densest of husbands, can figure this out.  When Klal Yisrael is close to Hashem, we are like a long married couple.  Rabbi Akiva was able to figure out piles of halachos from even the crowns on each letter.  He didn’t need G-d to spell things out – when you are close, you just know what the other person means.  A similar idea: Chazal (Nedarim 32) tell us that had the first luchos not been broken we would have only needed the chumash and Sefer Yehoshua; all the words of musar from the Nevi’im would have been unnecessary.  It’s when two people are distant that it seems to effort to communicate; it takes words upon words to connect.  The cheit ha’eigel distaned us from G-d.  A crown on a letter was not enough – we needed words and words to communicate, four parshiyos worth.

I have a good library and I know how to do research.  Why are any Rabbis more qualified than me to decide halacha?  An outsider reads a letter sent from a child in camp or in Eretz Yisrael to his/her parents and walks away thinking everything is OK – it says so right there in the letter.  The parent reads the same letter and has a completely different reaction.  “Oy, my Reuvain is depressed….  Oy, my Rivka is not eating enough…”  And so you ask, “But where do you see that in the letter?  It doesn’t say any of that?”  And you would be right – only a parent, a husband and wife, someone who is really close, gets that message from a little postcard, but for you it would take four parshiyos and countless repetition.  It’s not about having a good library, having a CD with more books and being able to do better research.  It’s about being close.

the connection between Chur's kiddush Hashem and Betzalel's wisdom

The Midrash writes that the Torah traces the lineage of Betzalel back to Chur because Betzalel’s wisdom and ability to make a Mishkan was a reward for Chur sacrificing his life in protesting against the making of the eigel.

 ד"א ראו קרא ה' בשם בצלאל בן אורי בן חור מה ראה להזכיר כאן חור אלא בשעה שביקשו ישראל לעבוד עבודת כוכבים נתן נפשו על הקב"ה ולא הניחן עמדו והרגוהו אמר לו הקב"ה חייך שאני פורע לך משל למלך שמרדו עליו לגיונותיו עמד שר הצבא שלו ונלחם עמהם אמר להם על המלך אתם מורדים עמדו והרגו אותו אמר המלך אילו ממון נתן לא הייתי צריך לפרוע לו עאכ"ו שנפשו נתן עלי מה אני עושה לו אלא כל בנים שיצאו ממנו אני מעמידם דוכסים ואפרכים כך בשעה שעשו ישראל העגל עמד חור ונתן נפשו על הקב"ה אמר לו חייך כל בנים היוצאים ממך אני מגדלם שם טוב

What is the midah k’neged midah here?  Why is the reward for Chur’s self-sacrifice specifically the ability to build a Mishkan?  And what happened to the principle of schar mitzvah b’hai alma leika, that the reward for mitzvos is only given in the next world, not this one?

The Shem m’Shmuel explains that the reward for doing a mitzvah is not some extraneous gift, like a lollipop the teacher gives a kid for getting the right answer, but rather the reward is the goodness that is the essence of the mitzvah itself.  Where is that goodness manifest?  Some of it rubs off in olam ha’zeh, as the rationalist philosophers tell us, in the form of a better society, a better, more moral life for ourselves, etc.  But there is much more to mitzvos that goes on behind the scenes, in the form of goodness that gets released in other olamos that our neshoma touches, as the Nefesh haChaim and others explain at length.  The real reward for mitzvos happens up there, in the next world, because the real tikun that mitzvos bring about happens up there.

The exception to the rule is the mitzvah of kiddush Hashem.  The disdain and disrespect for G-d, the chilul Hashem, that goes on in this world has no effect upstairs, where G-d’s presence is so clear and obvious.  The mistake of making an eigel is only possible in olam hazeh, where foolishness blinds us from the truth.  Unlike other mitzvos, kiddush Hashem is not about making tikunim upstairs – it’s about pushing away that foolishness and making G-d’s presence felt down here.  The real tikun happens in our world; therefore, the schar comes in our world as well.

The Shem m’Shmuel doesn’t use those words, but in Chabad it’s a recurring slogan: the Mishkan is kavyachol a “dirah batachtonim” for the Shechina.  Chur gave his life al kiddush Hashem, the goal of which is to reveal G-d’s presence more fully davka in the hester of this world; his reward is a grandson who can build a Mishkan, the goal of which is to bring G-d into this world.

The Midrash ends with a derush on the words “chochma u’tevunah ba’heima,” reading it as “beheima,” animals. 

 

כל מי שנתעסק במלאכת המשכן נתן בו הקב"ה חכמה ובינה ודעת שנאמר (שמות לו) ויעשו כל חכם לב ולא בבני אדם אלא אפי' בבהמה ובחיה שנאמר (שם) חכמה ותבונה בהמה בהמה כתיב שנתנה חכמה באדם ובבהמה ולא נתפרסם מכלם אלא בצלאל הוי קרא ה' בשם בצלאל:

 

Does that mean that the goats or the cows suddenly started doing math problems?  What would be the purpose of that miracle be?

What the Midrash means, says R’ Simcha Bunim m’Peshischa, is that the blessing of chochma came down even to our nefesh ha’behamis, even to the lowest levels of our soul.  Meaning, the miracle here is not that since you have a Mishkan, a shul, a beis medrash, now when you feel all spiritual and holy, you have an address to go to.  The miracle is that even when you are eating ice cream in the park on a summer day, you are using only the nefesh ha'behamis, you are still connected with holiness because as a result of the Mishkan, G-d's presence is felt in all aspects of life. 

(Update: R' Chaim Kanievski explains the Midrash based on the Yerushalmi Yoma 4:4 (23a) that one of the typea of gold used in the Mishkan was processed by being eaten and expelled by the na'maiyot birds.  Since the work on the Mishkan had to be done lishma, the animal needed to have intelligence.)

why no arvus for the bracha of hamotzi?

The first Mishna in Arvei Pesachim tells us that on erev Pesach one is not allowed to start a meal from close to mincha time (9th hour of the day onward) until dark .  Rashi explains: there is a hidur mitzvah in having an appetite for the mitzvah of matzah. 

The gemara goes on to say that there is a similar issur on erev Shabbos and erev Y”T of eating from mincha time onward.  Rashi adds, “v’lo tavo seudas shabbos al ha’sova,” so that one should not be full when eating seudas Shabbos.

Question: why when it comes to erev Shabbos/Y”T does Rashi not say that there is a hidur mitzvah in eating with relish and gusto?  Why does Rashi seem to lower the bar and merely say that one must not be already satiated -- what happened to hidur mitzvah?  

 

At the end of O.C. 167 the Achronim discuss why it is that there is a principle of arvus for the bracha of borei pri hagefen in kiddush or the bracha of hamotzi for matzah (meaning, even if you are not drinking or eating, you can say the bracha on behalf of someone else who is doing the mitzvah) but not for the bracha of hamotzi before seudas shabbos.  A quick review of some of the answers (skip to #5 if you want to just get on with the show):

1)      MG”A – you have to drink the wine for kiddush, you have to eat matzah, but if you enjoy fasting on Shabbos more than eating there is no reason not to do so.  In other words, there is not really a chovas hagavra to eat; the chiyuv is to enjoy shabbos however you like, even fasting.

2)      Taz – A person starting the meal with wine or eating matzah is out of the ordinary and is therefore clearly a kiyum mitzvah.  Seudas shabbos, however, is a meal like any other.

2b) This may be no more than a reformulation of the Taz, but I'll give it it's own spot nonetheless: matzah is a cheftza shel mitzvah; wine is the cheftza shel mitzvah of kiddush.  The individual piece of challah is not the cheftza shel mitzvah of seudas shabbos – it is just one part of the meal as a whole, which is the mitzvah.    

3)      Pri Megadim has one of those sha”s klalim here that you want to put in your back pocket for other discussions.  He suggests that the principle of arvus may only apply to a mitzvah spelled out in the Torah, but not something learned through a derasha or a halacha l’moshe m’sinai.  Since there is no specific mitzvah to eat bread, arvus does not apply to ha’motzi.  You are going to jump and say that there is no specific mitzvah to drink wine at kiddush either (see Rashi/Tos Nazir 4a)?  PM”G answers that since there is a din derabbanan to drink the wine, and all derabbanans fall under “lo tasur,” it is as if drinking the wine was spelled out as part of the mitzvah.  The same cannot be said about seudas shabbos, which is only m;’divrei kabbalah based on oneg.  Based on this you have a big counterintuitive chiddush: dinim derabbanan are more chamur than derashos in this respect -- obviously a bigger discussion for another time.

4)      YU guys would be upset if I neglected to mention RYBS’s chiddush (in Shiurim l'Zecher Aba Mori) from R’ Chaim that the bracha of borei pri hagefen in kiddush is a birchas hamitzvah, not a birchas hanehenin.  You still need to come up with something to say for matzah…

5)      Finally, and this is why I am writing this up now, we have an answer the Kozhiglover quotes from the Avnei Nezer on this week’s parsha.  The Sochotchover suggests that the reason arvus works is because we are all spiritually united – see yesterday’s post and the comments re: Klal Yisrael being one organic unit both spatially and temporally.  When speaking of spiritual neshoma-mitzvos, your mitzvah is my mitzvah and vice versa because we are spiritually all one unit.  Not so when it comes to the guf – here each of us is a distinct entity.

The mitzvos of kiddush, of matzah, are spiritual/neshoma mitzvos and hence arvus applies.  The mitzvah of seudas Shabbos is a mitzvah that pertains only to the guf, and hence there is no arvus.

What exactly does he mean by that?  Wine and matzah are also consumed by the guf – how exactly is seudas shabbos different?  It could be that it’s not eating and drinking per se which is the focal point of kiddush or matzah, but rather the food and drink in these cases is just a means to an end, either to formalize and lend sanctity to the shabbos meal or to help re-experience yetzi’as Mitzrayim.  Not so seudas shabbos, where the meal is an end in itself. 

Or it could be even simpler than that: when it comes to kiddush and achilas matzah, it is the act of consuming the matzah or the wine which is all that counts.  You don’t have to do it with a smile.  When it comes to seudas shabbos, the mitzvah is oneg – enjoying it is the whole point.

With that, I think we can explain the Rashi we started with.  Rashi only invokes hidur mitzvah when the mechanical act of eating and drinking is the mitzvah; physical enjoyment, “l’teyavon,” is icing on the cake that qualitatively adds something.  When it comes to seudas shabbos, on the other hand, the enjoyment is not a hidur – the enjoyment is the mitzvah itself. 

Ksav Sofer: VaYakhel - Pekudei (2)

“Vayavo’u kol hachachamim ha’osim es kol mileches hakodesh ish ish m’milachto… marbim ha’am l’havi…” (34:4-5).  A skilled craftsman has to be able to estimate the quantity of materials needed to do a job before he begins.  Here, the Torah tells us that the craftsmen making the Mishkan came from their work, seemingly in the middle of the job, and told Moshe that the people had brought more than enough.  Why didn’t they realize they had too much material before they began? 

The Ksav Sofer answers by being medayek in the Torah‘s description of the craftsmen given a few pesukim earlier: “V’kol ish chacham lev… asher nasan Hashem chochma u’tevunah ba’heima la’da’as la’asos es kol mileches hakodesh l’kol asher tzivah Hashem” (34:1).  A carpenter, jeweler, or craftsman is blessed by Hashem with certain skills, but these craftsmen could just as well use their skills to build a house, make a fine piece of jewelry, or fashion a beautiful piece of furniture as to make a Mishkan.  The Torah here is not speaking about such people.  It is talking about people who were blessed specifically with ability to do, “…mileches hakodesh l’kol asher tzivah Hashem,” the work of making a Mishkan – they could not use those skills and ability in any other area!  These were not craftsmen or professionals who came to the job already in possession of  certain skill set – these were people who came with no prior experience or training, with nothing more than their desire to help.  Hashem blessed these people with a special bracha that enabled them to translate that desire into “mileches hakodesh” even if they had never done such work before. 

The Midrash comments that the word “ba’heima” has the same letters as “beheima,” animal, hinting that Hashem even endowed animals with intelligence to help in the building of the Mishkan.  Perhaps the Midrash is not meant to be taken literally, but is meant to emphasize that the skills used in building the Mishkan were a bracha given by Hashem in this special circumstance to even those born with two left hands, those who otherwise had no innate abilities and were no more skilled than animals.

It’s no wonder that these people did not realize in advance whether they had enough or too much material to do the work needed.  They were literally learning (or being blessed with the knowledge needed) on the job as they did their work. 

This idea is a klal gadol in accomplishing in Torah and avodah.  “What do you want from me? – I don’t have the ability to do that,” is an easy excuse to avoid trying to rise to the next level of learning, of avodah, of making the effort to accomplish tzorchei tzibur.  We assume the lamdan was born with genius, the ba’al avodah was born with great ability to concentrate in davening, the person who is a ba’al tzedoka or chessed always had that drive.  But that’s not the case.  What these people had more than anyone else is desire.  If that ingredient is in place, even if we lack ability, Hashem will provide the skills and knowledge it takes, “la’asos es kol mileches hakodesh.”

This same theme is echoed in the closing of Parshas Pekudei.  Rashi (39:33) writes that because Moshe did not have any job to do in building the Mishkan, Hashem left him with the final task of erecting the structure once it was completed.  The boards and beams were too heavy to be lifted into place and the people were stuck.  Hashem told Moshe that this was his personal task to accomplish.  Moshe asked, “But how can I alone lift the boards?”  Hashem answered that he just needed to make the effort; the rest will be accomplished by a miracle. 

“K’chol asherh tzivah Hashem es Moshe kein asu Bnei Yisrael es kol  ha’avodah” (39:42).  Just as Hashem commanded Moshe – just as Hashem told Moshe that all he needed was to make an effort and Hashem would do the rest – so too with respect to the work of Bnei Yisrael.  It was not the skill of the craftsman or the architects and engineers that ensured the success of the building, as even those with no skills or experience were free to participate.  It was Hashem’s miraculous bracha.  The overt miracle of the raising of the boards was the sign that even the success of the little details was the result of miraculous intervention as well.