singing the praises of the mishkan

 The Midrash comments on the opening of our parsha:

 אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל הִכְעַסְתֶּם אוֹתִי בְּאֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם הַמִּשְׁכָּן בְּאֵלֶּה אֲנִי מִתְרַצֶּה לָכֶם, הֱוֵי: אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן.

 

What does the Midrash mean that Hashem was angered by the words אֵלֶּה אֱלֹקיךָ by the eigel and אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן is the kapparah?  The problem with the eigel is not a particular word -- it's the fact that the people engaged in idolatry.  

 

Secondly, isn't it the donations that were given toward the mishkan and the effort put in to build it which served as the kapparah?  Our parsha is just the finish line, the end result of all those efforts.

 

The Peirush Mahara"Zu sends you to a passage in Braishis Rabbah 12:1:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מֶרְיוֹן, כְּתִיב (בראשית ב, ד): אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן, וּמִי מְגַנָּן. בּוֹרְאָן מְקַלְּסָן, וּמִי נוֹתֵן בָּהֶם דֹּפִי. אֶלָּא נָאִין הֵן וּמְשֻׁבָּחִין הֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

 

Chazal undestand that when you say אֵלֶּה it doesn't just mean to identify what you are talking about, i.e. "these" to the exclusion of other things, but it means to connote praise, as if to say, "Take a look at these -- aren't they great?! 

 

The sefer Nachalas Eliezer by the mashgiach of Gateshead, R' Eliezer Kahan, explains that Hashem was telling Bn"Y that it's not just the avodah zarah of the eigel that needed kapparah, but it's the fact that they thought it was a great thing.  We read in Teh 10:3 כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ ובֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה׳.  It's not just the fact that the rasha is ensnared by taavah which is a problem, but it's the fact that he boasts and sings the praises of wrongdoing.  They say that while it's possible that there were talmidim who learned by the Alter in Slabodka who went astray, it's impossible that after learning by the Alter that they enjoyed their aveirah the way other people might.  To be a rasha -- maybe; to be כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ, that for sure not.  

 

A lot of people say this same vort.   Hashem told Moshe about the eigel when he was on Har Sinai, but it wasn't until he saw the celebration, the enjoyment, that people had that he blew his top   וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה (32:19)

 

R' Eliezer Kahan expands on this and writes that the tikun has to fit the crime.  Just like you can have someone who is a rasha but is not  כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ and therefore it's a different sin entirely, so too, you can have someone who contributes to a mishkan, who builds a mishkan, who sits say and night in a mishkan, but it's a differnet experience entirely from someone who really enjoys being there.  There are people who come to shul on shabbos morning and it's like a 2 hour jail sentence.  There are people learning in kollel and it's nebach like a lifetime jail sentence.  The kapparah only works if it's  אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן like  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן.  Are you singing the praises of what you are building and where you are at, or are you just there because it's a place to be?

 

In parshas Terumah, there is a description of the amudim: וְעָשִׂיתָ לַמָּסָךְ, חֲמִשָּׁה עַמּוּדֵי שִׁטִּים, וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, וָוֵיהֶם זָהָב (26:37).  Those same pillars are described in VaYakhel a bit differently:   וְאֶת-עַמּוּדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה וְאֶת-וָוֵיהֶם, וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב (36:38)  Which is it: was the entire pillar coated in gold, or was it only וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, the head coated on gold?  Chizkuni (see Netziv for a different approach) answers  הוא שפר״ש בפרשת פקודי אפילו דברים שלא אמר לו רבו, alluding to the Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk (38:22) וּבְצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן⁠־אוּרִ֥י בֶן⁠־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֣ה יְהוּדָ֑ה עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֛ת כׇּל⁠־אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת⁠־מֹשֶֽׁה that Betzalel figured out that he has to first make a mishkan and only then the kelim even though Moshe had conveyed the message in reverse order (see below).  Whatever the pshat, R' Shaul Alter explains that the Torah is teaching us a lesson in avodah.  If  וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, your head is focussed on gold=mammon, and וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב, your cheishek = desire is all about gold (and gold is lav davka, fill in whatever other taavah you like), that's the entirety of who you are, it's the same as  וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, coating everything.  The fact that your body is in shul, or in the beis medrash, doesn't do anything if your mind and heart are somewhere else ,singing the praises of other place and other things. 

 

2) Regarding Rashi's comment that Betzalel was able to intuit what Hashem wanted even when Moshe conveyed the opposite,

 

כי משה צוה לבצלאל לעשות תחלה כלים, ואח״ך משכן. אמר לו בצלאל: מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו. אמר לו כך שמעתי מפי הקב״ה, אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית, כי בודאי כך צוה לי הקב״ה. וכך עשה המשכן תחילה ואח״ך עשה כלים. 

 

How is it possible that Moshe reversed Hashem's instruction and got it wrong?  And if Betzalel somehow knew that Moshe had reversed what Hashem said, why didn't he just say that?  What difference does it make that מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו-- either Hashem said to do it that way or he didn't?

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains that Moshe was the melamed, the rebbe, and he explained the dvar Hashem the way a teacher would, in order of importance of the subject matter.  The kelim were holier and thus more significant than the actual structure of the mishkan, and so Moshe taught those details first.  Betzlalel was the hands-on practicioner who had to translate theory into reality.  In his realm, building the building came before making the kelim.

 

The Sanz-Klausenberger, in Shefa Chaim, explains that the two views represent two different perspectives on avodah.  The mishkan is the place of hashra'as haShechina, where Hashem's presence was manifest.  Moshe thought before that could happen, one first needs kelim for avodah, one needs to put in one's own efforts.  Betzalel took the opposite view.  In theory, and for those on Moshe's level, avodah should come first.  A person should first bring to the table their motivation and hard work and through that earn the hashraas haShechina.  However, not everyone is self-motivated; not everyone is inspired; not everyone can get there.  Betzalel started with the mishkan first.  First give us hashraas haShechina.  First let us feel that Hashem's presence is with us.  That will provide the motivation and the inspiration, and the avodah, the klei ha'mishkan used to serve, will follow. 

 

That's why Betzalel used the argument מנהג העולם...  On Moshe's level, in theory, for those who can do it, of course put the kelim used for avodah first, put effort first.  But that's not how the world at large, unfortunately, operates. That's for the elite, but not for מנהג העולם. 

 

Moshe's response acknowledged the truth of Betzalel's argument.   אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית.  When you are standing in the light of ispaklarya ha'meira, then demanding the kelim first does not seem like such a big deal.  But when you are standing in the shade, בצל ק-ל, where most of us are holding, where things are not so clear and shadows hiding the ratzon Hashem are everywhere, a different standard is required.

could AI build a better mishkan?

Rashi in our parsha alludes to the gemara in Brachos (55a):

א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן בצלאל על שם חכמתו נקרא בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לך אמור לו לבצלאל עשה לי משכן ארון וכלים הלך משה והפך ואמר לו עשה ארון וכלים ומשכן אמר לו משה רבינו מנהגו של עולם אדם בונה בית ואחר כך מכניס לתוכו כלים ואתה אומר עשה לי ארון וכלים ומשכן כלים שאני עושה להיכן אכניסם שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת

Even though, says the gemara, that Moshe told Betzalel to first make kelim and them the mihskan, Betzalel intuited that Hashem had actually instructed to first make the mishkan and then kelim.  This has to be the case because where would you put kelim if you don't already have a mishkan.

There are two problems with the sugya (see Tos on the spot):

1) How can it be that Moshe misunderstood or did not properly communicate the dvar Hashem?  Chazal tell us that in a small handful of places "nisalma mi'menu halacha," that Moshe did not know something, but this instance is not on that list, not to mention that to admit the possibility of this type of error calls into question the whole mesorah.  

2) In point of fact, Hashem first gave the command to make kelim and then the command to make the mishkan, as we read in parshas Terumah.  Moshe got it right; Betzalel's surmise that שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים was in fact wrong.  So why did Moshe respond אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת?  Why did he accept Betzalel's interpretation of Hashem's command as being more accurate than his own?

Maharal in Gur Aryeh (and similarly, GR"A) answer that Hashem told Moshe about the kelim first because the kelim, starting with the aron, were the most important things in the mishkan.  The building existed for the kelim, not the other way around. However, when it came to the actual construction of the mishkan, which was Betzalel's domain, the process was reversed.  First the building had to be assembled, and only then the kelim put inside.  The difference order in the parshiyos reflects these different perspectives, that of theory vs that of practice.

The Alter of Kelm says a beautiful yesod here to answer the questions: 

When Bn"Y committed the sin of cheit ha'eigel, Hashem told Moshe (32:10)  וְעַתָּה֙ הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י וְיִֽחַר־אַפִּ֥י בָהֶ֖ם וַאֲכַלֵּ֑ם וְאֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה אוֹתְךָ֖ לְג֥וֹי גָּדֽוֹל.  In a nutshell, Hashem's message was, "Leave me alone -- we are ending this show now."  So why didn't Moshe do that?  The very next pasuk says that Moshe began to daven וַיְחַ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹהָ֑יו -- the exactly opposite of the plain meaning of Hashem's request!

Says the Alter, Hashem does not want us to be robots or computers.  Hashem wants us to be human beings and use our brains.  When a computer gets the instruction הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י, it obeys to the letter.  When Moshe got that same instruction, he realized something was up.  As Rashi writes  עדיין לא שמענו שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר: הניחה לי? אלא כאן פתח לו פתח, והודיעו שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם. 

Hashem wants us to read between the lines, to interpret, to go beyond the surface meaning, and in that way arrive at His true intent.  Sometimes what appears to be disobedience in fact demonstrates true fidelity to Hashem's wishes.

Hashem did give Moshe the command to make the kelim first.  Moshe heard Hashem's command correctly and relayed it to Betzlalel correctly.  However, that doesn't mean that's what Hashem wanted.  Betzalel had the insight to understand that the mishkan building had to be put together first rather than making the kelim.

Could AI build a mishkan better than a human?  Maybe, if all it took to build it was blindly following a blueprint.  But Hashem wanted more than that.  Hashem wanted human intuition and intelligence invested in the product, not just gold, silver, and precious metals.  AI cannot substitute for that.  

Hashem b'davka gave the instructions in the way he did, seemingly backwards, says the Alter, so that Betzalel would have the opportunity to use his brains to work out what Hashem wanted.  In this way, the mishkan would contain the most precious commodity of all: the חכמת לב of a human being.  

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.

moshe makes a mishkan

The She'eiris Menachem writes that the cheit ha'eigel stemmed from Bnei Yisrael failing to appreciate the uniqueness of Moshe.   כִּי־זֶ֣ה׀ מֹשֶׁ֣ה הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֶֽעֱלָ֙נוּ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְנוּ מֶה־הָ֥יָה לֽוֹ׃ Note the language of the pasuk: not Moshe Rabeinu, but Moshe **ha'ish**, a man like any other man.  Moshe is flesh and blood, not necessarily reliable and certainly not irreplaceable.

After the cheit ha'eigel, Moshe covered his face with a veil, except for when he was teaching Torah.  Among the other sources R' Eliezer Eisenberg quoted on this topic last week is the Netziv, who writes that Moshe uncovered his face when teaching because a talmid needs to see his rebbe in order to learn.  There has to be a hiskashrus.  I would suggest that the point of the veil was not the act of covering in order to show displeasure with Bn"Y, but davka the uncovering, the demonstration of that need for hiskashrus, because this was the point that Bn"Y missed when they made the eigel.  Moshe is Moshe *Rabeinu*, and an eigel cannot replace that.

The mishkan is the tikun for cheit ha'eigel because, as we read again and again in our parsha, the construction was done "...kaasher tzivah Hashem **es Moshe**."  Bnei Yisrael appreciated that without Moshe serving as the conduit to transmit the dvar Hashem, there would be no mishkan, there would be nothing.  

The Midrash writes: “Rabos banos asu chayil v’at alis al kulana”-- there were many chachamim (banos = binah, wisdom) who tried to put together the mishkan, but they were unable to get it to stand, so they brought the boards and beams to Moshe, and he was finally able to assemble it.  

The gemara has a rule that bracha only comes to that which is hidden from sight, unknown.  L'havdil, poker players consider it unlucky to count their money at the poker table.  Meforshim ask: so why is our parsha devoted to counting exactly how everything was spent to make the mishkan, and at the end, Moshe gives everything a bracha?  You don't have bracha if you count?  

The Zohar asks this question, and says a beautiful pshat in the pasuk to answer it.  I am going to put two pieces of Zohar together (based on Sefas Emes):  אֵ֣לֶּה פְקוּדֵ֤י הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ מִשְׁכַּ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר פֻּקַּ֖ד עַל־פִּ֣י מֹשֶׁ֑ה.  Why the double word mishkan in the pasuk?  Rashi of course already tackles the question.  The Zohar answers that the pasuk is alluding to the fact that there are 2 mishkans: תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי כְּתִיב הָכָא מִשְׁכָּן, חַד לְעֵילָּא, וְחַד לְתַתָּא.  There is the mishkan upstairs and the mishkan downstairs.  (Similar to Chazal's teaching that there is a Yerushalayim shel maalah that corresponds to the Yerushalayim shel matah.)  

A little further on the Zohar continues as follows:תָּא חֲזֵי, מַשְׁכְּנָא דָּא קַיְּימָא בְּחוּשְׁבָּנָא, וּבְגִין כַּךְ אִצְטְרִיךְ לִצְלוֹתָא דְּמֹשֶׁה, דְּיִשְׁרֵי עָלֵיהּ בִּרְכָאן, דִּכְתִּיב וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם מֹשֶׁה, וּמַה בְּרָכָה בָּרִיךְ לוֹן, יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִשְׁרֵי בְּרָכָה עַל עוֹבָדֵי יְדֵיכוֹן. וּבִרְכָּאן לָא שָׁרָאן עַל הַאי חוּשְׁבָּנָא עַד דְּאִקְשָׁר לֵיהּ מֹשֶׁה בְּמַשְׁכְּנָא דִּלְעֵילָּא, דִּכְתִּיב אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל פִּי מֹשֶׁה. דְּאִי לָאו דְּאִתְעֲבָד חוּשְׁבָּנָא עַל יְדָא דְּמֹשֶׁה, לָא יַכְלִין אִינּוּן לְמֶעְבַּד חוּשְׁבָּנָא, דִּכְתִּיב אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל פִּי מֹשֶׁה

In other words, אֵ֣לֶּה פְקוּדֵ֤י הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙, all the artisans, all the people, all the "rabos banos asu chayil" that the Midrash refers to, came to make there accounting and take stock of what they had created.  But there was no bracha in what they did.  There is no bracha when you count up the "mishkan tata" that you see in this world alone.

מִשְׁכַּ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר פֻּקַּ֖ד עַל־פִּ֣י מֹשֶׁ֑ה  But then Moshe came and took stock and offered his tefilah, and then there was bracha. Moshe connected to the second mishkan, the "mishkan l'eilah," and when you connect upstairs, there is always bracha.

You can have אֵ֣לֶּה פְקוּדֵ֤י הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ , all the necessary ingredients to make a physical mishkan, you can account for every detail, but your mishkan will be an empty shell of a building.  מִשְׁכַּ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר פֻּקַּ֖ד עַל־פִּ֣י מֹשֶׁ֑ה, a mishkan that can testify that the Shechina is present is a mishkan counted davka by Moshe.  

You have a wonderful parallel: Moshe creates the hiskashrus between the mishkan l'eilah and the mishkan tata; the mishkan creates a hiskashrus between Klal Yisrael and Moshe our rebbe, a connection that we lost sight of during cheit ha'eigel.

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?

ketores: Rambam vs kabbalists

Because the kabbalists hold that it is a segulah to ward off the plague there seems to be a lot of emphasis being placed these days on reciting ketores as part of korbanos or after davening .  The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:45) actually gives a far more mundane reason for the offering of ketores in Beis haMikdash: the sweet fragrance of ketores was needed to help overcome the stench of the animals that had to be butchered to offer korbanos.

The Rishonim already have problems with the Rambam's view.  Meshech Chochma argues in their favor against the Rambam based on the pesukim in Pekudei.

Back in P' Titzaveh, when first describing the mizbach ha'ketores, the Torah describes its location as "lifnei ha'paroches" (30:6):

וְנָֽתַתָּ֤ה אֹתוֹ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַפָּרֹ֔כֶת 

Similarly, at the end of our parsha (40:26):

וַיָּ֛שֶׂם אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הַזָּהָ֖ב בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד לִפְנֵ֖י הַפָּרֹֽכֶת:

Yet earlier in that same perek, when describing the hakamas haMishkan, the Torah writes (40:5):


וְנָֽתַתָּ֞ה אֶת־מִזְבַּ֤ח הַזָּהָב֙ לִקְטֹ֔רֶת לִפְנֵ֖י אֲר֣וֹן הָֽעֵדֻ֑ת

Why the switch here to "lifnei aron ha'eidus?"

Meshech Chochma answers that the Torah here is not describing the location of the mizbach ha'ketores, but rather alluding to its function.  It is not merely there as a perfume bottle, but rather just as the aron is a vehicle for hashra'as haShechina, so too, the offering of ketores is a means to bring hashara'as haShechina to the Mikdash.

avodah vs melacha

K'chol asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe kein asu Bnei Yisrael es kol ha'avodah.

Va'yar Moshe es kol ha'melacha... va'yivarech osam Moshe. (39:42-43)

There are two words the Torah uses for work: avodah and melacha.  Ramban (VaYikra 23:7) writes that there is a difference between the two.  It's a sunny afternoon and you havw a choice between mowing the lawn -- kotzeir -- and making a barbeque -- bishul.  Both involve what the Torah defines as work, but we would all prefer the latter to the former.  Mowing the lawn is avoda; the barbeque is melacha.  Kayin worked the land and is called an oveid adamah.  Avodah is what you have to do willy-nilly; you have to force yourself to do it, or sometimes someone else forces you, like in the case of a slave, who is called an eved = avodah.  

When the Torah tells us that we can't do work on Yom Tov it uses the term "m'leches avodah," as opposed to on Shabbos where it says simply "lo ta'aseh melacha."  Ramban explains that m'leches avodah means only work that falls under the umbrella of also being avodah is prohibited on Yom Tov.  You can't mow the lawn, but on Yom Tov, unlike Shabbos, you can have your barbeque.  The one place where the Torah writes that melacha is prohibited on Yom Tov (Shmos 12:16), it immediately adds "ach asher yei'achel l'chol nefesh," cooking and the like, is permitted. 

The Rishonim debate whether ochel nefesh is hutra or dechuya on Yom Tov.  For example, Rashi and Tosfos disagree whether you can carry only if there is a need like tzorech mitzvah to push off the issur, or whether you can carry something just for enjoyment.  According to Ramban, it's neither.  Hutra/dechuya means there is an issur, but for some reason, we push off the issur, i.e. in this case, you're not allowed to cook, to carry, etc., but comes ochel nefesh and pushes off the issur.  According to Ramban, there is nothing to push off -- the Torah never prohibited melacha on Yom Tov, it only prohibited avodah.  It's much easier to understand how the concept of mitoch (Beitzah 12) works using Ramban's approach.

Since we're not learning hilchos Yom Tov, back to the parsha.  Chasam Sofer writes as follows:

"...Kein asu Bnei Yisrael es ha'avodah."  Even though building the Mishkan effected a kapparah for cheit ha'eigel, i.e. there was a benefit to doing it and it would have been something Klal Yisrael would have wanted to do for their own sake, like having a barbeque, that's not what motivated them.  The reason they put all their kochos into building a mishkan was purely l'sham shamayim, to serve Hashem, as an avodah.

However, "Va'yar Moshe es ha'melacha..."  Who knows what was going on in their hearts?  Not even Moshe.  What he saw was melacha, the work being done for potentially the selfish benefit of the kaparah.  Therefore, "Vayivarech osam..." so that even if it was a melacha, yehi ratzon that there should be a hashra'as haShechina anyway.

It's too good a vort to ask a kashe, on, but I will ask anyway.  About 10 pesukim before the pesukim above, the Torah says, "Va'teichel kol avodas ha'mishkan...Va'ya'asu Bnei Yisrael es kol asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe..."  Rashi comments: Va'ya'asu Bnei Yisael -- es ha'melacha.   The pasuk describes what was done as avodah.  Why does Rashi in his explanation switch terms and call it melacha?

I thought I had an answer that fit with the Chasam Sofer and was mulling it over for half the week, but at this point I am throwing in the towel and just posting the question.

Aside from explaining the switch in terms from avodah to melacha (which others comment on as well, e.g. Kli Yakar, Malbim, see also Ramban), we also gain from the Chasam Sofer an explanation of why Moshe's bracha was necessary -- even though Klal Yisrael had dotted even I and crossed every t, Moshe was concerned that it was a melacha and not an avodah and therefore needed his beracha.

Ralbag says a simpler answer: our parsha teaches us that a great leader knows not only how to give mussar, but knows how to give compliments as well.  When the tzibur does something right, you have to tell them!  If every Shabbos dersha is about how the tzibur is talking in shul, not learning enough, not dressed properly, etc. (the truth is all that stuff maybe is not said often enough these days...) then the Rabbi will eventually find himself alienated from the klal.  Sometimes you need to lift people up and tell them how great they are and talk about the good they have done.  And what is true for a manhig of Klal Yisrael is also true for each one of us as well. 

when less is more than enough

The money collected for the building of the mishkan is described as "dayam," enough, just what was needed, and "hoseir," there was extra.  Everyone asks: isn't that a contradiction in terms?  If there was just enough, then how was there be extra?

The mishkan was a microcosm of the world, and the building of mishkan parallels the creation of the world, as Midrash Tanchuma explains at length. 

Chazal tell us that Hashem created sheidim, mazikim, bad spirits, on bein ha'shemashos of erev Shabbos.  Hashem created these spirits, and then, before he created bodies for them, it was Shabbos, and so these creatures were stuck half-completed.   
Hashem is surely not like me, running into the house just before Shabbos, trying to get in one more thing, one more chore, and then your 18 minutes are up and you are stuck with that timer that wasn't set or a light not turned on.  If I was running creation so the mazikim would be like that timer that didn't get set because there was just not enough time to make it.  But Hashem can do anything, including making sure everything in creation is completed before even entering the 18 minute bonus time.  So what do Chazal mean?
 
Maharal explains that the mazikim and sheidim mean the world is incomplete.  Not because Hashem could not complete it, but because that is the nature of our world -- it is by definition something unfinished.  (A mazik or sheid is "bad" because it is a shorthand way of saying the world is missing something and is incomplete.)   Chazal are telling us that as great as our world is, as much ruchniyus and Torah you can find in it, as much as you can accomplish, there will always be something that is missing, some fraction that is left out no matter how hard you try.  There is always more that is beyond your grasp, beyond the grasp of what you can ever hope to accomplish.
 
The Mishkan reflects this reality.  There was more material brought than could be contained in the building.  The mishkan, as great as it was, could not encompass everything.  There was "hoseir," extra, but at the same time, it was "dayam," exactly enough and exactly the right amount because the extra that could not be contained, that could not be made into a finished product, a complete all-encompassing product, is a perfect reflection of our almost-but-not-quite finished world.   

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.

va'teichel -- the work finishes itself; va'teichel -- kalsa nafshi

“Va’teichel kol avodas mishkan ohel moed va’ya’asu Bnei Yisrael k’chol asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe…” (39:32). The pasuk switches from active voice, “va’ya’asu,” “they did,” when talking about Bnei Yisrael starting the work, to passive voice, “va’teichel,” “it was completed,” when talking about the work being finished. I know in my house when my kids switch to passive voice – “It broke” – it spells trouble because it means no one wants to take responsibility. Here, things went right – the work was finished. Why switch to the passive voice?   Similarly, when the navi speaks about the Beis haMikdash, it uses the term (Melachim I ch 6), “habayis b’hibanoso” in the passive voice, “the house that was built”, not “she’banu’hu,” the house that the people built. Why? The Zohar (222b) answers (see Ohr haChaim as well) that Bnei Yisrael started the job, “va’ya’asu,” but it was not their efforts and abilities alone that brought the work to completion. “Va’teichel” -- the work actually finished itself of its own accord.

R’ Ya’akov Ades writes that this Zohar is an important lesson for attaining one's goals in avodas Hashem. One should not be afraid of aspiring to achieve great things even if they seem far outside one’s abilities and grasp. Not to worry – “va’teichel,” the job will finish itself.  All a person has to do is to start and to make an effort.

The Midrash echoes this idea of the work completing itself, albeit in a different context with what seems like a different lesson. The Midrash writes: “Rabos banos asu chayil v’at alis al kulana”-- there were many chachamim (banos = binah, wisdom) who tried to put together the mishkan, but they were unable to get it to stand, so they brought the boards and beams to Moshe, and he was finally able to assemble it.  But don’t think, says the Midrash, that it was Moshe’s skill that enabled him to do it. “Hukam ha’mishkan,” (40:17) the pasuk says, in the passive voice.  The mishkan miraculously assembled itself (see Rashi); Moshe was simply the conduit for the miracle to occur.

A mussar-ish reading of the Midrash (see R’ Reuvain Katz in Dudai Reuvain) might derive from it that everyone wants to be a chief; no one wants to just be an Indian.  Everyone thinks that he is the chacham who can assemble the mishkan, but that didn’t work and it can’t work. It’s only Moshe Rabeinu, the person who never wanted to be the chief, who is able to do the job.

The Sefas Emes (5643), however, sees a more positive message here.  We need those “rabos banos asu chayil” – we need everyone to try to put up the mishkan, to want to be the one to get the job done. There has to be a hisorerus on our part, and only then, “v’at alis al kulana,” is Moshe Rabeinu enabled and capable of completing the job. We need leaders who lead, but we also need followers prepared to do everything they can to make their mission a success.

There is another connotation to “va’teichel” that the Ohr haChaim highlights. David haMelech tells us, “Nichsifa v’gam kalsa nafshi l’chatzros Hashem.” (Teh 84:3) “Vateichel” = kalsa nafshi, the people were filled with tremendous desire to make a mishkan -- it wasn’t a chore or a burden. We say every Shabbos, “Vayichulu ha’shamayim v’ha’aretz….” It’s this same idea as “kalsa nafshi…”  When Shabbos comes the world is filled with kisufim, with a desire, to come close to its Creator. 

the individual "adam ki yakriv" inspires the "takrivu es korbanchem" of the many

It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting shiva, yet the reality is that shloshim is ending already. I'm feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a seudah and a siyum to commemorate the date -- it just seems too festive, too celebratory. The Rambam describes aveilus like this:

 

כל מי שלא מתאבל כמו שציוו חכמים, הרי זה אכזרי; אלא יפחד וידאג ויפשפש במעשיו, ויחזור בתשובה. ואחד מבני חבורה שמת, תדאג כל החבורה כולה
 כל שלושה ימים הראשונים, יראה את עצמו כאילו חרב מונחת לו על כתפו; משלושה ועד שבעה, מונחת בקרן זווית; מכאן ואילך, עוברת כנגדו בשוק. כל זה כדי להכין עצמו לחזור, וייעור משינתו, והרי הוא אומר "הכית אותם ולא חלו" (ירמיהו ה,ג), מכלל שצריך להקיץ ולחול

Pretty serious stuff. The Nitei Gavriel (here) quotes a view that even if a siyum is done as a zechus for the niftar, if the aveil did not participate in the learning (let's say the siyum was done right after shiva), the aveil should serve as a waiter (to diminish his simcha) in order to be able to participate in the meal. Yes, that's probably a chumra, but it reflects the mindset of what aveilus is all about.  That being said, l'ma'aseh people do mark the date of shloshim with a seudah, just like many, if not most people these days, celebrate a yahrzeit with food and drink, not by fasting. Introspection and reflection are hard to do; having a sip of schnaps and a piece of cake is so much easier and so much more enjoyable.

Our parsha tells us, "Adam ki yakriv...," speaking of an individual who chooses to offer a korban, yet that same pasuk ends with the words, "takrivu es korbanchen," speaking in the plural tense about those who come to offer korbanos. Why the switch from singular to plural? The Ishbitzer in Mei haShiloach explains that when an individual chooses to make a sacrifice, that act has an impact and makes an impression and causes others to be inspired and follow suit.

The purpose of making a siyum, of saying kaddish, is to show that the sacrifices of a parent, the "adam ki yakriv," inspire a "takrivu es korbanchem" -- children, grandchildren, neighbors, friends learning more mishnayos, davening better, being becoming better people.

Ending shiva or ending shloshim is not about "letting go." Aderaba, it's about showing that the niftar continues to be with us and inspire us. The Kozhiglover, in explaining why chassidim celebrate and do not mourn or fast on a yahrzeit, quotes a Midrash on Ya'akov's words, "Ani ne'esaf el ami": Ya'akov told his children that "im z'chisem lachem - z'chisem b'tazmi," but if not, when I leave this world I will just return to my fathers.  When we do good, it's "b'atzmi z'chisem" -- the spiritual presnce, the "atzmiyus" of that person, is still there with us, expressing itself though the mitzvos and Torah we engage in.  

In giving an accounting of the money and gifts donated to the Mishkan, last week's parsha tells us that there was "dayam v'hoseir," enough plus leftover. The Ohr haChaim famously asks how these two descriptions can simultaneously be true -- if there was enough, it means there wasn't any leftovers; if there was leftovers, then there was more than enough, not "dayam." 

In one of the hespeidim given for my father, the speaker compared life to building a Mishkan. The Torah speaks of "v'shachanti b'socham," inside the people, not inside the building -- we are the Mishkan.  I would like to suggest an answer to the Ohr haChaim's question that fits that context.   An individual is given just enough time in this world to accomplish whatever they are supposed to accomplish -- it's "dayam," no more and no less. But even after the person is gone, there is a "hoseir," there are the leftover memories and thoughts of the person that continue to be with us.

getting rich off the Mishkan

The Midrash writes that Moshe had to go through the accounting made in our parsha because there were scoffers who charged that Moshe had grown rich off the making of the Mishkan.

Why would anyone give credence to such a rumor?  Moshe Rabeinuwas willing to sacrifice himself for Klal Yisrael; he was the one who pleaded on their behalf after cheit ha’eigel.  Does it make sense to think that he was out for the money?

“Ain ani eleh b’da’as.”  A person can suffer a poverty of brains.  A person can also have a richness of intelligence.  Sefas Emes (Likutim) explains that there were those who charged that Moshe Rabeinu was rich in ruchniyus, in da’as, because he had worked on the Mishkan.  It was not the money they were complaining about, but rather the spiritual weath, which they charged he had "hoarded” for himself.  Therefore, Moshe gave an accounting.  As we explained yesterday from the Kotzker, this was not a fiscal report, but a spiritual inventory, e.g. Ploni’s kavanos and l’shem shamayim created the kedusha of the aron; Ploni’s nedivus lev and retzinus went into the Menorah, etc.  Moshe Rabeinu proved to every person that he/she was connected directly in some way to the spiritual riches of the Mishkan.  The "wealth" was theirs alone to benefit from.

the 1775 missing shekalim

The Midrash writes that when Moshe was making his accounting of where the money collected for the Mishkan was spent, he could not recall what he had done with 1775 shekel.  He was sitting and pondering until Hashem opened his eyes and he saw that he had used them for the hooks on the poles (vavim l’amudim) that held up the walls. 

It sounds a little strange – was Moshe feeling his pockets, searching his drawers, looking in case he had misplaced the money?  Moshe Rabeinu, the person who epitomized “da’as,” could not recall what he had done?

The Kotzker (quoted in the She’eiris Menachem here) explained that Moshe’s accounting was not like something done by the IRS or like a corporate annual report – it was a spiritual accounting.  After the Mishkan was completed, Moshe was able to look back and see how the madreiga of ruchniyus of each item in the Mishkan corresponded exactly to the level of kavanah invested by the person who donated for it.  The donations of Ploni who had tremendous kavanos l’shem shamayim may have been used for the aron or in the kodesh kodashim; the donations of a different Ploni, whose kavanos were a little less intense, may have been used in an outer wall.   You got exactly what you spiritually paid for, so to speak.

Moshe was left with was 1775 shekalim that he identified as has having been tossed in without the right kavanos, without the real l’shem shamayim that a Mishkan demanded.  Moshe couldn’t figure out how these monies translated into a davar sheb’kedusha. How did they have a place in the Mishkan?   

G-d revealed the answer: They were the hooks that stood atop the poles.  There are people who are amudim: They are like the poles that keep the building upright, they have all the right kavanos and the l’shem shamayim. But even those who fall short of those ideals still have a place: They just need to “hook-up” with one of those amudim and attach to their presence.  Recognizing one's own shortcomings and making up for them by following someone greater is itself a tremendous accomplishment.

The gemara has a din that something that a mechubar la’tahor is itself tahor, something attached to taharah is itself treated as tahor.  Reading a deeper meaning into this halacha, the Yehudi haKadosh was asked how it makes sense: Someone who is tahor has worked day and night to achieve a certain spiritual level; why should someone who just attaches himself to that individual deserve the same benefit? 

The answer: It’s harder to be a true mechubar than it is to be a tahor.

It’s an age old problem -- everyone wants to be an Indian chief, but no one wants to be an Indian.  Hiskashrus to someone bigger, hisbatlus to someone bigger, pushing one's ego into the back seat, is a very hard thing to do, and what’s worse is that no one sees you doing it and gives you credit.  Even Moshe Rabeinu almost missed it.  We need to celebrate not just the amudim, but the vavim l'amudim as well.

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.

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.   

the testimony of the mishkan

"Eileh pekudei hamishkan, mishkan ha'eidus..." Rashi comments that the Mishkan is called "mishkan ha'eidus", the tent of testimony, because it was built to stand as a testimony to the fact that Hashem forgave Bnei Yisrael for the sin of the eigel.

The meforshei Rashi ask why the mishkan in particular was needed to testify to Hashem's forgiveness of Bnei Yisrael. Didn't the fact that Hashem gave the luchos a second time demonstrate his forgiveness? Maharal in Gur Arye offers two answers:

1) Torah is a necessity; it doesn't demonstrate the added love that comes with forgiveness. Let me give you an analogy: Can you imagine a parent boasting of the love he/she shows for his/her child by providing that child with food, with water, with a room to sleep in (I'm thinking of a Harry Potter-like crawlspace)? That's not love -- even prisoners in Alcatraz get that much! These are basic necessities for survival. In the same way, Torah is our chiyus, it's necessary for our survival as well. Mitzvos lav le'henos nitnu -- Maharal explains elsewhere that mitzvos are supposed to be a burden. I don't think he means that mitzvos are not supposed to be enjoyable, but rather what he means is that the motivation to do mitzvos should not be personal enjoyment. Mitzvos should be done out of a sense of necessity, because we can't live without them, just as we can't live without eating, drinking, breathing.

The giving of the luchos was necessary simply to ensure the survival of Klal Yisrael -- we cannot exist without Torah. The Mishkan demonstrated that added gift of Hashem's love.

2) Midrashim compare the sin of the eigel to an act of infidelity committed by a bride on the day of chupah/kiddushin. A sotah, a woman who has been unfaithful, is not permitted to live with her husband. To show that our sin was forgiven, Hashem had to show that he could again live with us again in the same home. The Mishkan is that shared home -- it is the dwelling place for the Shechina and ourselves.

Implicit in this answer is the assumption that Torah alone is not a testament to the presence of the Shechina. In other words, a person can be involved in Torah and still not be connected to the Shechina. The truth is that Chazal already tell us that there can be a disconnect between learning and being close to Hashem: Halevay osi azavu v'torasi shamaru... Hashem says that so long as we don't abandon Torah, even if we abandon him, we will find a way back -- clearly, one can have a connection to Torah without having a connection to Hashem. The former may lead eventually to the latter, but they are not one and the same.

It's not enough to connect to Torah alone; we need to build that dwelling place to share with the Shechina.

parting the clouds

We read at the end of Pekudei that Moshe found himself unable to enter the completed Mishkan because of the cloud, representing the Shechina, which enveloped the tent (40:35). The Ohr haChaim points out that this seems to contradict the close of parshas Mishpatim where we read, "Vayavo Moshe b'toch he'anan," Moshe had no problem entering into the cloud which enveloped Har Sinai. Why the difference? Ohr haChaim offers two answers: 1) Moshe had been called to enterinto the cloud that surrounded Sinai; he was not yet called to enter the cloud surrounding the Mishkan; 2) the cloud enveloped the Mishkan; the cloud hovered above Sinai, but did not block Moshe's access to the mountain. I would like to suggest a third possibility which also relates to how we deal with the clouds that muddle our ability to move forward or to see things clearly. The difference between the two clouds is the context in which they occur. Sinai represents the experience of matan Torah; the Mishkan represents avodah, tefilah. Torah provides direction through the cloud -- chayav or patur, mutar or asur, the halacha provides a resolution, an answer, which allows us to move forward. Tefilah operates very differently. It's when we have given up the quest for answers or when we realize that despite our best efforts, we will fall short, that we turn to tefilah. Tefilah is not about finding a way through the cloud; it's about asking Hashem to just remove the cloud entirely because if we dare venture into it, we will be lost and be unable to find our own way out. We wait outside the cloud, not daring to enter, waiting expectently for a response.