The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
VAYAKHEL-PEKUDEI
By Rav David Silverberg
MOTZAEI
In the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel, we read that Moshe assembled
Benei Yisrael to instruct them with regard to the Mishkan,
particularly to request that they donate the materials needed for this
project. This section concludes,
"Va-yeitz'u kol adat Benei Yisrael mi-lifnei Moshe" ("The entire congregation of Israelites
left Moshe's presence" – 35:20).
The Or Ha-chayim understands this verse to mean that they
left with an enthusiastic, unified desire to donate to the Mishkan.
The Torah here speaks not only of their physically taking leave of Moshe,
but of the conviction and excitement with which they returned to their
homes.
Interestingly, however, from the subsequent verses it appears that it was
not kol adat Benei
Yisrael – "the entire congregation
of Israelites" – who came forth to donate: "Every man whose heart stirred him,
and everyone whose spirit led him to donate, came to bring the Lord's donation…
Men and women came – everyone generous of heart…" The Torah here implies that only those
among the nation who were overcome by a special spirit of generosity and
selflessness heeded Moshe's call and donated materials for the Mishkan.
Whereas the "entire congregation of Israelites" left Moshe's presence
with the enthusiastic drive and desire to give, in actuality, only a percentage
of the people actually did so.
As Rav Reuven Bulka suggests in his work Torah Therapy, it seems that many among Benei Yisrael experienced a change of heart of sorts, or
at least second thoughts, upon returning to their tents. It is one thing to be overcome by an
idealistic spirit and impassioned conviction; it is another to follow through on
these emotions by making the sacrifices or exerting the effort necessary to
translate the ideals into concrete action.
We can easily imagine how the initial rush of excitement and fervor began
to wane once the people returned to their tents and opened their safes. It does not take all that much to think
in idealistic terms and sincerely desire to act, help and contribute to a
cause. The real test, however,
comes when this involvement entails a sacrifice of time or money, or the
exertion of considerable effort.
All too often, the idealism gradually begins to fade as the extent of the
required sacrifice manifests itself.
Fortunately, enough members of Benei Yisrael retained their firm conviction and resolve
even as they approached their stockpiles of precious metals, and they
collectively donated even more than was necessary for the construction of the
Mishkan (36:7). They understood that idealism must be
translated into concrete action that often entails selflessness and a
willingness to sacrifice. Their
generous spirit and spiritual drive thus led them to part with their wealth and
ensure the success of the campaign to collect materials for the Mishkan.
SUNDAY
The opening verse of Parashat Pekudei tells that Itamar, one of Aharon's
sons, oversaw the accounting of the materials donated by Benei Yisrael for the construction of the Mishkan.
The Midrash
Ha-gadol raises the question of
why Itamar was selected for this job over his older brothers, Nadav and
Avihu. The Midrash answers, "Moshe
foresaw what would later happen to them, and he said, 'Perhaps
In Sefer Vayikra (chapter 10), the Torah
tells of the death of Nadav and Avihu that resulted from their offering of an
unwarranted offering in the Mishkan.
According to the Midrash, Moshe foresaw this tragedy and feared that the
people would attribute Nadav and Avihu's death to a different misdeed –
dishonest handling of the Mishkan's treasury. Officials responsible for public funds
are commonly suspected of corruption, and Moshe understood that the individual
he selects for this job will be no different; he therefore chose not to assign
Nadav and Avihu for this role, so that people would not view their untimely
deaths as corroborating their suspicions.
A consideration of the precise nature of
Nadav and Avihu's sin may perhaps help clarify the message underlying this
comment of the Midrash. The subject
of Nadav and Avihu's unwarranted offering has become the source of much
discussion, and we find numerous different approaches among Chazal and later commentators in identifying the
precise nature of their wrongdoing.
Although the Torah mentions only their bringing an unlawful incense
offering, other sins are also attributed to them in the Midrashim,
including:
1)
the
decision not to marry, following the example of Moshe, who had to separate from
his wife due to the frequency of his prophetic
revelations;
2)
issuing a halakhic ruling in the presence of
Moshe and Aharon, their mentors;
3)
their eager anticipation of Moshe and
Aharon's death which would allow them to assume their
positions.
What these theories share in common is
youthful arrogance and presumptuousness.
Nadav and Avihu viewed themselves as capable leaders, kohanim, and halakhic decisors at a level higher
than that of their father and uncle.
This led them to the conclusion that they must adopt the extraordinary
lifestyle of Moshe, and that they were entitled to issue halakhic rulings and
bring special offerings that Moshe had ruled were forbidden. They put themselves on a stature higher
than where they actually stood, and this led to their
downfall.
It is likely that the people sensed this tendency of Nadav and Avihu and
were aware that Aharon's two elder sons held themselves a bit too highly. Naturally, then, neither Nadav nor Avihu
was a wise choice for the position of treasurer. If public officials entrusted with funds
are generally subject to suspicion, this is true all the more so of young,
over-ambitious novices who have earned a reputation for arrogance. It would be all too easy for the public
to suspect them of mishandling or even extorting the funds under their
charge. Moshe, out of genuine
respect and admiration for Nadav and Avihu, wanted to spare them these
accusations, and therefore appointed their younger brother to the
post.
The message, perhaps, that emerges from this discussion is the importance
of giving the benefit of the doubt despite a person's evident vices. The fact that a certain individual is
known to have a certain character flaw should not provide a basis for
unsubstantiated charges and accusations.
This applies not only with regard to public officials, but, perhaps
primarily, in family and social life, as well. Family members and close friends are
aware of each other's shortcomings and tendencies, which can often lead to
erroneous, unfavorable conclusions about one another. Moshe did not want people to reach
unfair conclusions about Nadav and Avihu on the basis of their reputation of
arrogance; similarly, we must each ensure to avoid unfairly labeling and
accusing others, despite being aware of their negative
tendencies.
MONDAY
The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (55a) tells that when God instructed
Moshe to summon Betzalel and command him to lead the construction of the
Mishkan, He told Moshe to first describe to
Betzalel the structure of the Mishkan itself. The instructions concerning the
keilim, the various appurtenances of the Mishkan, were to be presented to Betzalel only
after he learned about the tent's structure, because the Mishkan was to be built before the keilim.
However, when Moshe summoned Betzalel, he instructed him to first build
the aron and other keilim, and only thereafter to construct the
Mishkan.
Betzalel was startled by this request, noting that the structure should
first be constructed before the keilim, so that there is where to place the
keilim immediately upon their completion. He asked Moshe if perhaps God had
actually instructed the reverse sequence.
Moshe exclaimed, "Perhaps you were in the shadow of the Almighty
[be-tzel Kel]," lauding Betzalel's insight and intuition
in realizing the sequence that God had actually intended.
Tosefot raise the question of how we may reconcile the Gemara's
discussion with the sequence of presentation in Parashat Teruma, where God
introduces to Moshe the laws concerning the construction of the Mishkan.
There God in fact describes the keilim of the Mishkan before giving instructions concerning the
structure of the Mishkan itself. How, then, could the Gemara claim that
God had told Moshe to first construct the Mishkan and then the keilim?
Tosefot answer that the Gemara refers to the verse in Parashat Ki-Tisa
where God instructs Moshe to appoint Betzalel and Aholiav to oversee the
construction of the Mishkan (31:7). In that context, God indeed tells Moshe
that they shall build the Mishkan followed by the aron and other appurtenances. The Gemara inferred from there that
Moshe was to instruct the artisans to first build the Mishkan, and then the keilim.
Apparently, the presentation in Parashat Teruma follows the sequence of
intrinsic sanctity, rather than the sequence of construction; it therefore dealt
first with the sacred articles, followed by the structure of the Mishkan.
Rav Yaakov Tzvi Yalish, in his Melo Ha-ro'im notes to Masekhet Berakhot, raises a different question concerning this passage in the Gemara. A quick reading of the closing sections of Sefer Shemot (chapters 39-40) reveals that the Mishkan was assembled only after all its various components were built. The Torah writes that after the work on the Mishkan was completed, God commanded Moshe to erect the Mishkan and then bring the keilim inside (see 39:32, 40:2). Seemingly, if Betzalel was correct that the structure should first be completed so that the keilim have a home immediately upon their being constructed, then God should have had Moshe erect the Mishkan before the keilim were built. Instead, the artisans completed all the various components of the Mishkan, including the keilim, before the Mishkan was assembled. The Melo Ha-ro'im suggests that the time required to erect the Mishkan was negligible, since all the parts were already completed, and thus this arrangement did not undermine Betzalel's concern that the Mishkan be prepared before the keilim are completed.
Many different approaches have been taken to explain the meaning and significance of this exchange between Moshe and Betzalel. What is the deeper issue underlying the question of whether the Mishkan should be built before or after the keilim?
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests that in this exchange the keilim and the structure of the Mishkan symbolize, respectively, the nation's spiritual leadership and the lay population. Underlying this dialogue between Moshe and Betzalel is the question of which group represents the essence of Kelal Yisrael. Rav Ginsburg cites in this context a passage in Tanna De-bei Eliyahu (chapter 17) which tells that Eliyahu was once confronted by a man who described the immense love he felt for Torah and for Am Yisrael. He could not decide, however, which of these two deserved more love. Eliyahu answered that although most people would say that one should afford more love to Torah than to the Jewish people, in truth, one should love the Jewish people more.
Similarly, Moshe initially indicated to Betzalel that the keilim, the Torah leaders of
TUESDAY
Towards the end of Parashat Pekudei we read of the assembly of the
Mishkan and the arrangement of all its keilim (appurtenances). Regarding the kiyor, the faucet that stood by the entrance to
the Mishkan, the Torah writes, "He [Moshe] placed the
kiyor in between the Tent of Meeting and the
altar, and he placed there water for washing. Moshe, Aharon and his sons would wash
their hands and feet from it; when they enter the Tent of Meeting and when they
approach the altar they shall wash…" (40:30-32).
The Gemara in Masekhet Zevachim (19b) establishes that in order for a
kohen's washing to be valid, the kiyor must contain the amount of water necessary
for the washing of four kohanim.
Even if only a single kohen wishes to enter the Mikdash and must therefore wash his hands, he must
ensure that the kiyor contains enough water for four kohanim.
As the source of this halakha, the Gemara cites the clause, "Moshe,
Aharon and his sons would wash their hands and feet from it." As the Shita Mekubetzet there explains, even though Aharon at this
point still had four sons (Nadav, Avihu, Elazar and Itamar), nevertheless, the
word banav is taken in its minimal sense, as a
reference to only two sons ("mi'ut
rabim shenayim"). Hence, the verse here speaks of four
people washing from the kiyor – Moshe, Aharon, and two of Aharon's sons –
thus establishing the minimum amount of water required for the kiyor to be valid. (The Rambam, in Hilkhot Bi'at Mikdash
5:13, appears to have had a different text of this Talmudic
passage.)
The question arises as to why the Gemara cited this verse, rather than an earlier verse in Parashat Ki-Tisa, where the Torah introduces the obligation of the kiyor and instructs, "Aharon and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it" (30:19). If we apply the same approach to this verse, we would conclude that the basin of the kiyor must contain enough water for three kohanim – Aharon and two of his sons – rather than four. On what basis did the Gemara choose to make its inference from the verse in Parashat Pekudei, which makes reference to four kohanim, rather than from the verse in Parashat Ki-Tisa, from which it appears that the kiyor must contain three kohanim-worth of water?
Rav Shimon Moshe Diskin, in his Mas'at Moshe, suggests that the
Gemara's discussion is predicated upon a different question regarding the
aforementioned verses in Parashat Pekudei.
As noted, the context of these verses is Moshe's assembly and arrangement
of the Mishkan. One might,
at first glance, question the relevance of the kohanim's washing to this
context. The Torah tells here of
how the various accessories of the Mishkan were arranged, and as part of
this discussion informs us that Moshe placed the kiyor near the entrance
to the Mishkan, opposite the altar, as God had
instructed. Why must we be told as
well that the kohanim wash their hands before entering the
Mishkan to perform the service? Of what relevance is this requirement to
the positioning of the kiyor?
Apparently, Rav Diskin suggests, this detail relates not only to the
procedure the kohanim must follow, but also to the kiyor's status of validity. The Gemara understood the Torah's
emphasis on the requirement for the kohanim to wash as establishing a criterion that
must be met for the faucet to qualify as a valid kiyor.
The reference to four people washing from the kiyor is intended to define this quantity of
water as the minimum amount required to render the kiyor
halakhically valid. In this way,
the Gemara explains why this verse appears in the context of the arrangement of
the Mishkan, as it sets a precondition for the validity of one of the Mishkan's accessories.
This easily answers the question of why the Gemara inferred the halakha from this verse, rather than the verse in Parashat Ki-Tisa. It is precisely because this verse in Parashat Pekudei appears out of context that the Gemara interpreted it as a reference to the minimum required amount of water. In Parashat Ki-Tisa, however, the Torah introduces the mitzva to construct a kiyor and defines its purpose, and thus the verse which speaks of the kohanim washing their hands serves simply to explain the basic function of the kiyor, and not to introduce any details concerning the amount of water required.
WEDNESDAY
Parashat Pekudei opens with an accounting of the precious metals that Benei Yisrael had donated towards the construction of the Mishkan. The Torah introduces this section with the phrase, "Eileh fekudei ha-Mishkan" ("These are the accountings of the Mishkan…"). As the Or Ha-chayim notes, the term eileh is generally understood in Rabbinic exegesis as indicating a mi'ut, meaning, that the forthcoming information is limited to a specific context, to the exclusion of others. The Or Ha-chayim suggests a number of possible theories regarding the "exclusion" intended by the opening word of Parashat Pekudei. One such theory relates to the Gemara's famous comment in Masekhet Ta'anit (8b), "Blessing cannot be found in something that is weighed, measured or counted, but rather only in something that is concealed from the eye." Generally speaking, calculating the precise amount of one's possessions threatens his hold on those goods; wealth is more secure when it remains "concealed from the eye," when its precise quantity remains unknown.
Thus, the Torah introduces the accounting of the precious metals donated towards the Mishkan by emphasizing, "Ve-eileh fekudei ha-Mishkan," excluding all other "accountings." As the Or Ha-chayim explains, the Torah thereby seeks to remind us that only these materials were not threatened by the counting. The large, impressive numbers will not undermine the success of this endeavor, but, to the contrary, will only highlight Benei Yisrael's selfless desire to contribute to this noble cause, which will in turn help guarantee continued blessing and success.
How are we to understand this concept of blessing being bestowed only upon property that remains "concealed," and why was this not the case with regard to the materials donated for the Mishkan?
The notion of "concealment" as helping to ensure the preservation of wealth likely involves the concern of arousing envy. Flaunting wealth, such as by publicizing value amounts, naturally runs the risk of igniting the jealousy of potential competitors and criminals. Otherwise upright, ethical men are driven to corruption and greed by their peers' public displays of wealth. Successful people are therefore well advised to keep their fortunes "concealed" to whatever extent possible, which will allow them to continue enjoying the goodwill and amity of their neighbors and friends.
If, as the Or Ha-chayim claims, this concern did not arise in the context of the donations towards the Mishkan, then we must conclude that these donations were of a nature that precluded the possibility of envy and resentment. Apparently, those who brought materials to the Mishkan were driven by a genuine desire to fulfill the divine command and bring the Shekhina into their midst, rather than the prospect of fame and recognition. And, evidently, the people gave one another the benefit of the doubt rather than rashly attributing insincere motives to their fellow donors. The spirit of mutual trust and respect that characterized the donations allowed Benei Yisrael to make an accounting of the materials without concern for the tensions that naturally result from public calculations of wealth.
Unfortunately, as the Or Ha-chayim commented, the Torah found it necessary to warn against following this pattern; the sincerity of the donations to the Mishkan marked the exception rather than the rule. In other contexts, we must indeed beware of making public displays of wealth, lest we run the risk of kindling the flames of jealousy and resentment, thereby jeopardizing that wealth and, more importantly, undermining the sense of mutual concern and trust that Am Yisrael needs to grow, succeed and prosper.
(Based on Rav Reuven Bulka's Torah Therapy)
THURSDAY
The final three verses of Parashat Pekudei tell of how Benei Yisrael's travels through the wilderness were determined by the cloud that had descended over the Mishkan. Benei Yisrael would embark when the cloud rose, and would remain encamped so long as the cloud hovered right over the Mishkan. The parasha's final verse reads, "For the cloud of the Lord was on the Mishkan by day, while fire was on it by night, in sight of the entire House of Israel, through all their journeys."
The question arises as to how the Torah could describe the cloud/fire as
being situated over the Mishkan "through all their journeys." After all, the Torah had just
established that Benei Yisrael traveled only when the cloud rose from the
top of the Mishkan. How,
then, can this final verse claim that the cloud remained over the Mishkan
during all Benei Yisrael's journeys?
The simplest answer, perhaps, is that the description of the cloud "on the Mishkan" refers as well to the periods when the cloud rose. Even after rising from the top of the Mishkan, the cloud was still seen as hovering over the Mishkan, albeit higher than usual. Thus, even during Benei Yisrael's "travels" the cloud could be said as being situated "on the Mishkan." This appears to be the approach of Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha-arokh), who infers from this verse that Benei Yisrael were occasionally compelled to travel during the night. The Torah writes that "through all their journeys" there was a cloud over the Mishkan by day and a pillar of fire by night, indicating that Benei Yisrael traveled even at night.
Rashi, however, adopts a different approach, claiming that the word
mas'eihem ("their journeys") here actually refers to Benei
Yisrael's encampments. Since
the encampments were only temporary, and at some point Benei Yisrael were
forced to embark and resume their journey towards
Rav Menachem Bentzion Zaks, in his work Menachem Tziyon, notes the insightful lesson that can be gleaned from Rashi's definition of mas'eihem in this verse. Even when a necessary interruption is made during a given process, we may still describe the process as continuing if the interruption is from the outset temporary and made with clear intent of resuming the process thereafter. In this vein, the Menachem Tziyon suggests explaining Rabbi Yishmael's famous comment in Masekhet Berakhot (34b) concerning the verse in Sefer Yehoshua (1:8), "This Torah book shall not leave your mouth – you shall engage in it day and night." According to Rabbi Yishmael, this does not mean that one must devote his entire day and night to Torah study; rather, one is encouraged to work for a livelihood and allocate time each day and night for Torah learning. The question immediately arises as to how such a lifestyle meets the requirement that the Torah shall not "leave your mouth." The answer, the Menachem Tziyon suggests, emerges naturally from Rashi's comment regarding the word mas'eihem. Even when one breaks temporarily from Torah learning for the purpose of earning a livelihood, if it is done with the clear intent to resume his studies at a later point, then he may indeed be considered as studying "day and night." Just as Benei Yisrael are said to have "traveled" even during their periods of encampment, so can a Jew be described as engaging in Torah and mitzvot even as he engages in his other necessary pursuits.
David Silverberg
Friday
The opening section of Parashat Pekudei tells of the accounting made of the precious metals donated to the Mishkan. The Midrash Tanchuma Yashan (4) explains that Moshe ordered this accounting in response to accusations that began to circulate among Benei Yisrael. People would see Moshe and say, "Look at his neck, look at his thighs – he is eating and drinking from the property of the Jews." Moshe's healthy, robust appearance provided a basis for the cynical charge that he was indulging off the pocketbooks of Benei Yisrael. Suspicions were thus raised concerning the handling of the precious materials donated towards the construction of the Mishkan, and therefore Moshe immediately ordered that a precise accounting be made of the materials and how they were used.
As discussed earlier this week, the verses in Parashat Vayakhel appear to
indicate that not every member of Benei Yisrael made contributions
towards the Mishkan: "Every man
whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit led him to donate, came to
bring the Lord's donation… Men and women came – everyone generous of heart…"
(35:21-22). It was specifically the
"generous of heart" who came forth to selflessly part with their wealth for the
purpose of constructing the Mishkan.
Many others, it seems, failed to respond to the call for donations of
materials.
We might suspect that it was those who refused Moshe's appeal for
materials who began casting allegations about his integrity. The famous first verse of Sefer Tehillim
lauds the man who does not "sit in the company [literally, 'in the sitting'] of
the scoffers" (u-ve-moshav leitzim
lo yashav). The Radak comments that the term
"sitting" is associated with leitzim – scoffers – because scoffers are generally
people who spend their time "sitting" idly, unproductively, achieving little
other than ridiculing and casting allegations against other people. A person who is not productive, who does
not achieve anything worthwhile, feels a natural sense of insecurity and
uneasiness concerning his worth and value to society, particularly when he sees
hard-working, accomplished people.
The only means he has of building his self-esteem is to denigrate others,
to find fault in those whose achievements threaten his self-image. Rather than exerting the effort to make
his own contribution to the welfare of mankind, the scoffer prefers "sitting"
and finding comfort in the foibles and inadequacies he ever so conveniently
attributes to those more accomplished than he.
Similarly, the people who declined Moshe's call for donations may have
felt uneasy about their failure to participate in this important cause. They therefore sought to soothe their
insecurities by baselessly calling into question the validity of the campaign,
charging that the donated funds went towards purchasing delicacies and expensive
wines for Moshe, rather than for the construction of the Mishkan.
Returning to the first verse of Tehillim, David praises the person
described and promises him a number of blessings, culminating with "ve-khol asher ya'aseh yatzli'ach" – "everything he does shall be successful"
(Tehillim 1:3). One who spends his
time with the "scoffers," who attempts to build self-esteem by insulting and
denigrating other people, rather than working to accomplish and achieve, will
never succeed. Success is gained
through concentrated effort and work, and by viewing the achievements of others
as a source of inspiration and guidance, rather than a threat to one's
self-worth.
(See also Rabbi Nosson Slifkin's Second Focus, pp. 130-134.)
David
Silverberg