The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT VAYAKHEL -
PEKUDEI
by Rav
David Silverberg
Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei describe the fulfillment of the commands presented earlier, in Parshiyot Teruma and Tetzaveh, concerning the Mishkan, its keilim (vessels) and the bigdei kehuna (priestly garments). One of the bigdei kehuna worn specifically by the kohen gadol is the "tzitz," or head-plate, which the kohen wore on his forehead and contained the words, "Kodesh Le-Hashem" ("Holy for God"). Several similarities exist between the tzitz and a garment worn by all Jewish males – not just the kohanim: tzitzit. Firstly and most obviously, the words "tzitz" and "tzitzit" clearly resemble one another. Moreover, both must include a "petil tekhelet – a string dyed with tekhelet (see 28:37 and Bamidbar 15:38). Additionally, the tzitz and tzitzit share the theme of "kedusha" – sanctity. The tzitz, as mentioned, contains the engraving of the words, "Kodesh Le-Hashem" – holy to God, and tzitzit serve to ensure that "you shall be reminded to observe all My commandments and to be holy to your God" (15:40). How might we understand this association between the tzitz and tzitzit?
The tzitz on the kohen gadol's forehead announces that he is entirely devoted to the service of God, that he has no other function other than to serve the Almighty in His Temple. Furthermore, the Torah indicates that the tzitz's role is to bring atonement to Benei Yisrael (verse 38). According to the Rashbam, this means that through the tzitz, the kohen together with the sacrifice given by the sinner will earn him atonement. In other words, the tzitz transforms the kohen into an altar of sorts. He is one of the keilim of the Mishkan, so-to-speak, consecrated for the service of God and thereby earning atonement for the sinners among Benei Yisrael.
This
unique status of kedusha is, of course, reserved for
the kohen gadol. However, all of Benei
Yisrael can attain their own level of kedusha, and to this end they are instructed to place tzitzit on their garments.
The Torah explains, "You will look at it and recall all the
commandments of the Lord and observe them, so that you do not follow your heart
and eyes in your lustful urge. Thus you
shall be reminded to observe all My commandments and to be holy to your
God" (Bamidbar 39-40). Tzitzit are
intended to remind us at all times of God and His commandments, which enables
us to achieve kedusha. Unlike the kohen gadol, we cannot be entirely "Kodesh
Le-Hashem."
We cannot devote our entire lives to the service of God in the
(Based on an article by Rav Amnon Bazak)
*****
The Torah tells in Parashat Vayakhel (36:5) that after Moshe announced the collection of materials for the Mishkan, Benei Yisrael responded too generously. The workers assigned to construct the Mishkan and its appurtenances informed Moshe that the collectors had given them more materials than were necessary for the tasks at hand.
Benei Yisrael's overly generous
response to this appeal becomes even more impressive when we consider how
events were supposed to have unfolded. Sefer Melakhim I (6:1) informs us
that King Shlomo began the construction of the Beit
Ha-mikdash 480 years after the Exodus. It turns out, then, that the Mishkan constructed by Benei Yisrael in the wilderness served them for nearly five
centuries. This is not, however, what
was supposed to have happened. Moshe
remarks towards the beginning of Sefer Devarim (1:2) that it normally takes eleven days to travel
from Chorev, or
It thus turns out that according to the initial plan, the Mishkan was to serve Benei Yisrael as the Shekhina's residence not for 480 years – but for perhaps only a few months!
Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky commented that herein lies the true expression of Benei Yisrael's enthusiasm for the construction of the Mishkan. They could have easily excused themselves from sizeable contributions on the basis of the temporary nature of the Mishkan. How much, they might have wondered, must they invest into a building they would need for such a short period of time? That they did not entertain such notions and donated materials in abundance testifies to their appreciation of the immense value of mitzvot. Once a person understands the inestimable worth of a mitzva, he pays little attention to whether or not the mitzva in question lasts a year, a few weeks, or, for that matter, even a few days.
Rav Yaakov added that Benei Yisrael's appreciation of the value of this mitzva perhaps underlies an otherwise obscure Midrashic passage cited by Rashi
in his comments to the first verse of Parashat Pekudei. The Midrash
notes that this verse mentions the word "Mishkan"
twice, seemingly unnecessarily. This
repetition, the Midrash explains, alludes to the two
Since they perceived the Shekhina's residence among them as a necessity of the highest priority, it is not surprising that Benei Yisrael donated materials generously and enthusiastically, despite the fact that the Mishkan was not initially expected to serve them for more than just a few months.
*****
Parshiyot Vayakhel-Pekudei repeat the instructions concerning the Mishkan and its appurtenances that appeared initially in Parshiyot Teruma-Tetzaveh. In Teruma and Tetzaveh, God presented these instructions to Moshe, and in Vayakhel and Pekudei Benei Yisrael faithfully execute these commands.
One basic difference, however, has been noted and addressed by commentators throughout the centuries, and discussion of this discrepancy appears already in the Talmud (Masekhet Berakhot 55a). In Teruma, God arranges His instructions "inside-out," meaning, He begins from the innermost sanctum of the Mishkan – the "kodesh ha-kodashim" – and works His way out. Parashat Teruma begins (after giving a general introduction to the Mishkan) with the aron, situated in the "kodesh ha-kodashim," and then proceeds to the "kodesh" – the shulchan and menora – after which it turns its attention to the structure of the Mishkan and the courtyard. (The one exception to this structure, as we discussed in our series to Parashat Tetzaveh, is the mizbach ha-zahav, which is discussed at the very end of Parashat Tetzaveh, despite being situated in the "kodesh" together with the menora and shulchan.)
Parshiyot Vayakhel-Pekudei are arranged in the precisely opposite sequence. It appears from these chapters that Benei Yisrael first construct the Mishkan and courtyard, and only then proceed to the keilim (appurtenances) placed inside.
Tomorrow iy"H we will look at the Gemara's approach to resolving this problem (cited by Rashi, 38:22). Today, we will briefly note that one explanation might emerge from the Ramban's view concerning the chronology of these parshiyot. A famous debate exists among the commentators (which actually can be traced back to the Midrashim) regarding when God gave Moshe the instructions for the building of the Mishkan. Rashi's position throughout these parshiyot is that God commanded Benei Yisrael to build the Mishkan only after – and in response to - the sin of the golden calf. Although the instructions concerning the Mishkan (in Parshiyot Teruma & Tetzaveh) appear in the Torah before the sin of the golden calf (which is narrated in Parashat Ki-Tisa), the Torah's presentation does not follow chronological sequence. In truth, Rash maintains, the Mishkan's construction was ordered only after the incident of the calf. The Ramban, in his famous opening comments to Parashat Teruma, disagrees. Consistent with his general tendency to maintain the chronology as presented in Biblical narrative whenever possible, and true to his perspective viewing the Mishkan as the apex and culmination of the Exodus, the Ramban argues that the Mishkan was to be built even before the sin of the calf. In his view, the Mishkan was constructed despite, rather than in response to, the incident of the golden calf.
The Ramban's position has the distinct advantage of allowing for a simple resolution to any discrepancy we might discover between the instructions given in Teruma and Tetzaveh, and their execution in Vayakhel-Pekudei. Since chet ha-egel occurred in between the command and the fulfillment, we can perhaps attribute any difference between them to this debacle. The change in sequence, then, might be understood as reflecting a shift in emphasis that became necessary in the wake of the golden calf. When the Torah in Parashat Teruma first discusses the aron, shulchan and menorah, it perhaps does so to emphasize the singular importance and sanctity of these features of the Mishkan. Only thereafter does it proceed to describe the parts of the Mishkan that are of a lower sacred quality. After the sin of the golden calf, however, when, according to some explanations, Benei Yisrael did not seek a replacement for God, but rather boldly took the liberty to approach Him through whatever means they deemed appropriate, the focus shifts. Now what is emphasized is the externals of the Mishkan, the physical framework that establishes strict boundaries and protects, as it were, the Sanctuary's interior from intrusion. Whereas in Parashat Teruma God emphasizes the closeness between Am Yisrael and the Shekhina, in Parashat Vayakhel it is precisely the limits of this encounter and the need for careful designation of boundaries that requires particular emphasis.
(Based on an article by Rav Amnon Bazak)
*****
As we discussed yesterday, it appears from the narrative in Parshiyot Vayakhel-Pekudei that the Mishkan's construction took place in reverse sequence from the instructions given in Parshiyot Teruma and Tetzaveh. In those parshiyot, God first instructs Benei Yisrael to build the keilim – the aron, shulchan and menorah – and only thereafter the physical structure of the Mishkan. In Vayakhel-Pekudei, however, Betzalel and his team of artisans first built the aron and only then proceed to fashion the various keilim.
Rashi (38:22), based on the Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (55a), writes that Moshe conveyed to Betzalel the instructions according to the sequence of Teruma-Tetzaveh – first the keilim, and then the actual Mishkan. But Betzalel then asked, "Is not the common practice to first make the house and only then place the appurtenances in it?" Moshe replied, "You have been in the 'shadow of God,' for undoubtedly this is what the Almighty commanded me." Moshe's response to Betzalel is a play on the name "Betzalel," which may also be read as, "be-tzel E-l" – "in the shadow of God." But what does this mean? Why did Moshe conclude that Betzalel had spent time in the "shadow of God" by virtue of his realizing that he must first built the Mishkan? And why did Moshe originally tell Betzalel the reverse order?
Rav Yaakov Ariel (the rabbi of Ramat-Gan) explained that this discussion between Moshe and Betzalel represents the ongoing, healthy conflict between the ideal and the reality. Betzalel here symbolizes the "shadow of God" – the shield that protects the ground from unlimited and uninterrupted sunlight. The world needs sunlight, but it also needs occasional shade to protect it from unending exposure. Similarly, Benei Yisrael needs the "light" of the Shekhina, of the ideal, but that ideal must be implemented in a practically feasible manner. Moshe, the "ish ha-Elokim" (man of God), the man of uncompromising truth, prefers the ideal state, in which the keilim take precedence over the tent itself, which serves merely to contain the keilim. Betzalel, however, understands that even the ideal of the Mishkan must follow "common practice." The ideals must accommodate reality.
Was Moshe wrong? No. As Rav Ariel writes, "The ideal and the reality necessarily differ one from the other. The ideal must strive as much as possible not to compromise with reality. The reality must stand with its two feet on solid earth. Complete execution requires a practical, clear-eyed approach. The tension between them [the ideal and the reality] is a positive tension, without which there cannot be life on earth."
The "debate" between Moshe and Betzalel reflects the struggle that is constantly waged between ideals and pragmatics. Ultimately, some practical accommodation must be made for the ideal to be manifest in the practical realm. Religious life requires both the "sunlight" of ideals and the "shadow" of their practical implementation.
*****
The Torah tells in Parashat Vayakhel that Benei Yisrael made the kiyor (faucet) to be used by the kohanim for washing before beginning the service in the Mishkan (38:8). The kiyor, along with its base, were made from mirrors donated by the women of Benei Yisrael. Rashi brings from the Midrash that Moshe hesitated before accepting this donation, realizing that the women had used these mirrors to beautify themselves and entice their husbands. Moshe thus considered the mirrors instruments of the evil inclination and inappropriate for use in the Mishkan. God, however, informed Moshe that to the contrary, this very purpose served by the mirrors rendered them sacred and worthy for use in the Mishkan. The women used these mirrors during the Egyptian bondage to ensure Benei Yisrael's population growth despite the despair, frustration and anguish suffered by Benei Yisrael.
Several commentators asked why we find no mention of hesitation on Moshe's part to the women's jewelry donated for use in the Mishkan (see 35:22). Wasn’t the jewelry also used for purposes of beautification? And isn't jewelry far more directly related to physical enticement than the women's mirrors? Why was Moshe reluctant to accept the mirrors but had no qualms about accepting the gold jewelry?
The Chavot Yair (161) explains (based on earlier sources) that the jewelry was melted down and recast for use in the Mishkan. The Mishkan's construction required not bracelets and earrings, but gold. By the time the gold was prepared for use in the building of the Mishkan, it was so far removed from its origin that Moshe saw no problem in using it. The mirrors, however, did not undergo any significant change when being made into a kiyor. Moshe therefore hesitated and refused to use these mirrors until the Almighty specifically instructed him to do so.
The Chavot Yair invokes this explanation amidst his discussion of an interesting halakhic question which he was called upon to address. A woman had taken ill and vowed that if she would recover from her illness, she would donate her expensive hostess aprons to the synagogue. Time passed and, with God's help, she was cured. The question came before the Chavot Yair as to whether the synagogue should use her aprons as a covering ("mantel") for a Sefer Torah, or as a covering for the bima (upon which the Sefer Torah is placed) or amud (lectern used by the chazan). The Chavot Yair raises the possibility that given the fact that these aprons had been used for a mundane purpose, it might be inappropriate to convert them into something directly serving the Sefer Torah. One might argue, therefore, that the synagogue should use the aprons for a purpose less directly connected to the Sefer Torah, such as a covering for the bima or amud, rather than for the scroll itself. In conclusion, however, the Chavot Yair contends that to the contrary, it would be preferable to covert the aprons into a covering for a Sefer Torah. Transforming them into coverings for the bima or amud would entail only some cutting and trimming, whereas turning them into a Sefer Torah covering requires a far more substantial change. By the time they would be ready for use as a Sefer Torah covering, nobody would ever recognize them as aprons. Citing the aforementioned discussion concerning the jewelry donated to the Mishkan, the Chavot Yair writes that an object used for a mundane purpose may be converted into an object of sanctity only if, indeed, it undergoes a "conversion" or significant transformation. He therefore rules that the synagogue should use the aprons to make Sefer Torah coverings, since this entails a more drastic transformation.
The Chatam Sofer (1:39) makes brief reference to this ruling of the Chavot Yair amidst his attempt to justify the prevalent practice in his day to use silk for the coverings of the Sefrei Torah, bima and the like. The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (28b) establishes that for purposes of "melekhet Shamayim" (literally, "work of heaven," meaning, for mitzvot) one must use products made from only kosher animals. Since silk is produced by the silkworm, the Chatam Sofer asks, what permits us to use silk for purposes such as covers for Sifrei Torah? He explains that the process involved in the manufacture of these articles requires fundamentally changing the original material, to the point where we may consider it a new product, entirely unrelated to the original material. Just as Moshe did not question the validity of the golden jewelry for use in the Mishkan, so we may allow silk to be used in the synagogue, given the transformation it undergoes over the course of processing the given articles.
As the Chatam Sofer acknowledges, however, this theory seems to oppose a passage in Rabbenu Bechayei's commentary to Parashat Teruma. Rabbenu Bechayei writes that silk was not used at all in the Mishkan specifically because it originates from a non-kosher creature – the silkworm. (He adds that although God did require the use of "tola'at shani" – the blood or secretion of a certain worm, this material was not actually produced from the worm, but is rather situated together with the creature in its shell, like pearls in an oyster.) Clearly, had silk been used for the Mishkan, it would have undergone a fundamental transformation over the course of fashioning the given articles in the Mishkan, and yet Rabbenu Bechayei saw the use of silk as halakhically forbidden in the Mishkan. Evidently, then, as the Chatam Sofer notes, Rabbenu Bechayei for some reason did not subscribe to the "transformation" theory espoused by the Chatam Sofer.
In truth, however, we might suggest a far simpler basis for allowing the use of silk in synagogues. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, in his Har Tzvi (O.C. 1:39), establishes a fundamental rule concerning the halakha disqualifying materials extracted from non-kosher animals for use with mitzvot. Rav Frank claimed that this halakha applies only to mitzvot regarding which the Torah specifically required the use of animals. For example, the Torah requires that Sifrei Torah, mezuzot and tefillin be written on parchment made from animal-hide. Similarly, the mitzva of shofar requires the use of an animal's horn. Regarding these mitzvot, Halakha disqualifies materials (such as parchment and horns) taken from non-kosher animals. When, however, animals are not necessarily required for the given mitzva, one may use even non-kosher animals. Thus, for example, the mishna in Masekhet Sukka (23) explicitly permits the use of a chained elephant as a wall for one's sukka on Sukkot. Quite clearly, then, there would be no problem using silk for purposes such as coverings for the Sefer Torah and the like.
(Based on a shiur by Rav Yissachar Frand)
*****
Parshiyot Vayakhel-Pekudei tell of Benei Yisrael's compliance with the laws presented in Parashat Teruma and Tetzaveh concerning the construction of the Mishkan. Parashat Vayakhel describes the construction of the Mishkan and its appurtenances, and Parashat Pekudei tells of the fashioning of the bigdei kehuna (priestly garments) and the assembly of the Mishkan.
One brief section, however, appears to disrupt the otherwise clear structure of these parshiyot. Parashat Pekudei opens with an accounting of the all the metals donated for the Mishkan. Seemingly, this accounting should have been written before the description of the Mishkan's construction, after all the materials had been collected. Or, perhaps we would have expected to find this listing after the Mishkan's completion. But why would the Torah insert these verses right in the middle of the narrative of the Mishkan's construction?
Rav Amnon Bazak suggested the following explanation. Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel, the Torah tells of Benei Yisrael's generous response to Moshe's request for materials for the Mishkan. Each morning, Benei Yisrael would bring more materials to Moshe (36:3), until finally the craftsmen assigned to build the Mishkan inform Moshe that they had already received more than they needed to complete the work assigned to them. Moshe at that point issued a proclamation requesting that no further materials be donated (36:6). The Torah then emphasizes once again that the craftsmen had received more than they needed for their work (36:7).
Conceivably, the craftsmen began their work as soon as the first materials arrived, and the donations continued to pour in even after work on the Mishkan had gotten underway. This might explain why the accounting is given at the beginning of Parashat Pekudei. It was only after the Mishkan and its keilim were completed, before work began on the bigdei kehuna, that the craftsmen informed Moshe of the surplus and Moshe called an end to the appeal. Only at that point, when it was decided that no more materials were to be accepted, did the craftsmen conduct a detailed accounting of the precious metals they received. These verses appear where they do because at that point the decision was made to refuse accepting more materials, and it was then, therefore, that the accounting was made.
Rav Bazak added that this might explain another peculiar feature of Parashat Pekudei. No fewer than fourteen times in this parasha do we find the expression, "ka'asher tziva Hashem et Moshe" ("as God commanded Moshe"). After the fashioning of each of the bigdei kehuna and after every stage of the Mishkan's final assembly by Moshe, the Torah emphasizes that the work was performed in accordance with God's commands. In Parashat Vayakhel, by contrast, this phrase is not used at all. Perhaps the Torah wished to emphasize that neither the craftsmen nor Moshe made use of the surplus materials. Although they could have used the excess metals for further enhancement, they meticulously followed God's instructions and deviated not one iota from the blueprints they were given. The Torah therefore stresses specifically in Parashat Pekudei that the craftsmen performed their work "ka'asher tziva Hashem et Moshe."
*****
Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel, Moshe reiterates to Benei Yisrael the prohibition against performing melakha (forbidden activity) on Shabbat, singling out in particular the prohibition against making fire on Shabbat (35:2-3). Rashi cites the two views recorded in the Gemara (Shabbat 70a) as to why Moshe makes specific reference to the prohibition against creating fire. One view maintains "hav'ara le-lav yatzat" – this verse establishes an extraordinary rule that unlike all other melakhot, the prohibition against making a fire on Shabbat does not carry with it a death penalty. The other position holds "hav'ara le-chaleik yatzat." Meaning, by specifying one melakha, the Torah indicates that each melakha stands on its own with regard to culpability. Hence, one who inadvertently violates several melakhot on Shabbat must bring a separate korban for each violation.
Among the famous points of dispute between the Karaites and traditional Jews surrounded the practical implications of this verse. The Karaites, who denied the authority of Chazal and our oral, rabbinic tradition, famously held that this verse forbids not only kindling a fire on Shabbat, but also having a fire in one's home on Shabbat. Meaning, according to Karaites, with the onset of Shabbat one must extinguish all fires in his home. This meant that Karaites had to spend the entire Shabbat in the dark and could not eat any hot food. Among the arguments advanced by the Karaites to support their interpretation was the fact that the Torah presents the prohibition against kindling fires in a style similar to its formulation of the general prohibition against melakha on Shabbat ("lo teva'aru"; "lo ta'aseh melakha"). Just as someone involved in melakha on Erev Shabbat must stop once Shabbat arrives, so must a burning flame be extinguished with the onset of Shabbat.
Rav Sa'adya Gaon, who spent much of his life defending authentic Judaism from the Karaitic heresy, penned an entire treatise on this verse, which is called, "Ma'amar Al Ner Shabbat le-Rav Sa'adya." (Ibn Ezra makes reference to this work in his commentary to this verse.) Although we do not have the book in its entirety, segments of the work are cited in numerous manuscripts and were compiled by B. Klar, in his "Mechkarim Ve-iyunim Be-lashon, Be-shira U-ve'sifrut" (Tel-Aviv, 5714). (Rav Menachem Kasher, in his appendices to his Torah Sheleima - vol. 23, appendix 3, cites several passages from this work.) Amidst his discussion, Rav Sa'adya suggests additional reasons, beyond those mentioned in the Gemara, why Moshe here singles out the prohibition against lighting fires. Firstly, Moshe, who immediately following these verses begins instructing Benei Yisrael with regard to the Mishkan, must reiterate the prohibition against lighting fires on Shabbat because fire are allowed to be kindled in the Mishkan on Shabbat. The sacrificial order in the Mishkan/Mikdash overrode the prohibitions of Shabbat, and Moshe thus felt compelled to clarify that this did not mean a general suspension or annulment of the prohibition against lighting fires. Ibn Ezra indeed mentions this reason in his comments to this verse. Secondly, Rav Sa'adya claimed that the very first stages of work required for the Mishkan's construction was the melting down of the metals donated by Benei Yisrael. For good reason, then, Moshe issued a separate warning forbidding the smiths from performing their work on Shabbat. Rav Sa'adya adds that not only was fire used in the initial stages of work, but the majority of the work performed in the Mishkan involved the use of fire. Therefore, as part of his reminder to the people that building the Mishkan did not override the prohibitions of Shabbat, Moshe placed particular emphasis on the prohibition against making fires.
Fascinatingly enough, Rav Sa'adya here claims that for this very reason Chazal instituted the recitation of the berakha over fire on Motza'ei Shabbat. Since the melakhot forbidden on Shabbat are those activities performed during the construction of the Mishkan, and, as mentioned, most of these activities involve the use of fire, we thank the Almighty after Shabbat for once again permitting the use of fire.
An additional explanation, which also appears in Ibn Ezra's commentary, suggests that Moshe specified this prohibition because the use of fire (though not the creation of fire) is permitted on Yom Tov for cooking. Moshe here emphasizes that unlike on Yom Tov, fire may not be used on Shabbat even for cooking.
Finally, Rav Sa'adya contends that this verse actually introduces an obligation to light a fire (what we call "Shabbat candles") on Erev Shabbat to provide light for Shabbat. He interprets the prohibition in this verse against lighting fires on Shabbat as indicating – albeit indirectly – that one must light candles on Erev Shabbat in preparation for Shabbat. In effect, we should read this verse to mean, "Do not light fire on Shabbat – so you must therefore light fire on Erev Shabbat." Thus, according to Rav Sa'adya Gaon, the obligation to light Shabbat candles originates from the Torah itself, and perhaps constitutes a Biblical obligation! (It is generally understood, however, that this obligation was instituted by Chazal, and is not a Torah requirement.)
|
|
|
|
||
|
To see this year's S.A.L.T. selections: |
|
www.vbm-torah.org/salt.htm |
||
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.
Make Jewish learning part of
your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual
Beit Midrash
(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion2002 All rights
reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il