Archive for the ‘23. Pikudei’ Category

Betzalel

כב. וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה

‘And Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehuda, did all that Hashem commanded Moshe.’ (38:22)

The Torah tells us that Bezalel built the Mishkan according to the word of Hashem. Rashi points out that the Pasuk doesn’t say that Bezalel did what Moshe had commanded him to do, rather, he did what Hashem commanded Moshe on Har Sinai. Bezalel had already figured it all out.

Moshe commanded Bezalel to first build the Kelim (vessels/ furnishings) and then build the Mishkan afterwards. Bezalel says to Moshe that the custom of the world is to first build the house and then the furnishings. Moshe responds that he was right and Hashem had commanded him to first build the Mishkan and then the Kalim. Moshe then says ‘B’zal-al’ you were in Hashem’s shadow. (Gem. Brachos 55a)

All the Achronim ask, how could Moshe forget what was supposed to be done first? Moshe had just taught the Torah in its entirety (the day before, Yom Kippur, was the day he came down with the second Luchos and taught Kol Hatorah Kulah to Klal Yisroel except for the Parsha of the Mishkan since the Mishkan couldn’t be done on Yom Kippur) and now he forgets which was supposed to come first?

One could say that Moshe forgot the Halacha, but it would be very difficult to explain that Moshe forgot such a Pashut Din. We can’t say that Hashem never taught Moshe which one to build first because Moshe says clearly, ‘indeed Hashem commanded me to first build the Mishkan’. So what in the world is going on with this Medrash?

The Or Hachayim answers this question back in Parshas Teruma. The Pasuk says, ‘like all that I show you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of its vessels; and so shall you do. They shall make the Aron etc.’ (25:9)

The Or Hachayim explains (using various Medrashim) that Hashem showed Moshe an image of the Mishkan first, and then all of its vessels afterwards. After showing Moshe the overall blueprint He then went on to explain each one individualy starting with the Aron. So it becomes a bit more understandable that  Moshe was a bit confused about which one should come first as Hashem had showed him the Mishkan first, but when showing him how to build everything, he showed him the Aron first.

What did Hashem want to be built first? Moshe wasn’t entirely clear until Bezalel explained the logic of how Man always builds the house first. With Bezalel’s answer Moshe was able to understand what Hashem wanted to be built first and thus Moshe called Bezalel ‘Bzal-al’. (When Moshe said, ‘indeed Hashem commanded me to first build the Mishan’, he meant now I understand that Hashem truly wanted the Mishkan first)

The Levush Haorah explains this episode in a different way. (First he says anyone who says Moshe didn’t know the Pshat is wrong and doesn’t know anything etc.) He says that Bezalel and all Klal Yisroel were confused in how Moshe was teaching them how to build the Mishkan. In Parshas Terumah, which Moshe taught first, Moshe started by saying the vessels are to be built first (25:9). However, in Parshas Vayakel (35:10) he first says that the Mishkan should be built first. All of Klal Yisroel were listening to Moshe and they were confused, which one did he want first?

At that time Bezalel gets up and asks, ‘Moshe which one do you want us to do first, for it makes sense to build the Mishkan first etc’. Moshe then responds by saying that Bezalel is a great Chacham, one who knew the answer before Moshe had told him. Moshe didn’t forget or was confused, he was teaching and before he taught which one was supposed to be built first Bezalel jumped up and answered. Moshe didn’t do it in a confusing way, rather he was telling Klal Yisroel that the Aron was really supposed to be first because the main reason for the existence of the Mishkan was to bring the Shechina down to this world. The Shechina began with the Aron, meaning the Torah. (This is the pashut answer. If you have time I highly recommend seeing the Maskil Ledavid (one of the 11 commentators on Rashi) and the Gur Arye for other explanations on this piece.)

Print/Pdf

Counting Consequences

The parsha begins, “Eleh pekudei hamishkan, mishkan haedus asher pukad al pi Moshe…”. The Medrash refers this pasuk to the pasuk in Mishlei (28:20) “Ish emunos rav brachos”. The Sfas Emes explains that the Ish emunos is Moshe Rabbeinu and what the Medrash is telling us is that although counting something is not a siman brocha when the counting is done by an Ish emunos then brocha will be bestowed on the counted subjects.

The Kli Yakar in the beginning of parshas ki sisa explains the idea behind why one should not count and why counting brings ayin raah. When one counts something he is in essence giving this object its own individual importance, thereby creating additional awareness of it in shamayim. This awakens the debate as to the rights of the object, and all the relevant zechuyos and chovos are judged.

The Sfas Emes this week expounds this idea and with it beautifully explains the Medrash. All the good bestowed upon this world comes from a single higher source and as you distance from the source the good is diminished. From this shoresh hayachid hashmeymi branches out big then smaller and smaller branches, and the smallest furthest branch profits the least from the goodness supplied by those roots. When somebody counts something the individuality and importance that he applies to it separates it further from the source as it now has its own new identity. It is a new branch of its own. Before it was counted it was a part of the bigger branch, closer to the roots. This is why counting usually brings less brocha.

In many places the Sfas Emes explains that the root of the word emunah means connecting the subject back to its real true source. With this the medrash becomes beautifully clear. The medrash is explaining the pasuk as follows. Why does the pasuk mention that the counting was done by Moshe? (more…)

Print/Pdf

As the Lord said to Moses

In Parsha Pikudei, the phrase “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה” appears 18 times, at the end of nearly every set of instructions. It would seem obvious that the construction of the Mishkan would take place as commanded, as the preceding parshiyos make painstakingly clear; so why the additional stress on how the work was carried out?

The Beis Halevi explains that the Mishkan was only required as a tikkun for the Eigel HaZahav (Golden Calf) – it was not required prior to then. If the Mishkan was to restore the status quo, it would have to be the polar opposite of the problem it was intended to solve. The Beis Halevi explains that what caused the Eigel was the people’s own ideas about how best to serve Hashem, and this led them to the conclusion they reached, which was decidedly not as they were commanded. As such, at every suitable juncture, the Torah sees fit to emphasise “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה“, – the reason the people did everything they did was for no reason whatsoever – other than that Hashem had instructed them.

The Ohr HaChayim asks a similar question to the Beis Halevi – the pasuk says “כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה” – rather than the regular “כַּאֲשֶׁר” in the other psukim – in three contexts ie 38:22, 39:42 and 40:16. What is the significance of this specific phrase, that the Torah differentiates between the standard “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה“?

He explains that the people’s spontaneous actions at the Eigel, there were three problematic issues: the thought, speech, and actions, without which the incident would not have occurred. In transgressing just one of the three, a person was responsible for denying the entire Torah, let alone all three. The antidote to the Eigel would have to be a fusion of thought, speech and action together, which the Mishkan was.

If I may be so bold, I would like to suggest a thought I had after learning the Ohr HaChayim’s pshat.

The phrase כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה appears in three contexts – with regard to the planners, the workers, and Moshe:

-וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה – Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moshe (38:22)

-כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל הָעֲבֹדָה – In accordance with all that the Lord had commanded Moshe, so did the children of Israel do all the work. (39:42)

-וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֹתוֹ כֵּן עָשָׂה – Thus Moshe did; according to all that the Lord had commanded him, so he did. (40:16)

I was bothered by the Ohr HaChayim’s explanation that the Mishkan counteracted the thought, speech and action that led to the Eigel. The pasuk would have to reflect it, and it appears not to – all the above psukim simply refer to actions – וַיַּעַשׂ , כֵּן עָשׂוּ , עָשָׂה . This is problematic as how can we explain now that these psukim reflect a counteraction of the components of the Eigel? Where is thought and speech reflected?

The thought behind the Eigel would be atoned for by ignoring the underlying wisdom of the work done (possibly the Beis Halevi’s pshat). The plans and architecture of the Mishkan were drawn up by Bezalel – about whom Chazal attribute the ability to see the construct of the entire creation down to the Aleph-Beis that composes it. He understood the plans of the Mishkan – but he did not do it because he understood it to be correct, he did it because Hashem told Moshe.

The action behind the Eigel can also be counteracted. The wholde idea of Parshas Shekalim, as the Nesivos Shalom explains, is that in donating to the Mishkan (the Machatzis HaShekel, rare metals and precious stones), they collectively bought into the project as a whole, thus atoning for the actions behind the Eigel.

We must now somehow say that the speech that led to the Eigel would be atoned for by Moshe’s speech for this to work. If we analyse the portion of the Torah portion in which 40:16 appears, we will find:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר – And the Lord said to Moshe, to say. (40:1)

בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד – “On the day of the first month, on the first of the month, you shall set up the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting.” (40:2)

This fits beautifully. The speech of the Eigel was the speech that initiated the incident. This is counteracted by Moshe speaking to initiate the construction of the Mishkan!

Print/Pdf

ראש חודש ניסן

This Weeks Parsha

Israel: Bechukosai

Categories