by Zvi Akiva Fleisher
Back to this week's parsha | Previous Issues
SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS P'KUDEI 5760 BS"D
Ch. 38, v. 21: "Eileh f'kudei haMishkon Mishkan ho'eidus" - Rashi says that the words of our verse allude to the loss of the two Botei Mikdosh, taken as a collateral, a "mashkone," for the sins of the bnei Yisroel in later generations.
The CHI"DO in Nachal K'dumim says that the first Beis Hamikdosh is alluded to in the word "haMishkon" which has the letter Hei as a prefix. This alludes to the first Mikdosh, which had five items that were lacking in the second Beis Hamikdosh. They are:
The Chasam Sofer explains the allusion in a different manner and includes the Mishkon as well. "HaMishkon" refers to the second Beis Hamikdosh. The numeric value of the letters of the word "HaMishkon" equals 415. Add to this the five letters of the word "HaMishkon" and we have a total of 420, the number of years that the second Beis Hamikdosh stood. It is appropriate to arrive at this figure including the count of the number of letters and not self contained in the letters' numeric value alone, which falls short by five, because the second Beis Hamikdosh lacked five items that were present in the first Beis Hamikdosh as mentioned above. The first Beis Hamikdosh is alluded to in the word "mishkan" whose numeric value equals 410, the number of years that the first Beis Hamikdosh stood. The Mishkon is alluded to in the word "ho'eidus" spelled Hei-Ayin-Dalet-Tof, which equals 479, the number of years of the Mishkon's usage. In M'lochim 1:6:1 it is clearly stated that the Beis Hamikdosh was built by King Shlomo 480 years after the exodus from Egypt. The Mishkon was built during the second year of the bnei Yisroel's wandering in the desert, leaving us with 479 years.
Ch. 38, v. 22: "U'V'tzal'eil ...... ossoh KOL asher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe" - Rashi points out that the word KOL indicates that B'tzal'eil did ALL that Hashem commanded Moshe, even that which Moshe did not command him. The gemara Brochos 55a explains that we find that Moshe advised B'tza'leil to craft the vessels of the Mishkon before he told him to build the Mishkon itself. B'tza'leil questioned this order. He asked Moshe if the order should not be switched, to create the vessels before creating the building, so that there would be a building into which the vessels could be placed. Moshe replied in the affirmative, that the Mishkon should indeed be built first.
The Tur Shulchan Oruch O.Ch. #684 brings in the name of the P'sikto that the reason we read the chapters of the N'siim (Bmidbar7:1-8:4) during Chanukah is because the creation of all items needed for the Mishkon was completed on the 25th day of Kisleiv, the first day of Chanukah.
The Ta"Z ad loc s.k. 1 adds that although the completion of the creation of the Mishkon, its vessels, and the priestly garments took place on the 25th of Kisleiv, the actual assembly of the Mishkon took place on the first day of Nison, as mentioned in numerous medroshim. According to the above, even if the vessels were crafted after the creation of the Mishkon components, since the vessels were completed by the 25th of Kisleiv and the Mishkon was not assembled until the next Rosh Chodesh Nison, the vessels were completed and the Mishkon was not assembled, so there still wasn't a building into which the vessels could be placed.
What was accomplished by making the vessels first? I await your answer. An answer will be"H be given next week.
Ch. 38, v. 28: "V'es ho'elef" - The medrash says that Moshe forgot what was done with 1,775 sh'kolim weight of silver. Then his eyes fell upon the silver hooks (vovim) which were used to hang the courtyard curtains. He gave praise for being able to account for the 1,775 sh'kolim weight of silver.
The Daas Z'keinim and the Rosh both say that he had accounted for 15,(000) missing sh'kolim and said a fifteen word prayer of thanks that was incorporated into the Yishtabach prayer, fifteen times the word "boruch" in the Boruch She'omar prayer, and 15 consecutive words starting with the letter Vov in the Emes V'yatziv prayer. I am at a loss in understanding how the number 15 plays a roll, as the verse clearly states that 1775 sh'kolim were used for the hooks, pole caps, and tie-down bands. Any ideas?
Ch. 39, v. 5: "Kaas'sher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe" - This expression appears no less than 18 times in our parsha as pointed out by the Baal Haturim. However, it appears only by the creation of the Kohanim's apparel. Why was this expression not used by the building of the Mishkon and the crafting of its vessels in parshas Va'yakheil?
1) Even though a prophet is believed that he received a prophecy to transgress a negative command of the Torah, this is only true if it is a short term exception, such as with Eliyohu on Mount Carmel. If the prophet says that he received a prophecy from Hashem that a mitzvoh should be transgressed on a regular basis, this may not be believed. Since the materials for the priestly garments contained both linen and wool threads which constitute shaatnez, the Torah points out that the garments were made "kaa'sher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe," specifically because Hashem gave this command through Moshe who was trusted to transmit mitzvos even when they contradict one another, did the bnei Yisroel follow through and create the garments as commanded, even though they contained shaatnez. (Meshech Chochmoh)
2) All components of the Mishkon, its vessels, and the priestly garments had to be created for the intention of being used for the Mishkon and its services. For example, one could not donate an already made sheet of material that happened to fit the requirements for a section of the roof covering. If one created a Shulchon or altar without any specific intention, we assume that it was made for the Mishkon, since there is a prohibition to make a duplicate for mundane use as per the gemara M'nochos 28b. Therefore, one need not state that he is crafting it for the Mishkon, as this is self-understood, as otherwise he would transgress. However, there is no prohibition to duplicate the priestly garments. One must therefore have specific intention to make the garments for the use of the Kohanim. We now understand why the Torah mentioned "Kaas'sher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe" specifically by the creation of the priestly garments, to show that they were specifically created as a fulfillment of Hashem's command to Moshe. (Meshech Chochmoh)
3) The GRI"Z, Rabbi Yitzchok Zeiv haLevi Soloveitchik zt"l raises a question on the term "V'atoh T'ZA'VEH" (27:20). Why is the term "tzivuy" not used in parshas Trumoh regarding the building of the Mishkon and its vessels? Actually this is already raised by the Rashbam who answers that the term "tzivuy" means to command regarding a matter that will apply for further generations, as Rashi points out in the first verse of parshas Tzav. It is mentioned in the gemara Kidushin 29a. He says that the command to build a Mishkon and its vessels only applies as long as there was a Mishkon, but the command to prepare oil for lighting the menorah is permanent.
However, the GRI"Z says that this concept should be applied to a different aspect of the Mishkon. This is the fact that the details of the Mishkon and its vessels are not for all further generations, as the dimensions of the Beis Hamikdosh and its vessels and their numbers changed later. This is in keeping with the interpretation of the Ramban on the words "v'chein taasu" (25:9) meaning to be done with alacrity, and not with Rashi who explains that it means that the Mishkon and its vessels should be copied (to an extent) for all generations. This is not the case with the priestly garments. All the details given by the Torah in their construction are to be adhered to for all generations. Therefore the Torah uses the term "tzivuy" for the creation of the garments in parshas T'za'veh and uses no such term in parshas Trumoh since all matters discussed are not for all further generations. This explains why the words "Kaas'sher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe" is used throughout our parsha since it deals with the priestly garments, and is not used in parshas Va'yakheil which deals with the Mishkon and its vessels.
The GRI"Z answers a difficulty in 39:1 with this concept. The verse says "...... ossu vigdei srod ...... va'yaasu es bigdei hakodesh asher l'Aharon kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe." He asks why the term "asioh" is used twice. Would it not have sufficed to say "ossu vigdei srod ...... v'es bigdei ......"? He answers that the "bigdei srod" were the cloth covers for the Mishkon components, used to house them when travelling. These were only needed in the desert when the bnei Yisroel traveled. In later generations the Mishkon did not travel from place to place, so there was no need for bigdei hasrod. The priestly garments mentioned in the second half of the verse were to be made in all future generations as well. The Torah therefore has to mention an "asioh" of the bigdei hasrod without the term "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe," to indicate that it is not for all future generations, and a separate "asioh" for the garments of the Kohanim with the addendum "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe," for the making of the priestly apparel.
4) Possibly, another approach can answer this question. In parshas T'za'veh the explanation of the Paa'nei'ach Rozo was given for the omission of Moshe's name from the parshas. He says that Moshe lost the opportunity to become a Kohein when he declined to do Hashem's bidding of being the agent to bring the bnei Yisroel out of Egypt. Since he lost the K'hunoh, Hashem left his name out of the parshas which deals in the main with the garments of the Kohanim.
We know that when a person is slighted by a concept he often does not deal with it in its proper capacity. An example is that a mamzeir should not write the verse "Lo yovo mamzeir bikhal Hashem" (Dvorim 23:3). We fear that a mamzeir would not write these words which are so detrimental to him with the fully required intention, "lishmoh."
In spite of Moshe's lofty character development there is a possibility that the bnei Yisroel would fear that when it came to the priestly garments, Moshe might not give over all details and minutia properly, since he had lost the opportunity to wear them and that his name was omitted from the parsha detailing them. In this particular circumstance the bnei Yisroel had a way of checking on Moshe's accuracy. This was through B'tzal'eil. He was picked to build the Mishkon and craft the priestly garments because he was knowledgeable enough of the powers of the letters of the Aleph Beis to be able to recreate the world. The Mishkon was a microcosm of the world, as mentioned in M.R. Breishis 3:9 and in Yalkut Shimoni Shmos remez 419. He was able to use the world as a blueprint from which to craft all that was required for the Mishkon.
The bnei Yisroel had open to themselves the option of checking on Moshe by asking B'tzal'eil the details of making the bigdei K'hunoh. This is what the verse tells us 18 times with the words "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe" regarding the making of the priestly garments. The bnei Yisroel implicitly trusted Moshe and did not check up on him. Instead they crafted the priestly garments "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe."
The point raised by the GRI"Z in 39:1 is actually answered by the three other offerings as well. According to the first insight of the Meshech Chochmoh that the Torah stressed that a command from Hashem to Moshe was needed to override the prohibition of shaatnez, this was not necessary for the bigdei hasrod, which contained no linen. Therefore the Torah mentions an "asioh" without "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe, and for the crafting of the bigdei K'hunoh which contained shaatnez an "asioh" with "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe."
The second explanation of the Meshech Chochmoh was that the crafting of the bigdei K'hunoh needed a specific intention, "lishmoh." Again, the bigdei hasrod did not need this, hence no "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe," and the bigdei K'hunoh did need this intention, hence a separate "asioh" with "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe."
The final offering answers this as well. The bigdei hasrod did not encompass a failing of Moshe, hence there was no need to check up on him for accuracy and no need to mention "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe." Regarding the crafting of the bigdei K'hunoh where there was a fear that the bnei Yisroel would not fully trust Moshe the Torah mentions a separate "asioh" that was "kaasher tzivoh Hashem es Moshe."
Ch. 39, v. 40: "Eis KA'LEI hechotzeir" - The curtains served as a fence around the Mishkan courtyard. The courtyard of the Botei Mikdosh was surrounded by a stone wall, which was called "chomas ho'Azoroh," - the wall of the Mikdosh courtyard. It is therefore most puzzling to find the term "lifnim min haKLO'IM," - inside the CURTAINS, in the mishneh Zvochim 5:3,5, since the mishneh discusses the laws pertaining to the sacrifices of the Beis Hamikdosh. Why does the mishneh use the description of the walls of the Mishkon courtyard? We know that one is to learn Torah, mishneh, and gemara daily. This is the reason for the chapter of "Eizehu m'komon," Z'vochim chapter 5, being inserted in our daily morning prayers, to serve as the mishneh component. The reason for this particular chapter being chosen is that it is the only chapter of mishneh in the whole Talmud which does not contain a disagreement in its text. The Beis Yoseif in his commentary on the Tur Shulchan Oruch
O. Ch. #50 says in the name of the RA"H on the gemara Brochos 32a that the reason there is no argument in this chapter is because the teaching of the matters discussed in this chapter were preserved with much care and the text of Moshe's words were transmitted accurately from generation to generation.
The GR"A says that this is the reason the word KLO'IM is used although the mishneh discusses matters pertaining to the Beis Hamikdosh. In the time of Moshe the fence around the courtyard was made of curtains, not a stone wall, and the sages of the mishneh wanted to preserve Moshe's words exactly as he said them. Please note that there are disagreements with the words of the mishneh, but they are not in the text of the mishneh of this chapter itself. An example is the deadline for eating the Korban Pesach. This seems to go against the words of the RA"H since if there was a tradition that the text of this chapter is the lesson taught by Moshe verbatim, how could anyone disagree. See the Ritv"o on the gemara Avodoh Zoroh 19b for further clarification.
I have a difficulty with the mishneh Makos 3:3 which says that one incurs lashes if he eats sacrifices which have the status of Kodoshei Kodoshim outside the KLO'IM. Why is the word KLO'IM used instead of "chomas ho'Azoroh?" Perhaps it is because the next case of the mishneh is eating Kodoshim Kalim and Maa'seir Sheini outside the CHOMOH, so the mishneh wanted to use different terms to differentiate between the locations. However, the mishneh had the option of saying "chomas ho'Azoroh" and "chomas ho'ir."
Ch. 40, v. 30: "Va'yi'tein SHOMOH mayim" - We find in parshas Ki Siso 30:18 "V'nosato SHOMOH moyim." Why does our verse not say "Va'yi'tein BO mayim," and in Ki Siso why does the verse not say "v'nosato BO moyim?" The Meshech Chochmoh answers that the gemara Z'vochim 22a says that one is not required to sanctify his hands and feet specifically from the laver. One may use any sanctified vessel. The Yerushalmi Yoma 4:5 says that although any sanctified vessel may be used, the location of the washing of the Kohein's hands and feet must take place in the LOCATION of the laver given by the Torah, between the Ohel Mo'eid and the outer altar, off to the south side slightly, so that it is not in front of the eastern opening of the Mikdosh. This explains why the term SHOMOH is used. The water need not come from within the laver, as another vessel may be used, but SHOMOH, washing must take place at the location of the laver.
40:33 "Va'y'chal Moshe es hamlochoh" - The numeric value of these words is 913, which also equals the numeric value of "Breishis." This is in consonance with the Yalkut Shimoni remez #419 and M.R. Breishis 3:9 which both say that the building of the Mishkon parallels the creation of the world.
Answer to last week's question: Which words in Tanach have both male and female components in the same word? "Va'yeichamnoh" in Breishis 30:38 (See Ibn Ezra.) and "Va'yosharnoh" in Shmuel 1:6:12 (See Rashi.)
FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY. FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH.
Back to this week's parsha | Previous Issues
This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to email@example.com