Chamishoh Mi Yo'dei'a

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

Please send your answers and comments to: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM


1) Ch. 25, v. 2: "V'yikchu li trumoh" - The Torah could have called the donations for the Sanctuary a "n'dovoh," or "hafroshoh," or the like. Why was the term "trumoh" used?

2) Ch. 25, v. 11: "V'osiso OLOV zeir zohov" - And you shall make UPON it a tiara of gold - There is an ornamental crown of gold on the showbread table (verse 24) and the inner golden altar (30:3) as well. However, by these two the Torah says, "v'osiso LO." Why in our verse, by the Holy Ark, does the verse say "olov?"

3) Ch. 26, v. 9: "V'chofalto" - How was this folding done?

4) Ch. 26, v. 24: "El hatabaas ho'echos" - What does "TO the one ring" mean?

5) Ch. 26, v. 29: "V'es hakroshim t'tza'peh zohov" - Before the roof coverings were in place, what was visible on the outside of the "kroshim?"



The Baal Haturim writes that the bnei Yisroel were commanded to take trumoh. Trumoh that is a tithe of produce is usually 1/50th (mishnoh Trumos 4:3). The sanctified area of the Temple Mount was 500 cubits squared, or 250,000 cubits (mishnoh Midos 2:1). The trumoh that was to be taken here was also 1/50th, as the Mishkon would sit in a sanctified area of 100 by 50 cubits (Shmos 27:18), or 5,000 cubits, 1/50th the area of the Temple Mount. As well, the Baal Haturim on the words "v'rochav chamishim bachamishim" (27:18) says that the repetition of the word "chamishim" does not mean that the open space in front of the Mishkon was 50 by 50 cubits, as Rashi says, but rather, that the total area of 100 cubits length by 50 cubits width mentioned in this verse is 1/50th the sanctified area of the future Temple Mount.


Rashi in each of these verses says that the crown represents the symbolic concept of that object, the Holy Ark's crown - the crown of Torah, the showbread table's - the crown of kingship, and the inner altar's, - the crown of priesthood. Since the crown of Torah ascends higher than the other two (Pirkei Ovos 6:6) the Torah uses the word OLOV. (Rabbi Yitzchok Uziel)


1) Rashi says that the front roofing panel is folded downwards as a valance. According to Rashi 1 "amoh" was a Mishkon covering, 1 "amoh" covered the poles in front of the building, and 2 "amos" were a valance.

2) According to Rabbi Avrohom ben hoRambam half the panel, 2 "amos" was a Mishkon covering, 1 "amoh" covered the poles in front of the building, and only 1 "amoh" served as a valance.

3) The Breisa of M'leches haMishkon takes this verse literally, and says that the panel was doubled and sewn down like a hem, and all 4 "amos" of its width served as a valance. Perhaps "v'chofalto" would be translated as "and you should double" according to this opinion.


1) Rashi says that this refers to the square/rectangular rings that were pressed down into grooves cut into the tops of the wall beams. They added sturdiness to the structure and assured that the tops of the beams would be perfectly aligned, not tilting in or out.

2) Although the Rokei'ach agrees with Rashi that there were such rings, he says that "el hatabaas ho'echos" refers to the depth of the rings. They went down to the level of the top ring, "el hatabaas ho'echos" that held the cross beam.


1) The Rokei'ach writes that he heard from his teacher that the gold cladding was not form fitting over the wall beams. Although the cladding hugged the beam on almost all sides, on the side that the cross beam poles' rings went, the gold cladding was distanced from the wooden beams, allowing for space for the rings that held the cross beams in place. This would make the cross beams and rings hidden from view, allowing for a clean smooth look for the wall beams even on the outside. It would seem that there were 2 holes in each gold covering for each cross beam pole, a total of ten holes per beam if we combine this Rokei'ach with the Rashbam who posits that there were 5 parallel rows of exterior crossbeams.

2) Rashi on our verse d.h. "v'tzipiso" clearly states that the cross beam rings were attached to the outside and both the cross beams and the rings were visible. There seems to be no real aesthetic problem with the cross beams and rings showing, as when assembly was complete the goatskin covers of the Mishkon covered them.



See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights

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
Jerusalem, Israel