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@AOL.COM


1) Ch. 1, v. 2: "Min ha'b'heimoh min habokor umin hatzone" - Why did Hashem not accept kosher undomesticated animals as korbonos?

2) Ch. 1, v. 5: "V'shochat" - The Holy Zohar on parshas Nosso page 124a writes that "v'shochat" of our verse specifically refers to someone who is not a Kohein, because a Kohein is prohibited from being the one who slaughters the sacrifice. This is most puzzling. Although the gemara Yoma 27a says that only from the receiving of the blood into a pan and onwards of the processing of the sacrifices blood requires a Kohein, nevertheless, a Kohein is not worse than a Yisroel who may do the slaughtering. Why then should there be a restriction on the Kohein?

3) Ch. 1, v. 5: "V'ZORKU es hadom" - What are all the different manners of placing the blood of a sacrifice upon the altar?

4) Ch 1, v. 8: "Hapo'deir" - How is this word to be translated?

5) Ch. 1, v. 9: "V'hiktir haKohein es HAKOL hamizbeicho" - The gemara Chulin 90a that says that we include the horns and the hooves in the requirement of the "complete" burning of the "korban oloh." This is derived from the word "HAKOL" in our verse. If so, how was Avrohom allowed to save the horns of the ram that he sacrificed as a "korban oloh" (Breishis 22:13) for shofros, as mentioned in Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer chapter 31?

Answer to questions on parshios Va'yakheil-P'kudei:


v 1) Ch. 35, v. 3: "Lo s'vaaru aish b'chol moshvoseichem b'yom haShabbos" - Why was the m'lochoh of kindling a fire singled out as a Shabbos restriction since there are 39 different headings of m'lochose which are forbidden?

1) Rabbi Yosi says that this teaches us that the sin of kindling a fire on Shabbos is punishable by lashes only and not by stoning as are other m'lochos (gemara Shabbos 70a)

2) This teaches us that one may not kindle a fire to melt lead on Shabbos which is needed for carrying out the death penalty of "sreifoh." (gemara Sanhedrin 35b)

3) Since lighting a fire from an existing one for food preparation, "ocheil nefesh," is permitted on Yom Tov, the Torah points out that kindling a fire on Shabbos is prohibited. (Rashbam)

4) One might think that kindling a fire is permitted as it is a destruction of the fuel which feeds it. Nevertheless, it is prohibited when it creates an accomplishment in its application. (Sforno)

5) The M.R. Breishis chapter 82 says that Hashem did not create fire during the six days of creation. It was created on the night after Shabbos (gemara P'sochim 54a). Since Hashem did not cease from the m'lochoh of kindling a fire that first Shabbos, one might think that kindling a fire is permitted on Shabbos. (Tiferes Y'honoson)

6) This alludes to one refraining from kindling the fire of argument on Shabbos. This is a day when people refrain from work and have time to socialize. This could lead to heated arguments. (Akeidas Yitzchok)

7) The gemara Shabbos 119b says that where there is desecration of the Shabbos fire wipes out the community. This is taken from Yirmiyohu 17:27, "And if you will not hearken to Me to sanctify the day of Shabbos ...... and I will kindle a fire in her gates which will consume the mansions of Jerusalem and it will not be extinguished." Our verse is alluding to this by saying "Do not cause a fire to be kindled which will consume your homes by desecrating the Shabbos." (Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh and Kli Yokor)

8) This teaches us that one may not kindle a fire in his home but a fire may be kindled in the Beis Hamikdosh for the needs of processing sacrifices (gemara Shabbos 20a). (Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh)

2) Ch. 35, v. 13: "V'eis lechem haponim" - Our verses discuss the components of the Mishkon and not the offerings, as at this point the Mishkon was not functioning. If so, what does the verse mean with "v'eis lechem haponim"?

The Mahari"l Diskin explains that it refers to the bread pans that were in the shape of the "lechem haponim."

3) Ch. 38, v. 8: "B'maros ha'tzovos" - The laver was made of such highly polished copper, that it had the properties of a mirror. The laver was placed in the area between the outer altar and the Sanctuary doorway, but off to the south, beyond the entrance. This positioning allowed women to notice this highly reflective vessel. It served as a reminder that a wayward wife who was suspected of infidelity would be brought to the Mikdosh to be tested by drinking of the water of the laver. (Moshav Z'keinim)

Rashi says that Moshe was reluctant to accept the copper mirrors for such a lofty purpose, since the mirrors had been used by the women to adorn themselves in order to arouse their husbands. Hashem responded that the copper mirrors were very dear to Him, as the women had used the mirrors to beautify themselves in order to revive their husbands' broken spirits in Egypt, and for the spiritual aspect of having children and keeping the Jewish people alive. This is referred to in Shir Hashirim 8:5, "Tachas hatapuach orartich."

Why did Moshe not mind using the women's "kumoz" (35:22), an abdominal plate?

1) Because it was melted down and would not resemble its original form at all. (Moshav Z'keinim)

2) Because it was melted together with numerous other types of metal objects, and was nullified among the rest. (Sifsei Chachomim)

3) Because the "kumoz" was used as a safeguard against unwanted physical relations. (Sifsei Chachomim)

4) The reason Moshe was reluctant to accept the mirrors was not because of their being an object that aroused base desires, but rather, that since they were reflective, one standing at a certain angle would see the activities of the Kohein Godol inside the Mikdosh on Yom Kippur, which would compromise the requirement of the Kohein Godol being alone when he does the service (Vayikroh 16:17). (Moshav Z'keinim)

5) Since the Kohanim wash their hands and feet from the laver in a bent over position with their hands directly over their feet, Moshe was concerned that the mirror property of the copper plates would make it appear as if the Kohanim were bowing down to themselves.

6) There is an opinion that "kumoz" means another type of jewellery completely.


4) 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 (Bmidbar 7:1-8:4) 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?

1) This question is raised in the Shaalos U's'shuvos Chasam Sofer O.Ch. #188 in the name of his Rebbi, Rabbi Noson haKohein Adler zt"l. He answers that there was no problem with storing the vessels even without the Mishkon erected. They may be put into any dwelling. This was so only until they were inaugurated into service by being anointed with the "shemen hamish'choh," the special fragranced oil. The anointing would be done chronologically in the order of the creation of each item. Whatever was created earlier must be anointed earlier. He brings no proof for this point, however. The problem would arise at the time of the Mishkon dedication if the vessels were created first. They would also have to be anointed first, and at that point it would not be allowed to place them into any dwelling, as they would now have their full sanctity. They may only be placed into the Mishkon. However, it would not yet have been anointed and would not be fully sanctified. If he would create the Mishkon first, it would be anointed first and then assembled as a fully functional Sanctuary, and then the vessels would be anointed and have the Mishkon ready and waiting for the vessels to immediately be placed inside it.

2) The Haameik Dovor answers that once the lowest roof-cover, named "mishkon," was created, it was draped over four ordinary poles, and the area below it was sufficiently sanctified to place the vessels under it.

5) 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 parsha. 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 minutiae 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, its vessels, and craft the priestly garments because he was knowledgeable enough of the powers of the letters of the Alef 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."



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