This Week’s Sponsors
Sponsored by
Mrs. Rochelle Dimont and family
on the yahrzeits of
father-in-law and grandfather
Harav Shmuel Elchanan ben Harav Binyomin Dimont a"h
and mother and grandmother
Chaya Feiga bat Harav Chaim Halevi a”h
The Vogel family, on the yahrzeit of uncle
Hirsh Feivish ben Aharon Shimon a”h
In this week’s Parashah, Bnei Yisrael are asked to bring donations, out of which a Mishkan / Tabernacle will be built. R’ Uri Sherki shlita (rabbi and educator in Yerushalayim) writes: Asking Bnei Yisrael to bring donations is the logical and necessary follow-up to the Giving of the Torah. How so?
R’ Sherki explains: Hashem gave the Torah from the Heavens in a very one-sided “ceremony” that left Bnei Yisrael, who craved an interactive relationship with Hashem, feeling left out. Bnei Yisrael may be compared to a child who sees Shabbat preparations taking place all around him, but he has no job to do. Seeing that he is restless, his mother asks him to peel potatoes for the cholent. The mother does not need the child’s help, but to the child, the chance to participate is everything. Indeed, from this week on, peeling potatoes for the cholent will be this child’s special job every Friday.
Similarly, Hashem does not need us, nor does He need any dwelling that we might build for Him. Rather, by commanding us to build Him a Mishkan, He is responding to our need to partner with Him.
Having said that, Hashem’s Presence in the Mishkan was very real. However, that was not the ultimate goal. Rather, as commentaries note, the Torah says (25:8), “They shall make a Sanctuary for Me, and I will dwell among them.” It does not say, “I will dwell in it,” but rather, “among them.” That is the ultimate goal. (Ni’pagesh Ba’parashah)
“Speak to Bnei Yisrael and let them take for Me a portion, from every man whose heart motivates him you shall take My portion.” (25:2)
R’ Mordechai Ilan z”l (1915-1981; Av Bet Din / Chief Justice of the Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court) writes: The primary donation to the Mishkan was not money; it was the donor’s “heart.” If it was not accompanied by a deep understanding of the purpose of the Mishkan, that it was only for Bnei Yisrael’s good, there was no value to a person’s monetary donation. (Mikdash Mordechai)
“They shall make an Aron / Ark of acacia wood, two and half cubits its length, a cubit and a half its width, and a cubit and a half its height. You shall cover it with pure gold, from within and from without you shall cover it, and you shall make on it a gold crown all around.” (25:10-11)
The Aron was made of three layers: a wooden box plated inside and out with pure. The Gemara (Yoma 72b) teaches: “From here we learn that any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside is not a true Torah scholar.” Commentaries explain that a Torah scholar’s outward actions must be matched by sincere thoughts inside.
R’ Pinchas Halevi Ish Horowitz z”l (1731-1805; rabbi of Frankfurt, Germany; author of widely used commentaries on Tractates Ketubot and Kiddushin) asks: But are we not taught, “A person should always study Torah Shelo lishmah / not-for-it-sake, for studying Shelo lishmah leads to Lishmah/ for its sake”? This implies that a person is permitted to study Torah even though his inner thoughts are not yet sincere!
R’ Horowitz explains: There are two types of “Shelo lishmah.” A person should not study Torah for the sake of attaining wealth or honor. However, if a person studies Torah so that he will be recognized as a great scholar, which will, in turn, allow him to teach or influence others, that is permitted. Such a person is engaged in a proper behavior (learning Torah) and his ultimate intention is good (wanting to influence others); only his intermediate intention is not desirable (seeking honor). Nevertheless, the fact that such Shelo lishmah is permitted is alluded to by the design of the Aron--it was gold inside and out, but it included an intervening layer that was not gold.
R’ Horowitz adds: There is another Talmudic statement that legitimizes similar mixed motives. The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 4a) teaches: “If one says, ‘This coin is for Tzedakah so that my sons will live’ or ‘So that I will merit Olam Ha’ba,’ he is a Tzaddik gammur / completely righteous.” R’ Horowitz writes: Although he has an ulterior motive, his statement is an expression of Emunah / faith in G-d, about which we read (Chabakuk 2:4), “The Tzaddik shall live through his Emunah.” Thus, his action is good and his innermost thoughts are good, while an ulterior motive intervenes between them. Nevertheless, he is considered a Tzaddik gammur. (Panim Yafot 25:12)
“You shall make the planks of the Mishkan / Tabernacle of Shittim wood, standing erect.” (26:15)
Why was Shittim wood in particular used in the Mishkan? R’ Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson z”l (1880-1950; Lubavitcher Rebbe) explains:
There are two ways to use the physical world to serve Hashem--one known as “Itkafya,” from the word meaning “to subdue,” and one known as “It’hapcha,” from the word meaning, “to overturn.” As the names imply, Itkafya refers to subduing one’s physical drives and downplaying one’s possessions, while It’hapcha refers to elevating--i.e., overturning or changing the nature of--one’s physical drives and possessions.
The service in the Mishkan, and later the Bet Hamikdash, was in the nature of It’hapcha. In particular, the sacrificial service elevated physical things--animals, flour, and wine--thereby changing them into something spiritual.
The word “Shittim” comes from the root that means “to tilt” or “to cause to turn.” Physical possessions can be “tilted” or “turned” towards fulfilling one’s basest instincts, on the one hand, or towards spiritual ends, on the other hand. In the Mishkan and Mikdash, material things were turned toward a spiritual purpose, as just described. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Mishkan/Mikdash is to bring G-d’s Presence into the world, thus “turning” the “darkness” of this world into “light.” Therefore, the Mishkan was made out of “Shittim” wood.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe adds: The word “Shtut” / “nonsense” or “foolishness” comes from the same root as Shittim and indicates that one has “turned” away from wisdom. Our Sages say (Sanhedrin 106a) that a person does not sin unless a “spirit of Shtut” has entered him. That spirit hides from a person the truth that sinning will distance him from G-d, and that, in turn, allows a person to “turn” toward sin, which would be impossible otherwise. (Ma’amar Bati Le’gani)
Midrash Rabbah teaches that the wood used for the Mishkan was taken from trees that Yaakov Avinu had planted in Egypt. Yaakov, in turn, had taken cuttings from trees that Avraham Avinu had planted in Be’er Sheva. Another Midrash records that the central bar that held up the Mishkan’s planks was made from Yaakov Avinu’s staff.
R’ Zeidel Epstein z”l (1908-2007; Mashgiach Ruchani of Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yaakov Yosef (RJJ) and Yeshiva Torah Ore) asks: Why was it necessary to use objects that the Patriarchs had, in effect, sanctified? Would the Mishkan not be holy enough once Hashem’s Presence rested there?
He answers: These Midrashim are teaching that, indeed, the most significant things in the world are those physical objects that man has sanctified and turned into something spiritual. (He’arot)
Shabbat
The Gemara (Shabbat 118b) teaches: If Bnei Yisrael had only kept the first Shabbat, no nation could ever have ruled over them. We learn this from that which is written (Shmot 16:27), “It happened on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather [Mahn],” and soon after (17:8), “Amalek came.” The Gemara continues: If only the Jewish People would keep two Shabbatot properly, they would immediately be redeemed, as it is written (Yeshayah 56:4), “For so says Hashem to the barren ones who observe My Shabbatot . . . ,” followed by (56:7), “I shall bring them to My holy mountain . . .” [Until here from the Gemara]
The Gemara seems to contradict itself. Is the key to the Jewish People’s security keeping one Shabbat or two Shabbatot? R’ Chaim Hakohen z”l (1585-1655; Aleppo, Syria) explains: If Bnei Yisrael had kept the first Shabbat, they would immediately have merited the Final Redemption. However, because they transgressed the first Shabbat, we now need to observe two consecutive Shabbatot--one to atone for the one that was transgressed, and a second in whose merit the Redemption will occur.
R’ Chaim continues: But was the Shabbat when they went out to collect Mahn the first Shabbat in Jewish history? Do not our Sages teach that the Mitzvah of Shabbat was taught at Marah, Bnei Yisrael’s first stop after the splitting of the Yam Suf?
He answers: Earlier, Bnei Yisrael were taught laws of Shabbat, but only when they were given the Mahn were they told (Shmot 16:23), “Tomorrow is a rest day, a holy Shabbat to Hashem.” Violating Shabbat after being told of its significance demonstrated a lack of Emunah, which is a rejection of the entire Torah. (Tur Pitdah: Introduction to Hil. Shabbat)
Find Other Issues
Hama(ayan(s#39;s archives are being rebuilt. Check back soon.