Vol 31.31 - Vayakhel 2                     Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 203   Page204   Page205   Page206   Page207   Page208   Page209   Page210  

Translation:

1. On the verse (Ex. 35:23):

“And every man with whom was found blue wool, and purple wool, and crimson wool, and linen, and goat hair, and ram skins dyed red and Tachash skins, brought them”.

וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני ושש ועזים ועורות אילים מאדמים ועורות תחשים הביאו

Rashi cites the words:

“And every man with whom was found”

and writes:

“Blue wool or purple wool or crimson wool or ram skins or Tachash skins, they all brought them”.

At a cursory glance, it appears that Rashi is explaining that the letter “Vav”

(and purple wool, and crimson wool etc.)

is not a Vav that is adding (ו׳ המוסיף)

(In other words, that only one “with whom was found blue and

1. On the verse (Ex. 35:23):

“And every man with whom was found blue wool, and purple wool, and crimson wool, and linen, and goat hair, and ram skins dyed red and Tachash skins, brought them”.

וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני ושש ועזים ועורות אילים מאדמים ועורות תחשים הביאו

Rashi cites the words:

“And every man with whom was found”

and writes:

“Blue wool or purple wool or crimson wool or ram skins or Tachash skins, they all brought them”.

At a cursory glance, it appears that Rashi is explaining that the letter “Vav”

(and purple wool, and crimson wool etc.)

is not a Vav that is adding (ו׳ המוסיף)

(In other words, that only one “with whom was found blue and purple and crimson wool etc.” –all the things that are listed in the verse – brought (them all). However, one who did not possess all the things in entirety, did not bring (even one of them)).

Rather, the Vav means “Either/Or” (או או קאמר).

Namely, that anyone who possessed either blue or purple or crimson wool etc. – each one of them brought whatever he possessed.

The necessity to explain so is from the words of the verse itself:

“And every man with whom was found (נמצא) with him”

For if one is to say that solely one who possessed all the things brought, the verse should have stated:

“with whom were found” (אשר נמצאו אתו) - in the plural,

which means where one possessed all the things.

However, since it states, “with whom was found” (נמצא) - in the singular –

it is speaking of about each thing independently – blue wool or purple wool or crimson wool etc.

 However, one must understand:

1. What is the supposition, in general, to explain that the intent of the verse is that specifically one who possessed all the things, brought them; whereas one who possessed just a portion of them did not bring?

This is not logical at all. Especially in the simple meaning (of the verse and therefore) of the matter. Namely, that one who wanted to donate just one of the things, would not be permitted to bring it! Therefore, why must Rashi inform us of such a simple matter?

(One cannot say that to further clarify the matter,

“(Rashi) wants .. to explain a thing that does not require explanation”.

For if so “why did he not explain so in (the verse):

“(every generous hearted person brought) bracelets and earrings etc.”

which appears first in Scripture,

”every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects”.

that the intent is “Either/Or”: either bracelets OR earrings OR rings?)

2. Since Rashi elaborates and states (almost) all the species – why does he skip and omit from the verse, two species (words): “and linen and goat-hair”?

2. There are commentators who explain that Rashi is coming to resolve just the continuation of the wording of the verse, that appears to be contradictory:

The verse begins,

“And every man with whom was found”,

in the singular.

Yet it concludes “brought them” (הביאו) - in the plural.

Therefore, Rashi explains that when it states,

“And every man with whom was found” (in the singular)

it is because it is referring to each thing independently.

Namely,

“every man with whom was found blue wool or every man with whom was found purple wool or every man with whom was found crimson wool etc.”.

However, the conclusion of the verse, “they brought them” (in the plural) means that “they all brought” - each and every one of all of them who possessed one kind of these kinds. For this fits the plural wording.

 However, this explanation requires examination for many reasons:

1. That the verse begins in the singular, “And every man” yet ends in the plural, “brought them” (הביאו) is common, and not at all problematic in the simple meaning of the verse.

This is proven from the previous verse,

“Every generous hearted person (in the singular) brought (in the plural)” (כל נדיב לב הביאו)

and it does not write, “all generous hearted people (in the plural) brought (in the plural)” (כל נדיבי לב הביאו)

2. According to this, the main explanation of Rashi is missing. Rashi should have stated,

“Or a man with whom was found purple wool”, and so forth.

3. Even if the Vav would be a Vav that “adds”( ו׳ המוסיף), Rashi could have answered the aforementioned question by writing:

“Every man with whom was found blue wool, and a man with whom is found purple wool etc.– they all brought?

4. The question of why Rashi omits “linen and goat-hair”, has still not been answered?

3. The Sifsei Chachamim here explain the supposition:

Specifically, one who possessed all the things would bring, and whoever did not possess all the things, did not bring. Moreover, the reason that Rashi omits linen and goat-hair is:

“Because we find that these three kinds – blue, purple and crimson wool – all three are constantly in all the works of the Mishkan and in the garments of the Kohen Gadol. So too, the “ram skins dyed red or Tachash skins” – both of them together were used to make the covering of the Ohel (of the Mishkan) as Rashi explains previously in Parshat Terumah.

Because of this, there is a supposition that anyone who possessed specifically all these things brought. Whereas, one who only possessed one kind did not bring, since three were necessary for the work. For one could not make anything from one without the other. However, we find that linen was used in the garments of the lay Kohanim (כהנים הדיוטים) which were made solely from linen, and also the four garments of the Kohen Gadol that he served with, in the inner service (בעבודת פנים) on the day of Yom Kippur, and also in the other services. Moreover, regarding the goat-hair wool that was not used for anything save the coverings of goat-hair - it is simple that they were brought separately. Therefore, Rashi does not cite “linen and goat-hair”, for it is a simple matter that they were brought separately”.

However, one must examine his explanation:

What is the reasoning, according to the simple meaning, that since these things came all together in the work of the Mishkan, and the garments of the priesthood that therefore, their donation must also be together!

Even according to the simple meaning of the verse, we do not find that each of Bnei Yisroel knew all the details of the making of the Mishkan and the garments of the priesthood, and from what materials they were made. Plainly, just the (heads of the) “wise-hearted men” who did the work of the Mishkan knew (before their construction) about this. Therefore, why would this enter the thoughts of the donors – that solely one who possessed all the three kinds (blue, purple and crimson wool) would be able to bring, but not someone who just possessed a part of them?

Moreover, and primarily:

Even according to his explanation, there is no supposition that one must bring all the kinds that are listed in the verse together- only in the case of,

• “these three kinds – blue, purple and crimson wool” OR
• “ram skins dyed red or Tachash skins”

For if so, we are forced to divide the verse into two, and to explain the Vav of “AND ram skins dyed red etc.” that it means “OR ram skins dyed red etc.”

(not like the other Vav’s in the verse).

What place is there for such a supposition? Especially since there is no hint of this in the wording of the verse?

4. One could say the explanation of this, by prefacing another precise wording of this verse, where it states:

“And every man with whom was found etc.” (נמצא)

and not like the preceding verse,

“every generous hearted person” (כל נדיב לב)

Seemingly, one could say:

The donations for the Mishkan came after G-d was appeased toward Yisroel for the making of the Calf.

(So much so, that the Mishkan is called the Mishkan of Testimony (משכן העדות) since “it bears witness for Yisroel that G-d was indulgent to them for the deed of the Calf, for (through the Mishkan) He rested His Shechinah among them”).

Therefore, in those things that the Calf was made from,

(namely, the articles of gold, in general, and especially the ornaments that were made of gold)

the verse emphasizes,

“every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects”

For the giving of these things for the work of the Mishkan was with the giving of the heart – with a special intent and special feeling of the heart, in order to atone for the giving of these things for the making of the Calf.

However, regarding the other materials for the work of the Mishkan, that were not related to the making of the Calf, there was no need to emphasize that they came from the giving of the heart.

Therefore, it states plainly, “And every man with whom was found”.

However, this is not a sufficient explanation:

For although, in the donations for the Mishkan, there were also things that were not given from those species that were used for the Calf. Nevertheless, since in general, the donations for the Mishkan came after G-d was appeased for the making of the Calf, it is logical that even in the giving of the other things for the donation for the Mishkan, there had to be the good-will and the generosity of heart to donate them for the Mishkan. For the aspect of the Mishkan is “that I will dwell among you”, the opposite of their donation for the Calf.

This is as indeed is stated in G-d’s command to Moshe in the beginning of Parshat Terumah (regarding all the thirteen things used for the Mishkan),

“From every man whose heart impels him to generosity”.

If so, why does the verse emphasize, “every generous hearted person” solely regarding the “bracelets and earrings and rings . .all kinds of golden objects” ?

Therefore, one must say that in all the donations, there was the heartfelt giving of Bnei Yisroel. This is explained in the preceding verse:

“Every man whose heart uplifted him came, and everyone whose spirit inspired him to generosity brought the offering of the L-rd etc.”.

Therefore, there is a place to say that generosity of heart is indeed emphasized in the verse regarding the other things:

For just as regarding the gold, it states,

“every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings . . all kinds of golden objects”.

For the bringing of the ornaments etc. and all the gold articles depict extreme heartfelt generosity (נדיבות הלב ביותר).

So too is it with the following verse,

“And every man with whom was found blue wool, and purple wool, and crimson wool etc.”

which are expressed (with an Vav that adds). For the virtue of the donations was in that which anyone who possessed all of these things, brought them all.

In other words, there is no supposition that one who only possessed one of the things should not be able to donate.

Rather, the supposition is that this verse is coming to inform us the magnitude of Yisroel’s generosity for the work of the Mishkan. Namely, that one who possessed all the kinds was not satisfied with bringing one thing, but brought from all.

Therefore, Rashi had to reject this interpretation, and explain that the intent of the verse is not to emphasize that whoever possessed everything in his hand, brought everything. Rather, that it is speaking of “Either/Or”. Whoever possessed blue wool OR purple wool OR crimson wool, they all brought.

(One could say that the superiority of this explanation (that it is speaking of “Either/Or”) is alluded by Rashi in his precise wording at the end of his commentary - "they all brought” (כולם הביאו).

In other words, that according to this explanation, the verse is speaking of the donation of all Yisroel.

(For plainly, after the plunder of Egypt and the Sea, each one of them possessed, at least one of the species)

Whereas, if one says that the verse is speaking solely regarding one who possessed all the species (and brings all of them), one finds that the verse is speaking just regarding a certain number of donors).

One could say, that the generosity of heart in these species was expressed in the special action and effort of Bnei Yisroel, in addition to the very giving and bringing.

For “blue wool” does not mean that they just brought wool separately and dye separately, but rather they brought, "wool dyed in the blood of the Chilazon". The same is regarding the purple and the crimson wool.

Since, not only did they bring these things for the work of the Mishkan, but they also took the trouble to dye the wool in its proper color, etc. - this is proof of their generosity of heart and "their good will" in their donations for the making of the Mishkan.

One could say, that the above matter (the expression of their generosity of heart in the action and effort, etc.) is alluded to in Rashi‘s explanation here, where Rashi omits from the verse the words, “linen and goat-hair”.

For only in these kinds that Rashi lists – the blue, purple and crimson wool, ram skins dyed red and Tachash skins - require special action and effort on the part of the person.

Whereas, in the case of linen (which is flax) and goats (that is, goat’s hair), there is no necessity (in the essential donation to the Mishkan) that there be a special action of the person, other than actually bringing them to the Mishkan.

(For the cutting of the flax and the shearing of the goat-hair are just a necessary preparation in order to enable their being brought to the Mishkan).

Therefore, it is understood that in the bringing of the linen or the goat-hair- each one of them independently - the generosity of heart, of the donor, is not recognizable.

(One cannot explain that the generosity of heart in the bringing of linen and goat-hair is just in the bringing of both of them together. That in this, the good-will, etc. of the donor is recognizable. And this is the reason that Rashi omits linen and goat-hair from listing them with those that certainly are speaking of, “Either/Or”. For this is an extreme innovation and change, and Rashi should have explained it).

5. One could add to this according to Halacha:

In the donation to the Mishkan there is an obligation that it be “for its own sake”/Lishmah (לשמה), as Rashi states:

"Take for Me a Terumah-offering” – “for the sake of My Name".

One must clarify what the law is, in the things that require special action and preparation for the Mishkan,

(similar to the blue and purple and crimson wool etc. that require dyeing, as aforementioned) –

whether even the act of the preparation must also be - Lishmah.

Rashi explains (on the verse, "Take for Me a Terumah-offering”) –

“Terumah means setting aside (הפרשה)- let them set aside for Me, from their possessions a donation”.

In other words, even before giving the donation to the treasurers, there must be a separation of the (owner’s) money to G-d.

According to this, it is probable, that even the act of preparation

(that is necessary in order that the things be worthy to be donated to the Mishkan)

must be, "for My Name's sake".

One could say that this is the reason for the supposition that the words,

“And every man with whom was found blue, purple, or crimson wool etc.”

means that they brought all the species together (and not just some of them or only one type):

If one were to bring only one of these species (which requires a preparatory act as above) - there is a place to say, that he has no trustworthiness (נאמנות) that he dyed the wool - Lishmah.

For it is possible that he already possessed dyed wool, and he did not bother to dye new wool with the intent that it be “Lishmah”.

(Moreover, the actual bringing is not so much of a clear proof that it was “Lishmah”. For since they had vast wealth from the plunder of Egypt and the plunder of the Sea, this small donation was no proof of his desire to trouble himself for the donation to the Mishkan).

Only when one sees a special effort of the donor to participate in the donation to the Mishkan, by bringing all the species "blue wool, and purple wool, and crimson wool etc.” - then he is trusted that he also bothered and dyed the wool - Lishmah.

However, Rashi rejects this in his commentary,

“And every man with whom was found blue wool, purple wool, or crimson wool etc.” –

Namely, that the intent of these verses is not that he brought all the species. Rather that it is speaking of “Either/Or”.

One could say that the proof that the act of preparation (in dyeing the wool etc.) was Lishmah, is from that which each one who possessed these things (even only one of them) brought them to the Mishkan.

Moreover, he brought all that he had from these things.

(Not like the “bracelets and earrings . . all kinds of golden objects”, where it does not say that they brought all the jewelry and gold that they had),

This is sufficient proof that the act of preparation was in a manner of "for My Name".

6. One could say that in this matter, Rashi (in his commentary on Torah) and the Midrash disagree:

It states in the Midrash:

“Yaakov Avinu. . called his sons and said to them, ‘Know that G-d is going to say to your children to make a Mishkan. However, all of its needs should be ready in your hands etc.’. Some of them prepared themselves for these things and some forgot. When Moshe came and made the Mishkan, some brought of their own accord, and some only brought from what they had in their possession. For so it says, “And every man with whom was found blue and purple wool”, and it says, “everyone with whom was found acacia wood”.

The commentators explain that in the two aforementioned verses it is written, “with whom it was found” (אשר נמצא אתו) (in the blue and purple wool and the acacia wood).

The explanation of this is that they possessed this as a prepared keepsake (למשמרת מוכן) from their ancestors.

Which was not so regarding the bracelets and earrings and rings and all kinds of golden objects, and so forth, where it states that it was from the generosity of heart, and from the donor.

(Not that it was prepared from beforehand, from their ancestors).

However, Rashi does not explain " with whom it was found” that is stated regarding the blue and purple wool etc. that it was prepared beforehand, from their ancestors. If so, Rashi maintains that that they themselves prepared and set apart these species to G-d.

One could say that this depends on the scope of the law of “Lishmah”, that was required for a donation to the Mishkan.

One could say that this entails two manners:

1. That it is a law in the act of the person (הגברא), or
2. That it is a thing that is related and dependent upon the object (החפצא) – that it must be made -Lishmah.

This is reflected in the difference between the Midrash and Rashi's commentary:

• According to the Midrash, the obligation of "Lishmah" in the donation to the Mishkan is related to the sanctity of the things from which the Mishkan is made.

In order that there be the, "and I will dwell among you" - within the things in the Mishkan – the things must be ready for their sanctity.

In other words, this pertains to the body of the object of these things, that they be prepared for the work of the Mishkan.

Therefore, the Midrash explains that when it states, “with whom was found blue, or purple wool etc.”, it means that Bnei Yisroel had these things prepared beforehand, for the work of the Mishkan. For those things that needed preparation, had a special commandment from Yaakov Avinu that their needs be ready in their hands, in order that they be certain that the things be done from the beginning "for My Name",

(in other words, even at the time of the act of the preparation),

for the sake of the Mishkan, and then they will be able to be brought to the Mishkan.

• Whereas, according to Rashi’s explanation, the obligation of " for My Name" is a law in the act of the person. For since the making of the Mishkan is connected with the atonement of the sin of the Calf,

(in which it was evident that G-d excused them for the act of the Calf, as aforementioned),

therefore, it required that their donations to G-d be “to Me – for My Name" (the opposite of their giving them for the golden Calf).

Therefore, it is impossible for Rashi to explain that the words, "with whom it was found", mean that these things were already ready as a keepsake from their ancestors.

(For then there is no intent here of the person donating that it is "Lishmah").

Rather it refers to the donors themselves, who prepared and separated these species "Lishmah".

7. According to all the aforementioned, the difference that we find between the men and women in the donation to the Mishkan is apt.

For although even the men also donated to the Mishkan with generosity of heart, nevertheless, they only brought what was required of them. Namely the essential things,

“blue, purple, or crimson wool etc.“

Whereas the women, not only donated more for the work of the Mishkan even more than the men, as it states,

“The men came with the women”.

But more than this, they did not content themselves with bringing the things themselves, but brought they brought “spun yarn” (מטוה)

(For which, they also spun themselves, the blue and the purple and the crimson wool and the linen, and they also “spun the goat's hair").

According to the aforementioned, one can say the reason for this, also according to Halacha:

Regarding the men, it was not possible to permit them to bring the yarn material. For after they sinned with the Calf, they had no complete trustworthiness (נאמנות וודאית) that they would do their work Lishmah. They were able to trust in the wise-hearted that G-d "filled them with wisdom of heart".

Whereas regarding the women - they did not participate in the sin of the Calf. Therefore, there is no place, at all, to doubt regarding their deeds and action that they would not be, "for My Name's sake".

For certainly they possessed an extreme generosity of heart, in all aspects of holiness, and especially in the aspects of the Mishkan, as it was in actuality.

For they did not withhold themselves from any effort, in order that their donations were more elegant. So much so, that because of this, they "spun the goats-hair” – “they spun it while it was still on the animals' backs".

Due to the tremendous generosity of their hearts for the aspects of the Mishkan, they endeavored even with “exceptional skill” in the work of the Mishkan.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Vayakhel- Pekudei 5747