Likkutei Sichot, Vayakhel: A Leader’s Responsibility Likkutei Sichos, Volume 16, Vayakhel 1
Likkutei Sichot, Vayakhel: A Leader’s Responsibility Likkutei Sichos, Volume 16, Vayakhel 1
Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el —
bless the State of Israel,
the initial sprouting of our redemption.
Beit Yisrael International Torah Yomi for everyone who loves Yisrael.
HarHaBayit:
'We failed! We didn't throw of the Mountain: Amalek's descendants and their Israeli friends! The Erev Rav! We must be at war until all terrorists are dead! In and around Eretz Yisrael. The day after, we need to vote for an Elohim fearing Government. Then let us start to Pray and to talk about a new government. Every Jew and non-Jew must accept and respect Jewish Law. Voting's yes, but a new high Court system Jewish Law in all Eretz Yisrael: Including Aza, Yudea and Samaria. So that we may become a real blessing for the whole world as it was in the time of the Kingdom of HaMeleg David. Yes, real Teshuva and Study our Source: The Torah. The Sifri (a treatise on the derivation of Torah law from the exegesis of the verses of Numbers and Deuteronomy, written during the time of the Mishnah by Rav) says, "The Jewish people were commanded three mitzvos upon entering Israel: appointing for them-selves a king, building themselves a Sanctuary and wiping out the descendants of Amalek."
Look Click: https://fb.watch/r0HhSftzj1/
Shemot (Exodus) - Chapter 25
8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst | | חוְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם: |
And they shall make Me a sanctuary: And they shall make in My name a house of sanctity. | | וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ: וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה: |
9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do. | | טכְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אֽוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ: |
according to all that I show you: here, the pattern of the Mishkan. This verse is connected to the verse above it: “And they shall make Me a sanctuary…” according to all that I show you. | | כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אֽוֹתְךָ: כָּאן את תבנית המשכן, הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה מְחֻבָּר לַמִּקְרָא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ: |
Eretz Yisrael in Jewish Scriptures Click:
אבינו בשמים, מבצר סלע וגואל ישראל - לברך את מדינת ישראל, הנבטה הראשונית של גאולתנו. | Our father in Shamayim (Heaven), Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el — bless the State of Israel, the initial sprouting of our redemption. |
תפילה לשלום מדינת ישראל | Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel, by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog
(1948)
Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, | Our father in Shamayim (Heaven), |
הָגֵן עָלֶיהָ בְּאֶבְרַת חַסְדֶּךָ, | Shield her beneath the wings of your lovingkindness; |
חַזֵּק אֶת יְדֵי מְגִנֵּי אֶרֶץ קָדְשֵׁנוּ, | Strengthen the defenders of our Holy Land; |
וְאֶת אַחֵינוּ כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּקָד־נָא | Remember our brethren, the whole house of Yisra’el, |
וְיַחֵד לְבָבֵנוּ לְאַהֲבָה וּלְיִרְאָה אֶת שְׁמֶךָ, | Unite our hearts to love and revere your name, |
The Tefilah l’Shalom Medinat Yisra’el (“Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel”) was composed by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog (1888-1959), edited by Shmuel Yosef (S.Y.) Agnon (1888-1970), and first published in the newspaper Ha-Tsofeh on 20 September 1948.
This prayer was instituted at the time by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Hertzog and Rabbi Ben Tsiyon Meir Ḥai Uziel. According to the custom of the Ashkenazic communities, the time for reciting the prayer was set between the end of the Torah reading and the haftara for the return of the Torah scroll to its place in the Holy Ark. In Sephardic communities, it is customary to recite the prayer at the time of the removal of the Torah scroll from the Holy Ark. (At this point in prayer, it was customary the prayer “Hanoten Tshuah”, blessing the ruler of the state and their immediate family.)
Because the State of Israel is referred to as “the beginning of the sprouting/growth of our redemption,” the prayer was not universally accepted. This expression, and the reservations about the state in general, are some of the reasons why non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews do not recite it in their synagogues. In fact, the recitation of this prayer and, to a lesser extent, the prayer for the safety of IDF soldiers, became one of the main differences between prayer in Ḥaredi synagogues and prayers in National Religious Zionist synagogues in Israel and in the Diaspora.
מי שברך לחיילי צה״ל | Mi sheBerakh for the Welfare of Israel Defense Forces Soldiers, by Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1956); amended by Dr. Alex Sinclair (2012)
Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
מִי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב | May the One who blessed our forefathers Avraham, Yitsḥaq, and Yaaqov, |
יִתֵּן ה׳ אֶת אוֹיְבֵינוּ הַקָּמִים עָלֵינוּ | May Hashem cause the enemies who rise up against us |
הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יִשְׁמֹר וְיַצִּיל אֶת חַיָלֵינוּ | May the blessed Holy One preserve and rescue our soldiers |
יִתֵּן ה׳ לְחַיָלֵינוּ חָכְמָה, בִּינָה וְדַעַת, | May Hashem give our soldiers wisdom, understanding, and insight, |
יַדְבֵּר שׂוֹנְאֵינוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶם | May [Hashem] cause our enemies to submit before our soldiers, |
In recent months, thanks to the combination of cell phone cameras and YouTube, we’ve witnessed Israel Defense Force soldiers acting in deeply troubling ways. We’ve seen soldiers standing by while a civilian shoots live ammunition at Palestinian protesters, we saw Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner assault an unarmed Danish civilian with the butt of a rifle, and, before that, the killing at close range of Mustafa Tamimi, a protester in the Palestinian village Nebi Saleh. Many of these occurrences are regularly reported in Haaretz, but they don’t find their way as often, or as prominently, into other media outlets.
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, in a series of isolated incidents, fail to uphold the IDF code of conduct. More sobering explanations point to a widespread culture in the IDF whereby such conduct is tolerated and routine. Indeed, when the Eisner case was reported, the most shocking aspect of the YouTube video was the utter indifference to Eisner’s act by the six or seven other soldiers milling around. What we saw as a horrific, unforgiveable, outrage, they saw as boring and un-noteworthy.
I was on the receiving end of such an incident last year, while I was observing a non-violent demonstration against the occupation in the West Bank, and got caught up in tear gas that was fired indiscriminately at women, children, and observers. Since then, I’ve found it hard to say the prayer for the IDF that appears in all Israeli prayer books, and which my community, like most synagogues in Israel, reads aloud every Shabbat.
The prayer, written by Rabbi Shlomo Goren in the early years of the state, does not, to my mind, adequately respond to the ethical challenges that IDF soldiers face in exercising power over civilian communities, where things are much more complicated than state-against-state war.
But our response to troubling issues cannot simply to be cease from engagement with the issue. That’s true if the troubling issue is, say, Eishet Ḥayil (the poem traditionally sung by a husband to a wife on Friday night; while parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are also rather sexist); and it is also true if the troubling issue is inappropriate use of force by the IDF.
As engaged Jews who love the Jewish tradition but are troubled by particular aspects of it, my wife and I sing an amended version of Eishet Ḥayil on Friday nights. In doing this, we join countless other Jews who try to develop an active relationship with liturgy that more closely reflects their values.
As engaged Jewish Zionists, the time has come to do the same with the prayer for the IDF. Above is my suggested amendation. The text is the regular version of the prayer as found in the popular Rinat Israel siddur. The middle section is my suggested addition.
The Biblical verse quoted is from the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, where Abraham berates God for seeking to harm innocent people along with the wicked. To my mind, it’s an extremely appropriate analogy to much of what goes on today: there are wicked people out there who seek to harm us, and it’s good that the army protects us from them. But all too often, some soldiers (and some Israelis in general) don’t do enough to distinguish between those who are genuinely evil, and innocent people (including Palestinians, left-wing Israelis, and internationals) who are legitimately protesting the occupation. Amending the prayer for the IDF is one way to raise awareness about that uncomfortable fact, and begin a public, Jewish, Zionist conversation about it.
תְּפִלָּה לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם | Prayer for the Redemption of Israelis Taken Captive [during the war begun on Shemini Atseret 5784], by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi (2023)
Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
אֱלֹהֵינוּ | Our God, |
חַזְּקִי רוּחָם, הָבִיאִי לָהֶם אֶת תְּפִלָּתֵנוּ | Strengthen their spirit and bring them our prayers |
תְּנִי בִּינָה בְּלֵב אוֹיֵב | Implant understanding in the heart of the enemy |
תְּנִי תְּבוּנָה בְּלוֹחֲמֵי צַהַ״ל | Grant wisdom to the Israel Defense Forces |
תֵּן לְכָל בְּנֵי וּבְנוֹת אַבְרָהָם, שָׂרָה וְהַגֵּר | Grant strength of spirit and courage of heart |
יִקְרָאֵנִי | “They shall call upon Me, |
This prayer for the liberation of abducted Israeli citizens and military personnel was offered by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi in response to the war initiated by Hamas from Gaza on Shemini Atseret 5784. The English translation was prepared by Rabbi Dr. Rachel Sabath Beit Halachmi.
Introduction
The sichah that follows is in many ways an archetype for the Rebbe’s approach to the study of Rashi’s commentary. Fundamental to this approach is that Rashi did not merely collect and present commentaries from our Sages on Scripture. Instead, Rashi’s goal was to enable a straightforward understanding of the Scriptural text, answering any questions that a beginning student would have when reading the narrative.1
The Rebbe cites Rashi’s commentary on the verse,2 “The princes brought the shoham stones and the [other precious] stones for mounting in the ephod and the breastplate.” Rashi quotes the words “the princes brought,” and explains it by paraphrasing a teaching of Rabbi Nassan from the Midrash:
What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Altar first, [before the rest of the Jewish people,] when [by contrast] they were not the first to donate for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary?...
The Rebbe analyzes Rashi’s wording, pointing out several problematic aspects. He resolves them with a creative explanation that not only answers the difficulties presented by Rashi’s words, but also provides us with fundamental insights regarding leadership. The significance of the Rebbe’s approach is that he does not use Rashi to communicate an idea of his own, but presents an idea that naturally emerges from Rashi’s explanations.
The Rebbe begins by focusing on the order and wording in Rabbi Nassan’s question, “What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Altar first, [before the rest of the Jewish people,] when [by contrast] they were not the first to donate for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary?”
Rabbi Nassan’s question is not: Why didn’t the princes donate first for the work of constructing the Sanctuary? It is the opposite: Why did they donate first to the dedication of the Altar? In other words, their conduct regarding the donations to the Sanctuary was not outwardly problematic. The question arises regarding their donations to the Altar. In other words, the fact that they did not donate immediately to the Sanctuary did not raise a question. On the contrary, that was the proper approach for a leader.
A leader’s first responsibility is to his people. Only afterwards, should he think about himself and his own individual concerns, even his holy concerns. Therefore, rather than think of making their own donations, the princes encouraged the people to give.
Having established that foundation, the Rebbe explains that the fact that the princes donated first for the dedication of the Altar indicates that their conduct regarding the donations to the Sanctuary was lacking. The construction of the Sanctuary was a matter of all-encompassing importance to all Jews. The princes should not have delayed their donations, because every Jew should have a portion in the donations to the Sanctuary, and more importantly, everything should have been done to enable the Sanctuary to be erected as soon as possible.
This is the delicate tight rope a leader has to walk – to be wholly dedicated to his people and simultaneously, to fulfill his own responsibilities in the most complete way possible. This lesson is relevant to every individual in his efforts to fulfill the leadership roles incumbent upon him in his home, community, and workplace.
Building on the fundamental concept explained above, the Rebbe also clarifies many other points in Rashi’s commentary, delving into all its intricacies.
The Princes’ Donations
Rashi comments on the verse,3 “The princes brought the shoham4 stones and the [other precious] stones for mounting5 in the ephod6 and the breastplate,” by citing the words “the princes brought,” and paraphrasing Rabbi Nassan’s explanation:7
Rabbi Nassan said: What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Altar8 first,9 [before the rest of the Jewish people,] when [by contrast] they were not the first to donate for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary?
This is what the princes said, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and if they leave anything lacking, we will complete it.” Since the community completed [donating] everything, as it is written,10 “And the work was sufficient,” the princes said, “What are we to do?” [Therefore,] they brought the shoham stones, etc. For this reason, they donated first for the dedication of the Altar.11
Since initially they were lax, a letter is missing from their title, and וְהַנְשִׂאִם, “the princes,” is written, [without a yud, instead of וְהַנְשִׂיאִים, with a yud.]12
אאוֹיפְן פָּסוּקא"וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ אֵת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם גו’ ” שׁטֶעלט זיךְ רשׁ"י אוֹיף די ווֶערטֶער "וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ" אוּן אִיז מְפָרֵשׁב: "אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן מָה רָאוּ נְשִׂיאִים לְהִתְנַדֵּב בַּחֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַג בַּתְּחִלָּהד וּבִמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן לֹא הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמְרוּ נְשִׂיאִים יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם אָמְרוּ נְשִׂיאִים מֶה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת הֵבִיאוּ אֶת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם וגו' לְכָךְ הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּחֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תְּחִלָּהה וּלְפִי שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ מִתְּחִלָּה נֶחְסְרָה אוֹת מִשְּׁמָם וְהַנְּשִׂאִם כְּתִיב".
According to a simple understanding, (and as interpreted by the commentaries)13 Rashi is clarifying that – since the Torah mentions the donation of the princes after all the other donations to the Sanctuary – it is accepted as plain fact that the princes made their donations last. However, it cannot be said that their donations are mentioned last only because these items were mentioned last in G‑d’s command to Moshe at the beginning of Parshas Terumah and in Moshe’s command to the Jewish people at the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel.
True, the commandment to donate (the items included in the princes’ donations) – the shoham stones, the other precious stones for mounting, the oil for the light, and the spices for the anointing oil and incense offering – were mentioned after the commandment regarding all the other donations14 for the Sanctuary, at the end of the thirteen materials listed.15 Nevertheless, were this to be the reason that their donations were named last:16
בְּפַשְׁטוּת לֶערְנְט מֶען (ווִי מְפָרְשִׁים זָאגְןו) אַז רַשִׁ"י בַּאווָארְנְט דָא: ווִיבַּאלְד דִי תּוֹרָה דֶערְמָאנְט דִי נִדְבַת הַנְּשִׂיאִים נָאךְ אַלֶע אַנְדֶערֶע נִדְבוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דַארְף מֶען אָננֶעמֶען (בְּפַּשְׁטוּת) אַז דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן זִיךְ מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען דִי לֶעצְטֶע –
מְ'קֶען נִיט זָאגְן, אַז זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה ווֶערְט גֶערֶעכְנְט לְבַסּוֹף נָאר דֶערְפַאר ווַיְיל אַזוֹי אִיז גֶעווֶען דֶער סֵדֶר אִינֶעם צִיווּי פוּן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה (אִין אָנְהוֹיבּ פַּרְשַׁת תְּרוּמָה) אוּן פוּן מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל (אִין אָנְהוֹיבּ פוּן אוּנְזֶער סֶדְרָה) – אַז דֶער צִיווּי אוֹיף דִי נְדָבוֹת פוּן אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם אַבְנֵי מִלּוּאִים שֶׁמֶן לַמָּאוֹר בְּשָׂמִים לְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים (דִי פְּרָטִים פוּן דִי נִדְבוֹת הַנְּשִׂיאִים) שְׁטֵייט נָאכְן צִיווּי אוֹיף אַלֶע אַנְדֶערֶע נְדָבוֹתז (צוּם סוֹף פוּן דִי י"ג דְּבָרִים)ח –
a) The verse beginning, “The princes brought…,” would have had to be stated immediately after the verse beginning,17 “Everyone who donated an offering… brought,” and not after the verses,18 “Every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands …. All the women whose hearts uplifted them…,” which already speak about another subject aside from the items the Jews were commanded to bring.19
b) The question arises, why does the verse highlight the donations of the princes,20 distinguishing them from the donations of the Jewish people as a whole, about which it is written,21 “Every man whose heart uplifted him came….”22
ווָארוּםט אוֹיבּ אַזוֹי: א) הָאט דֶער פָּסוּק "וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ" גֶעדַארְפְט שְׁטֵיין בַּאלְד נָאכְן פָּסוּקי "כָּל מֵרִים תְּרוּמַת . . הֵבִיאוּ" אוּן נִיט נָאךְ דִי פְּסוּקִים "וְכָל אִשָּׁה חַכְמַת לֵב בְּיָדֶיהָ טָווּ גו' וְכָל הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא לִבָּן גו’ ” (ווֶעלְכֶע רֵיידְן שׁוֹין נִיט ווֶעגְן דִי פְּרָטֵי הַנְּדָבוֹת אוֹיף ווֶעלְכֶע סְ'אִיז גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיווּי)יא; ב) פַארְווָאס טֵיילְט דֶער פָּסוּק בִּכְלַל אוֹיס הֲבָאַת הַנְּשִׂיאִיםיב פוּן "וַיָּבֹאוּיג כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ גו’ ”יד?
From this, it is understood that Scripture seeks to emphasize that the princes brought their donations after everyone else.
דֶערְפוּן אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק, אַז דֶער פָּסוּק אִיז אוֹיסְן מַדְגִּישׁ צוּ זַיְין אַז דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן זִיךְ מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען אוּן גֶעבְּרַאכְט זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה לְבַסּוֹף.
However, this is difficult to comprehend according to a straightforward reading of the narrative. How is it that the princes of Israel waited before bringing their donations until after the entire congregation brought theirs? Commenting on this, Rashi explains the princes’ reasoning: They said, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and if they leave anything lacking…,” i.e., this transpired because “they were lax.”
אִיז דָאךְ נִיט מוּבָן (אוֹיךְ) בִּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, ווִי קוּמְט עֶס אַז דִי נְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאבְּן זִיךְ אָפְּגֶעהַאלְטְן מִיט זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה בִּיז נָאךְ דִי נְדָבוֹת פוּן גַאנְצְן צִבּוּר – אוֹיף דֶעם בְּרֶענְגְט רַשִׁ"י, אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעזָאגְט: "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין כו’ ”, דָאס הֵייסְט סְ'אִיז גֶעווֶען "לְפִי שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ".
Questioning Rashi’s Commentary
Selections from Likkutei Sichos - Shemot (SIE)
Nevertheless, the lengthy elaboration in Rashi’s commentary requires clarification. Among the questions that arise are:
במְ'דַארְף אָבֶּער פַארְשְׁטֵיין דִי גְרוֹיסֶע אֲרִיכוּת אִין פִּירוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י:
a) Rashi asks, “What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Altar…?” Of what relevance here is the fact that the princes donated first for the dedication of the Altar? The actual question here is: Why – regarding the donations for the work of constructing the Sanctuary that are described in this verse – didn’t the princes donate first? Seemingly, Rashi should have only quoted part of Rabbi Nassan’s teaching in answer to the question: Why did the princes not donate first for the construction of the Sanctuary?23
א) בְּהַקּוּשְׁיָא "מָה רָאוּ כו’ ” – ווָאס אִיז דָא נוֹגֵעַ אַז בַּא חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הָאבְּן זֵיי זִיךְ מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען "בַּתְּחִלָּה" – דִי קַשְׁיָא דָא אִיז פַארְווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ בַּיי מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן (אִין דֶעם פָּסוּק) נִיט מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען בַּתְּחִלָּה – הָאט רַשִׁ"י גֶעדַארְפְט בְּרֵיינְגֶען פוּן רַבִּי נָתָן'ס רֵייד נָאר נְשִׂיאִים "לָמָּה לֹא הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה כו’ ”טו?
b) When answering his question, why was it necessary for Rashi to elaborate on the rationale given by the princes, “Let the community donate…”? Seemingly, Rashi should have stated concisely that the reason was “because they were lax.”
ב) בְּהַתִּירוּץ וּבִיאוּר: ווָאס אִיז נוֹגֵעַ דָא דִי אֲרִיכוּת הַהַסְבָּרָה פוּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר וכו’ ”? לִכְאוֹרָה הָאט רַשִׁ"י גֶעדַארְפְט בַּאווָארֶענֶען אוּן אוֹיסְפִירְן בְּקִיצּוּר, אַז דֶער טַעַם אִיז "לְפִי שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ".
c) The essence of the narrative requires explanation: How is it possible to say that the entire reason Scripture singles out the donations of the princes – listing them after all the donations given for the Sanctuary, including the women spinning the goats’ hair – is only to let us know that the princes “were lax”? That runs contrary to the general rule,24 “Scripture does not speak negatively even about an impure animal.”
ג) בְּעֶצֶם הָעִנְיָן: ווִי אִיז שַׁיָיךְ זָאגן אַז דֶער גַאנְצֶער טַעַם ווָאס דֶער פָּסוּק טֵיילְט אוֹיס דִי נִדְבוֹת הַנְּשִׂיאִים, רֶעכֶענֶענְדִיק זֵיי נָאךְ אַלֶע נְדָבוֹת, אוֹיךְ נָאךְ טְוִיַּת הַנָּשִׁים, אִיז בִּכְדֵי צוּ לָאזְן ווִיסְן אַז "נִתְעַצְּלוּ"! סְ'אִיז דָאךְ אֲפִילוּ "בִּגְנוּת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לֹא דִבֶּר הַכָּתוּב"טז.
Further Questions Regarding Rashi’s Commentary
There are other specific points in Rashi’s commentary that require explanation. Among them:
גאוֹיךְ זַיְינֶען דָא כַּמָּה דִיּוּקִים אִין פִּירוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וּמֵהֶן:
a) Seemingly, Rashi’s statements are self-contradictory. From his statement, “Since the community completed [donating] everything, as it is written, ‘And the work was sufficient,’ ” it is evident that the community brought everything that was necessary for the work of the Sanctuary. How can that be reconciled with the fact that, in practice, they were still lacking “the shoham stones and [other precious] stones for [mounting] in the ephod and the breastplate, the spices and the oil [that were used] for illumination, the anointing oil, and for the incense offering”?
א) סְ'אִיז אַ סְתִירָה מִנֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ: פוּן דֶעם ווָאס רַשִׁ"י זָאגְט "כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם" אִיז קְלָאר, אַז דֶער צִבּוּר הָאט גֶעבְּרַאכְט אַלְץ ווָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען נוֹיטִיק פַאר מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן – הַיְינְט ווִי שְׁטִימְט עֶס מִיט דֶעם ווָאס לְפוֹעֵל הָאבְּן נָאךְ גֶעפֶעלְט דִי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם וְאַבְנֵי מִלּוּאִים לָאֵפוֹד וְלַחֹשֶׁן, הַבֹּשֶׂם, שֶׁמֶן לַמָּאוֹר וּלְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים? – וּמִזֶּה
b) Since “the community completed [donating] everything,” and they made their donations with extensive generosity, as the Torah attests,25 “The people are bringing very much…. And the work was sufficient…. There were [donations] left over,” why didn’t they also bring those items that the princes had to supplement?26
ב) ווִיבַּאלְד אַז "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל" אוּן זֵיי הָאבְּן עֶס גֶעבְּרַאכְט מִיט אַזַא נַדְבוּת הַלֵּב, ווִי דֶער פָּסוּק אִיז מֵעִידיז "מַרְבִּים הָעָם לְהָבִיא גו' דַיָּם גו' וְהוֹתֵר" – אִיז פַארְווָאס הָאבְּן זֵיי נִיט גֶעבְּרַאכְט אוֹיךְ דִי נְדָבוֹת ווָאס דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן גֶעדַארְפְט מַשְׁלִים זַיְיןיח?
c) Conversely, why did the princes regret that there was nothing for them to do and, for that reason, they donated first for the dedication of the Altar? On the contrary, they brought several items that were of fundamental importance for the Sanctuary and for the priestly garments.27
ג) וּלְאִידָךְ: פַארְווָאס הָאבְּן זִיךְ דִי נְשִׂיאִים מִצְטַעֵר גֶעווֶען "מֶה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת" אוּן צוּלִיבּ דֶעם הָאבְּן זֵיי בַּחֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען בַּתְּחִלָּה – זֵיי הָאבְּן דָאךְ לְפוֹעֵל גֶעבְּרַאכְט כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה עִנְיָנִים עִיקְרִיִּים פַאר דֶעם מִשְׁכָּן אוּן פַאר דִי בִּגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּהיט?
d) What does Rashi add by saying, “Let the community donate what they will donate”? Seemingly, it would have been sufficient for Rashi to say, “The princes said, ‘If they leave anything lacking, we will complete it.’ ”
ד) ווָאס גִיט צוּ דֶער לָשׁוֹן אִין רַשִׁ"י "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין" – עֶס ווָאלְט גֶעווֶען גֶענוּג ווֶען רַשִׁ"י זָאגְט "אָמְרוּ נְשִׂיאִים מַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין יִשְׂרָאֵל אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ"?
e) What is underscored by the words, “if they leave anything lacking”? The implication is that, by not bringing those items, there would be an inadequacy in what the Jews did, that there was something else they should have done. Seemingly, the princes should have said, “what they will not bring,” or the like. In particular, this is true because the term “bringing” is the language used by Scripture regarding the donations that were brought.
ה) ווָאס אִיז דִי הַדְגָּשָׁה "וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין כו’ ” (ווָאס מֵיינְט, אַז אִידְן ווֶעלְן מַאכְן חָסֵר, אַ חִסָּרוֹן אִין אַן עִנְיָן ווָאס זֵיי דַארְפְן טָאן) – מֶען הָאט גֶעדַארְפְט זָאגְן "וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ כו’ ” וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה (וּבִפְרַט – אַז דָאס אִיז לְשׁוֹן הַכָּתוּב)?
f) Why did the princes use the expression, “What are we to do?” The words “to do” seem out of place. Seemingly, they should have said, “What are we to bring?”28 or the like.
ו) פַארְווָאס זָאגְן זֵיי "מֶה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת" (ווִי פַּאסְט דָא דֶער לָשׁוֹן "לַעֲשׂוֹת"?) אוּן נִיט "מֶה עָלֵינוּ לְהָבִיא"כ (וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה)?
g) Why does Rashi mention the name of the Sage who authored this teaching, Rabbi Nassan? As previously noted many times, Rashi only cites the name of the author of a teaching when doing so resolves a difficulty in interpretation of the verses or in Rashi’s commentary that would occur to an advanced student.29
ז) פַארְווָאס בְּרֶענְגְט רַשִׁ"י דֶעם נָאמֶען פוּן בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר – רַבִּי נָתָן? ווָארוּם, כִּמְדוּבָּר כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים, אִיז רַשִׁ"י מַעְתִּיק דֶעם שֵׁם פוּן בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר נָאר דַאמָאלְס ווֶען דוּרְךְ דֶעם ווֶערְט פַארְעֶנְטְפֶערְט אַ שְׁווֶערִיקַיְיט ווָאס קֶען נִתְעוֹרֵר ווֶערְן בַּא אַ תַּלְמִיד מְמוּלָּח אִין פִּירוּשׁ הַכְּתוּבִים, אָדֶער אִין דֶעם פִּירוּשׁ פוּן רַשִׁ"יכא.
The Key to the Resolution
The above can be resolved by first explaining the precision of the order and wording in Rabbi Nassan’s question, “What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Altar first, [before the rest of the Jewish people,] when [by contrast] they were not the first to donate for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary?” Rabbi Nassan’s question is not: Why didn’t the princes donate first for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary? It is the opposite: Why did they donate first to the dedication of the Altar? This is also evident from the wording of Rabbi Nassan’s answer, “For this reason, they donated first for the dedication of the Altar.” What stood out as unique was the fact that they donated first for the dedication of the Altar.
דווֶעט עֶס זַיְין פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק בְּהֶקְדֵּם הַבִּיאוּר אִין דִּיּוּק הַסֵּדֶר וְהַלָּשׁוֹן פוּן שַׁאֲלַת רַבִּי נָתָן – "מָה רָאוּ נְשִׂיאִים לְהִתְנַדֵּב בַּחֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבִמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן לֹא הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה": דִי קַשְׁיָא אִיז נִיט פַארְווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ נִיט מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען בַּיי מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן בַּתְּחִלָּה, נָאר פַארְקֶערְט: פַארְווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ יָא מִתְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּיי חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ [ווִי סְ'אִיז אוֹיךְ מוּבָן פוּן דֶעם לְשׁוֹן הַתִּירוּץ פוּן רַבִּי נָתָן – "לְכָךְ הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּחֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תְּחִלָּה" – דֶער חִידּוּשׁ אִיז אִין זֵייעֶר הִתְנַדְּבוּת בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּיי חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ].
This is very problematic:
a) Why does the fact that they donated first for the dedication of the Altar raise a question? Since they were the princes and the leaders of the Jewish people, seemingly that is what they should have done.
אִיז תָּמוּהַּ בְּיוֹתֵר: (א) ווָאס פַאר אַ קַשְׁיָא אִיז דָא אִין דֶעם ווָאס (בַּיי חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ) "הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה" – זַיְיעֶנְדִיק דִי נְשִׂיאֵי (רָאשֵׁי) יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאט דָאךְ אַזוֹי גֶעדַארְפְט זַיְין!
b) Conversely, if the order they followed in donating for the dedication of the Altar was problematic, but the order they followed in donating for the Sanctuary is understood, then Rashi should have raised this question only in Parshas Naso and not (also) in Parshas Vayakhel with regard to the donations for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary?
(ב) לְאִידָךְ, אוֹיבּ דִי קַשְׁיָא אִיז אוֹיפְן סֵדֶר פוּן נִדְבַת חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אָבֶּער דֶער סֵדֶר פוּן נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אִיז מוּבָן – הָאט דָאךְ רַשִׁ"י נִיט גֶעדַארְפְט בְּרֶענְגֶען דִי קַשְׁיָא (אוֹיךְ) אִין אוּנְזֶער פַּרְשָׁה בַּיי מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, נָאר בְּלוֹיז אִין פַּרְשַׁת נָשֹׂא?
In fact, these two questions answer each other: Rashi’s intent in raising the question, “What prompted the princes…?” was not to explain that the reason the princes brought their donation last was as a result of a lax attitude, but the opposite. He sought to explain this verse, and by doing so, to clarify that the princes’ conduct in bringing the donation last was proper. On the contrary, the real question is: Why did they bring their donations for the dedication of the Altar first? By quoting Rabbi Nassan’s question, “What prompted the princes…?” on this verse, Rashi was not questioning the princes’ conduct in Parshas Naso, but rather explaining and clarifying the verse here.
אִיז דֶער בִּיאוּר בְּזֶה – אַז הִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: מִיט זַיְין בְּרֶענְגֶען (אוֹיךְ) דָא דִי קַשְׁיָא "מָה רָאוּ נְשִׂיאִים כו’ ” אִיז רַשִׁ"י אוֹיסְן (נִיט צוּ פַארְעֶנְטְפֶערְן אַז דָאס ווָאס דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן גֶעבְּרַאכְט זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה לְבַסּוֹף אִיז גֶעווֶען מֵחֲמַת עַצְלוּת, נָאר פַארְקֶערְט –) צוּ מַסְבִּיר זַיְין אִין דֶעם פָּסוּק דָא, אַז דָאס ווָאס דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן גֶעבְּרַאכְט זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה לְבַסּוֹף אִיז דֶער רִיכְטִיקֶער סֵדֶר הַנְהָגָה; וְאַדְּרַבָּה: דִי קַשְׁיָא אִיז גָאר פַארְווָאס בַּיי חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הָאבְּן זֵיי יָא גֶעבְּרַאכְט בַּתְּחִלָּה. אִין אַנְדֶערֶע ווֶערְטֶער: דָאס ווָאס רַשִׁ"י זָאגְט דָא "אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן מָה רָאוּ נְשִׂיאִים כו’ ” בְּרֶענְגְט עֶר נִיט אַלְס קַשְׁיָא (אִין פָּסוּק פוּן פַּרְשַׁת נָשֹׂא), נָאר צוּ מַסְבִּיר זַיְין דֶעם תִּירוּץ וּבִיאוּר אִין דֶעם פָּסוּק דָא.
A Leader’s First Priority
Why was it necessary for the princes to bring their donation for the Sanctuary last? Rashi answers in a straightforward manner, “This is what the princes said, ‘Let the community donate what they will donate, and if they leave anything lacking, we will complete it.’ ” With that explanation, he clarifies the responsibility of a leader. The role of a Jewish leader is first and foremost to ensure that the Jews do what is asked of them. Only afterwards, should he think about himself and his own individual concerns, even his holy concerns.
הפַארְווָאס דַארְפְן דִי נְשִׂיאִים בְּרֶענְגֶען זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה לְבַסּוֹף – זָאגְט רַשִׁ"י: "אָמְרוּ נְשִׂיאִים יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ": דֶער תַּפְקִיד פוּן אַ נָשִׂיא אִיז, אַז צוּם אַלֶעם עֶרְשְׁטְן דַארְף עֶר זִיךְ מִשְׁתַּדֵּל זַיְין אַז אִידְן זָאלְן טָאן דָאס ווָאס זֵיי דַארְפְן טָאן, אוּן עֶרְשְׁט דֶערְנָאךְ טְרַאכְטְן ווֶעגְן זִיךְ אוּן זַיְינֶע עִנְיָנִים;
This approach is reflected in a previous commentary by Rashi. On the verse,30 “Moshe descended from the mountain to the people,” Rashi comments, “This teaches that Moshe did not focus on his own concerns. Instead, [he went] from the mountain to the people.” On the surface, this seems problematic: What is Rashi teaching by saying that Moshe immediately conveyed the mission with which G‑d had charged him to the Jewish people and he did not first focus on his own concerns? Seemingly, that is a given. However, the unique point in saying that Moshe did not focus on his own concerns is not only that he did not occupy himself with his physical needs, but also that he did not pay attention to his own concerns with regard to that very mission, to prepare himself for the Giving of the Torah, and, particularly, that he should be fit to be the one who “received the Torah at Sinai”31 on behalf of the nation.
אוּן ווִי רַשִׁ"י הָאט שׁוֹין פְרִיעֶר מְפָרֵשׁ גֶעווֶען אוֹיפְן פָּסוּקכב "וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן הָהָר אֶל הָעָם" – "מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֹשֶׁה פּוֹנֶה לַעֲסָקָיו אֶלָּא מִן הָהָר אֶל הָעָם" – ווָאס לִכְאוֹרָה אִיז נִיט מוּבָן: מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לָן, אַז מֹשֶׁה הָאט גְלַיְיךְ אִיבֶּערְגֶעגֶעבְּן דִי שְׁלִיחוּת פוּן אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן צוּ אִידְן אוּן נִיט פּוֹנֶה גֶעווֶען פְרִיעֶר צוּ זַיְינֶע אֵייגֶענֶע עֲסָקִים? – נָאר דֶער עִנְיָן וְחִידּוּשׁ אִיז, "לֹא הָיָה פּוֹנֶה לַעֲסָקָיו" [מֵיינְט נִיט (נָאר) צוּ זַיְינֶע צָרְכֵי הַגּוּף וכו', נָאר אוֹיךְ] צוּ זַיְינֶע עֲסָקִים אִין דֶעם עִנְיָן וּשְׁלִיחוּת גּוּפָא – זַיְינֶע הֲכָנוֹת צוּ מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, כּוֹלֵל אוֹיךְ (וּבִפְרַט) צוּ זַיְין רָאוּי צוּ "מֹשֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי";
Despite that awesome personal responsibility, the pattern he followed as a leader of the Jews was first to concern himself with the needs of others – to convey to the Jewish people the mission G‑d gave them and see to it that they carried it out. Only afterwards did he begin thinking about his own spiritual concerns regarding his personal relationship with G‑d, including his own preparations for the Giving of the Torah.
אוּן פוּנְדֶעסְטְווֶעגְן אִיז זַיְין סֵדֶר [זַיְיעֶנְדִיק נָשִׂיא בַּיי אִידְן, אַז צוּם אַלֶעם עֶרְשְׁטְן קוּמֶען דִי צְרָכִים פוּן אִידְן], אִיבֶּערְגֶעבְּן אִידְן דִי שְׁלִיחוּת פוּן אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן אוּן זֶעעֶן אַז זֵיי זָאלְן דָאס אוֹיסְפִירְן, אוּן עֶרְשְׁט דֶערְנָאךְ טְרַאכְטְן ווֶעגְן זַיְינֶע רוּחְנִיּוּת'דִיקֶע "עֲסָקִים" בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כּוֹלֵל זַיְינֶע הֲכָנוֹת צוּ מַתַּן תּוֹרָה.
Similar concepts apply regarding the matter at hand. The first responsibility of the princes was to ensure that “the community donate,” i.e., that the Jews donate as much as they could. Therefore, they said, “If they leave anything lacking, we will complete it,” and not “what they will not bring” or the like. As princes of the Jewish people, their responsibility was to demand that the Jews donate everything they possibly could that was necessary for the Sanctuary.
Therefore, what was germane was not “what they will not bring,” implying that the Jews might fail to bring these items. If the people could bring what was needed, the princes would ensure that they actually brought them. Instead, what concerned the princes was if there would be anything “lacking,” i.e., if there would be items that the Jews had caused themselves to lack. True, as Rashi previously stated,32 because of what they took from the spoils of Egypt and the spoils they took after the splitting of the Sea of Reeds,the Jews certainly had possessed all the materials needed for the Sanctuary and they had the desire and generosity of heart to bring them for the Sanctuary. However, perhaps the Jews would be unable to donate them because they had already previously used these items33 for purposes associated with a mitzvah, and particularly a mitzvah associated with a specific and passing timeframe. Therefore, if they would be lacking these items, the princes would complete that lack.
וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה בְּנִדּוֹן דִּידַן: דֶער עֶרְשְׁטֶער תַּפְקִיד פוּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים אִיז גֶעווֶען צוּ זָארְגְן אַז "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר וכו’ ” – אַז אִידְן זָאלְן מְנַדֵּב זַיְין ווִיפִיל זֵיי קֶענֶען; אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער הָאבְּן זֵיי גֶעזָאגְט "וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ" – נִיט "וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ" וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה – ווַיְיל מִצַּד זֵייעֶר תַּפְקִיד אַלְס נְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאבְּן זֵיי גֶעמָאנְט אַז אִידְן זָאלְן בְּרֶענְגֶען לְנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אַלְץ ווָאס אִיז בִּיכוֹלְתָּם. וּבְמֵילָא אִיז אִין דֶערוֹיף נִיט שַׁיָיךְ אַן עִנְיָן פוּן "מַה שֶּׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ" (ווָאס מֵיינְט אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן עֶס נָאר עֶס פֶעלְט דֶער בְּרֶענְגֶען, ווַיְיל אוֹיבּ נָאר זֵיי ווֶעלְן הָאבְּן בִּיכוֹלֶת – ווֶעלְן דִי נְשִׂיאִים זֶעעֶן אַז זֵיי זָאלְן עֶס בְּרֶענְגֶען), נָאר עֶס קֶען זַיְין אַ מְצִיאוּת פוּן "וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין כו’ ” – דָאס ווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעמַאכְט פֶעלְן בַּא זִיךְ – (חָאטשׁ זֵיי הָאבְּן אַלֶעס פְרִיעֶר זִיכֶער גֶעהַאט פוּן בִּזַּת מִצְרַיִם אוּן בִּזַּת הַיָּם, ווִי רַשִׁ"י הָאט שׁוֹין פְרִיעֶרכג גֶעבְּרַאכְט, זֵיי הָאבְּן דֶעם רָצוֹן אוּן נִדְבַת הַלֵּב צוּ בְּרֶענְגֶען, נָאר זֵיי קֶענֶען עֶס נִיט בְּרֶענְגֶען ווַיְיל זֵיי הָאבְּן עֶס אוֹיסְגֶענוּצְט פְרִיעֶרכג* (לְצָרְכֵי מִצְוָה, וּבִפְרַט – שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא וְעוֹבֶרֶת), גֶעמַאכְט פֶעלְן בַּא זִיךְ) – דַאן אִיז "אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ".
The above clarifies Rashi’s wording, “Since the community completed [donating] everything…, the princes said, ‘What are we to do?’ ” and not “What are we to bring?” This refers not only to the donations for the Sanctuary, but primarily to the princes’ role as leaders. Since “the community completed [donating] everything…,” i.e., the Jews brought everything they could possibly bring, the princes said, “What are we to do?” i.e., What further responsibility do we have as leaders, since they have already carried out their mission regarding this task?
עַל פִּי זֶה אִיז אוֹיךְ מְבוּאָר לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י "(כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל כו') אָמְרוּ נְשִׂיאִים מֶה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת" (אוּן נִיט "לְהָבִיא"): דָאס בַּאצִיט זִיךְ [נִיט נָאר צוּ נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, נָאר בְּעִיקָר] צוּ זֵייעֶר תַּפְקִיד אַלְס נְשִׂיאִים: ווִיבַּאלְד אַז "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל", אִידְן הָאבְּן מַשְׁלִים גֶעווֶען צוּ בְּרֶענְגֶען אַלְץ ווָאס אִיז בִּיכוֹלְתָּם, הָאבְּן זֵיי גֶעזָאגְט "מֶה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת" – ווָאס לִיגְט אוֹיף אוּנְז צוּ טָאן אַלְס נְשִׂיאִים, ווִיבַּאלְד זֵיי הָאבְּן שׁוֹין אוֹיסְגֶעפִירְט (אִין דֶעם עִנְיָן) זֵייעֶר תַּפְקִיד;
Only then did they begin thinking about their personal participation in the donations for the Sanctuary. As a result, “They brought the shoham stones….”
אוּן דַאן עֶרְשְׁט הָאבְּן זֵיי אָנְגֶעהוֹיבְּן טְרַאכְטְן ווֶעגְן זֵייעֶר הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת בְּנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן – "הֵבִיאוּ אֶת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם כו’ ”.
When Eagerness Is Necessary
Although on the surface this was an appropriate course of behavior for leaders, in actual fact, something was lacking; they themselves had not donated to the Sanctuary with the appropriate eagerness. The princes thus realized that their delay in bringing their own donations to the Sanctuary until the end was not entirely desirable and fitting. On the contrary, there was a certain laxity involved. Therefore, to correct this, they donated first to the dedication of the Altar.
וטְרָאץ דֶעם ווָאס דָאס אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה גֶעווֶען דֶער רִיכְטִיקֶער סֵדֶר הַהַנְהָגָה פוּן נְשִׂיאִים – אִיז אָבֶּער לְפוֹעֵל בַּנּוֹגֵעַ צוּ זֵיי אַלֵיין אַרוֹיסְגֶעקוּמֶען אַ חִסָּרוֹן; אוּן דֶערְפוּן הָאבְּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים פַארְשְׁטַאנֶען אַז דָאס ווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעווַארְט מִיט זֵייעֶר נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן בִּיזְן סוֹף אִיז גֶעווֶען נִיט אִינְגַאנְצְן כִּדְבָעֵי, נָאר סְ'אִיז אִין דֶעם גֶעווֶען אַרַיְינְגֶעמִישְׁט אַן עִנְיָן פוּן "שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ" – אוּן "לְכָךְ (כְּדֵי דָאס צוּ מְתַקֵּן זַיְין) הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּחֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תְּחִלָּה".
What was lacking in their attitude to the donations to the Sanctuary? Rashi answers this by saying, “The community completed [donating] everything, as it is written: ‘And the work was sufficient.’ ” Since the community donated everything necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary, the donations of the princes were not entirely necessary, as will be explained below.
אִין ווָאס אִיז בַּאשְׁטַאנֶען דֶער חִסָּרוֹן – אִיז עֶס רַשִׁ"י מַדְגִּישׁ וּמַסְבִּיר מִיטְן זָאגְן "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם", אַז דֶער צִבּוּר הָאט מַשְׁלִים גֶעווֶען אַלְץ ווָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען נוֹיטִיק פַאר דֶער מְלָאכָה (פוּן מִשְׁכָּן), דַּיָּם אוֹיף אַ גֶענוּגְנְדִיקְן אוֹפֶן, אַזוֹי, אַז דִי נְדָבָה פוּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען מוּכְרָח, כְּדִלְקַמָּן.
Since the princes saw that “the community completed [donating] everything,” and thus their donation would not be needed,34 they would not share equally with all the Jews in giving what was fundamentally necessary for the donations to the Sanctuary. This brought them to the realization that their conduct in not making the donations first was not desirable. There was a certain laxity involved, as stated above.35
אוּן ווִיבַּאלְד דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן גֶעזֶען אַז "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל" אוּן זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה אִיז שׁוֹין נִיט קֵיין דָּבָר הַמּוּכְרָחכד, הֵייסְט עֶס דָאךְ, אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן נִיט קֵיין חֵלֶק שָׁוֶה אִין (הֶכְרֵחִיּוּת – עִיקַר) נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִיט אַלֶע אִידְן – הָאבְּן זֵיי דֶערְפוּן פַארְשְׁטַאנֶען אַז זֵייעֶר הַנְהָגָה פוּן "לֹא הִתְנַדְּבוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה" אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען כִּדְבָעֵי, נָאר סְ'אִיז אִין דֶעם גֶעווֶען אַרַיְינְגֶעמִישְׁט אַן עִנְיָן פוּן עַצְלוּת כַּנַּ"לכה.
What was Lacking in the Princes’ Donation
To explain the above: When the Jews donated the gold, silver, and the like from which the items for the Sanctuary and the priestly garments were to be fashioned, they saw that they did not have all the thirteen materials necessary for the construction of the Sanctuary; they were lacking the shoham stones and the other precious stones for mounting. Therefore, they made extra donations of silver and gold, giving sufficient funds to purchase whatever was lacking.36 This can be understood from the wording of Rashi’s commentary, “The community completed [donating] everything .… ‘The work was sufficient.’ ”
זדִי הַסְבָּרָה אִין דֶעם:
בְּעֵת דִי אִידְן הָאבְּן מְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען "זָהָב וָכֶסֶף וגו’ ” – פוּן ווֶעלְכֶע מֶען הָאט גֶעדַארְפְט מַאכְן דִי כְּלֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּבִגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּה – אִיז זֶעעֶנְדִיק אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן נִיט דִי אַלֶע י"ג דְּבָרִים (זֵיי הָאבְּן נִיט פַארְמָאגְט דִי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם, אַבְנֵי מִלּוּאִים וכו'), הָאבְּן זֵיי מוֹסִיף גֶעווֶען (כְּמוּבָן פוּן דֶעם לָשׁוֹן "הִשְׁלִימוּ אֶת הַכֹּל", "דַּיָּם") אִין דִי נְדָבוֹת פוּן כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וכו' אַזוֹי פִיל אַז מֶען זָאל מִיט דֶעם יִתְרוֹן קֶענֶען בַּאקוּמֶען (קוֹיפְן) דָאס ווָאס פֶעלְט, הַכֹּלכו.
The implication of that quote is that the Jews compensated even for those of the thirteen materials which were lacking by donating a large amount of silver, gold, etc., enough to pay the full price of the shoham stones and the other precious stones for mounting, etc.37
אוּן דָאס אִיז דֶער פִּירוּשׁ פוּן "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם": אוֹיךְ דִי זַאכְן פוּן דִי י"ג דְּבָרִים ווָאס בַּיי זֵיי אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען, הָאבְּן דִי אִידְן מַשְׁלִים גֶעווֶען דוּרְךְ מְנַדֵּב זַיְין א רִיבּוּי כֶּסֶף וכו', בִּיז צוּ גֶעבְּן אוֹיךְ דֶעם פוּלְן פְּרַיְיז פוּן דִי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם, אַבְנֵי מִלּוּאִים וכו'כז.
Therefore, the princes felt that they did not have an equal participatory role as all the Jews in the donations the Sanctuary. The Jews had already given everything needed for the Sanctuary. As a result, the donations of the princes were not necessary since financial resources were available with which to purchase the shoham stones. Their participation was only that, in actual fact, they brought the shoham stones and by doing so made purchasing them unnecessary.
אוּן דֶערְפַאר הָאבְּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים גֶעפִילְט אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן נִיט קֵיין גְלַיְיכֶע הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת אִין נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִיט אַלֶע אִידְן: אִידְן הָאבְּן דָאךְ גֶעגֶעבְּן דָאס ווָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען מוּכְרָח פַארְן מִשְׁכָּן, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן דִי נִדְבַת הַנְּשִׂיאִים אִיז שׁוֹין נִיט גֶעווֶען אִין גֶּדֶר פוּן הֶכְרֵחִיּוּת, הֱיוֹת אַז דֶער כֶּסֶף כו' אוֹיף קוֹיפֶען אַבְנֵי שׁוֹהַם כו', אִיז שׁוֹין גֶעווֶען (אוּן זֵייעֶר הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת אִיז גֶעווֶען אִין דֶעם ווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן בְּפוֹעֵל גֶעבְּרַאכְט דִי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם וכו', פַארְשְׁפָּארְט דֶעם קוֹיפְן).
A Leader’s Responsibility for His Personal Mission
Explanation is still required: Since it is demanded of a leader to follow Moshe’s example and “not turn to his own concerns,” but rather to first think of what he can do for the Jews, why did the princes donate first to the dedication of the Altar, acting in a manner opposite of what a leader should do?38
חעֶס פָאדֶערְט זִיךְ אָבֶּער נָאךְ אַלְץ בִּיאוּר: ווִיבַּאלְד אַז בַּיי אַ נָשִׂיא פָאדֶערְט זִיךְ דֶער סֵדֶר הַהַנְהָגָה פוּן "לֹא הָיָה . . פּוֹנֶה לַעֲסָקָיו", נָאר עֶר דַארְף פְרִיעֶר טְרַאכְטְן ווֶעגְן מַשְׁפִּיעַ זַיְין אוֹיף אִידְן – פַארְווָאס הָאבְּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים זִיךְ מְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען לַחֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תְּחִלָּה – הֵיפֶךְ דֶעם סֵדֶר פוּן אַ נָשִׂיאכח?
True, their conduct regarding the donations for the work of constructing the Sanctuary was not on the lofty level befitting for them. However, it is totally inappropriate to say that the way to correct that flaw would be to conduct themselves afterwards in a manner unsuitable for a leader.
[אֱמֶת טַאקֶע, אַז בַּיי מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אִיז זֵייעֶר הַנְהָגָה גֶעווֶען נִיט בְּאוֹפֶן הַיּוֹתֵר נַעֲלֶה – אִיז דָאךְ אָבֶּער נִיט שַׁיָיךְ צוּ זָאגְן, אַז דֶער תִּיקּוּן דֶערוֹיף אִיז דוּרְךְ פִירְן זִיךְ נָאכְדֶעם נִיט ווִי אַ נָשִׂיא דַארְף זִיךְ פִירְן].
It is thus necessary to say that, knowing that their conduct regarding the donations for the Sanctuary involved a certain degree of laxity, they understood that they should have conducted themselves differently. Although in general, their conduct would have been correct, in this instance, it was not desirable.
מוּז מֶען זָאגְן, אַז ווִיסְנְדִיק אַז בַּיי נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָאט זִיךְ בַּיי זֵיי אַרַיְינְגֶעמִישְׁט אַ תְּנוּעָה פוּן עַצְלוּת, הָאבְּן זֵיי פַארְשְׁטַאנֶען אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ גֶעדַארְפְט פִירְן אַנְדֶערְשׁ אִין דֶעם עִנְיָן פוּן נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן: דָאס הֵייסְט כָאטשׁ אַז זֵייעֶר הַנְהָגָה אִיז אִין אַלְגֶעמֵיין אַ רִיכְטִיגֶע – אִיז זִי אָבֶּער אִין דֶעם פַאל נִיט גֶעווֶען כִּדְבָעֵי.
To explain: The donations to the Sanctuary brought about a matter of all-encompassing importance for all Jews, the indwelling of G‑d’s presence among them, which served as a sign that they were granted atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf.39 Therefore, the princes’ donations were needed, not only because every Jew should have a portion in the donations to the Sanctuary, but also to enable the Sanctuary to be erected as soon as possible.
דִי הַסְבָּרָה אִין דֶעם: דוּרְךְ נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָאט זִיךְ אוֹיפְגֶעטָאן דֶער עִנְיָן כְּלָלִי, פוּן אַלֶע אִידְן: "וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם", דֶער בַּאווַיְיז אַז "נִתְכַּפֵּר לָנוּ עֲוֹן הָעֵגֶל"כט וכו', אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער הָאט זִיךְ דָא גֶעמָאנְט – נוֹסָף אוֹיף דֶעם אַז יֶעדֶער אִיד זָאל הָאבְּן אַ חֵלֶק אִין נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן – אַז דֶער מִשְׁכָּן זָאל אוֹיפְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט ווֶערְן ווָאס פְרִיעֶר.
Therefore, although the duty of a leader of a community or a tribe is to see to it that the people for whom he is responsible carry out the mission assigned to them, simultaneously, the princes also had to make sure that the Sanctuary was built with the appropriate eagerness, and that all materials necessary for the work of actually constructing the Sanctuary be prepared as early as feasible.
אוּן דֶערְפַאר, הֵן אֱמֶת אַז דֶער תַּפְקִיד פוּן נְשִׂיא הָעֵדָה אוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט אִיז צוּ בַּאווָארֶענֶען אַז אִידְן זָאלְן טָאן דִי עִנְיָנִים הַמּוּטָלִים עֲלֵיהֶם, הָאבְּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים צוּזַאמֶען דֶערְמִיט גֶעדַארְפְט בַּאווָארֶענֶען אוֹיךְ דִי זְרִיזוּת אִין בִּנְיַן הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אַז עֶס זָאלְן גְרֵייט זַיְין אַלֶע זַאכְן ווָאס מְ'דַארְף הָאבְּן לִמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן בְּפוֹעֵל וּבְהֶקְדֵּם.
Accordingly, their conduct – waiting a certain amount of time to see what “the community [would] donate” and, if there would be anything lacking, they would complete it – was not appropriate here. Their duties as leaders required that at the same time as they made demands of the Jews – “let the community donate what they will donate” – they should have hurried to bring their own donations, so the Sanctuary could be erected as soon as possible.
אוּן דֶערְפַאר הָאט דָא נִיט מַתְאִים גֶעווֶען דֶער סֵדֶר הַהַנְהָגָה פוּן ווַארְטְן כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה זְמַן אוּן זֶען ווָאס "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ" –
מִצַּד זֵייעֶר תַּפְקִיד אַלְס נְשִׂיאִים גּוּפָא הָאט זִיךְ גֶעפָאדֶערְט, אַז מָאנֶענְדִיק בַּיי אִידְן ("יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין") דַארְפְן זֵיי גְלַיְיכְצַיְיטִיק זִיךְ מַקְדִּים זַיְין צוּ בְּרֶענְגֶען זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה, כְּדֵי אַז דֶער מִשְׁכָּן זָאל אוֹיפְגֶעבּוֹיט ווֶערְן בְּהֶקְדֵּם הֲכִי אֶפְשָׁרִי.
Therefore, when the time for the dedication of the Altar arrived – that also being a matter of all-encompassing importance, as it was a pressing issue for all the Jews that the Altar be dedicated as soon as possible40 – they donated at the outset.
אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער, ווֶען עֶס אִיז גֶעקוּמֶען צוּ חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – ווָאס אוֹיךְ דָאס איז אַן עִנְיָן כללי און עֶס איז נוגֶע עֶס זָאל זיין בהקדם חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ פַאר אַלֶע אִידְןל – הָאבְּן זֵיי מְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען בַּתְּחִלָּה.
Why Rabbi Nassan’s Name Is Mentioned
Nevertheless, an advanced student might still ask: How can it be said that the participation of the princes together with the Jewish people as a whole in the donations to the Sanctuary would be lacking, since, as explained in sec. 7 above, the princes’ donation was not entirely necessary? However, on the surface, since they encouraged the others to donate for the Sanctuary, urging the Jews to donate, (as reflected in their statement, “Let the community donate what they will donate”), the princes seemingly had a portion in everything that the Jews gave, for the donations were made as a result of their encouragement.41 Why then would the princes’ portion in the donations to the Sanctuary be considered lacking?
טאַ תַּלְמִיד מְמוּלָּח קֶען אָבֶּער פְרֶעגְן: ווִי זָאגְט מֶען אַז בַּיי דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאט גֶעפֶעלְט אִין דֶער הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת מִיטְן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן (ווַיְיל זֵייעֶר נְדָבָה אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען אַ דָּבָר הַמּוּכְרָח כַּנַּ"ל סְעִיף ז) – לִכְאוֹרָה, ווִיבַּאלְד זֵיי הָאבְּן דָאךְ מְזָרֵז גֶעווֶען דִי מְבִיאִים לִמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אַז דִי אִידְן זָאלְן זִיךְ מִתְנַדֵּב זַיְין ("יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין") קוּמְט דָאךְ אוֹיס, אַז אַלְץ ווָאס אִידְן הָאבְּן מְנַדֵּב גֶעווֶען הָאבְּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים אִין דֶעם אַן אָנְטֵייל, ווִיבַּאלְד סְ'אִיז גֶעטָאן גֶעווָארְן בְּכֹחָם וְזֵרוּזָםלא – הַיְינְט פַארְווָאס הֵייסְט עֶס אַ חִסָּרוֹן אִין זֵייעֶר חֵלֶק בְּנִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן?
Rashi alludes to a resolution of that question by citing the name of the author of the teaching, Rabbi Nassan. To explain how that allusion answers the question: One of the most well-known laws associated with Rabbi Nassan and which is referred to by his name is shibuda d’Rabbi Nassan,42 a halachic convention applied when one person owes a debt to another and his creditor owes a debt to a third person. In that situation, the court takes the money from the first person and awards it to the third; i.e., the first person pays the debt directly to the third. The novel aspect evident43 in that law is that even though the first person has no direct relationship or obligation to the third – since the relationship and obligation between them is dependent on the second – once that relationship is established, the obligation of the first person is transferred directly to the third as if the second person was never involved.
אִיז דֶעם עֶנְטְפֶער אוֹיף דֶעם אִיז רַשִׁ"י מְרַמֵּז דֶערְמִיט ווָאס עֶר אִיז מַעְתִּיק אַז דֶער מַאֲמָר הָאט גֶעזָאגְט רַבִּי נָתָן.
דֶער בִּיאוּר אִין דֶעם: פוּן דִי דִינִים הֲכִי מְפוּרְסָמִים פוּן רַבִּי נָתָן (בִּיז אַז עֶס ווֶערְט אָנְגֶערוּפְן עַל שְׁמוֹ) אִיז "שִׁעְבּוּדָא דְרַבִּי נָתָן"לב: בְּשַׁעַת רְאוּבֵן אִיז שׁוּלְדִיק אַ חוֹב צוּ שִׁמְעוֹן'עֶן אוּן שִׁמְעוֹן אִיז מְחוּיָב צוּ בַּאצָאלְן לֵוִי'ן – אִיז "מוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה (רְאוּבֵן) וְנוֹתְנִין לְזֶה (לֵוִי)", רְאוּבֵן צָאלְט בְּאוֹפֶן יָשָׁר צוּ לֵוִי. דֶער אוֹיפְטוּ אִין דֶעם דִּין אִיזלג: כָאטשׁ אַז דִי שַׁיְיכוּת אוּן הִתְחַיְּבוּת פוּן רְאוּבֵן צוּ לֵוִי קוּמְט דוּרְךְ שִׁמְעוֹן'עֶן, אִיז אָבֶּער נָאכְדֶעם ווִי דִי שַׁיְיכוּת ווֶערְט אוֹיפְגֶעטָאן, ווֶערְט דֶער שִׁעְבּוּד אַרִיבֶּערְגֶעטְרָאגְן גְלַיְיךְ פוּן רְאוּבֵן צוּ לֵוִי, כְּאִלּוּ ווִי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיז מִלְּכַתְּחִלָּה נִיט גֶעווֶען אִין מִיטְן.
Similarly, in the present instance, even though the Jews’ willingness to donate for the Sanctuary was brought about through the encouragement of the princes, the principle taught by Rabbi Nassan can be applied. The donations were given by the Jews for the Sanctuary, i.e., to G‑d. True, the princes were the ones who encouraged them. However, after the fact, a relationship and a bond was established directly between the Jews and G‑d, as if the princes had no involvement in it.44 As in the halachic convention taught by Rabbi Nassan, the involvement of the second party – in the business relationship, the first debtor, in the case of the donations to the Sanctuary, the princes – is of no significance.
עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה אִיז בְּנִדּוֹן דִּידַן: כָאטשׁ אַז דִי שַׁיְיכוּת פוּן אִידְן מִיט זֵייעֶר הִתְנַדְּבוּת לִמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, ווֶערְט אוֹיפְגֶעטָאן דוּרְךְ (דֶעם זֵרוּז פוּן) דִי נְשִׂיאִים, אִיז ווֶען דִי אִידְן פָאלְגְן אוּן זַיְינֶען מְנַדֵּב אִיז דָאס "מוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה – פוּן דִי מְנַדְּבִים – וְנוֹתְנִין לְזֶה" – צוּם אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן, אַ שַׁיְיכוּת וְהִתְקַשְּׁרוּת בְּאוֹפֶן יָשָׁר צְווִישְׁן זֵיי אוּן דֶעם אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן, כְּאִלּוּ ווִי דִי נְשִׂיאִים הָאבְּן זִיךְ אִין דֶעם נִיט בַּאטֵיילִיגְטלד.
Seeing Things in Retrospect
Based on the above, a further point can be made. The princes’ initial thought was based on similar logic. They thought that since the Jews’ donations for the Sanctuary would come about through their encouragement, it would be considered as if they had also participated in the work of donating and building the Sanctuary.
יעַל פִּי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר עוֹד – אַז אִין דֶעם גּוּפָא אִיז בַּאשְׁטַאנֶען דֶער קָסַלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ פוּן דִי נְשִׂיאִים: זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעהַאלְטְן אַז הֱיוֹת דִי הִתְנַדְּבוּת פוּן אִידְן צוּם מִשְׁכָּן ווֶעט קוּמֶען דוּרְךְ זֵייֶער הִתְעוֹרְרוּת, ווֶערְט דָאס אוֹיךְ פַאררֶעכְנְט אַלְס זֵייעֶר הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת אִין מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן.
This enables us to understand their statement, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and if they leave anything lacking, we will complete it.” That wording implies that they were not certain that they would have to bring anything. (Therefore, they said, “we will complete it,” not “we will bring.”) Their thinking was that all they needed to bring was whatever the community would “leave lacking”; they would compensate for any lack, for then the work of donating and constructing the Sanctuary would be incomplete.
אוּן עַל פִּי זֶה אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק ווָאס זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעזָאגְט "יִתְנַדְּבוּ צִבּוּר מַה שֶּׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וּמַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ" – ווָאס פוּן דֶעם לָשׁוֹן אִיז מַשְׁמַע אַז בַּיי זֵיי אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען זִיכֶער אַז זֵיי ווֶעלְן מוּזְן בְּרֵיינְגֶען (אוּן דֶערְפַאר הָאבְּן זֵיי גֶעזָאגְט "אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ", נִיט "אָנוּ מְבִיאִין") – ווַיְיל בַּיי זֵיי אִיז גֶעווֶען אָפְּגֶעלֵייגְט אַז זֵיי דַארְפְן אַלֵיין נִיט בְּרֵיינְגֶען, בְּלוֹיז "מַה שֶּׁמְּחַסְּרִין אָנוּ מַשְׁלִימִין אוֹתוֹ" דֶעם חָסֵר, ווָארוּם עֶס פֶעלְט אִין דֶעם מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן.
However, when they saw such a wondrous achievement – that “the community completed [donating] everything” in the most satisfactory manner – they felt that merely encouraging them could not be considered as adequate participation in this endeavor.
בְּשַׁעַת אָבֶּער זֵיי הָאבְּן גֶעזֶען אַ דְבַר פֶּלֶא אַז "הִשְׁלִימוּ צִבּוּר אֶת הַכֹּל", דֶער צִבּוּר הָאט אַלְץ אָפְּגֶעטָאן בִּשְׁלֵימוּת הָאבְּן זֵיי מַרְגִּישׁ גֶעווֶען אַז דָאס קֶען נִיט פַאררֶעכְנְט ווֶערְן ווִי זֵייעֶר הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת.
The Inner Reason for the Princes’ Lax Attitude
Based on the above, it is possible to explain the concluding clause in Rashi’s commentary, “Since at first they were lax, a letter is missing from their title, and וְהַנְשִׂאִם, ‘the princes,’ is written [without a yud, instead of וְהַנְשִׂיאִים, with an additional yud].” On the surface, what is the connection between their laxity and taking away a yud from their title?
In resolution: From a mystical perspective, taking away a yud – a letter identified withself-nullification, bittul45 – was not a result of their laxity, but rather its cause.46 What caused them to be called נְשִׂאִם, without a yud? The laxity their conduct showed.
יאלוֹיט דֶעם קֶען מֶען אוֹיךְ מַסְבִּיר זַיְין דֶעם סִיּוּם לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י "וּלְפִי שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ מִתְּחִלָּה נֶחְסְרָה אוֹת מִשְּׁמָם וְהַנְּשִׂאִם כְּתִיב" (עֶס הָאט גֶעפֶעלְט דֶער אוֹת יוּד פוּן זֵייעֶר נָאמֶען) – דְּלִכְאוֹרָה ווָאס פַאר אַ שַׁיְיכוּת הָאט דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן עַצְלוּת מִיטְן חִסָּרוֹן פוּן אוֹת יוּד בִּשְׁמָם? נָאר (בִּפְנִימִיּוּת הָעִנְיָנִים אִיז, אַז) דֶער חִסָּרוֹן פוּן אוֹת יוּ"ד ווָאס ווַיְיזְט אוֹיף בִּיטּוּללה אִיז (נִיט אַ תּוֹצָאָה, נָאר) דִי סִיבָּהלו פוּן זֵייעֶר "שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ"; ווִי אַזוֹי אִיז דָאס נִתְגַּלֶּה גֶעווָארֶען אוּן מֶען הָאט זֵיי גֶערוּפֶען בְּשֵׁם "נְשִׂאִם" – "לְפִי שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ", אַז מֶען הָאט גֶעזֶען "שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ".
Since they lacked consummate bittul,47 they were very conscious of their position as princes.48 Therefore, they felt that the Jews’ donations to the Sanctuary came about because of them, and they would therefore be able to compensate for what the Jews left uncompleted.49
ווִיבַּאלְד אַז בַּיי זֵיי הָאט גֶעפֶעלְט דֶער תַּכְלִית הַבִּיטּוּללז, עֶס הָאט זִיךְ בַּיי זֵיי אָנְגֶעהֶערְט זֵייעֶר זַיְין נְשִׂיאִיםלח, דֶערִיבֶּער הָאבְּן זֵיי גֶעפִילְט אַז דִי נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן פוּן דִי אִידְן אִיז גֶעקוּמֶען דוּרְךְ זֵיי אוּן אַז צוּלִיבּ דֶעם ווֶעלְן זֵיי מַשְׁלִים זַיְין דָאס ווָאס ווֶעט פֶעלְן בַּיי אִידְןלט.
The princes’ feelings of being elevated50 caused them to be lax to the extent that their participation in the building of the Sanctuary was not equal to that of the other Jews. Indeed, their conduct could have led to the Sanctuary being built – and through it, G‑d’s presence dwelling among the Jewish people – without their donations.
אוּן דֶער הֶרְגֵּשׁ הַנְּשִׂיאוּת הָאט גּוֹרֵם גֶעווֶען זֵיי זָאלְן זַיְין "שֶׁנִּתְעַצְּלוּ" בְּאוֹפֶן, אַז זֵייעֶר הִשְׁתַּתְּפוּת אִין בִּנְיַן הַמִּשְׁכָּן זָאל נִיט זַיְין חֵלֶק כְּחֵלֶק מִיט אַלֶע אַנְדֶערֶע אִידְן, בִּיז אַז דֶער מִשְׁכָּן (אוּן דוּרְכְדֶעם דִי הַשְׁרָאַת הַשְּׁכִינָה בַּא אִידְן) הָאט גָאר גֶעקֶענְט זַיְין אָן נִדְבַת הַנְּשִׂיאִים.
Every Person Is a Leader
As is true regarding all concepts in the Torah, this concept also serves as a lesson for every Jew. Every Jew serves as a leader; he governs his small city, i.e., his body,51 his 248 limbs and organs and 365 nerves and sinews. In a more general sense, every person must play a contributory role, serving as a leader in his community.52
Herein lies the lesson. If one desires that there be nothing lacking in his service of his Creator and that his individual Sanctuary will be as it ought to be, the yud, consummate bittul, must be evident in his leadership and the way he influences others.
יבאַזוֹי ווִי אַלֶע עִנְיָנֵי הַתּוֹרָה אִיז אוֹיךְ דֶער עִנְיָן אַ הוֹרָאָה צוּ יֶעדְן אִידְן:
בַּא יֶעדְן אִידְן אִיז דָא דֶער עִנְיַן הַ"נְּשִׂיאוּת" – דִי נְשִׂיאוּת אוֹיף עִיר קְטַנָּה שֶׁלּוֹ זֶה הַגּוּףמ, אוֹיף זַיְינֶע רְמַ"ח אֵבָרִים וּשְׁסַ"ה גִידִים, בִּכְלָלוּת יוֹתֵר דָאס ווָאס יֶעדֶער אֵיינֶער דַארְף זַיְין אַ מַשְׁפִּיעַ (וְנָשִׂיא) בִּסְבִיבָתוֹמא – אִיז דָא אִין דֶעם דִי הוֹרָאָה, אַז אוֹיבּ עֶר ווִיל אַז בַּא אִים זָאל נִיט פֶעלְן אִין עֲבוֹדַת ה' לְקוֹנוֹ אוּן דֶער מִשְׁכָּן שֶׁלּוֹ זָאל זַיְין כִּדְבָעֵי, דַארְף אִין דֶער נְשִׂיאוּת (אִין דֶער הַשְׁפָּעָה אוֹיפְן צְווֵייטְן) זִיךְ אָנְהֶערְן דֶער יוּ"ד – דֶער תַּכְלִית הַבִּיטּוּל;
To cite an example: When a king recites the Shemoneh Esreh, “once he bows, he should not stand erect [again].”53 He must show greater bittul than others, and it is precisely that which enables him to rule over all others.54 He must not feel that it is his own potential that enables him to serve as an influencer and leader, and that another person’s entire connection with G‑d is only due to him.
– בְּדוּגְמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ ווָאס דוּרְךְ דֶעם ווָאס "כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּרַע שׁוּב אֵינוֹ זוֹקֵף"מב – מֶער ווִי בַּא אַלֶע אַנְדֶערֶע – אִיז עֶר מוֹלֵךְ אוֹיף אַלֶע אַנְדֶערֶעמג;
עֶס טָאר נִיט זַיְין דֶער הֶרְגֵּשׁ אַז עֶר בְּכֹחַ עַצְמוֹ אִיז דֶער מַשְׁפִּיעַ אוּן "נָשִׂיא", אוּן אַז דִי גַאנְצֶע שַׁיְיכוּת פוּן דֶעם צְווֵייטְן צוּם אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן אִיז נָאר אַ דַאנְק אִים.
When a person exerts influence and leadership with bittul, he merits not to make the mistake of thinking that he fulfills his own responsibility merely by having influence over another Jew. Instead, he simultaneously increases his Divine service of diligent Torah study and punctilious observance of the mitzvos, adding strength and intensity.
אוּן בְּשַׁעַת דִי הַשְׁפָּעָה וּ"נְשִׂיאוּת" אִיז מִיט בִּיטּוּל, דֶעמָאלְט אִיז עֶר זוֹכֶה אוּן הָאט נִיט קֵיין טָעוּת אַז עֶר אִיז יוֹצֵא מִיט דֶעם ווָאס עֶר פּוֹעֵל'ט אוֹיף אַ צְווֵייטְן אִידְן, נָאר עֶר אִיז אוֹיךְ מוֹסִיף בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ – אִין שְׁקִידָה בְּלִימּוּד הַתּוֹרָה אוּן קִיּוּם הַמִּצְוֹת בְּהִידּוּר – בְּיֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עֹז,
Through this, he brings about the coming of Mashiach, whose contribution will be the yud,55 the attribute of yechidah.56 May he come, redeem us, and lead us upright to our land.
אוּן דוּרְכְדֶעם בְּרֶענְגְט מֶען אַרָאפּ מָשִׁיחַ צִדְקֵנוּ, ווָאס זַיְין אוֹיפְטוּ אִיז דֶער עִנְיַן הַ"יּוּ"ד"מד – בְּחִינַת יְחִידָהמה, יָבוֹא וְיִגְאָלֵנוּ וְיוֹלִיכֵנוּ קוֹמְמִיּוּת לְאַרְצֵנוּ.
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 424ff. Adapted from a Sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5726 [1966]
(משיחת ש״פ ויק״פ תשכ״ו)
As Rashi states (see his commentary to Bereishis 3:8, 24, et al.) and as the Rebbe emphasized repeatedly (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 1, et al.), Rashi composed his commentary to present a simple, straightforward reading of the Torah so that even a five-year-old child beginning his study of the Torah (see Avos 5:21) would be able to understand the text.
Shmos 35:27.
Shmos 35:27.
A semi-precious stone whose identity is a matter of question. See Ibn Ezra (Shmos 28:9). Some have identified it as sardonyx or beryl.
“Mounting” is used as the translation of the Hebrew miluim. It refers to the placement of the stones in their settings on the shoulder straps of the ephod and on the breastplate.
One of the garments of the Kohen Gadol to which the breastplate was attached.
Rashi’s commentary is taken from the Sifri (Bamidbar 7:3; quoted also in his commentary to that verse). However, the conclusion of Rashi’s commentary here, “Since at first they were lax…,” is not found in that source. Many particulars of Rashi’s commentary and its conclusion are, nevertheless, found in Bamidbar Rabbah 12:16 and Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Pekudei, sec. 11. However, in those sources, this teaching is not quoted in the name of Rabbi Nassan and there are some differences in the wording used.
In the Sifri and in Rashi’s commentary in Bamidbar, Rabbi Nassan’s teaching is cited on the verse (Bamidbar 7:3), “They brought them in front of the Sanctuary.” That verse is speaking about the donation of the wagons and the oxen to carry the Sanctuary during the journeys through the desert, as reflected in the verses that follow. (The Sifri and Rashi there make no mention of the dedication of the Altar.) The dedication of the Altar is only mentioned in Bamidbar from verse 10 onward (see Rashi’s commentary there).
The difference does not necessarily conflict with the wording here. It is possible to say simply that here as well the intent is not only to refer to the sacrifices for the inauguration of the Altar, but also to the donations of the wagons and the oxen. Note that in the second printing of Rashi’s commentary and in certain manuscripts of that commentary, it is stated, “What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the Sanctuary first?” Similarly, at the end of Rashi’s commentary, it is stated, “For this reason, they donated first for its dedication.” (This is also the version in the first printing of Rashi’s commentary.
On the surface, analysis is required regarding the word “first.” (That word is also used in the Sifri and in Rashi’s commentary in Bamidbar, loc. cit.) and it is problematic because only the princes, and not the people at large, made donations for the dedication of the Altar.
In resolution, it could be said that “first” refers not to the dedication, but with regard to the Altar itself. The intent is that they were the first to offer individual sacrifices on the Altar and the other Jews brought their sacrifices only after the dedication of the Altar by the princes.
Alternatively, it could be said – as is the straightforward meaning of the word “first”– that since the other Jews were exceedingly generous, they also brought free-will offerings for the dedication of the Altar after the leaders did. Nevertheless, the Torah does not mention these offerings. Note, the wording in Bamidbar 7:84: “this is the dedication of the Altar… from the princes of Israel.” This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.
Shmos 36:7.
In Rashi’s commentary in Bamidbar (and similarly in the Sifri, loc. cit.), there are several differences from Rashi’s commentary here:
a) In Bamidbar, Rashi does not include the word “it” in the phrase, “we will complete it.”
b) In that source, Rashi adds the words “they saw” in the phrase, “since they saw.”
c) And he adds the word “now” in the phrase, “They said, ‘Now, what are we…”
d) And he concludes, “They brought the shoham stones and the [other precious] stones for mounting in the ephod and the breastplate,” without adding ’וגו (etc.). Here, by contrast, he concludes, “They brought the shoham stones, ’וגו (etc.).”*
* Note that in his text, Etz HaDaas Tov, p. 114d, RavChayim Vital writes that the princes brought only the shoham stones and the [other precious] stones for mounting. (However, in his commentary on the verse cited above, he writes (p. 115c) that they also brought the spices and oil.)
On the surface, according to Or HaChayim (Shmos 25:7) and Panim Yafos (Shmos 25:2), et al., the Talmud (Yoma 75a) also understands that the princes brought only these precious stones and not the spices and the oil. Nevertheless, earlier, that Talmudic passage states that ornaments for women (spices, etc.) descended with the manna. The Targum of Yonasan ben Uziel on Shmos 35:27-28, explains that the clouds brought the spices and the oil. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter. (This marginal note is focusing on whether Rashi included וגו', “etc.,” in his commentary. The presence or absence of that term depends on whether the princes’ donation included the spices and the oil or not. The Rebbe cites sources for both positions.)
In this verse, the word is written וְהַנְשִׂאִם, without a yud at all. Generally, the word הַנְשִׂאִם is written הַנְשִׂיאִם, הַנְשִׂיאִים, or הַנְשִׂאִים, including one or two yuds.
See Maskil LeDavid to Rashi’s commentary here.
Similar concepts apply regarding the order of the commandments to fashion the] sacred articles of the Sanctuary.] The commandment to make the oil for the light and the priestly garments was delivered in Parshas Tetzaveh after the commandment regarding the work of the Sanctuary in Parshas Terumah. Note also Rashi’s commentary on Vayikra 24:2.
The commandment to bring the spices for the anointing oil and the incense offering was given in Parshas Ki Sissa.
Note the first resolution offered by Or HaChayim, Shmos 25:7.
There is a further point requiring explanation: G‑d’s command to Moshe at the beginning of Parshas Terumah and Moshe’s command to the Jewish people at the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel, mention “the oil for illumination, the spices for the anointing oil and the incense offering” before “the shoham stones and [other precious] stones for mounting.”
By pointing out the difference between the sequence in these verses and in the description of the offerings brought by the princes, the Rebbe is strengthening the argument made in the main text – that the reason the princes brought their donations last was not because the objects that they donated were the last mentioned in G‑d’s command. Were it to have been necessary to bring the donations to the Sanctuary according to the sequence in G‑d’s command, the princes should not have deviated from that order.
Shmos 35:24.
Ibid. 35:25-26.
It could, however, be said, that these verses are also included in the description of the donations to the Sanctuary; it is just that the verses describe how they were brought. See Or HaChayim to this verse and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 452ff.
The fact that Scripture specifically mentions which items were brought by the princes – the shoham stones, other precious stones for mounting, spices, etc. – is easily understood. They are mentioned just as all the other thirteen materials brought by the Jewish people are specifically mentioned. However, it is seemingly unnecessary to explicitly state that the princes brought these items.
On the surface, it could be said that the princes were singled out and mentioned specifically because of their importance. However, if that was the reason, they should have been mentioned first, before the donations of the entire Jewish people.
It seems somewhat forced to say that they were not mentioned first because the items they brought were the last mentioned in the command, as stated in the main text. That resolution is difficult to accept because were the donations of the princes to have been mentioned specifically because of their importance, they would not have been mentioned last, for that might give the impression that they were less important.
In addition, there is a further point. There were many important people among the Jews at that time, e.g., the elders, etc. Certainly, they also made donations to the Sanctuary in a manner befitting their importance. Nevertheless, they were not specifically mentioned.
However, two resolutions can be offered regarding that last point:
a) It is possible to say that a different interpretation could be offered for the word nesi’im. Although Rashi here – see also Rashi, Bamidbar 7:2 – interprets it as referring to the princes of the tribes, the word could also refer to important people in general, i.e., individuals who were more prominent than the general population. That definition is reflected in several previous places in the Torah. See, for example, Rashi, Shmos 34:32, which states, “after he taught the elders.” On the surface, Rashi is interpreting this to be the meaning of the term hanesi’im be’eidah, which can be understood as “the exalted of the community” mentioned in the previous verse.
b) Alternatively, it could be said that the others were not mentioned specifically because they did not bring a specific and unique object as the princes did. See the commentaries of Tosafos Hadar Zakeinim, Rosh, and Chizkuni, which explain the connection between the items the princes brought and their position as princes.
Shmos 35:21.
Indeed, because such a distinction is made and because nesi’im is written without a yud, it is possible to interpret that word as referring to “the clouds,” as it is used in Mishlei 25:14, et al. Rashi, Bereishis 17:20 also uses that word with that implication. Similarly, Yoma 75a, Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Targum Yerushalmi (cited in Baal HaTurim here), and Shmos Rabbah 33:8 follow that interpretation. Moreover, according to that interpretation, the two questions raised above the main text would be answered. Since these objects were not brought by people, they are mentioned last, after all the donations brought by people. (Note Maharsha’s Chiddushei Aggados to Yoma, loc. cit.)
Nevertheless, Rashi does not follow that interpretation here because it is not the straightforward meaning of the text. In particular, we are forced to say that these objects were brought by the princes and not by the clouds because G‑d’s command to the Jews to bring the donations for the Sanctuary, as related at the beginning of Parshas Terumah (Shmos 25:2-3), explicitly states, “From every person whose heart motivates him, you shall take My offering…. Take from them…,” i.e., the donations had to come from humans. Furthermore, in Parshas Vayakhel,the descriptions of the donation of the precious stones, the spices and the oil which follow (Shmos 35:29) speak of “every man and woman,” i.e., humans, not clouds. It is a simple assumption that this verse serves as a summary of all the preceding verses including the description of bringing these precious stones. (See interpretation of IbnEzra to this verse.)
On the surface, it is possible to say [as is implied by Targum Yonason ben Uziel (see Peirush Yonason) and Shmos Rabbah, loc. cit.]* that even according to the interpretation that nesi’im refers to the clouds, the term also retains its straightforward meaning, that it refers to the princes.** (Because of the two questions raised in the main text, we are forced to say that the word nesi’im also allows for the interpretation that the stones were brought by the clouds.***) It is possible to juxtapose that interpretation with the simple meaning of the verse, that they were brought by the princes, i.e., after the clouds deposited the precious stones, the princes actually brought them as donations.
Nevertheless, according to a straightforward understanding of the text, it is difficult to say that the reason the verse “the princes brought” was written after the description of the donations brought by all the men and the women, and also after the description of the women weaving the goats’ hair, was only intended to allude to the fact that the precious stone came to the princes via the clouds. Note, however, the end of commentary of Or HaChayim (Shmos 25:7).
* The Midrash uses the wording, “the prominent among them.” See the interpretation of Maharzav, loc. cit., who interpets this as referring to the princes. However, this understanding requires analysis because the Midrash continues, “Know that this is so, for it is written (Shmos 36:3), ‘They brought to him additional donations morning after morning.’ ” This verse is also cited in Yoma, loc. cit. See the marginal note that follows. According to a straightforward reading, the prooftext cited refers to the donations given by the Jewish people as a whole and not to those given by the princes.
**According to the interpretation of Yoma, loc. cit., it appears that theword nesi’im refers only to the clouds. It is only that the Jewish people delivered what the clouds brought to the Sanctuary, as evident from an earlier portion of that passage. However, according to interpretation of Rav Yoshiyahu Pinto to the citation of the passage in Ein Yaakov, it appears that the passage should be interpreted in line with the understanding of Targum Yonason ben Uziel and Shmos Rabbah. Rabbeinu Bachya understands the passage differently, stating that the Clouds of Glory brought the precious stones to Moshe’s tent. This is also the implication of the passage in Midrash HaGadol.
***This is similar to Rashi’s commentary on the word nesi’im (Bereishis 17:20): “Like clouds they will pass.” There, Rashi is not negating the simple interpretation of the word nesi’im. Instead, he is explaining why Scripture specifically uses the word nesi’im when describing Yishmael’s descendants, i.e., the choice of that term also alludes to the interpretation that, “like clouds, they will pass.”
Even if one would say that the fact the princes donated first for the dedication of the Altar strengthens the question, it would seem more appropriate to initially mention that they did not donate to the construction of the Sanctuary at the outset.
Bava Basra 123a.
Shmos 36:5, 7.
See the elaborate explanation in Maskil LeDavid (Shmos 25:2). However, his interpretation – that the Jews were not commanded to bring the shoham stones, etc. – is not alluded to at all in Rashi’s commentary. In particular, there is a difficulty with his explanation because according to it, we are forced to say (as he himself notes) that Rashi did not explain his statements in Parshas Terumah because he was relying on his interpretation later in Parshas Vayakhel. As a general rule, Rashi will sometimes rely later on an interpretation already offered earlier, but he will not rely on a later interpretation when explaining a difficulty with the verse on which he is focusing.
Bamidbar Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Pekudei, loc. cit., state, “They said, ‘Since we did not merit [to participate in] the donations for the work of the Sanctuary at all, we will therefore donate for the priestly garments.’ ” (Bamidbar Rabbah changes the wording slightly, saying “for the garments of the Kohen Gadol.”) See Or HaChayim, Shmos 25:7, s.v. od nireh lomar.
However, according to Rashi, whose interpretation reflects the straightforward meaning of Scripture, we do not see that such a distinction is made, i.e., that making the priestly garments is not considered as an important an element as that of the work of constructing the Sanctuary.
Note Ibn Ezra, Shmos 25:3, et al., regarding the donations to the Sanctuary,“It concludes with a distinguished [item,] the shoham stones… for they were only found in possession of the princes.” Note also Rashi’s wording in Parshas Vayakhel, loc. cit., that mentions “the work of the Sanctuary” when referring to all the donations, including those given for the priestly garments.
Note that in the second printed edition of Rashi’s commentaryand in a manuscript of that commentary, that is indeed the term used.
True, in this instance, the source for Rashi’s wording is the Sifri cited above, and the Sifri mentions Rabbi Nassan. Nevertheless, as mentioned several times, any point stated in a Talmudic or Midrashic passage quoted in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah must be necessary to facilitate the understanding of the straightforward meaning of Scripture. In particular, this is true in the present instance where Rashi does not cite the Sifri or the like as his source.
Shmos 19:14.
Cf. Avos 1:1.
Rashi, Shmos 13:13, 15:22, 26:15.
See Ibn Ezra, Shmos 35:27.
By contrast, the princes’ original thought was “If they leave anything lacking, we will complete it,” implying that they anticipated that there would be something lacking – although necessary for the Sanctuary – and they would compensate for that lack.
True, one might say that, according to the straightforward meaning of Scripture,* there was no command that every Jew donate to the Sanctuary; rather the matter was left to each individual’s discretion, as might be implied from the verses, “From every person whose heart motivates him, you shall take My offering” (Shmos 25:2) and “Take from yourselves an offering for G‑d. Every generous-hearted person shall bring G‑d’s offering” (ibid. 35:5).
Even so, it is understood that failing to participate in this endeavor as the entire Jewish people did and showing a lack of eagerness to do so represents a failing. This is particularly true as the construction of the Sanctuary was of primary importance for the Jewish people – they were making an effort for “the Divine presence to rest among [them] so that [they] would know that atonement was granted [them] for the sin of the [Golden] Calf” (Rashi, Vayikra 9:23).
Note Rashi’s commentary (Shmos 39:33), “Since Moshe did not perform any work in [the construction of] the Sanctuary, the Holy One, blessed be He, left its erection for him [to do].” And see, Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Pekudei, sec. 11, which states that Moshe regretted not participating in the donations and construction of the Sanctuary. See, however, Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 223, footnote 11.
* By contrast, according to the halachah – see Rambam (Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:12) — “Everyone is obligated to build and to assist [in the construction of the Beis HaMikdash,] both personally and financially; both men and women, as in the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.”
To cite a parallel, Rashi (Shmos 25:2) speaks of giving the half-shekel, specifically “to purchase communal offerings.”
See Abarbanel (Shmos 25:1):
[Specifying the items to be donated] teaches that [only] these materials that are mentioned should be taken as donations. However, if [the people] would donate and give other materials, e.g. iron, lead, garments, or other things, [the treasurers] should not take them from them because G‑d did not desire that they give any object which came to hand and it be taken from them, like [a person saving valuables] from fire.
See Seforno (ibid.:3), who writes, “[The treasurers] should not accept any barter…. Instead, they should accept [only] donations whose substance is used in the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary.” Note also Rashi’s wording (ibid. 25:2), “The thirteen materials mentioned in this passage were all necessary for the work of [constructing] the Sanctuary.”
However:
a) Rashi does not mention the necessity to donate only items that actually would be used in the work of constructing the Sanctuary.
b) It is possible that when the shoham stones, etc., were not brought, the treasurers had no other choice but to accept money from the Jewish people instead.
c) We find that silver was brought for other articles for the Sanctuary’s construction even though those articles were not explicitly mentioned in the Torah (see Ibn Ezra, Shmos 25:3; Or HaChayim, Shmos 36:5).
d) According to Rashi as well, it is evident that extra silver – which was not actually needed for the construction of the Sanctuary – was donated, although that fact is not explicitly stated in the Torah. See Rashi, Shmos 25:3, that states, “the remainder of the silver that was donated was made into sacred utensils.” See Rashi’s commentary mentioned in the previous footnote, and to Shmos 39:1.
e) Or HaChayim, Shmos 35:21, states, “The verse is making known that all [the materials] necessary for the Sanctuary… themselves were donated and it was not necessary to purchase anything with the [extra] silver and gold given as an offering.” That statement itself indicates that the treasurers accepted donations for the purchase of these precious stones as well.
Perhaps, it is possible to say that this is the reason why, initially, Moshe did not accept the princes’ offerings (Rashi, Bamidbar 7:3, 10). Aside from the fact that he was not commanded to accept these offerings, Moshe hesitated to accept them because the proper course of conduct for a leader is not to bring his own offering first.*
This clarifies why Rashi quotes the teaching of Rabbi Nassan mentioned at the outset in continuation to his commentary to Bamidbar 3:7, which states that Moshe did not accept their offerings until instructed to by G‑d. By not mentioning Rabbi Nassan’s teaching with a separate header, as is his practice in other places, Rashi was perhaps intimating that this was one of the reasons Moshe hesitated to accept their offerings. See footnote 38, below.
* See the commentaries on that passage of the Sifri and Rashi’s commentary, loc. cit. (Maskil LeDavid, Bamidbar 7:3, 10), who offer different interpretations.
Rashi, Vayikra 9:23. See Rashi, Shmos 30:16.
True, Moshe did not accept their donations until instructed to do so by G‑d (see Bamidbar 7:3 with regard to the wagons and the oxen and Bamidbar 7:10 with regard to the offerings for the dedication of the Altar). However, it is possible to say that he hesitated because the princes brought these offerings
a) after the seven days of initiation when the kohanim had already been initiated into their service in the Sanctuary,
b) on the eighth day of the initiation when the Divine presence already rested in the Sanctuary and it had been made known to the Jews that they were granted atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf.
Thus, perhaps the circumstances differed from those of the donations to the Sanctuary, where it would have been appropriate for them to donate at the outset. On the contrary, maybe in this instance, they should have been concerned that the other Jews bring offerings. These points caused Moshe to hesitate in accepting their offerings.
This is the point of the continuation of Rashi’s commentary, “Rabbi Nassan said: What prompted the princes…” Rashi intended to explain why the princes thought that in this instance the order of conduct should be that they make their donations first. (They did not think of making a distinction, as Moshe did.)
It is possible to distinguish between the wording of the Sifri, which before saying, “Rabbi Nassan says,” states, “Their understanding mirrored the understanding Above.”
Note also that the Sifri states, “Rabbi Nassan says,” while Rashi states, “Rabbi Nassan said.”
Note Rashi, Bamidbar 7:1, “Moshe finished: Betzalel, Oholiav, and all the wise-hearted [men] built the Sanctuary, yet Scripture credits Moshe with it because he utterly devoted himself to it.”
Note also our Sages’ statement (Bava Basra 9a), “One who causes others to perform [a meritorious act] is greater than one who performs [that act himself].” In this instance, however, referring to the princes as “one who causes others to perform” is not entirely appropriate because the donations were made out of the generous spirit in the hearts of the entire Jewish people. The princes did not compel them to donate.
Kiddushin 15a. See the sources mentioned there.
See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 86:5; Ketzos HaChoshen 86:1.
Note, that ]a similar concept] also applies with regard to Moshe. Although all the commandments to donate and build the Sanctuary were conveyed through him – and, as stated in footnote 39, Scripture credits Moshe with its construction – nevertheless, “Since Moshe did not perform any work in [the construction of] the Sanctuary, the Holy One, blessed be He, left its erection for him” (Rashi, Shmos 39:33). The implication is that G‑d left the erection of the Sanctuary for Moshe because otherwise his participation would be lacking.
See the series of maamarim entitled Basi Legani, 5710, ch. 6. See also Kli Yakar, Shmos 35:27.
To cite a somewhat similar usage: a yud was added to Yehoshua’s name as a prayer that G‑d would save him in the future (Bamidbar 13:16, see Rashi to the verse).
The intent is that Moshe’s prayer was the reason that G‑d saved Yehoshua. Similarly, here, the lack of a yud in the princes’ title caused their lack of bittul.
It is possible to say that for this reason as well Rashi mentions the name of the author of the teaching, Rabbi Nassan. Doing so resolves the question: How it is possible to say that the princes lacked bittul and therefore a letter was taken from their name?
This can be explained based on a passage from Horios 13b, which relates that Rabbi Nassan desired to have Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel removed from his position as nasi – the title of the head of the Sanhedrin, the singular of the term nisi’im, translated in the main text as “princes” – and that Rabbi Nassan felt that he was more appropriate for that role than Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. This indicates that Rabbi Nassan understood the role of a nasi and the possibility for such a person to possess feelings that reflect less than consummate bittul. This was manifest in the conduct of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – who ordained that the Sages not stand before Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nassan as they did before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel – and in Rabbi Nassan’s own feelings, that he thought that he was more appropriate for that role than Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
See Zohar, Vol. III, p. 23a, which speaks of a nasi transgressing due to feelings of haughtiness.
See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 1, ch. 214, that mentions several levels in a person’s consciousness of his bittul.
Nesius, translated as “elevated,” shares the same root letters as nisi’im, “princes.”
Nedarim 32b.
Man is a social being and he and his surroundings are influenced one by the other (see Rambam, Hilchos Deos 6:1). Either he influences his environment or his environment will influence him.
Berachos 34b.
See Derech Mitzvosecha, mitzvas minui melech, sec. 1.
In a more particular sense, here the intent is the point at the top of the yud that alludes to the attribute of kesser, that transcends chochmah. See the maamar entitled Kol Koreh, 5701, et al.
See the second maamar entitled Vayidaber Elokim es kol Hadavarim HaEileh, 5699, p. 207, in the name of Ramaz. See the Arizal’s Likkutei Torah, Parshas Bereishis, commenting on Bereishis 5:24; the Alter Rebbe’s Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 8bff., Shir HaShirim, pp. 50a-c, 51c‑d, and the sources mentioned there. These sources identify Mashiach with the attribute of yechidah.
פרשתנו לה, כז.
מספרי נשא ז, ג (הובא גם בפירוש רש״י שם). וליתא שם סיום פירוש רש״י "ולפי שנתעצלו כו’ ”. ובבמדבר רבה (פי״ב, טז), תנחומא פקודי (יא) הובא גם סיום זה – אלא ששם: א) לא הובא זה בשם רבי נתן. ב) הובא בכמה שינויים.
בספרי ופירוש רש״י נשא מאמר רבי נתן הוא על הפסוק "ויקריבו אותו לפני המשכן" שהמדובר שם הוא בנדבות העגלות והבקר לשאת המשכן, כהמשך הכתובים (ולא נזכר בספרי ופירוש רש״י חנוכת המזבח), וחנוכת המזבח מבואר שם פסוק יוד ואילך (ראה פירוש רש״י שם). ובפשטות יש לומר שגם כאן כוונתו גם לנדבות העגלות והבקר. ובדפוס שני ובכמה וכמה כתבי-יד רש״י "מה ראו נשיאים להתנדב בחנוכת המשכן בתחלה", וכן בסיום פירוש רש״י "לכך התנדבו בחנוכתו תחלה" (וכן הוא בדפוס ראשון).
לכאורה צריך עיון פירוש תיבת "בתחלה" (ועל דרך זה הוא בספרי ופירוש רש״י נשא שם) שהרי רק הם התנדבו לחנוכת המזבח. ואולי נקרא תחלה לא דחנוכתו כי אם מצד עצם ענין המזבח, שהם היו הראשונים להקריב על המזבח ובני ישראל הקריבו את קרבנותיהם אחר חנוכת המזבח (דהנשיאים). או יש לומר כפשטות הלשון "בתחלה", שגם בני ישראל נדבו לחנוכת המזבח קרבנות נדבה (כיון שהיו נדיבי לב ביותר) אחר הנשיאים. ולהעיר מנשא (ז, פד) "זאת חנוכת המזבח גו' מאת נשיאי ישראל". ואין כאן מקומו.
בפירוש רש״י נשא שם – בשינויים (ועל דרך זה בספרי) מפירוש רש״י כאן: א) ליתא שם "(אנו משלימין) אותו". ב) מוסיף ״(כיון) שראו״. ג) מוסיף ״(אמרו) מעתה מה לנו כו’ ”. ד) מסיים "והמלואים לאפוד ולחושן" ואינו מוסיף "וגו’ ”, מה שאין כן בפירוש רש״י כאן "את אבני השהם וגו'״*.
*) להעיר מספר עץ הדעת טוב (מהרח״ו) פרשתנו (קיד, ד) שהנשיאים הביאו רק את אבני השהם והמילואים (אבל על הפסוק כאן (קטו, ג) כתב שהביאו גם הבושם ושמן כו׳). ולכאורה על פי מה שכתב באור החיים תרומה (כה, ז), פנים יפות (שם, ב) ועוד – כן הוא לפירוש הגמרא דלקמן הערה יד. אבל בגמרא שם לפני זה שירד להם כו׳ עם המן תכשיטי נשים (בשמים) כו'. ובתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל פירש גם בפסוק כח ענני שמיא בהמשך לפסוק כז. ואין כאן מקומו.
משכיל לדוד כאן.
ועל דרך זה הוא סדרם בציווי עשייתם, שהציווי על שמן למאור ובגדי כהונה נאמר בפרשת תצוה לאחרי הציווי על מלאכת המשכן בפרשת תרומה (ולהעיר מפירוש רש״י אמור כד, ב), ובשמים לשמן המשחה כו' נצטוו בפרשת תשא.
להעיר מאור החיים תרומה כה, ז בתירוץ הא׳.
ועוד: בציווי הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה (ריש פרשת תרומה) ובציווי משה לישראל (ריש פרשת ויקהל) נאמרו שמן למאור בשמים לשמן המשחה גו' לפני אבני שהם ואבני מילואים.
לה, כד.
אף שיש לומר שגם זה נכלל בנדבת והמשכן, אלא שהכתוב מספר איך הביאו. וראה אור החיים כאן. וראה לקוטי שיחות חט"ו ע׳ 452 ואילך.
דזה שמפרט מה שהביאו (אבני שהם ומילואים בושם וכו') מובן בפשטות, כמו שמפרט כל י״ג הדברים שבני ישראל הביאו. אבל לכאורה לא הוצרך לפרש שהנשיאים הם שהביאום.
לכאורה יש לומר שמפרטם מצד חשיבותם – אבל אז הוה ליה להקדימם בתחלה לפני נדבת כל ישראל. ודוחק לומר שלא כתבו בתחלה לפי שכן הוא סדר הציווי כו׳ (כנ״ל בפנים) – כי אם תמצי לומר שמפרטם מפני חשיבותם, מובן שלא יפרטם לבסוף, שנותן מקום לומר שזהו מצד העדר מעלתם,
[נוסף על הדוחק – שהרי היו כמה אנשים חשובים בבני ישראל (הזקנים וכו') שבודאי התנדבו למלאכת המשכן מתאים לחשיבות שלהם ולא נפרטו בפני עצמם.
אבל בזה היה אפשר לומר: א) שכוונת הנשיאים כאן היא לא רק לנשיאי השבטים (כמו שמפרש רש״י. וראה פירוש רש״י נשא ז, ב) כי אם אנשים חשובים ומורמים מעם כמו בכמה מקומות בתורה לפני זה. וראה פירוש רש״י תשא לד, לב "אחר שלמד לזקנים כו׳", שלכאורה משמע שזהו פירוש "הנשיאים בעדה" שבפסוק שם לפני זה. ב) שהם לא נפרטו בפני עצמם כי לא הביאו דבר מסוים ומיוחד כמו שהנשיאים הביאו (וראה תוספות הדר זקנים, פירוש הרא״ש וחזקוני – שייכות דברים אלו להנשיאים)].
לה, כא.
ומטעם זה היה אפשר לפרש ״נשאם״ – "עננים" [כבמשלי כה, יד. ועוד (הובא בפירוש רש״י לעיל לך יז, כ). ועל דרך פירוש הגמרא יומא עה, א. תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל כאן. תרגום ירושלמי (הובא בבעל הטורים כאן). שמות רבה פל״ג, ח], שעל פי זה מתורצות ב׳ קושיות הנ"ל שבפנים (להעיר מחדושי אגדות יומא שם).
אבל רש״י כאן לא פירש כן, כי אינו על דרך הפשט. ובפרט שבציווי הקדוש ברוך הוא בריש פרשת תרומה מפורש "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו גו׳. תקחו מאתם גו’ ”. וגם בפסוקים אלו הרי נאמר תיכף בכתוב שלאחרי זה (כט) "כל איש ואשה גו׳" שבפשטות הוא הכלל דכל הכתובים שלפני זה (ראה ראב״ע כאן).
לכאורה אפשר לומר (כדמשמע בתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל (ראה פירוש יונתן). ובשמות רבה שם*) שגם לפי הפירוש ד"נשאם" – "עננים", מכל מקום "הניחו נמי לפי פשוטו נשיאי השבטים"** [אלא שמצד ב׳ קושיות שבפנים מוכרח שיש בו גם הפירוש ד"עננים"***] – אבל דוחק לומר בפשוטו של מקרא שהכתוב יכתוב "והנשאם הביאו גו׳" לאחרי נדבות כל האנשים ונשים וטווית הנשים לרמז שהדרך שבאו להנשיאים היה על ידי העננים (אבל להעיר מאור החיים תרומה שם בסופו).
*) ״והיו הגדולים שבהן״ – ראה פירוש מהרז״ו שם. אלא שצריך עיון שממשיך "תדע שכן הוא שנאמר (פרשתנו לו, ג) והם הביאו אליו עוד נדבה בבקר בבקר" (כביומא שם – וראה שולי הגליון שלאחרי זה) שבפשטות מדובר בכתוב זה על-דבר נדבת כל ישראל.
**) לפי פירוש הגמרא משמע דפירוש "נשאם" הוא רק "עננים" [רק שהבאתם למשכן היתה על ידי ישראל (אבל בפירוש הרי״ף בעין יעקב שם משמע שמפרש כבתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל ושמות רבה), כדמוכח בגמרא לפני זה (אבל ברבינו בחיי כאן: הביאום ענני כבוד לתוך אהלו של משה. וכן משמע במדרש הגדול כאן)].
***) ועל דרך פירוש רש״י לך שם "נשיאים – כעננים יכלו כו'", שלא בא לשלול פירוש הפשוט דנשיאים, כי אם שבזה שנקט לשון נשיאים דוקא (ראה מפרשי רש״י שם) מרמז גם לזה ש"כעננים יכלו כו'".
ואפילו אם תמצי לומר שזה (שהתנדבו בחנוכת המזבח תחלה) מחזק הקושיא – הרי על כל פנים הוה ליה להקדים הענין שכאן לא התנדבו תחלה.
בבא בתרא קכג, א.
לו, ה. ז.
ראה בארוכה משכיל לדוד תרומה כה, ב. אבל פירושו (שבני ישראל לא נצטוו להביא אבני השהם וכו׳) לא נרמז כלל ברש״י. ובפרט שלפירושו צריך לומר (כמו שכתב שם בעצמו) שרש״י לא פירש דבריו בפרשת תרומה מפני שסמך על פירושו (אחר כך) בפרשתנו!
בבמדבר רבה ותנחומא פקודי שם "אמרו הואיל ולא זכינו בתרומת מלאכת המשכן כלום אם כן ניתן בבגדי כהונה" (ובבמדבר רבה "בבגדי כהן גדול"). וראה אור החיים תרומה שם (״עוד נראה לומר״) – אבל בפירוש רש״י בפשוטו של מקרא לא מצינו חילוק דבגדי כהונה אינם חשובים כל כך כמלאכת המשכן. ולהעיר מראב״ע תרומה שם, ג (ועוד) "והשלים בנכבד אבני שוהם כו' כי לא נמצאו רק אצל הנשיאים". ולהעיר שלשון רש״י בפרשתנו הוא "במלאכת המשכן".
להעיר שכן הוא בדפוס ב׳ וברש״י כתבי-יד.
אף שלשון רש״י מקורו מספרי כנ״ל – הרי כמדובר כמה פעמים כל המובא בפירוש רש״י על התורה צריך להיות מוכרח על פי פשוטו של מקרא. ובפרט שבנדון דידן אינו מציין שמקורו מספרי וכיוצא בזה.
יתרו יט, יד.
בא יג, יג. בשלח טו, כב. תרומה כו, טו.
על דרך פירוש הראב״ע על הפסוק.
מה שאין כן הנשיאים אמרו “מה שמחסרין אנו משלימין אותו” – החסר, מה שיחסר בהמשכן.
אפילו אם תמצי לומר שעל פי פשוטו של מקרא* לא היה ציווי על כל אחד מישראל לנדבת המשכן כי אם “מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי” (תרומה כה, ב), “קחו מאתכם תרומה לה׳ כל נדיב לב יביאה” (פרשתנו לה, ה) – הרי מובן, שמכיון שזה היה דבר הכי חשוב אצל ישראל שהיו טורחים “שתשרה שכינה בינינו ונדע שנתכפר לנו עון העגל” (רש״י שמיני ט, כג), פשוט שהעדר ההשתתפות בזה (כמו כל ישראל) והעדר הזריזות הוא חסרון. ולהעיר מפירוש רש״י (פקודי לט, לג) גם במשה “ולפי שלא עשה משה שום מלאכה במשכן הניח לו הקדוש ברוך הוא הקמתו”. ובתנחומא פקודי יא: שהיה משה מיצר על שלא השתתף (אבל ראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ו ע׳ 223 הערה 11).
*) מה שאין כן על דרך ההלכה – ראה רמב״ם הלכות בית הבחירה פ״א הי״ב: הכל חייבין לבנות ולסעד בעצמן ובממונם אנשים ונשים כמקדש המדבר.
על דרך פירוש רש״י לעיל (תרומה כה, ב) “לקנות מהן קרבנות ציבור”.
באברבנאל ריש פרשת תרומה: להגיד שאלו הדברים שיזכור יקחו מהם בתרומה אבל אם ינדבו ויתנו דברים אחרים כאלו תאמר ברזל ועופרת בגדים ודברים אחרים לא יקחו מאתם כי לא רצה יתברך שיתנו איזה דבר כו׳ שיזדמן ויקחו מאתם כמציל מן הדליקה כו’. וראה ספורנו שם כה, ג: לא יקבלו כל שוה כסף כו׳ אבל יקבלו תרומה שגופה נכנסת במלאכת המשכן (ולהעיר מלשון רש״י שם, ב: יג דברים האמורים בענין כולם הוצרכו למלאכת המשכן כו’).
אבל א) בפירוש רש״י לא נזכר זה. ב) יתכן שכאשר לא הובאו אבני השוהם וכו׳ עצמם, קבלו הכסף מבני ישראל עבור זה. ג) מצינו כסף שהובא לצורך דברים שבמשכן אף שאינו מפורש בכתוב (ראה ראב״ע שם, ג. אור החיים פרשתנו לו, ה). ד) גם לפירוש רש״י היה עודף כסף כו’ שלא הוצרכו למלאכת המשכן ולא מפורש בכתוב (ראה תרומה שם, ג: עשאוהו לכלי שרת. וראה פירוש רש״י בהערה שלפני זה, לפקודי לט, א). ה) באור החיים פרשתנו לה, כא: יודיע הכתוב כי כל צרכי המשכן כו’ באו בעצמן בנדבה ולא הוצרכו לקנות דבר מהם בכסף וזהב המובא בתרומה”. ומזה גופא מוכח שקבלו גם זה.
ואולי יש לומר שזהו הטעם (רש״י בפרשת נשא (ז, ג)) שלא קיבל משה מידם (ועל דרך זה שם, יוד) – כי (נוסף על זה שלא נצטווה כו’, גם) אין זה סדר הנהגה דנשיא להביא מתחלה*. ועל פי זה יומתק מה שממשיך רש״י באותו הד״ה “אמר רבי נתן מה ראו כו’ ” ולא כתבו בד״ה בפני עצמו, כדרכו בכמה מקומות. וראה לקמן הערה ל.
*) וראה מפרשי הספרי ורש״י שם (משכיל לדוד שם פסוק ג׳ ויו״ד) באופן אחר.
פירוש רש״י שמיני ט, כג. וראה פירוש רש״י תשא ל, טז.
וזה שמשה לא קיבל מידם עד שנאמר לו מפי המקום (בין בפסוק ג בנדבת העגלות והבקר, ובין בפסוק יוד בחנוכת המזבח) – יש לומר כי מאחר שזה היה לאחר שבעת ימי המילואים שכבר היה חינוך הכהנים במשכן ובשמיני במילואים לאחרי ששרתה שכינה בו ונודע שנתכפר להם על מעשה העגל אולי אין זה כנדבת למלאכת המשכן שהם צריכים להתנדב תחלה ואדרבה צריך לדאוג שבני ישראל יביאו. וזה שממשיך שם רש״י “אמר רבי נתן מה ראו הנשיאים כו’ ” היינו לבאר למה אמרו הנשיאים שבזה צריך להיות הסדר שיתנדבו תחלה (ולא עלתה על דעתם החילוק כסברת משה). ובספרי איתא לפני רבי נתן אומר “הסכימה דעתן לדעת עליונה”. ולהעיר שבספרי ממשיך “רבי נתן אומר” ובפירוש רש״י “אמר רבי נתן”.
ולהעיר מפירוש רש״י נשא ז, א כלות משה: “בצלאל ואהליאב כו’ עשו את המשכן ותלאו הכתוב במשה לפי כו’ ”. ולהעיר ממאמר רז״ל (בבא בתרא ט, א) גדול המעשה יותר מן העושה. אלא שבנדון דידן לא היה “מעשה” כי היה בנדבת הלב דכל ישראל.
קידושין טו, א. ושם נסמן.
ראה שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סי׳ פו ס״ה. קצות החשן שם סק״א.
ולהעיר שגם בנוגע למשה אף שכל ציווי נדבת ומלאכת המשכן היה על ידו ועד ש”תלאו הכתוב (עשייתו) במשה” (כנ״ל הערה לא) מכל מקום “הניח לו הקדוש ברוך הוא הקמתו” “לפי שלא עשה משה שום מלאכה במשכן” (בידיו).
ראה המשך באתי לגני ה׳שי״ת פ״ו. וראה כלי יקר על הפסוק.
על דרך הוספת היו״ד דיהושע – י-ה יושיעך (בעתיד) – שלח יג, טז ובפירוש רש״י.
ויש לומר שגם מטעם זה מעתיק רש״י שם בעל המאמר – רבי נתן – כי על פי זה מתורץ איך יתכן לפרש שאצל הנשיאים היה חסר בהביטול (ולכן נחסרה אות משמם). וזה מבואר על פי “רבי נתן” שעליו מסופר (הוריות יג, ב) שרצה להעביר את רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מנשיאותו ושהוא ראוי לזה יותר מרבן שמעון בן גמליאל. היינו שידע ענינו של נשיא שאפשר שיתערב בהרגשתו ענין שאינו ביטול בתכלית, כמו שהיה אצל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתקין שלא יקומו מקמי רבי מאיר ורבי נתן כמו שעומדים לפניו, ואיך שהוא עצמו חשב שהוא ראוי להיות נשיא יותר מרבן שמעון בן גמליאל.
ראה זהר ח״ג כג, א.
להעיר מהמשך תער״ב ח״א פרק רי״ד מדרגי׳ בהרגשת הביטול.
נדרים לב, ב.
דהרי האדם הוא מדיני והוא וסביבתו מושפעים זה מזה (ראה רמב״ם ריש פ״ו מהלכות דיעות) או שהוא משפיע בסביבתו או שנעשה מושפע מהם.
ברכות לד, ב.
ראה ספר המצות להצמח צדק מצות מינוי מלך פ״א.
ובפרטיות יותר יש לומר שהוא בחינת קוצו של יו״ד, בחינת הכתר שלמעלה מחכמה – ראה ד״ה קול קורא תש״א. ובכמה מקומות.
ראה ד״ה וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים תרצ״ט (השני) בשם הרמ״ז. וראה לקוטי תורה להאריז״ל בראשית על הפסוק ויתהלך חנוך. לקוטי תורה צו (ח, ב ואילך). שם סוף שיר השירים. ושם נסמן. – דמשיח ענינו יחידה.
The people of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the miracles he performed. So why did they believe in him? Because when we stood at Sinai, our own eyes saw and our own ears heard the fire, the sounds and the flames, and how Moses approached the cloud and G-d's voice called to him...
–Maimonides
Why support the construction?
Together, we can build the Temple for the benefit of mankind
Expressing the desire to build the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem and registering The thirdTemple.org, we are part of a collaborative movement. As our number grows so will our ability to influence the media and on world politics, and thus the project will be realized today.
Chat with our assistant about the Third Temple
Find answers to your questions thanks to the construction of the Third Temple: The project, the history, the legal and political situation but also the plans and the pontifical service which will be carried out at the Temple. Our assistants are here to listen to you.
Every Sunday AM 09.50 (IST) B”H we shall have our live streaming from the Har HaBayit, every Sunday, from here in Jerusalem….. Via a YouTube channel.
A call up for every Jewish and non-Jewish Torah observant to Pray for new good Jewish Leaders in Yisrael.
click:
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Donations:
Beit Yisrael International.
Become a member.
Get the MemberShip, become an associate with Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic/Lost Tribes of Efrayim/‘Ger Toshav‘: Israelite by accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Chasidut, the teachings of CHaBaD, hearing and doing.)
Bring the House of Ephraim in unity.
Click: Beit yisrael international
Until........:
Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.
Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.
10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.
Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.
11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.
Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.
and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.
And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.
12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.
13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.
Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.
14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.
Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.
and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.
15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.
Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.
over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.
with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”
into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.
and He shall lead: the exiles within it.
with shoes: on dry land.
16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.
Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Together we Triumph
by Gal Einai February 28, 2024
"And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moav; and the children of Amon shall obey them."
(Isaiah 11:14)
This verse refers to the days of Mashiach, when the Nation of Israel will defeat all its surrounding enemies. The verse is particularly relevant to us today, while we are fighting in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is the ancient “land of the Philistines.” Today’s “Palestinians” are the Arabs who live in Gaza, on Israel’s western flank, on the sea.
To defeat the Philistines, we have to be united, as is written in the same prophecy about the ingathering of the distant members of the Nation of Israel and the unity between Judah and Efraim. “And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west.” Rashi explains: “Israel will fly and run with one shoulder upon the Philistines who are in the west of the Land of Israel and will conquer their land.” We have to be “with one shoulder” – united, shoulder-to-shoulder. Today, we can also add that “And they shall fly down” can be understood literally as the defeat of the Palestinians with Israel’s air force. Our soldiers will spread their wings and fly to destroy the enemy and assist the ground forces in their conquest of Gaza.
We receive the power of “one shoulder” from Joseph, who is buried in Shechem (In Hebrew, Shechem is both the name of the city and means “shoulder”). Shechem is the city of the covenant, as we say in Psalms 80:2 “The shepherd of Israel, listen, He Who leads Joseph like a flock – appear, He Who is enthroned upon the cherubs.” (And in gematriah, עפו = יוסף: “shall fly” equals “Joseph”).
The concept of “one shoulder” is connected to the ultimate Messianic purpose of rectification of the world, when all people will recognize God and the Torah of Moses: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of God, to serve Him with one shoulder.”[1] The current war in the land of the Philistines in the west, on the shores of the Great Sea, is particularly associated with the clarification and rectification of the Western world and Western culture, reaching to the US on the other side of the world.
Triumph in the land of the Philistines is the realization of the promise in the Torah, “And I will place your border from the Red Sea until the Sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the river, for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.”[2] This is our map of the “New Middle East’: “From the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines” including the entire Sinai Peninsula. (Surrendering Sinai to Egypt 45 years ago was the root of all further surrenders and retreats). “From the desert to the river” – From the Sinai desert in the southwest until the Euphrates in the northeast. This includes the elimination of the combined threat from Syria-Iraq-Iran. And so in Isaiah’s prophecy, “together shall they spoil the children of the east” – the defeat of the enemies to the east (such as the hostile nations on the Arabian Peninsula). “…for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.” This is the directive and our mission: to create a new Middle East, to expel Israel’s enemies from the Land of Israel – and to extend Israeli rule and benevolence to those non-Jews who desire the status of foreign resident in Israel.
[1] Tzephania 3:9.
[2] Exodus 23:31.
Source: https://inner.org/together-we-triumph/
We like to invite you to join our new social network where you shall find good Torah and News Updates from Yisrael even translated Israeli Newspapers articles click:
Blessings
Bet Yisrael International From Gaddi and Ariel, Many Blessings to all the ShneymAsarHaShevatim (Twelve Tribes) in the Golus, Shalom!
Click:
click: Subscribe to our newsletter
As the Representative of Beit Yisrael International I collect the weekly YouTube Torah studies from Gaddi (President), and I give you weekly news-updates about how that Beit Yisrael International is developing in a world association of Torah Observants Ephraimites (Yisrael): individuals, groups and organizations associated with each other in Torah. With the goal the 'restoration' of the Kingdom of Ephraim (Yisrael) into unity with Yehuda (Jews) under 'supervision' of Jewish Orthodox Rabbis.
Comments
Post a Comment