Parshat Pekudei

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/93.html

Vayakhel Answers

VaYakhel 5730
Alef.
            Teruma/Tetzave                                       VaYakhel/Pekudei
            
 Shemot 25:1-9 Materials required   35:1-3 SHABBAT        
                  10-22 Ark                  4-9 Materials required
                  23-30 Shulchan             10-26  The craftsmen
                  31-40 Menora              27-29 The contributors
             26:1-30  Inner sanctuary, hangings       30-35 Betzalel and Ohaliav
                31-37 Curtain sep. Kodesh Kodashim   36:1-7  Collection of materials
             27:1-8   Outer altar           8-13 Outer hangings
                                    9-19 Outer structure         14-19 Coverings for inner sanctuary
                  20-21 Oil of Menora           20-38 Outer structure
             28:1-43 Priestly garments     37:1-9 Ark
             29:1-37 Ritual dedicating priests         10-16 Shulchan
                           38-42 Korban Tamid           17-24 Menora
                   43-46 HaShem will Inhabit Mishkan         25-29 Incense altar
        30:1-10 Incense altar      38:1-7 Outer altar
                  11-16 Collecting ½ Shekel            8   Laver
                  17-21 The Laver             9-20 Outer structure
                  22-33 Anointing vessels with oil         21-31 Amts. of materials collected
                  34-38 Incense offering       39:1-31 Priestly garments

31:1-11 Introduction to Betzalel and Ohaliav            32-43 Brought completed Mishkan             32-43 SHABBAT       to Moshe 

1. Perhaps since the most important piece of information that HaShem Wishes to convey to Moshe is the components of the Mishkan, with Shabbat serving the purpose of representing a second type of Mishkan, i.e., a Tabernacle in time in contrast to the Tabernacle in space and place that is the Mishkan. (See e.g., “VaYakhel I: Shabbat and the Tabernacle, Sanctuaries in Time and Space: Two Intertwined Concepts” in Rabbi Avishai David, Discourses of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik on the Weekly Parashah, Urim Publications, Jerusalem, 2011, pp. 197-8). However, with respect to the instructions to the fabricators themselves, led by Betzalel, the most important thing are the rules that will inform their work. As important as the Mishkan is, Shabbat is that much more important and therefore they are told from the outset that no work on the Mishkan is to take place on Shabbat.

2. If we assume that these Parashiot are in chronological order, then the sin of the Calf put the religious orientation or lack thereof of the people in new perspective. While the Mishkan is a structure that God Commands, and therefore is less likely to be turned into an idolatrous object of worship than anything that the people might fabricate, nevertheless the more spiritual, less material quality of Shabbat takes on greater importance in the sense of a check and balance to any misunderstanding arising re the Mishkan. The people are to remember that the object-less Shabbat (A.J. Heschel in his classic The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man [The Earth is the Lord’s and The Sabbath, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1951, p. 82], notes that whereas most festivals require one or another “ritual object”, this is not the case for Shabbat. Even Tefillin are not worn because of the spiritual “sign” the Shabbat in terms of itself represents) sets the tone for how they should approach the act of worshipping in the object-filled Mishkan.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN: Moshe was Commanded about the Mishkan during the first forty days he was on the mountain, and told the people about what HaShem Wished for them to do when he came down the first time, after having smashed the tablets.. However, he thought that as a result of the sin of the Calf, HaShem would no longer be Interested in Dwelling in the midst of the people and therefore did not order them to carry out this Commandment at this time. However, once he saw that HaShem was Ready to Grant Atonement to the people by Replacing the broken tablets, Moshe proceeded to tell them about the Mishkan all over again, this time ordering them to get to work on the fabrication, because he concluded that the project was on again.

      RaShI: The Commandment to build the Mishkan was first Given only after the sin of the Calf. (This would parallel RaMBaM’s implication in the Moreh that Korbanot were a concession to the concrete nature of man’s spiritual worship. In order to substitute positively for things like a molton calf, a Mishkan and sacrifices would be Commanded. RaMBaN sharply disagrees with such an approach by pointing out that there were sacrificed offered by the likes of Kayin and Hevel, as well as Noach that were positively received by HaShem, not necessarily because some sin had reflected a shortcoming in man, but rather that this was a positive way for man to express his longing to come closer to HaShem—“Korban”: something that brings one “closer.”)

2.  As was alluded to in the previous answer, is the Mishkan to be viewed as something that is positive and stands independently from any of man’s actions, including those which are viewed as regrettable, or is the Mishkan a response to some sort of shortcoming or lack of development in man. If the Mishkan is an end in itself, then the RaMBaN’s position would be at the forefront, i.e., the Mishkan was Commanded during Moshe’s first forty days on Sinai, prior to any terrible sin. On the other hand, if the Mishkan was intended as a method to sublimate man’s less than admirable need for tangible objects to inform and focus his Divine Worship, this becomes eminently clear after the sin of the Calf, and therefore, according to RaShI and Sephorno, one has to posit a cause-and-effect relationship between these two things.

3.  At the beginning of the Parasha, when Moshe tells the people what has to be fabricated, no explanation is given for what these things are, implying that they have already heard about it and now they are just getting the go-ahead to get to work. Back in Teruma and Tetaveh, details were given as to how to construct each of the objects. When later in VaYakhel and Pekudai, the details are given, it is only to illustrate that the people precisely followed the instructions that had been given earlier.

שמות פרק לה

(יא) את המשכן את אהלו ואת מכסהו את קרסיו ואת קרשיו את בריחו את עמדיו ואת אדניו:

(יב) את הארן ואת בדיו את הכפרת ואת פרכת המסך:

(יג) את השלחן ואת בדיו ואת כל כליו ואת לחם הפנים:

(יד) ואת מנרת המאור ואת כליה ואת נרתיה ואת שמן המאור:

(טו) ואת מזבח הקטרת ואת בדיו ואת שמן המשחה ואת קטרת הסמים ואת מסך הפתח לפתח המשכן:

(טז) את מזבח העלה ואת מכבר הנחשת אשר לו את בדיו ואת כל כליו את הכיר ואת כנו:

(יז) את קלעי החצר את עמדיו ואת אדניה ואת מסך שער החצר:

(יח) את יתדת המשכן ואת יתדת החצר ואת מיתריהם:

(יט) את בגדי השרד לשרת בקדש את בגדי הקדש לאהרן הכהן ואת בגדי בניו לכהן:

(כ) ויצאו כל עדת בני ישראל מלפני משה:

Gimel.

1. The contradiction would appear to be that in the case of VaYakhel, Shabbat is mentioned first and the interpretation is that Shabbat takes precedence over constructing the Mishkan which is discussed subsequently. However, in Parashat Kedoshim, although respecting one’s parents is listed before observance of Shabbat, yet again we are told that Shabbat takes precedence. Does the order in which the Mitzvot are listed then have no significance?

2. Perhaps the apparent contradiction can be rectified if we were to draw a distinction between when two Commandments are listed separately as opposed to when there is a Hekesh that combines both of them in the same verse. When they are listed separately, as in the case of VaYakhel, nothing can be made of the order since a possible informing rule is "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" (there is no chronological order in the Tora). Consequently, I no longer can say with certainty which rule was taught first and which second. While I cannot apply such a rule to two elements in the same verse, nevertheless, I don’t have to say that the single verse is in conflict with topics listed in two different places, even if in the opposite order.

Daled.

1. Alshich is attempting to explain why working on the Mishkan is not considered important enough to push aside the restrictions of Melacha on Shabbat.

2.  In Parashat Ki Tisa, the Commandment of Shabbat is mentioned prior to the description of the sin of the Calf. Consequently, rather than focusing upon the holiness of the Mishkan, also an object that serves as a focus of religious devotion, (Alshich ans. 1) the emphasis is upon the holiness of man who is able to impart his holiness if only he does not violate it by violating the Shabbat. Perhaps this is also implied in how the origins of Betzalel’s talents are described:

 שמות פרק לא

(ג) ואמלא אתו רוח אלקים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת ובכל מלאכה:

     The only way in which man, in this case Betzalel, can invest that which he makes with holiness, is by transferring the skill and knowledge that originates with God and was Placed within him to the objects that he makes according to the overall lifestyle that HaShem has formulated for man, the observance of Shabbat constituting a fundamental principle of such a lifestyle. (Alshich ans. 2) Furthermore, although a great deal of excitement will accompany the making of the Mishkan, it should be realized that this institution, even at the outset, pales in comparison to the Commandment of Shabbat, which is eternal, not dependent upon time, place, or thing. Therefore if Shabbat will always be comprised of greater holiness than the Mishkan, working on the Mishkan obviously cannot trump Shabbat observance.

      In terms of Parashat VaYakhel (Alshich ans. 3) emphasis is placed upon how the Mishkan’s holiness, rather than stemming from man, in fact stems from HaShem, and only when it is entirely constructed and the Divine Presence Gives evidence of Its having taken up Residence, i.e., a cloud settles over the structure, can one speak of any holiness within the structure. Since the people were ready to attribute holiness to something that they had made—the Calf—it is insufficient to state that the holiness within man is what confers holiness to an object that he makes. An object made by man and intended to be holy, only once it has been correctly and precisely constructed, and meets with HaShem’s Approval can it be declared holy. Of course, in the period of Hester Panim (the Hiding of the Face), like the general problem of being unable to determine whether our actions are in accordance with God’s Will, it is much more difficult to know when an object, building, idea, etc. that man has come up with, constructed, dedicated is truly in keeping with the Divine Will. I suppose we just have to do the best we can.

3.  The link to the Gilayon that Nechama is referencing in this question is: http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=614&Guidance=1

     Abrabanel: One might have thought that greater testament to faith and holiness is accomplished by acting proactively rather than by being passive and not doing anything. Therefore the Tora emphasizes that Shabbat which entails not doing Melacha is more of a statement of holiness and belief than building the Mishkan.

   Heshel: Man is under the impression that he must fill the void in which he finds himself with objects or he must associated holiness with objects. In fact the first and only thing that the Bible declares as holy is time. The only reason why holy objects in terms of the Mishkan came into existence is because of man’s sin of the Calf, demonstrating that he needs such an outlet. However, that was not necessarily part of the original Divine Plan for man’s engaging in holy activity.

4.  Alshich would appear to emphasize the objective origins of the holiness as manifest in objects—(ans. 1) via man who has to be holy himself in order to impart holiness to the things that he makes; (ans. 3) via HaShem only once an object is completed by man and then Inhabited by the Divine Presence—or (ans. 2) the relative holiness of objects in terms of limitations upon how long something remains holy, with that which is eternally holy on a higher level than that which has some sort of end point to its holiness or whose holiness can be removed.

     Abrabanel and Heshel appear to be focusing upon man’s psychology, i.e., what in his mind conveys holiness as opposed to what actually is the source of holiness.

Heh.

1. One could think that the two verses contradict one another. On the one hand, 35:1 states that HaShem Wishes that the various activities necessary for the fabrication of the Mishkan are to take place. On the other, 35:2 states that Melacha can only take place for six days, but not on the seventh. The fundamental question that arises is whether or not the Melacha involved in the Mishkan is not covered by the restriction of Shabbat. RaMBaN claims that the very juxtaposition of these two verses demonstrates that Shabbat trumps the manufacture of the elements of the Mishkan. This is further demonstrated by the Rabbinic interpretation that specifically the thirty-nine activities associated with the making of the Mishkan serve as the basis for the formulation of what sort of Melacha is prohibited on Shabbat.

2.  RaMBaN is of the opinion that the “Mi’ut” “Ach” should not add to the restrictions of Shabbat, but rather point to exceptions to the restrictions, e.g., the fact that if the eighth day after a baby boy is born falls on Shabbat the circumcision takes place or if someone is deathly ill, the restrictions of Shabbat are relaxed in order to allow him to hopefully survive. Consequently, if the restrictions of Shabbat are to be extended to an area like the construction of the Mishkan, a different hermeneutic derivation has to be found.

Vav.

1. RaShI’s citation of views in the Talmud relate to the fact that virtually¹ of all of the thirty-nine prohibited categories of Melacha on Shabbat listed in Mishna Shabbat 7:2, the only one that is explicitly stated is that of lighting a fire in Shemot 35:3. The view that it is “ללאו יצאת” contends that unlike the other 38, making a fire is so destructive rather than constructive, that it is categorized differently than all the others, and whereas a violation of the others can earn the perpetrator the punishments of death (if there were witnesses and warning) or Karet (if there wasn’t), lighting a fire on Shabbat is only a Lo Ta’aseh which at worst could result in Malkot. The other view, “לחלק יצאת” maintains that had even one Melacha not been specified by itself, it could have been assumed that until an individual has violated every one of the thirty-nine Melachot, he is not considered in violation of any. When we see that making a fire is individualized, it serves as a paradigm for each of the others to state similarly that when any of them are individually transgressed, a person is already in violation of doing Melacha on Shabbat. Furthermore, if a person violates several of them, multiple punishments may be incurred under certain conditions.

2.  R. Hirsch’s dichotomy fits well with the two Halachic views. When emphasizing fire’s destructive aspect, one can conclude that it is a “מלאכה גריעותא”, an inferior Melacha and therefore should be treated as less of a violation of the prohibition not to engage in creative physical activity on Shabbat. But if the creative virtues of fire are emphasized, then it is truly a fit representative for each of the other Melachot, and just as a person is in violation of Shabbat by simply starting a fire, he similarly is in violation of Shabbat when he does any of the other thirty-nine major categories of Melacha.

Vayakhel Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/118.html

Answers to Kitisa

Ki Tissa 5729

שמות פרק לג

(יב) ויאמר משה אל יקוק ראה אתה אמר אלי העל את העם הזה ואתה לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם וגם מצאת חן בעיני:

(יג) ועתה אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך הודעני נא את דרכך ואדעך למען אמצא חן בעיניך וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה:

(יד) ויאמר פני ילכו והנחתי לך:

(טו) ויאמר אליו אם אין פניך הלכים אל תעלנו מזה:

(טז) ובמה יודע אפוא כי מצאתי חן בעיניך אני ועמך הלוא בלכתך עמנו ונפלינו אני ועמך מכל העם אשר על פני האדמה: פ

Alef.

1. If the purpose of learning about the ways of God is in order to find favor in His Eyes, then it is more important to understand about theodicy, which reflects God’s Approach to His Creation than it is to be aware of the rewards that might be granted when one complies with God’s Will. Rewards are not necessarily intrinsically connected to God’s Ways which is clearly not the case with respect to the manner in which He Treats the righteous and the sinful respectively.

2. RaShI wants to account for the final phrase in v. 13, i.e., “and consider that this is Your People” as opposed to starting again and deriving the people entirely from Moshe himself, as implied in Shemot 32:10. Consequently, rather than coming to understand the issue of theodicy, Moshe wishes to be reassured that HaShem is Committed to Preserving the Jewish people as they are presently constituted.

3. R. Yaakov Ibn Chaviv thinks that the Gemora’s formulation is more difficult because by setting theodicy in contrast to a more quid pro quo system, i.e., Rasha VeRa Lo, it eliminates the possibility that what seems to us Ra is in fact Tov and vice versa, if not in this world, then in the World to Come. The Gemora’s formulation admits that sometimes, a Tzaddik is treated objectively in a Ra fashion and this begs the question of fairness.

Beit.

1. The difficulty is that once HaShem has Stated to Moshe that He, rather than an angel, will be Accompanying the Jewish people on their journey, why does Moshe seem to harp on this as if HaShem had Said that He wasn’t Going to Personally do so? Does this suggest that Moshe did not have confidence that HaShem would Fulfill His Promise in this regard?

2. Why is it important to be told according to RaShI that Moshe Agrees to the arrangement of God Personally Accompanying the Jewish people? It would seem to make more sense that Moshe is negotiating some aspect of the arrangement, rather than simply supplying his ratification of God’s Plan.

3. RE”M: Moshe is indicating that had HaShem not Agreed to Personally Accompany the people, because of their love for HaShem thereby being unrequited in their eyes, they would never have journeyed away from Sinai, but rather remained there until their deaths.

     Be’er Yitzchak: RaShI is simply pointing out that rather than assuming that Moshe is doubting that God Intends to actually Accompany the people and thereby Make good on His Promise, Moshe is simply emphasizing how much HaShem’s Decision is appreciated.

     Maskil LeDavid: Moshe was seeking to close what he saw as a potential loophole in God’s Assurance that He would Personally Accompany the people. HaShem did not State when He would begin to Accompany the people, and Moshe was afraid that instead of this taking place immediately, it might start at some far-off future time.

     Divrei David: a) Moshe was concerned that HaShem had Promised to Be with the people only as long as Moshe was alive, but that as soon as Moshe would die, HaShem would Suspend His Staying close to the people.

      b) Moshe was emphasizing that God’s Accompanying the people should not be considered something that merely would make everyone feel better, but that in fact it was something intrinsic and vitally important to the well-being of the people.  

      The first two commentaries on RaShI assume that Moshe is not finding anything possibly amiss in God’s Assurance, and that Moshe, rather than doubting God’s Promise, is merely expressing how appreciative both he and the Jewish people are for God’s Promise. The second two commentaries understand RaShI as reflecting  a concern that God’s Promise does not go as far as it optimally might, and therefore Moshe is seeking additional assurances that this will all play out in the manner that he thinks would be best for the interests of the Jewish people.  

4. Perhaps Divrei David prefers b) to a) because verse 15, containing Moshe’s response to HaShem’s Assurance, includes the term “תעלנו” in which Moshe includes himself together with everyone else in the Jewish people. Consequently, this is not about Moshe’s worry that God is only doing this for him, but rather his concern about how HaShem Views His Agreement to Accompany the people in general. “והניחותי” is not a description of how only Moshe feels, but rather the entire Jewish people. And because HaShem Suggests that His Decision is a means for the Jews to feel better about themselves, Moshe counters with this is not about feeling good, but rather what is in the best interests of the continued growth and success of the people.  

Gimel.  

1. א)  R. Saadia Gaon in his interpretation of “פני” is incorporating the reason why perhaps it was not a good idea to have HaShem in such close proximity to the Jewish people, i.e., HaShem’s Tolerance level for bad behavior is not high and it is possible that this will result in Divine Punishments being meted out that otherwise would not have been given. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, believes that potential Anger and Punishments are not at issue; the statement by HaShem simply states His Intention to Personally Accompany the people on their journey, without implying that this might prove dangerous for them.

      ב) In 33:15, if the interpretation was in accordance with R. Saadia’s view, why would Moshe plead that HaShem’s Anger absolutely must Accompany the people if they are to journey from Sinai? Wouldn’t they be very well off without the presence of such a threat? However, if the meaning is that it is important that HaShem Himself be with the Jewish people, regardless of the danger and the consequences, this is a more understandable plea on the part of Moshe.  

2.  א)  Ibn Ezra based his interpretation upon the usage by Moshe of the plural “תעל-נו”. However RaMBaN points out that in 33:12 Moshe himself uses singular language in this context and that in 23:20, HaShem Does so. Therefore it begs the question why we should start to infer from the plural language that Moshe is concerned that perhaps HaShem only Intends to accompany him, Moshe, when at earlier points in the narrative, such a conclusion was apparently not being drawn.

      ב) RaMBaN wishes to demonstrate via 23:20 that although HaShem is speaking to Moshe in the singular, he is representing the entire Jewish people, and what is to apply to him will similarly apply to everyone. Consequently to claim that Moshe read between the lines of HaShem’s Assurance that the Accompaniment would only be for him was unfounded.

      ג)  If earlier on in 23:20, when HaShem was Using the singular, He did not Intend to only Describe Moshe’s situation, but rather that of the entire people, so too at this juncture in 33:14, the use of the singular does not relate to Moshe alone, but rather to the entire Jewish people.

     ד)  RaMBaN feels that all of the explanations that have been offered by classical commentators are flawed. And if no one has been able to come up with a reasonable explanation on a Peshat level, then one had no recourse other than applying the Sod approach to understanding the relationship between 33:14 and 15. (RaMBaN could have simply said he did not understand these verses, as RaShI does on a number of occasions—e.g., Beraishit 10:21; 28:5. To insist that the only way to read these verses is mystically, to my mind deprives the text of a non-aesoteric meaning, which is difficult. Not everyone will be an initiate to mysticism. Does that mean that the Tora has to be considered closed, at least in certain sections, to such individuals? Shivim Panim LaTora suggests that there are multiple interpretations possible. But only a single mystical one? This begs credulity for me personally.)

Parshat Ki Tisa

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/169.html

Tetzave Answers

Tetzave 5716
Alef.

These three verses stand alone from the rest of the chapter in the sense that they describe what will occur after the construction, fabrication and dedication are completed, i.e., that HaShem will Appear, Sanctify everything, and Fulfill the purpose of the entire process of the Exodus, namely that He will Dwell in the midst of the Jewish people.¹

Beit.

1. a. Sefer HaChinuch: If man is ready to devote time to preparing his own food several times each day, he should do the same vis-à-vis what he wished to offer to HaShem. (In that manner, it will not appear that he is interested only in himself.)

    b. Abrabanel: The sacrifices are expressions of appreciation for what HaShem has Done on behalf of the individual. (It would appear that he works backwards to an extent, i.e., since there are two Korbanot each day, there must therefore be two major things for which we have to express our appreciation. It then becomes the challenge to specifically identify what those two things are. By virtue of Abrabanel himself offering two separate hypotheses for explaining the two Tamid offerings each day, suggests that the symbolic approach, while evocative, is terribly lacking in rigor.

2. a. First answer: The two Kindnesses are: 1) the receiving of the Tora, and 2) the Exodus from Egypt. The ancillary offerings to the animal, i.e., meal offering—Manna; oil libation—the honor we received upon leaving Egypt and receiving the Tora; wine libation—the joy that we experienced on those occasions.

  Second answer: 3) Life that we “receive” each day, and 4)  life that we faithfully and securely entrust again to God at the end of the day. Meal offering, oil libation and wine libation—the sustenance that we receive from God.  

Gimel.

1.  “לשכני” (so that I may Dwell) is a reference to God’s “Inhabiting” the Mishkan.

2.  The relationship between the Exodus and the building of the Mishkan is a cause-and-effect relationship. In order for the Mishkan to be built, which will fulfill My Need to Dwell among the people, first the Exodus from Egypt must take place.

3.  שמות פרק ג

(יב) ויאמר כי אהיה עמך וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה:

Ibn Ezra interprets the promise that was made at the burning bush, i.e., that the people would worship God on this mountain, related not to the receiving of the Tora, which is the standard interpretation, but rather the building of the Tabernacle which was first constructed while the people were encamped close to Sinai.

4.  A similar idea lies at the heart of the Song of the Sea, i.e., the entire process was intended to bring the people to the land of Israel where a Temple could be constructed, thereby allowing HaShem to Rule:

שמות פרק טו

(טז) תפל עליהם אימתה ופחד בגדל זרועך ידמו כאבן עד יעבר עמך יקוק עד יעבר עם זו קנית:

(יז) תבאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך מכון לשבתך פעלת יקוק מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך:

(יח) יקוק ימלך לעלם ועד:

Daled.

While it may be true that God is Governing the entire world, who is aware of this? When the statement is made in Zecharia,

זכריה פרק יד

(ט) והיה יקוק למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה יקוק אחד ושמו אחד:

it is not to say that HaShem is not One and His Name One until that time; rather people who presently are unaware of the fact, will at that time come to know it. Similarly with regard to what 29:46 adds to 29:45, it will not only be empirically true that HaShem will be the God of the Jews, but they will be acutely aware of this fact, recognize and understand its implications. Similarly in Shemot 6:7, what is being added is the assertion that God’s Role in the Exodus will be clearly recognizable by the Jewish people. And finally, with respect to the statement in Avot 3:14, it is the fact that the excessive Love that HaShem has for the Jews will be known to them, that should inspire them to higher and higher levels of spiritual observance and commitment.

Parshat Tetzave

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/670.html

Parshat Terumah Answers

Teruma 5724.
Alef.

1. a. The wood was originally planted by Yaakov in Egypt and brought out of Egypt when the people were freed from slavery.

   b.The wood grew near Mt. Sinai and was harvested when needed.

   c. The wood was purchased from peoples with whom the Jews traded.

2.  The reason why RaShI explains a second time how Yaakov originally planted these trees in Egypt in anticipation of the eventual construction of the Mishkan is because of the “Heh HaYedia” in 26:15, “הקרשים”. Rather than simply making boards for the Mishkan, the people made the boards, which had already been anticipated. It would appear that while other parts of the Mishkan were also constructed from this material, i.e., the Aron (25:10) and the Shulchan (25:23), the main reason for the growing of the wood and probably the purpose for which most of the wood was devoted, was the construction of the boards.

3.  In the first commentary, the Peirush HaAroch,¹ Ibn Ezra prefers the interpretation that the trees were growing in the vicinity of Mt. Sinai. The phrase (35:24) “וכל אשר נמצא אתו עצי שטים לכל מלאכת העבודה הביאו” refers to those who had harvested some of these locally grown trees in order to construct shelters for themselves, were now being called upon to contribute that wood for the purpose of constructing the Mishkan.

   In the Peirush HaKatzar, Ibn Ezra, probably based upon the same phrase that he used to construct his first interpretation, now redefines his understanding to be similar to that of  the Midrash and RaShI (he does not necessarily accept that this was all part of a plan that Yaakov had shared with his family; only that the Jews brought the wood from Egypt in anticipation of their own lodging needs), i.e., that these were brought from Egypt rather than harvested locally.

4.  Ibn Ezra’s original critique of the Rabbinic approach originally stated in the Midrash Tanchumah:

a. The phrase cited above in 3, (35:24), implies that the Jews had the wood with them for their personal needs. What sort of needs could these have been that would have made them take such large pieces of wood out of Egypt with them?

b.  Even if for some reason they had needed wood, why would they have taken specifically this type of wood?

c.  They had told the Egyptians that they were only journeying for three days in order to then offer sacrifices upon the completion of which they would return. Would it then not appear strange that they were taking with them such a large amount and such large pieces of wood for an extremely temporary purpose?

It is possible that they explained that the purpose of the wood was to construct altars and to have kindling for the sacrifices, since they might not find sufficient material once they were out in the desert. After all, there were an extremely large number of people—603, 550 men above 20, plus women and children, plus the Mixed multitude—that would be involved in the sacrifices.²

It would appear that Ibn Ezra’s stated position at the end of his Peirush HaKatzer, i.e., that Erez and Shittim are one and the same species of wood, is contradicted by his comment in Yishayahu 41:19, where he goes out of his way to separate the two words from each other, implying that they are two separate species of tree.

Beit.

1. The two opposite implications of Yeshayahu 41:19 are:

   a.  The Shittim tree is native to the desert, for HaShem Placed it there.

b.  Since HaShem had to Place it in the desert, that means that prior to Yeshayahu’s time it was not extent in the desert. Consequently for the purposes of constructing the Tabernacle, it had to be imported from Egypt.

2. Shemot 35:24, that suggests that the wood was provided by whomever had such wood “with him” would seem to support the second position, i.e., that it was not indigenous to the area in which they people now found themselves, and therefore it could only be furnished by those who had brought it with them from Egypt.

Gimel.

וְכַפְתֹּ֡ר תַּחַת֩ שְׁנֵ֨י הַקָּנִ֜ים מִמֶּ֗נָּה

וְכַפְתֹּר֙ תַּ֣חַת שְׁנֵ֤י הַקָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נָּה

וְכַפְתֹּ֕ר תַּחַת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַקָּנִ֖ים מִמֶּ֑נָּה

לְשֵׁ֙שֶׁת֙ הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּצְאִ֖ים הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

The syntactical function

In general, each word in the Tanach has one cantillation sign.^[1] This may be either a disjunctive, showing a division between that and the following word, or a conjunctive, joining the two words (like a slur in music). Thus, disjunctives divide a verse into phrases, and within each phrase all the words except the last carry conjunctives.
The disjunctives are traditionally divided into four levels, with lower level disjunctives marking less important breaks.

1. The first level, known as "Emperors", includes sof pasuq / siluq, marking the end of the verse, and atnach / etnachta, marking the middle.
2. The second level is known as "Kings". The usual second level disjunctive is zaqef qaton (when on its own, this becomes zaqef gadol). This is replaced by tifcha when in the immediate neighbourhood of sof pasuq or atnach. A stronger second level disjunctive, used in very long verses, is segol: when it occurs on its own, this may be replaced by shalshelet.
3. The third level is known as "Dukes". The usual third level disjunctive is revia. For musical reasons, this is replaced by zarqa when in the vicinity of segol, by pashta or yetiv when in the vicinity of zakef, and by tevir when in the vicinity of tifcha.
4. The fourth level is known as "Counts". These are found mainly in longer verses, and tend to cluster near the beginning of a half-verse: for this reason their musical realisation is usually more elaborate than that of higher level disjunctives. They are pazer, geresh, gershayim, telishah gedolah, munach legarmeh and qarne farah.

The general conjunctive is munach. Depending on which disjunctive follows, this may be replaced by mercha, mahpach, darga, qadma, telisha qetannah or yerach ben yomo.
One other symbol is mercha kefulah, double mercha. There is some argument about whether this is another conjunctive or an occasional replacement for tevir.
Disjunctives have a function somewhat similar to punctuation in Western languages. Sof pasuq could be thought of as a full stop, atnach as a semi-colon, second level disjunctives as commas and third level disjunctives as commas or unmarked. Where two words are syntactically bound together (for example, pene ha-mayim, "the face of the waters"), the first invariably carries a conjunctive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantillation#The_syntactical_function

  ֹּר֙



 

וְכַפְתֹּ֡ר תַּחַת֩ שְׁנֵ֨י הַקָּנִ֜ים מִמֶּ֗נָּה

וְכַפְתֹּר֙ תַּ֣חַת שְׁנֵ֤י הַקָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נָּה

וְכַפְתֹּ֕ר תַּחַת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַקָּנִ֖ים מִמֶּ֑נָּה

לְשֵׁ֙שֶׁת֙ הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּצְאִ֖ים הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

1.  

Line 1: Pazer,          Telisha Ketana,      Kadma  Azla Geresh,  Revia

Line 2: Pashta,          Munach,       Mahpach   Pashta,   Zakef Katan

Line 3: Zakef Gadol, Mercha (two words),   Tipcha,    Etnachta. 

2. Since the word “Tachat” in the two previous phrases have separate notes that differentiates them from the following  word “Shenai”, it would be logical that were it not for the hyphen, a separate note for “Tachat” should appear in the third phrase as well.  

3. According to the above paragraph, a Zakef Katan is a higher order separator than a Revia. Consequently one can conclude that the stop before the Etnachta, which is the highest order separator in the middle of a verse, is after the second phrase.

כה: י וְעָשׂ֥וּ אֲר֖וֹן עֲצֵ֣י שִׁטִּ֑ים

אמָּתַ֨יִם וָחֵ֜צִי אָרְכּ֗וֹ

ואַמָּ֤ה וָחֵ֨צִי֙ רָחְבּ֔וֹ

וְאַמָּ֥ה וָחֵ֖צִי קֹֽמָתֽוֹ׃

Line 1: Kedma     Azla Geresh Revia

Line 2: Mapach  Pashta  Zakef Katan

Line 3: Mercha  Tipcha  Sof Pasuk

כז:יח

אֹ֣רֶךְ הֶֽחָצֵר֩ מֵאָ֨ה בָֽאַמָּ֜ה

וְרֹ֣חַב ׀ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים בַּֽחֲמִשִּׁ֗ים

וְקֹמָ֛ה חָמֵ֥שׁ אַמּ֖וֹת שֵׁ֣שׁ מָשְׁזָ֑ר

וְאַדְנֵיהֶ֖ם נְחֹֽשֶׁת׃

Line 1: Munach      Telisha Katana Kadma VeAzla

Line 2: Munach      Munach  Revia

Line 3: Tavir     Mercha Tipcha             Munach Etnachta

Parshat Terumah

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/236.html