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.