VaYakhel 5724.
Alef.
1. Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:1 : The Jewish people are quick to donate to both very good causes (the Mishkan) and very bad ones (the Golden Calf.) The implication is that nothing can be deduced about the Jewish character from either one of these instances other than Jews can be enlisted to support a wide range of causes.
Midrash Aggada Teruma #26 : While it might appear that the Jews are very removed from proper belief and behavior by some of the things that they do, in light of other actions, it should be recognized that whatever wrong they may perpetrate, they have the capacity to undo their negative actions by positive and even sacrificial action.
2. The Yerushalmi probably plays off the Gezeira Shava of “Kol”in the two verses.
שמות פרק לה פסוק כב
וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים עַל הַנָּשִׁים כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל כְּלִי זָהָב וְכָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב לַיקֹוָק:
שמות פרק לב
(ג) וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן:
The Midrash takes its cue from the two verses that state that HaShem Tells the Jews how to undo their iniquities:
Yechezkel 20:7 “And I said unto them: Cast ye away every man the detestable things of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God”.
Ibid. 16:6 “And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live”.
Beit.
1. The difficulty in the verse is the connotation of “נשא לבו”. Previously, in Parashat Teruma, only the phrase “נדבות לב”[1] appeared, an expression that is also used in Shemot 35:21.[2] Consequently, unless we claim that the phrases are poetically redundant, each has to reflect a different human quality.
2. RaMBaN suggests that the new phrase connotes those who engaged in the fabrication of the Tabernacle and its vessels, as opposed to those who merely contributed the materials.
HaKeTav VeHaKabbala posits that the new expression reflects a different type of donater, i.e., one who not only is attracted to contribute because of his spirit, countering the tendency of his physical reality not to donate and contribute but rather spend the valuables upon himself,--נדבה רוחו—on the one hand, and the person who totally wishes to give both in terms of his spiritual and his physical being—נשא לבו.
3. In 35:26, there is a clear association with the verb נשא and fabricating as opposed to donating:
שמות פרק לה
(כו) וְכָל הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא לִבָּן אֹתָנָה בְּחָכְמָה טָווּ אֶת הָעִזִּים:
Consequently, RaMBaN could argue that the term נשא לבו in 35;21 has a similar connotation.
4. Verses 35:30-5 introduce Betzalel and Ohaliov, who are going to lead the project. But if RaMBaN is correct in his interpretation of 35:21, we already have volunteers from the people who are endowed with native ability to be able to fabricate the various materials that will comprise the Tabernacle. If the Tora states that HaShem Filled B. and O. with wisdom to be able to do these things, does it not imply that the leaders of the project were on a lower level than those who stepped forward to volunteer who already were capable of artistically making the required objects? Consequently, RaMBaN sees v. 30-5 as a flashback of something that had already taken place, the appointment of B. and O. prior to the people’s coming to volunteer. From such a perspective, the individual who is “possessed” by HaShem’s Spirit (much in the way that Shlomo received special Chachma from HaShem [I Melachim 5:9] , or the seventy Zekeinim who were to assist Moshe, received the ability at least temporarily to serve as Prophets [BaMidbar 11:25) would be considered superior to those who are simply innately talented when it comes to artisan work, resulting in the sequence of verses becoming more understandable.
Gimel.
1. The phrase “הֵבִיאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָבָה לַיקֹוָק” would appear to include as its object the beginning of the verse, “כל אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָדַב לִבָּם אֹתָם לְהָבִיא לְכָל הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְקֹוָק לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה “, resulting in the strange statement that the Jewish people brought the men and women whose hearts moved them to bring the “מלאכה” that HaShem had Commanded via Moshe.
2. The difference in syntax re the solutions that are offered are as follows:
Abrabanel: The last phrase ” הֵבִיאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָבָה לַיקֹוָק” is defining the nature of the bringing of the material mentioned in the first phrase, i.e., what was the intention accompanying the donations being made by the men and women? It was a pure intention as opposed to one designed to win honor or prestige for the bringer.
MaLBIM: In fact it was the people rather than the articles that HaShem Wished to receive as gifts, i.e., what was important was not so much the gifts themselves, but rather the hearts of the people which were moved to bring them. Consequently, the commentator, suggests, even people who were too poor to actually make a contribution, the fact that they wished to do so was considered by God a contribution to the construction of the Tabernacle.
3. Abrabanel focuses upon the attitude of the giver which is essentially internal and therefore not readily discernible to others. One might have thought that self-advancement was motivating the givers; the Tora clarifies that this was not the case.
MaLBIM focuses upon the effect of the opportunity to give on the giver in the sense that the actual materiel is only incidental to the act of giving. The will and desire of the individual to contribute is the gift that HaShem is Desirious of, with the actual giving becoming merely an external confirmation of such a desire.
1
(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי:
וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יְקֹוָק לִמְלֶאכֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּלְכָל עֲבֹדָתוֹ וּלְבִגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment