Truma Answers

Teruma 5716
Alef.

שמות פרק כ

(כא) מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ אֶת צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת בְּקָרֶךָ בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיראֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:

שמות פרק כה

(ח) וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם:

1.   According to Siftei  Chachamim, a commentary on RaShI, the problem is as follows:

שפתי חכמים

(א) דהא כל דבר שבעולם שלו הוא:¹

In other words, if everything belongs to HaShem in the first place, it is nonsensical to “give him something” since it never really was anyone else’s!

As for Ibn Ezra, rather than focusing on the problem of to whom do things belong, he is concerned with the act of “giving” to HaShem Who has no physical manifestation and therefore place specifically dedicated to Him. Consequently, how do you “give” something to HaShem? The commentator suggests that it is more a matter of transferring something of one’s own to another domain, taking something that formerly was under your control and now placing it under the control of a different authority, in this case, those responsible to construct the Mishkan, so that the Mishkan could be constructed.

2. 

שופטים פרק ד

(יח) וַתֵּצֵא יָעֵל לִקְרַאת סִיסְרָא וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו סוּרָה אֲדֹנִי סוּרָה אֵלַי אַל תִּירָא וַיָּסַר אֵלֶיהָ הָאֹהֱלָהוַתְּכַסֵּהוּ בַּשְּׂמִיכָה:

The joint problem in Shemot 25:2 and Shoftim 4:18 is how to define when the request has been fulfilled. With respect to the materiel of the Mishkan, how does one transfer it to HaShem, and in terms of Yael’s invitation to Sisro, what exactly did she mean that he should turn towards her? In the latter case, the verse later defines how Sisro fulfilled the request, i.e., he went into her tent—he entered into an area which was clearly defined as under her control, rather than simply approaching her or leaving the road and standing where she might have been standing. Consequently Ibn Ezra extends this idea to the Mishkan in the sense of giving possessions into the control of others than the original owners, and these others are God’sRepresentatives, the designated fabricators of the Mishkan.

3. 

בראשית פרק טו

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְאַיִל מְשֻׁלָּשׁ וְתֹר וְגוֹזָל:

The reason why RaShI may not have commented on this case despite it being the first instance where this particular form appears is because the meaning of the phrase was clear. Avraham was instructing the youth to take animals from among his own flock, that already belonged to him in order to prepare a meal for his guests. This was obviously for a purpose that Avraham was designating so there was no issue of acquisition, just one of selecting them and preparing them for a purpose that Avraham had delineated in his invitation to the three visitors. This is in contrast to HaShem Stating that something has to be “taken”= “acquired” for Him—the implication is that it had to be moved from one type of ownership to another, and why should this be so, if He already Owns everything?

Beit.

MaLBIM’s problem is that from a grammatical point of view, the text should have said,“בתוכו”, i.e., since the Mikdash is singular, so the possessive pronoun that represents it should similarly be singular, not plural, as “בתוכם” is. Consequently, the commentator understands that the physical Mikdash is to represent the manner in which each individual should see himself as a mini-Mikdash in which personal sacrifices are made to the Divine Presence that Resides within that person.

Gimel.

1.  RaShI was defining the implications of “לי” whereas Reggio² was concerned with the implications of “ושכנתי”.

2.  It is possible that whereas “ישב” suggests simply a place of residence without addressing the quality of that residence, “שכן” implies a thorough dwelling of the essence of the entity. In other words, a person could be “ישב” in a place without even being “home” very often; it’ssimply his address. However if we say that he is “שכן”, this suggests that he is intensely dwelling in that particular place; his essence can always be found there.

Daled.

1. a. Why does the Aron precede the construction of the other artifacts of the Mishkan?

    b. Why is a plural verb “ועשו” appear in conjunction with the Aron, in contrast to the singular “ועשית” for the other vessels?

2.  Tora is equated with light in Megilla 16b:

(Esther 8:16) “The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor.”  Rab Yehuda said:‘Light’ means the Tora,” and so it says. (Mishlei 6:23) “For the Commandment is a lamp and the Tora is a light.” ‘Gladness’ means a feast day; and so it says, (Devarim 16:14)“And thou shalt be glad in thy feast.” ‘Joy’ means circumcision; and so it says, (Tehilim 119:162) “I rejoice at Thy Word.” ‘Honor’ means the phylacteries, and so it says,(Devarim 28:10) “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the Name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall be afraid of thee;” and it has been taught: R. Eleazar the Great says that this refers to the phylactery of the head.

3.  A comment of Rabbeinu Bechaye provides an alternative approach:

 רבינו בחיי שמות פרשת תרומה פרק כה פסוק י

…והמשכן כלו לא נעשה אלא בשביל הארון בלבד שהשכינה שרויה בתוכו, וכל הנסים שנעשו לישראל היו נעשים בארון שהשכינה שרויה בתוכו, וכתיב: (במדבר י, לג) "וארון ברית ה' נוסע לפניהם", והיה הורג נחשים ועקרבים והורג כל שונאיהם של ישראל, אמר רבי אלעזר בן פדת בשם רבי יוסי בן זמרא שני ניצוצות היו יוצאין מבין שני בדי הארון והורגין נחשים ועקרבים ושורפים את הקוצים והיה העשן עולה ומתמר וכל העולם מתבשם מן הריח, והאומות אומרין: (שיר השירים ג, ו) "מי זאת עולה מן - המדבר כתימרות עשן מקוטרת מור ולבונה מכל אבקת רוכל", ע"כ במדרש...

If the essence of the Mishkan is the Aron, and re the Mishkan in general the language of the Tora is:

(שמות כה:ח) וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם

it would make sense that the plural verb associated with the Mishkan would similarly be associated with the Aron, in contrast to the other vessels that were part of the Mishkan structure.

¹ This is reminiscent of the Gemora’s explanation for why a stolen Lulav cannot be used to fulfill the Mitzva of Arba Minim—after all, everything belongs to HaShem in the first place, so the detail that it was stolen is only relative to the affairs of man, but not the affairs of God. And since this Commandment is between man and God, why should a stolen Lulav be precluded?

Sukka 30a

R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai further said, What is the purport of that which is

written, (Yeshayahu 61:8) “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity?” This may be compared to a human king who passed through his custom-house and said to his attendants, ‘pay the tax to the tax-collectors’. They said to him, ‘But the whole tax, surely, belongs to thee!’ He answered them, ‘All travelers would learn from me not to evade their payments of tax’. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I the Lord hate robbery in burnt-offerings; let My children learn from Me and keep away from robbery’.

Although all things, including people, belong to HaShem, that concept cannot be used to exempt individuals from their responsibilities to respect the property of others, as well as contribute to collections for the purpose of constructing things for the sake of HaShem.

² ר' יצחק שמואל רגיו (יש"ר), איטליה (1784-1855)

רב ואיש מדע, שקרא להרחבת ההשכלה באיטליה ובעידודו נפתח שם בית מדרש לרבנים המשלב לימודים כלליים עם לימודים תורניים. עיסוקו בתנ"ך היה ביקורתי-מחקרי והוא השתתף בכתיבת "הביאור"- מפעלו של מנדלסון לפירוש חדשני לתורה, במסגרתו שקד גם על תרגום התנ"ך לשפות אירופאיות. בשל כך (ובשל עמדותיו הליברליות) הוא נתפס בעיני חלק מרבני אירופה כרפורמי. כדי לזכות שוב בלגיטימיות פרסם אגרת התנצלות המבהירה את השקפתו. שימש כרב קהילה במשך עשור (במקום אביו שנפטר). בין ספריו ומאמריו:

"התורה והפילוסופיה" בו הוא מציג את גישתו המשלבת אשר זכתה לביקורת נוקבת. "מאמר תורה מן השמים" ו"ספר תורת אלהים" בהקדמה לפירושו לתורה. "ילקוט יש"ר"- אוסף חידושים. "אגרות יש"ר".