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

Addendum to mishpatim answers

Re Alef 1
23:13 that deals with avoda zora is connected to the Creation 7 day cycle as ChaZaL state that whomever does not keep Shabbat is denying Maaseh beraishit which in turn is tantamount to denying belief in the Divine.

Mishpatim Answers

Mishpatim 5729
Alef.

1. These are all laws that deal with different aspects of the cycle of the year:

   a. The week (seven day cycle.)

   b. The seven year cycle.

c. The planting and harvest cycle over the course of the year that are marked by festivals and offerings of first fruits.

2. Shemot 23:9 is most closely associated with 23:12 which deals with Shabbat. In fact, in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Devarim 5:14, the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as being sensitive to one’s servants in light of the Egypt experience during which your ancestors were slaves. This is in contrast to the reason given in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Shemot 20:10, where the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as emulating God Who Rested on the Seventh Day of Creation. 

3.  The parallel that Cassuto detects between 23:10-9 on the one hand,  and 21:1-11 on the other, is the seven year cycle, which formally comprises the Sabbatical year sequence, as well as the number of years that a Jewish slave serves unless he opts to extend his servitude, which is then bounded by the Jubilee Year, the culmination of seven of these seven year cycles. Although the Sabbatical year itself does not effect the status of the Jewish slave, the fact that it operates based upon a seven year cycle allows one to acknowledge the parallelism.

Beit.

1. The difficulty that the commentators have with Shemot 23:12 is that the simple meaning appears to suggest that the purpose of the Commandment of Shabbat is not necessarily for the Jewish person not to engage in Melacha, but rather to allow the rest of one’s animals and non-Jewish servants. Animals and non-Jewish servants are not obligated in the observance of this Commandment and therefore it is strange that they should be listed as though the entire Commandment is for their benefits.

2.  Rabbeinu Bachaya: For the sake of the Jew resting is why the animals and servants must rest. They are the means to the end of the Jew fulfilling the Commandment.

   Ben Amozeg: While the verse does state that the Commandment is for the benefit of animals and non-Jewish servants, it is not exclusively for this purpose, but also for the Jew who refrains from Melacha. The extension of the Tora’s concern to animals and non-Jews is a reflection of the sympathy and compassion inherent in the Tora system.

3.  The refraining from eating Chametz and the obligation to eat Matza is not for the sake of remembering the Exodus, but rather by means of doing these things, you will be enabled to remember the Exodus. So too, by means of the animals and non-Jews resting, you will be enabled to fulfill the Commandment of not performing Melacha on Shabbat.

4.  An Jewish servant and a righteous sojourner are obligated in all Commandments. Consequently, their rest constitutes ends in themselves, rather than a means to the end by which the Jewish owner of the animal or the non-Jewish slave will be able to observe Shabbat.

Gimel.

1.  RaShI: If “Gedi” has to be modified with the word “Izim”, that implies that if there is no modifier, then we are talking about young domesticated animals in general, i.e., not only goats, but also sheep and cows.

   Ibn Ezra: “Gedi Izim” implies an animal so young that it must stay with the other goats for protection. The word “Gedi” alone is also a goat, but one that is more mature and independent, and therefore is not tied down to the herd the way that Gedi Izim are.

2. “כי מה צורך לסמכן”—why does a construct form have to be created involving “Gedi” and “Izim” if all that it means is a young goat anyway?

   “וכזה לא מצאנו”—In order to explain why the general term for the bird in question is “בת היענה” which is a feminine rather than a masculine form, although there are per force also masculine birds, Ibn Ezra appears stymied and says that this is never the case, implying that it should not be the case here either.

   “שיחבר חלב זאת עם זאת”—Ibn Ezra is suggesting that since goats do not have that much milk, whenever there is a quantity of goat milk, it derives from a number of goats, making the possibility that should the milk be used in order to cook the kid, at least part of that milk might be its own mother’s, a clear Tora violation.

   “ויהי' עובר”—in the event that the milk that he purchases in the market may contain even a small amount of milk from the mother animal, therefore we are strict to prohibit every case because we don’t want a person to transgress a Tora precept.

3.  The rule “דיברה תורה בהווה” relates to when the Tora presents a single case, it does not necessarily mean that that is the only case that is relevant, but rather it is the most typical or the most likely. In the case of the Bat HaYa’ana, since according to Ibn Ezra, only the female of the species is good to eat, therefore it is known in the female form, despite there also being males, and when a general reference to a creature is made, it is in the masculine.

4.  The first case deals with nomenclature—why is the bird known by the female rather than the male form. The second case has to do with cultural mores, with a support to the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk from Arab practices.

5.  In his פירוש הקצר, Ibn Ezra uses the phrase “כי הכתוב דבר על נמצא ברוב” as a replacement for “והכתוב דבר על ההוה”.

6.  VaYikra 11:16—a demonstration of the Tora talking about the typical case. See Gimel 2 above.

   Shemot 22:30—another example of how the Tora frames individual cases in terms of what  typically happens, even though other cases are included. Therefore while meat that is considered Tereifa does not necessarily have to be found only in the field, e.g., an animal with a terminal illness is also adjudged Tereifa even if it is not found lying dead in a field, nevertheless the Tora describes Tereifa as found in the field.

   VaYikra 17:13—Although the Mitzva of covering the blood of a fowl or a non-domesticated animal that has split hooves and chews its cud does not apply only to animals that are trapped in the wild and Shechted, e.g., there are venison farms in upstate New York where the deer are not wild but still have the status of Chaya due to their species, nevertheless, since that is the typical case, that is why the Tora phrases it in terms of animals that have been hunted.

Daled.

1.  RaMBaM: Cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is an idolatrous rite that is to be avoided.

   Ibn Ezra: Speculates that cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is a form of cruelty, paralleling chasing away the mother bird if she is hovering over the nest and one wants to take the eggs or the chicks, or the prohibition against Shechting the parent animal and its baby animal on the same day.

2.  According to Ibn Ezra, if during the harvest festival, one has to bring first fruits and first born animals, then it will be tempting to prepare the animals for consumption, and the Tora wishes to eliminate a particular preparation of the animal, i.e., cooking a kid in its mother’s milk.

3.  If this was such a widespread idolatrous practice, why couldn’t RaMBaM find mention of it in the books on idolatry that he referenced? (Cassuto in the asterisked footnote  removes this problem by citing sources discovered after RaMBaM’s time that support the contention that this was a fertility rite.)

Parshat Mishpatim

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/147.html