Parshat Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/550.html

Parshat Pekudei answers

Pekudei 5727.
Alef.

1. R. Hirsch hypothesizes that the Mitzva to give a half Shekel is meant to put into perspective how a person justifies his existence and sees himself as part of the greater community. It is not a function of what a person has, or even what he has given in the past, but rather what he is prepared to give at this time in accordance with his ability. If you don’t give when you are required to, you don’t “count”, you’re not considered part of the greater group.

2.  It would seem to me that if R. Hirsch is emphasizing that a person must continually see himself as obligated to contribute to the greater group, then he should understand that he has never completed his obligation. Consequently, if you give a half shekel, there is the clear symbolism that the other half will eventually be due as well.

3.  The first “בפקד אותם” means “when they are counted”, i.e., in a census, while the second “בפקד אותם” connotes when HaShem Remembers them, Looks into their credits and debits, Determines whether they are deserving of reward or punishment in terms of their belonging or not belonging to greater Kellal Yisrael.

Beit.

1. Beno Jakob does not see the half shekel donation as an act of atoning for sin, but rather as a reminder to people not to act badly in upcoming wartime contexts.

2. Whereas R. Hirsch sees the half shekel donation as justifying an individual’s existential existence as part of the Jewish people, Beno Jakob is concerned with possible bad acts when an individual is tempted to unjustiably kill or steal during a time of anarchy and base survival. The half shekel will hopefully remind him to suppress or sublimate such temptations.

3.

במדבר פרק לא

(א) וידבר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(ב) נקם נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים אחר תאסף אל עמיך:

(ג) וידבר משה אל העם לאמר החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא ויהיו על מדין לתת נקמת יקוק במדין:

(ד) אלף למטה אלף למטה לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא:

(ה) וימסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה שנים עשר אלף חלוצי צבא:

(ו) וישלח אתם משה אלף למטה לצבא אתם ואת פינחס בן אלעזר הכהן לצבא וכלי הקדש וחצצרות התרועה בידו:

(ז) ויצבאו על מדין כאשר צוה יקוק את משה ויהרגו כל זכר:

(ח) ואת מלכי מדין הרגו על חלליהם את אוי ואת רקם ואת צור ואת חור ואת רבע חמשת מלכי מדין ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו בחרב:

(ט) וישבו בני ישראל את נשי מדין ואת טפם ואת כל בהמתם ואת כל מקנהם ואת כל חילם בזזו:

(י) ואת כל עריהם במושבתם ואת כל טירתם שרפו באש:

(יא) ויקחו את כל השלל ואת כל המלקוח באדם ובבהמה:

(יב) ויבאו אל משה ואל אלעזר הכהן ואל עדת בני ישראל את השבי ואת המלקוח ואת השלל אל המחנה אל ערבת מואב אשר על ירדן ירחו:

(יג) ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן וכל נשיאי העדה לקראתם אל מחוץ למחנה:

(יד) ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל שרי האלפים ושרי המאות הבאים מצבא המלחמה:

(טו) ויאמר אליהם משה החייתם כל נקבה:

(טז) הן הנה היו לבני ישראל בדבר בלעם למסר מעל ביקוק על דבר פעור ותהי המגפה בעדת יקוק:

(יז) ועתה הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה ידעת איש למשכב זכר הרגו:

(יח) וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם:

(יט) ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים כל הרג נפש וכל נגע בחלל תתחטאו ביום השלישי וביום השביעי אתם ושביכם:

(כ) וכל בגד וכל כלי עור וכל מעשה עזים וכל כלי עץ תתחטאו: ס

(כא) ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא הבאים למלחמה זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(כב) אך את הזהב ואת הכסף את הנחשת את הברזל את הבדיל ואת העפרת:

(כג) כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים:

(כד) וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי וטהרתם ואחר תבאו אל המחנה: פ

(כה) ויאמר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(כו) שא את ראש מלקוח השבי באדם ובבהמה אתה ואלעזר הכהן וראשי אבות העדה:

(כז) וחצית את המלקוח בין תפשי המלחמה היצאים לצבא ובין כל העדה:

(כח) והרמת מכס ליקוק מאת אנשי המלחמה היצאים לצבא אחד נפש מחמש המאות מן האדם ומן הבקר ומן החמרים ומן הצאן:

(כט) ממחציתם תקחו ונתתה לאלעזר הכהן תרומת יקוק:

(ל) וממחצת בני ישראל תקח אחד אחז מן החמשים מן האדם מן הבקר מן החמרים ומן הצאן מכל הבהמה ונתתה אתם ללוים שמרי משמרת משכן יקוק:

(לא) ויעש משה ואלעזר הכהן כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(לב) ויהי המלקוח יתר הבז אשר בזזו עם הצבא צאן שש מאות אלף ושבעים אלף וחמשת אלפים:

(לג) ובקר שנים ושבעים אלף:

(לד) וחמרים אחד וששים אלף:

(לה) ונפש אדם מן הנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר כל נפש שנים ושלשים אלף:

(לו) ותהי המחצה חלק היצאים בצבא מספר הצאן שלש מאות אלף ושלשים אלף ושבעת אלפים וחמש מאות:

(לז) ויהי המכס ליקוק מן הצאן שש מאות חמש ושבעים:

(לח) והבקר ששה ושלשים אלף ומכסם ליקוק שנים ושבעים:

(לט) וחמרים שלשים אלף וחמש מאות ומכסם ליקוק אחד וששים:

(מ) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף ומכסם ליקוק שנים ושלשים נפש:

(מא) ויתן משה את מכס תרומת יקוק לאלעזר הכהן כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(מב) וממחצית בני ישראל אשר חצה משה מן האנשים הצבאים:

(מג) ותהי מחצת העדה מן הצאן שלש מאות אלף ושלשים אלף שבעת אלפים וחמש מאות:

(מד) ובקר ששה ושלשים אלף:

(מה) וחמרים שלשים אלף וחמש מאות:

(מו) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף:

(מז) ויקח משה ממחצת בני ישראל את האחז אחד מן החמשים מן האדם ומן הבהמה ויתן אתם ללוים שמרי משמרת משכן יקוק כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(מח) ויקרבו אל משה הפקדים אשר לאלפי הצבא שרי האלפים ושרי המאות:

(מט) ויאמרו אל משה עבדיך נשאו את ראש אנשי המלחמה אשר בידנו ולא נפקד ממנו איש:

(נ) ונקרב את קרבן יקוק איש אשר מצא כלי זהב אצעדה וצמיד טבעת עגיל וכומז לכפר על נפשתינו לפני יקוק:

(נא) ויקח משה ואלעזר הכהן את הזהב מאתם כל כלי מעשה:

(נב) ויהי כל זהב התרומה אשר הרימו ליקוק ששה עשר אלף שבע מאות וחמשים שקל מאת שרי האלפים ומאת שרי המאות:

(נג) אנשי הצבא בזזו איש לו:

(נד) ויקח משה ואלעזר הכהן את הזהב מאת שרי האלפים והמאות ויבאו אתו אל אהל מועד זכרון לבני ישראל לפני יקוק: פ

4. Just as only those men who are twenty or more contribute the half shekel, so too only those who are that age are considered candidates to fight in the army. A census was necessary for these people to know how many soldiers could be mustered in time of need.

במדבר פרק א

(ג) מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא בישראל תפקדו אתם לצבאתם אתה ואהרן:

Gimel.

1. Moshe was concerned that with regard to making a Tabernacle to “contain” the Divine Presence, for the Jews to achieve personal atonement, and to offer up satisfactory sacrifices to HaShem, these would all prove impossible for the Jewish people, thereby setting them up for failure. God reassures Moshe that in all three instances, what will be required of the Jewish people will be doable by even average people.

2. Whenever the term “זה” and the like are used within a biblical context, it is assumed that there is a visual aid involved. Since it is not assumed that God would have Contact with human currency, if he is to indicate to Moshe what is to be given, he must take a spiritual representation of it, namely something that is comprised of fire. The additional association of this fiery coin and the Throne of Glory suggests that there is holiness inherent in a coin given for this purpose, and it therefore can bring the giver to a state of atonement, rapprochement with God. (In his introduction to the Tora, RaMBaN states that HaShem Showed Moshe a Tora that was black fire written on white fire. When shown the Menora, [BaMidbar 8:4; Menachot 29a], R. Yose b. Yehuda states that it too was made of fire.)

3.  Only in the case of the half shekel is there a specific object involved that could be shown. With respect to the Mishkan overall (as opposed to the individual components that make up the Mishkan) and the number of sacrifices to be offered, no single image presents itself for consideration.

4. In the cases that R. Yosef Shimon Kara cites, a process is implied, i.e., Shemot 16:16—the manner in which the Man is to be gathered; Beraishit 6—how the Ark is to be built; Shemot 29:38—the procedure for offering a certain type of sacrifice on the Altar. In all of these cases, the shape or nature of the object being discussed is not at issue, merely the procedure that HaShem Wishes people to follow. In the case of the half Shekel, the process is spelled out; however the actual object involved appears to be the antecedent of the word “זה” and therefore RaShI interprets that a Divine Vision was shown to Moshe.

Daled.

1. The opening word “כי” in this context means “when”, suggesting that taking the census is an optional rather than obligatory action. While collecting the half shekel might be necessary for the purchase of communal sacrifices and the upkeep of the Mishkan, knowing how many men above the age of twenty are to be found among the Jewish people, unless ordered by HaShem, is not something that is obligatory and therefore RaShI adds the word “כשתחפץ”.

2.  RaShI seems to interpret “ראש” as “number” rather than literally the “headcount” of the people, because this is exactly what the indirect method of collecting half shekalim is intended to avoid, literally counting heads. (This could be explained as a desire to avoid reducing human beings to numbers, something that would objectify them and cause them to not be considered as people. This appeared to be the intent of the Nazis when they assigned numbers to people and tattooed the numbers on their bodies, insisting that they be exclusively known by their numbers.

3.  The fact that the verse mentions that using the half shekel method for obtaining the number of people would “avoid there being a plague” suggests that an alternative method incurs such a danger. RaShI wishes to delineate what such an alternative method might be that is considered so potentially dangerous.

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