Parshat Vayikra Answers



VaYikra 5724

Alef.

1.       The view expressed in the Mechilta and in RaShI insists that despite what the verses appear to say, the only time there is an obligation to eat Matza is on the first day specifically upon the night of the Seder. Ibn Ezra in all three of the citations states that there is an obligation according to the Peshat (he leaves open the possibility that using hermeneutical principles, a different conclusion could be arrived at), there is an obligation to eat Matza each of the days of Pesach.

2.    Shemot 12:15 “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; howbeit the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. “

        Ibid. 18            “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”

        Ibid. 20             “Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened  bread.”

        Ibid. 35:2          “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death. “

        Devarim 16:3   “Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.”

        Ibid. 8               “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God; thou shalt do no work therein. “  but the obligation to eat Matza on the seventh day is not mentioned.

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi states that RaShI’s derivation stems from an inference drawn from the end of Devarim 16:8, rather than from the comparison between the beginnings of Shemot 12:15 and Devarim 16:8, because perhaps one could claim that Shemot 12 is speaking about specifically the Pesach in Egypt, whereas Devarim 16 is speaking about Pesach LeDorot (all the times going forward, following the Exodus.) Consequently, nothing of substance could be established by contrasting these two verses. However if I can make the point internally, within Devarim 16:3, then I have a proper principle that will apply to future generations.

3.     There is a literary parallelism between Shemot 35:2, where the weekdays are being contrasted to Shabbat, and Devarim 16:3, where the first days of Pesach are being compared to the last one with respect to eating Matza. One might have thought that just as during the week, one can perform Melacha if he wishes, but is not obligated to do so, so too re Matza, one can choose eat it during Pesach but it is not necessary, comes Ibn Ezra to say that this might be true about the last day of Pesach, but not the first days when eating Matza is an obligation.

4.      It seems to me that Ibn Ezra mentions that the Jews followed the Anan until Pharoah and his legions drowned at the Sea of Reeds, in order to demonstrate that since they had to subsist on something, i.e., Matza, before they were given Manna to gather, it would make sense to assume that in order to replicate the Exodus, they should be required to eat Matza  during this period.

5.     When compared with the sequence in Shemot 12:15, first the obligation to eat Matza is stated, only then followed by the prohibition to eat Chametz. In 12:20, the opposite sequence appears, i.e., first the prohibition against Chametz and then the obligation to eat Matza. Having both elements in the same verse, and even interchangeably with respect to sequence might buttress Ibn Ezra’s contention about the obligatory nature of eating Matza throughout Pesach, i.e., just as the prohibition regarding Chametz remains the same throughout Pesach, similarly the obligation with respect to Matza also remains the same over the course of the holiday, an obligatory rather than an optional directive.

Beit.

1.      a. אין הכריח לדמיונים.. Just because the Jews may have eaten Matza during the first seven days of their fleeing from Egypt does not mean that we have to do an identical thing when we commemorate the Exodus during Pesach. “There is nothing compelling about comparisons, that they should be absolutely identical with that to which they are being compared.”

          b. והראי' על זה The proof to the fact that we would be commanded to observe seven days of eating Matza, even if the Jews had only eaten one day, is the Mitzva of Sukka. Although the Jews lived in Sukkot for @ the entire forty years of their desert wanderings, the Mitzva to commemorate such a lifestyle is for Jews today to annually live only seven days in the Sukka. So a seven day festival will be Commanded regardless of the actual length of time that was originally experienced during the historical period that is being commemorated.

         c. לאמרה בדברים הנהוגים בטבע Lit. “to say/Command things that are naturally done”. Since bread is the staff of life, and people eat bread regularly for their sustenance, why should a Commandment be given to eat bread (in this case Matza) throughout Pesach; wouldn’t everyone do this anyway whether or not they were Commanded in the Tora?

         d. כי אנו זריזים בזה מאד The term to be “זרוז”, i.e., diligent, carry out with alacrity, is a term that is used with respect to ideal Mitzva observance. Here Ibn Kaspi is employing the term ironically with respect to ordinary, everyday practice, specifically in terms of bread consumption. While an individual might have to will himself to be זריז with respect to a Commandment that does not come naturally, such is not the case with respect to daily bread consumption.

2.      In verse 16, Ibn Kaspi is directing his comments at what Ibn Ezra said in יסוד מורה שער ה' regarding the fact that the reason why there is an obligation to eat Matza for seven days during Pesach is because the Jews ate Matza for the first seven days following the Egyptian Exodus.

         In verse 20, Ibn Kaspi is challenging Ibn Ezra’s comments in 12:16 and יסוד מורה שער ה' where he states that there is an obligation to eat Matza for seven days on Pesach. Ibn Kaspi says it would be a nice thing to do as a commemoration of the Exodus, but it is not obligatory.

3.     By quoting Shemot 20:8 “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; ” Ibn Kaspi is illustrating that not everything that the Tora mentions is inherently a Mitzva, but rather could be a description of what is normally done, in this case that aside from resting for a day, people do Melacha for six.

4.      By saying “מן היותר נאות הוא לאיש ואיש שיאכל לפחות כזית מצה יום יום”, he is escalating the practice from optional, mentioned by the Midrash Halacha and RaShI, to either Hiddur Mitzva or Lifnim MiShuat HaDin.

Gimel.

א וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה' אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃

RaShBaM: Both the “calling” (ויקרא) and the “speaking” (וידבר) emanated from the Tent of Meeting.

HaRechasim LaBika: The Etnachta under the word “משה” instead of “אליו” suggests that a distinction must be made between the act of calling and the act of speaking, with the former not necessarily being connected to the Tent of Meeting, only the latter.

From a logical point of view, as long as the communication took place inside the Tent of Meeting, there is no reason that the calling should have emanated from there as well. Moshe after all would be outside the Tent of Meeting when a Divine Call would come to him. It is possible that the Call would start from within the Tent and then reach Moshe wherever he might be (RaShBaM) but it is equally conceivable that since even if His Presence was Concentrated in the Tent of Meeting, HaShem’s actual Presence is everywhere, Moshe would receive prophetic instruction anywhere he might have happened to be, to go to the Tent of Meeting in order to receive specific instructions.

http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=240

Parshat Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/240.html

Parshat Vayakhel answers

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

---

[1] שמות פרק כה

(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי:

[2] שמות פרק לה פסוק כא

וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יְקֹוָק לִמְלֶאכֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּלְכָל עֲבֹדָתוֹ וּלְבִגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ

Parshat Vayakhel

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/239.html

Ki Tisa answers



Ki Tisa 5731

Alef.

Since in 32:19 Moshe breaks the Tablets, the gravity of what he becomes so much greater by emphasizing what the Tablets contained, i.e., the literal “writing” of HaShem. Consequently this is repeated, after already being stated in Shemot 31.

Beit.

1.  Abrabanel’s question: Why are the second Tablets not identical to the first—if the first were both “Hewn” and “Written” by HaShem, why vis-à-vis the second Tablets, while the “Writing” is still by HaShem, the hewing is to be carried out by Moshe?

a. Pachad Yitzchak: The first Tablets were “too holy” in as far as they were not only “Written” by HaShem, but also “Hewn” by Him, and it was for this reason that they could not remain intact when given to man. The second Luchot are “a notch down” in holiness, by virtue of their being hewn by Moshe, and therefore they have more “staying-power.”

b. Abrabanel: The only way that Moshe will be able to “see” the Vision that he is meant to see is via the Tora, which is more closely symbolized by the second Tablets that Moshe plays a role in forming by his hewing the material upon which HaShem “Writes” the Ten Commandments. Moshe’s role in terms of the First Luchot is completely passive and this will not allow him to “see” what he is meant to “see”.

c. Meshech Chachma: The Jewish people had to be taught in dramatic fashion that there is nothing with intrinsic holiness aside from HaShem Himself. The first Tablets were certainly objects invested with holiness; however that holiness was a function of the actions of the Jewish people and had Moshe given them to the Jews, they would have treated the Tablets as replacements for the Golden Calf. The sin of the Calf stripped those Luchot of holiness and therefore per force they had to be destroyed. To illustrate that the holiness of the Luchot is a function of the compliance of the people with God’s Will, the first Tablets are smashed and are replaced by Moshe’s hewing a second set. Moshe is the middleman, but holiness will be a function of the people’s compliance with the covenant. Both the broken Tablets as well as their whole replacement are placed in the Aron in order to stress this lesson.

d. Cassuto: Even though there is repentance and forgiveness, the original sin cannot be completely undone. The fact that Moshe hews the second Tablets rather than HaShem is the everlasting sign of a residual reminder of the destruction of what once was whole and pure.

e. Benno Jakob: The error of the people was to think that material things are as important and holy as spiritual ideas. Therefore the first Tables whereby both the stones as well as the writing originated from the Divine had to be replaced with an object where the dichotomy between the two and the importance of one over the other was never in question, i.e., only the writing would be from HaShem, but the stone would come from man, in this case Moshe.

In summary, 1)Pachad Yitzchak focusses upon an adjustment from something too holy to something more appropriate for what people would be able to handle and preserve.

2) Abrabanel understands the replacement with Moshe’s participation as a teaching moment for Moshe so that he understands the means by which he is to relate to HaShem, i.e., via the Tora.

3) Meshech Chachma and Benno Jakob share the sentiment that the change was to emphasize to the people that holiness resides in spirituality and their compliance with God’s Will rather than in any material object.

4) Cassuto stresses the residual nature of a break in a relationship that can never be totally repaired.

2.  Abrabanel’s answer is intended to take issue with the view that one person is capable of “seeing/perceiving” God more than another. Even Moshe will ultimately relate to God via the Tora, but not because of some specific quality with which he has been endowed.

3.  In addition to the issue raised by Abrabanel, Meshech Chachma adds that HaShem Approved of Moshe taking the initiative and destroying the first Luchot. One might have thought that it was rather audacious for Moshe to have done this act, and Meshech Chachma views what Moshe did as having God’s Approval due to the lesson being conveyed.

Gimel.

1.  Shemot 34:1 “And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break” has a superfluous final phrase. Of course Moshe broke the Luchot—it is clearly stated in 32:19 “And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.”  Consequently the words of this phrase are subject to interpretation which Reish Lakish in Shabbat 87a does.

2.  One could have thought that HaShem did not Approve of what Moshe did when he took it upon himself to destroy the Tablets that God had Given to him. Even if Moshe were not to deliver the Tablets at this point of time, he still could have saved them and secreted them until such a time when the people would be worthy of receiving them. To use the Tablets as essentially a prop to display his displeasure with what the people had done could have been considered a profanation of an object that had been invested with great holiness. The Gemora probably served as a basis for Meshech Chachma’s approach to the entire issue.

3.  The interpretation that RaShI’s chooses to associate with Shemot 34:1 contains a slight critique of Moshe, rather than Divine Approbation:

רש"י שמות פרק לד פסוק א

פסל לך - אתה שברת הראשונות, אתה פסל לך אחרות. משל למלך שהלך למדינת הים והניח ארוסתו עם השפחות, מתוך קלקול השפחות יצא עליה שם רע, עמד שושבינה וקרע כתובתה, אמר אם יאמר המלך להורגה אומר לו עדיין אינה אשתך. בדק המלך ומצא, שלא היה הקלקול אלא מן השפחות, נתרצה לה. אמר לו שושבינה כתוב לה כתובה אחרת, שנקרעה הראשונה. אמר לו המלך אתה קרעת אותה, אתה קנה לך נייר אחר, ואני אכתוב לה בכתב ידי, כן המלך זה הקדוש ברוך הוא, השפחות אלו ערב רב, והשושבין זה משה, ארוסתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא אלו ישראל, לכך נאמר פסל לך:

At least in terms of the moment, Moshe was made to realize that he had destroyed a holy object and in the future should not be cavalier about such actions. With regard to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, there was a price to pay when something valuable and ethereal is destroyed, no matter how important the cause. However, at the end of Devarim, when essentially Moshe’s epitaph is being given by RaShI, the practical detail of the Tablets’ destruction is trumped by Moshe’s audacity in defense of the people, recognizing that his first priority was to do his best to bring them around to becoming an Am Segula and Mamlechet Kohanim, whatever it might take.

3

Ki Tisa

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1438.html

Tetzave answers

Tetzave (Zachor) 5723
Alef.

1. Regarding the three verses cited by Benno Jakob explicating Amalek’s grievous sin when they attacked the Jews on the latter’s way out of Egypt:

a.  I Melachim 2:7 “But show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table; for so they drew nigh unto me when I fled from Absalom thy brother.” When someone is being pursued, it is a time to intervene on their behalf rather than take advantage of their vulnerability. Amalek attacks soon after the Jews had been pursued by the Egyptians and were saved by the miracle of the splitting of the sea.

b. Devarim 23:4-5 “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever; Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee.” Just as the male Ammonites and Moabites showed no signs of standard hospitality when the Jews travelled in proximity to their kingdoms, and were consequently discriminated against in terms of converting and marrying into the Jewish nation, so too the Amalekites were guilty of grievous inhospitable behavior when they attacked the Jews travelling in their area following the Exodus.

c.  Devarim 24:9 “Remember what the LORD thy God did unto Miriam, by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt.” This verse parallels literarily the language in Devarim 25:17 “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt”. Just as the verse concerning Miriam is understood as a call to keep in mind her negative actions vis-à-vis Moshe in BaMidbar 12, so too this verse points to commemorating Amalek’s negative actions when the Jews left Egypt.

2.  Beno Jakob points out that in several verses, the Canaanites as well as other hostile nations, are referred to as “enemies” of the Jews, whereas Amalek is never given such an appellation:

a. Devarim 25:19 “Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.”

b. I Shmuel 14:47 “So Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he turned himself, he put them to the worse.”

c. I Shmuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Such a distinction might be due to the fact that the Canaanites as well as surrounding nations were either threatened by the Jews passing so close to them that they were led to believe that they would be dispossessed of their lands,¹ or they were actually expelled from their city-states in Canaan. Therefore due to their either potential or actual competition for the lands of these nations, they were defined as enemies, or perhaps “competitors”, of the Jews. Amalek had no such fear or interest and therefore their attack was purely out of some personal malice rather than due to territorial protectiveness.

3.  a. The story of the Egyptian youth:

I Shmuel 30:13-15 “And David said unto him: 'To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou?' And he said: 'I am a young Egyptian, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick. We made a raid upon the South of the Cherethites, and upon that which belongeth to Judah, and upon the South of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire.' And David said to him: 'Wilt thou bring me down to this troop?' And he said: 'Swear unto me by God, that thou wilt neither kill me, nor deliver me up into the hands of my master, and I will bring thee down to this troop.'”

The qualities of Amalek that emerge from this story are:

1.  A master who is uncaring about his servant and ready to abandon him when he is no longer considered of any practical use.

2.  The modus operandi of Amalek is to raid, plunder and burn.

b. The story of the Amalekite youth:

II Shmuel 1:6-10 “And the young man that told him said: 'As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered: Here am I. And he said unto me: Who art thou? And I answered him: I am an Amalekite. And he said unto me: Stand, I pray thee, beside me, and slay me, for the agony hath taken hold of me; because my life is just yet in me. So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.'”   

The qualities of Amalek that emerge from this story are:

1.  An individual who thinks nothing of killing a person who is terminal. Perhaps this is why Shaul asked him to do this—he had identified himself as an Amaleki and therefore capable of insensitivity. (Of course those who are pro-euthanasia [which of course is not Halachic] could define this as a mercy killing. Perhaps that’s the point, i.e., the different value systems informing Jewish practice as opposed to the behavior of Amalekites.)

2.  Taking the crown and bracelet as proof of death (perhaps in the interests of earning a reward from David—obtaining booty appearing to be a central purpose of Amalekite activity) as opposed to seeing such an action as disparaging Shaul’s body.

4. During the report of the spies, they say the following: (BaMidbar 13:28-9) “Howbeit the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. Amalek dwelleth in the land of the South; and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanite dwelleth by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.' 

Beit.

1. קרך—a) Happening      Sifre, Ibn Ezra, first view in RaShI.

          b) Cooled off       Tanchuma, second view in RaShI.

          c) Arbitrary attack (in contrast to typical reasons to engage in warfare) MaLBIM.

2. The sins of Amalek:

          a) Demonstrating that there is nothing to fear from either Israel or God.

b) Moshe was the orchestrator of the miracles and God was not Responsible for any aspect of the Exodus.

3. The most basic difference between the Tanchuma and RaShI is the sequence. Whereas in the Tanchuma first cites the parable and then its application to the situation of Amalek, RaShI first explains the situation and then mentions the parable. Perhaps the reason for this is that RaShI’s first order responsibility is to define the word קרך. Only once he explains the context of the word in the verse, does he give an illustration from everyday life of what had transpired. The Midrash is more removed from the verse in general and is playing off the word almost as if it is not in context. Consequently the parable takes on greater significance and is the first thing that is cited by the Midrash.

   Other differences:

         a) omission of author of Mashal, R. Nechunia.

b) omission of the details of the splitting of the sea and the drowning of the Egyptians, cutting to the chase immediately how all of the other nations were fearful of the Jews.

c) omission of proof text that the other nations were afraid of the Jews as a result of the miracles of the Exodus.

d) while in the parable it mentions that Amalek was defeated, RaShI does not repeat this in his explanation, while Tanchuma does.

It is likely that all of these omissions were for the sake of brevity.

4.  RaShI cites both interpretations, one from Sifre and the other from Tanchuma, because in terms of the simple meaning of the verse, it is more contextual to say that Amalek arbitrarily attacked the Jews (the normal reasons not applying as pointed out by MaLBIM). However, the usage of קרך in such a context is atypical, giving rise to additional possibilities or layers of meaning and therefore RaShI quoted the second interpretation which certainly has much more theological and historical significance.

5.  Both RaShI and MaLBIM agree that Amalek’s attack was in order to demonstrate that other nations should not be intimidated by the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. However, RaShI focuses upon the fear of the Jews, whereas MaLBIM says that the object of Amalek’s attack was to ameliorate fear of God.

6.  Devrim 25:18 “how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and ? feared not God.” Since the previous subject in the sentence was “you” in “thou wast faint and weary”, it stands to reason that the last phrase about being God-fearing would also apply to “you”, i.e., the Jewish people. MaLBIM redefines the final phrase and applies it to Amalek. Furthermore,   ולא ירא אלקים could be understood to connote that Amalek did not fear the Jewish version of God. However, MaLBIM makes them out to be athiests who do not believe in any deity. In that approach, MaLBIM could cite what Avraham says to Avimelech in Beraishit 20:11, “And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.” Avraham is saying that there is no generic fear of God overall, as opposed to a specific type/form/version of the Deity.

Gimel.

1. It seems that the word הנחשלים is describing the attackers rather than the victims. בך, which is clearly referring to the victims is singular while הנחשלים   is plural.

2.  Being עיף ויגע appear to be physical rather than spiritual characteristics. Consequently, RaShI understands עיף ויגע as describing the Jews, while ולא ירא אלקים describes Amalek.

3.  Ohr HaChayim makes the point that fear in battle does not originate with one’s physical state, but rather as the result of one’s spiritual state. The verse in Yeshayahu states that fear originates from sin as opposed to some other cause. (This is reminiscent of the position of R. Yossi HaGalili in a Mishna in Sota:

Sota 44a

R. AKIBA SAYS: 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED’ IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY VIZ., HE IS UNABLE TO STAND IN THE BATTLE-RANKS AND SEE A DRAWN SWORD. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS: 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED' ALLUDES TO ONE WHO IS AFRAID BECAUSE OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS HE HAD COMMITTED; THEREFORE THE TORAH CONNECTED ALL THESE  (THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS FROM WAR) WITH HIM THAT HE MAY RETURN HOME ON THEIR ACCOUNT.  R. JOSE SAYS: A HIGH PRIEST WHO MARRIED A WIDOW, AN ORDINARY PRIEST WHO MARRIED A DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH, A LAY ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR NETHINAH, AND THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO MARRIED AN ILLEGITIMATE OR A NATHIN-BEHOLD SUCH AN ONE IS 'FEARFUL AND FAINTHEARTED.)

4. Ohr HaChayim is stating that in addition to their physical weariness, the people were bereft of that inner quality that could renew their strength, i.e., the sense that God is with them. Since they were sinful, they could not count on God’s Support, which in turn weakened them further and made them that much more susceptible to Amalek’s attack.

Daled.

Shemot 27:20 “And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.”

כ וְאַתָּ֞ה תְּצַוֶּ֣ה ׀ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְיִקְח֨וּ אֵלֶ֜יךָ שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר לְהַֽעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד׃

1.א. The split in the first portion of the verse (ending in the Etnachta under “למאור” is the word “ישראל” marked by a Revia. RaShBaM says that since initially when the donations were brought, they were being brought effectively to HaShem for the construction of the Mishkan, but at this point, the oil in particular is being brought for the maintenance of the Menora, therefore the oil has to be brought to Moshe, or whomever follows him in the position of authority. So although the first half of the verse is broken up by “ישראל” the emphasis is really on "ואתה", and the Geirshayim over it draws even more attention to it.

רשב"ם שמות פרשת תצוה פרק כז פסוק כ

(כ) ואתה תצוה - למעלה הוא אומר (שמות כה:ב) “דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה” לפי שעה לצורך המשכן, אבל כאן שציווי זה לכל הדורות לתת שמן למאור לכל שנה ושנה לכך הוא אומר "ואתה תצוה", שינה הלשון, לפי שכל לשון צוואה לדורות היא. וכן הוא אומר בתורת כהנים ובסיפרי כי כל לשון ציווי אינו אלא מיד ולדורות:

ב.  The argument concerns what the adjective “זך” is modifying, either the nature of the oil that is extracted from any olive (RaShI), or the type of olive from which the oil is being drawn (Ibn Ezra.)

ג.   “זך” seems to be modifying the phrase "שמן זית" marked by a Munach and a Mercha, as opposed to modifying only “זית” which would seem to support RaShI since we are talking about the oil rather than the olive itself.

ד.  The word "תמיד" would seem to be an adverb, modifying the verb "להעלות" rather than an adjective modifying the noun “נר” because of the Mercha Tipcha that connect “להעלות נר” and separating them from the Sof Pasuk under “תמיד”.

2. Shemot 28:4 “And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a tunic of chequer work, a mitre, and a girdle; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto Me in the priest's office.”

ד וְאֵ֨לֶּה הַבְּגָדִ֜ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשׂ֗וּ חֹ֤שֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד֙ וּמְעִ֔יל וּכְתֹ֥נֶת תַּשְׁבֵּ֖ץ מִצְנֶ֣פֶת וְאַבְנֵ֑ט וְעָשׂ֨וּ בִגְדֵי־קֹ֜דֶשׁ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֛יךָ וּלְבָנָ֖יו לְכַֽהֲנוֹ־לִֽי׃

The reason why there is a division between the six garments between the first three and the last three, is because the first three are unique to the Kohen Gadol, while the last three are common to the regular Kohanim as well.