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. 

Tetzave questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/346.html

Parshat Teruma answers

Teruma 5726.
Alef.

1. Mizrachi’s two questions:

a. There is an inconsistency in RaShI when he interprets “Eidut” in Shemot 25:16 as “the Tora” whereas in Shemot 40:20, he interprets the same word as “the Luchot”.

b.  “The Tora” did not exist in its entirety until the end of Moshe’s life, as implied by Devarim 31:22. Consequently, it would be an anachronism to speak about “the Tora” at the time when the Tabernacle was first being fabricated and erected.

2.  While R. Kasher explains that the Luchot symbolized all of the Mitzvot that would eventually be written in the Tora with respect to the parable that RaShI uses in his commentary for Shemot 32:19, that still does not explain why when instructions are being given regarding what to place inside the Aron, “theTora”, a misleading description is stated, as opposed to “the Luchot” which is much more specific and unambiguous.

3.  When the instructions for  what will be placed in the Aron are being given in Shemot 25:16, prior to the actual construction of anything, the ultimate purpose of the Aron is being visualized, i.e., not only the housing of the Luchot, but also the Tora, or at least one copy of it, that will be first written at the end of Moshe’s life. However, in 40:20, when the actual Aron is constructed, at that point the only thing that is relevant is what would be placed in the Aron at that moment in time, i.e., only the Luchot.

Beit.

1. א. The essential difference between the two verses is the verb, “And you will make” (a reference to Moshe) as opposed to “And they made” (a reference to the Jewish people). A simple explanation would maintain that while Moshe is Given the instructions, since he will delegate the manufacture to Betzalel, Ohaliav and the other Chachmei Leiv, while technically it is as if he is building the Aron, in fact it is being fabricated by the artisans who undertook to carry out the Divine Instructions. In that way, it is similar to the verse regarding Shlomo and the Temple:

I Melachim 6:1-2

“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.”

     ב. Tora Temima, on Shemot 25:10/Yoma 3b (#11) explains that if the Jewish people are deserving, then the Aron will be known as something that they constructed. However, if they prove undeserving, then the Aron will be known as something that Moshe constructed.

2.  The Midrash that R. Kasher quotes points out that only with respect to the Aron, which most closely symbolizes Tora scholars since the Tora/Luchot are contained within it, are the Amot (measurements of length) given in “halves”:

שמות פרק כה

(י) וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ: 

שמות פרק כה

(כג) וְעָשִׂיתָ שֻׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

 שמות פרק כו

(ב) אֹרֶךְ הַיְרִיעָה הָאַחַת שְׁמֹנֶה וְעֶשְׂרִים בָּאַמָּה וְרֹחַב אַרְבַּע בָּאַמָּה הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת מִדָּה אַחַת לְכָל הַיְרִיעֹת:

(טז) עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ הַקָּרֶשׁ וְאַמָּה וַחֲצִי הָאַמָּה רֹחַב הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד:

שמות פרק כז

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת רֹחַב רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת קֹמָתוֹ:

(ט) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֵת חֲצַר הַמִּשְׁכָּן לִפְאַת נֶגֶב תֵּימָנָה קְלָעִים לֶחָצֵר שֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מֵאָה בָאַמָּה אֹרֶךְ לַפֵּאָה הָאֶחָת:

(יד) וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה קְלָעִים לַכָּתֵף עַמֻּדֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַדְנֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה:

(טז) וּלְשַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר מָסָךְ עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם עַמֻּדֵיהֶם אַרְבָּעָה וְאַדְנֵיהֶם אַרְבָּעָה:

שמות פרק ל

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ:

(ב) אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ קַרְנֹתָיו:

The Midrash appears to be taking some license with the idea of only the Aron being measured in “half Amot” since the Shulchan as well as the Kerashim also have “half Amah” measurements. Perhaps one would have to say that what is distinctive about the Aron is that all of the measurements for the Aron incorporate “half Amot” whereas the other elements of the Tabernacle that utilize “half Amot” do so only for some of their measurements.

3.א. The verse in Mishlei 8:15 “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice,” suggests that no particular individual, comparable to Aharon or David can lay claim to the Tora, but rather anyone who wishes to claim it. This includes kings who if they base their law codes on the laws of the Tora, can expect to have long reigns. This is in contrast to those kings who rule arbitrarily since they can easily become megalomaniacs and rule oppressively. (See MaLBI”M’s commentary on this verse.)

ב.

שמות פרק כה

(י) וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

(יא) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(יב) וְיָצַקְתָּ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּה עַל אַרְבַּע פַּעֲמֹתָיו וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הָאֶחָת וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הַשֵּׁנִית:

(יג) וְעָשִׂיתָ בַדֵּי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב:

(יד) וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים בַּטַּבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעֹת הָאָרֹן לָשֵׂאת אֶת הָאָרֹן בָּהֶם:

(טו) בְּטַבְּעֹת הָאָרֹן יִהְיוּ הַבַּדִּים לֹא יָסֻרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ:

(טז) וְנָתַתָּ אֶל הָאָרֹן אֵת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ:

(יז) וְעָשִׂיתָ כַפֹּרֶת זָהָב טָהוֹר אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכָּהּ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבָּהּ:

(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ שְׁנַיִם כְּרֻבִים זָהָב מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת:

(יט) וַעֲשֵׂה כְּרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה וּכְרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה מִן הַכַּפֹּרֶת תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים עַל שְׁנֵי קְצוֹתָיו:

(כ) וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֶל הַכַּפֹּרֶת יִהְיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:

(כא) וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת עַל הָאָרֹן מִלְמָעְלָה וְאֶל הָאָרֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ:

(כב) וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ שָׁם וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ 

שמות פרק כה

(כג) וְעָשִׂיתָ שֻׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

(כד) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(כה) וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ מִסְגֶּרֶת טֹפַח סָבִיב וְעָשִׂיתָ זֵר זָהָב לְמִסְגַּרְתּוֹ סָבִיב:

(כו) וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל אַרְבַּע הַפֵּאֹת אֲשֶׁר לְאַרְבַּע רַגְלָיו:

(כז) לְעֻמַּת הַמִּסְגֶּרֶת תִּהְיֶיןָ הַטַּבָּעֹת לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:

(כח) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב וְנִשָּׂא בָם אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:

(כט) וְעָשִׂיתָ קְּעָרֹתָיו וְכַפֹּתָיו וּקְשׂוֹתָיו וּמְנַקִּיֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּךְ בָּהֵן זָהָב טָהוֹר תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם:

(ל) וְנָתַתָּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן לֶחֶם פָּנִים לְפָנַי תָּמִיד: פ 

שמות פרק ל

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ:

(ב) אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ קַרְנֹתָיו:

(ג) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(ד) וּשְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ מִתַּחַת לְזֵרוֹ עַל שְׁתֵּי צַלְעֹתָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל שְׁנֵי צִדָּיו וְהָיָה לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ בָּהֵמָּה:

(ה) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב:

(ו) וְנָתַתָּה אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת לִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ שָׁמָּה:

(ז) וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה:

(ח) וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה קְטֹרֶת תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:

(ט) לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה וְעֹלָה וּמִנְחָה וְנֵסֶךְ לֹא תִסְּכוּ עָלָיו:

(י) וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיקֹוָק: פ

In the cases of the Shulchan and the Mizbeach, something has to be done by someone to these objects, i.e., the Shulchan has to have bread placed upon it by someone, which in turn is replaced every Shabbat with the old bread given out to Kohanim; the Mizbeach has to have incense offered up upon it in order for Aharon to achieve atonement. These actions are unique to certain individuals. In contrast, the Aron is the setting from which God will Speak to a representative of the Jewish people, in this case Moshe, for the purpose of relaying information back to the rest of the people. Consequently the Aron could be understood to serve everyone as opposed to the Shulchan and the Mizbeach. 

ג.

[רבינו] בחיי שמות פרק כה

ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב. בשלחן ומזבח הקטורת תמצא (פסוק כד) "ועשית לו", וכאן בארון "ועשית עליו", והטעם בזה כי השלחן רמז לכתר מלכות, ומזבח הקטורת רמז לכתר כהונה, והמלכות והכהונה הם לאדם ירושה, שאין המלכות בישראל אלא למי שהוא מזרע דוד, ולא הכהונה אלא למי שהוא מזרע אהרן, וכענין שכתוב במלכות: (דברים יז, יח) "וכתב לו את משנה התורה" וגו', (שם כ) "למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו", וכתיב בכהונה: (במדבר כה, יג) "והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו", אבל בארון שהוא רומז לתורה ואין התורה ירושה לאדם על כן כתוב: "ועשית עליו" ולא אמר "ועשית לו" כי אינה ירושה לו כענין המלוכה והכהונה.

שמות פרק כה

(יא) (ארון) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(כד) (שלחן) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

שמות פרק ל

(ג) (מזבח הזהב) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

The prepositional pronoun that follows the Shulchan and the Golden Altar (לו) could be interpreted not only as “for it” but also “for him” suggesting that there is a specific person to whom the symbol is related. This is in contrast to the the prepositional pronoun that appears with respect to the Aron (עליו—upon it) which does not suggest a relationship to a specific person to the exclusion of others.

4.א. At the end of the day, whether or not Moshe breaks the Luchot, they are the Eidut that HaShem has Given to Moshe and therefore they are entitled to be placed in the Aron.

ב. Just because something holy becomes broken does not mean that its Kedusha is necessarily lost. Furthermore, referring to them as Eidut is particularly apt since not only is testimony being given to the fact that HaShem has Given the Luchot to Moshe, but that the people were originally undeserving of having bestowed upon them the Luchot, and hopefully in the future such a memory will serve as a deterrent to their acting badly again.

Menachot 99a

(Devarim 10:2) “Which thou didst break, and thou shalt put them in the ark.” R. Joseph learnt: This teaches us that both the tablets and the fragments of the tablets were deposited in the ark. Hence [we learn that] a scholar who has forgotten his learning through no fault of his must not be treated with disrespect.

Gimel.

1.  Shemot 25:33-34

שמות פרק כה

(לג) שְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד] [כַּפְתֹּר וָפֶרַח וּשְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד]  [כַּפְתֹּר וָפָרַח כֵּן לְשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִן הַמְּנֹרָה:

(או שלשה גבעים משקדים] [בקנה אחד כפתר ופרח   ושלשה גבעים משקדים]  [בקנה אחד כפתר ופרח...)

(לד) וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים[ ] כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ:

      (או ארבעה גבעים]  [משקדים כפרתרי' ופרחי' )

Translation “a”:

Three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower;

and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower;

so for the six branches going out of the candlestick; (OR three cups whose almond-blossoms have their knops and their cups.)

And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof; (OR four cups, whose almond-blossoms have their knops and their flowers.) 

Koren:

Three cups made like almonds, with a bulb and flower in one branch; and three cups made like almonds in the other branch with a bulb and a flower; so in the six branches that come out of the candlestick; (OR three cups, whose almonds have their bulbs and flowers.)

And in the candlestick there will be four bowls made like almonds, with their bulbs and flowers; (OR four bowls whose almonds have their bulbs and flowers.)

“אין להם הכרע” connotes when a series of words can be grouped in two different ways, attaching a particular word either to what comes before, or what comes after, and there is no evidence which is the correct sequence.

2.  Tosaphot says that if the two alternate readings do not result in a similar conclusion, then one can infer the correct reading by considering the practical differences between the two possibilities. However in the case of Shemot 25, it would not appear that one reading carries different practical connotations than the other. So there is no intrinsic basis upon which to judge which one is the correct reading.  

3. The Etnachta marking the midpoint of a verse appears under the word Gevi’im, effectively cutting it off from the word immediately following, Meshukadim.

לד וּבַמְּנֹרָ֖ה אַרְבָּעָ֣ה גְבִעִ֑ים מְשֻׁ֨קָּדִ֔ים כַּפְתֹּרֶ֖יהָ וּפְרָחֶֽיהָ׃

However in 25:33, the obvious meaning of the verse ties together the words Gevi’im and Meshukadim, resulting in the conclusion that there is a standoff, i.e., there is no objective indication which reading/grouping is the correct one.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

4. Minchat Shai feels that the comment of “no Hechrea” should be connected to v. 34 and not 33 because, whereas in v. 34, two readings are possible, it would appear in v. 33 only a single reading is possible.

Tora Temima disagrees and thinks that the comment of "no Hechrea" relates to v. 33.

תורה תמימה הערות שמות פרק כה הערה מג

מג) ר"ל די"ל ארבעה גביעים משוקדים או משוקדים כפתוריה ופרחיה. וכתב הרמב"ם בפ"ג ה"ב מבית הבחירה וז"ל, בכל קנה וקנה שלשה גביעים וכפתר ופרח והכל משוקדים, עכ"ל. והנה באמת בענין הכפתרים ופרחים (פסוק ל"ג) אינו מבואר דהכפתרים ופרחים מששת הקנים צריכים להיות משוקדים, משום דא"כ הו"ל לכתוב שלשה גביעים בקנה האחד משוקדים כפתור ופרח, ולפי"ז צ"ע מנ"ל לרמב"ם דגם הכפתורים ופרחים שבששת הקנים צריכים להיות משוקדים. והכ"מ כתב בשם ר"י קורקוס דטעמו הוא ע"פ הגמ' דמשוקדים אין לו הכרע, אבל זה תימא דהא הגמ' איירי במשוקדים שבפסוק שלפנינו, והיינו בהכפתרים ופרחים שבגופה של מנורה (פ' לד) ולא שבששת הקנים (פ' לג), וכ"כ רש"י ותוס', ועיין במל"מ. וצ"ל דבאמת מפרש הרמב"ם דכונת הגמ' לפסוק הקודם (פ' לג), והיינו דאפשר לומר שלשה גביעים משוקדים בקנה האחד או משוקדים בקנה האחד כפתר ופרח, ואף יש ראיה שכן מפרש הוא, שכן בהלכה א' מאותו הפרק שהבאנו גבי כפתר ופרח שבגופה של מנורה (פ' לד) העתיק כלשון הפסוק ולא כתב “והכל משוקדים” כמו בהלכה ב' בכפתר ופרח שבששת הקנים (פ' לג), מבואר מזה דמפרש דכונת הגמ' דמשוקדים אין לו הכרע הוא לפסוק הקודם (ל"ג) בענין כפתר ופרח של הקנים, ודו"ק. ובזה תתורץ קושיית התוס' למה לא דרשה הגמ' למשוקדים לפניה ולאחריה כמו בנשך ובמרבית (ב"מ ס"א א') משום דלמש"כ בדעת הרמב"ם דקאי אפסוק ל"ג באמת נדרשת המלה משוקדים לפניה ולאחריה, ולכן כתב והכל משוקדים. ודע שבס' יבין שמועה כלל תע"ג כתב בשם הרא"ש דהא דחמשה מקראות אין להם הכרע הוא עד דאתא עזרא ופסק טעמים אבל מימות עזרא ואילך יש להם הכרע, וכ"כ הריטב"א בחידושי יומא, ותמה עליהם בס' יד מלאכי כלל רע"ח וז"ל בשלמא בכל הפסוקים שחשיב הגמ' ניחא חידוש זה אבל במשוקדים אף דאפסקינהו עזרא אכתי כדקאי קאי ולא מכרע מלתא כלל דכיון דיש אתנחתא על מלת גביעים וזקף קטן על משוקדים אכתי לא אתברר אם קאי אגביעים שלפניו או אכפתריה ופרחיה שלאחריו, ולכן כתב דלאו דוקא על חמשתן קאמרי הרא"ש וריטב"א אלא רק אארבעה, ולא אדעה מה אדון בדבריו, דהא הענין מתבאר היטב, האתנחתא שעל גביעים הוא המפסיק המלה הזאת, ומשוקדים מוסב על כפתוריה ופרחיה והכל עולה יפה, וצ"ע:

5.  In Mishne Tora Hilchot Beit HaBechira 3:1, which deals with v. 34, the central stem of the Menora, RaMBaM does not write that it is all “משוקדים”, i.e., that both the cups and the bulbs and flowers are in the form of almonds, indicating that he doesn’t think that all of them are in that form, a conclusion that would have to be drawn if it was unclear if “משוקדים” applied either to the cups on the one hand or the bulbs and flowers on the other. However, when he is discussing the branches of the Menora in 3:2, which deals with v. 33, he does say that all, i.e., the cups as well as the bulbs and flowers, are in the form of almonds, indicating that for this verse there is no “Hechrea” and the word “משוקדים” has to be applied to both the elements before as well as after.

6. 

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים[ ] בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים[ ]בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

Tosafot: “Ein Hechrea” applies to v. 34, and not to this one. Therefore the trup clearly separates the phrase  גבעים משקדים from בקנה האחד כפתר ופרח.

RaMBaM: “Ein Hechrea”  applies to this verse, v. 33. The trup associated with the word משקדים in its two iterations in the verse makes it stand alone, but does not necessarily associate it with what comes before or what comes after, leading to the conclusion that it can apply to both.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

7.  The fact that in v. 33, the same phrase is repeated a second time with a Tavir under the second instance of משקדים, a note that associates it with the Revia that comes before under גבעים, rather than the Mercha Tipcha Munach Etnachta that follows, suggests that it is to be associated only with what comes before, and not after, providing a proof to those that say that it is v. 34 that has no “Hechrea”.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

Teruma Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/860.html