Sunday, February 2, 2014

Tetzave Answers

Tetzaveh 5730 “The Clothing of the Kohanim”
Alef.
1.  RaMBaN—clothing of royalty.
    Akeidat Yitzchak—outer clothing reflects inner character traits.
    Benno Jakob—Human dignity.
2.  RaMBaN wishes to demonstrate that these articles of clothing were truly worn by royalty. What a king wears might be somewhat arbitrary, a function of style and fashion. Therefore, a biblical context has to be provided that justifies referring to the garments of the Kohanim as royal garments.
3.  אבל הוא כן לפי שהם מתייחסים מאד—the textual interchangeability of clothing and character traits is due to the fact that they are very interrelated.

    שלא ייוודע אלא מצד פעולותיו—God is Unknowable in terms of His Inner Essence; He can only be understood and described via His external Actions.

    הנה שלא ראה אותה דולקת על האופן ההוא רק אחר שנטהר ויחלף שמלותיו—In Zecharia’s vision, the High Priest only sees the Menora alight, indicating a higher level of spirituality, once he removes his soiled clothing, an indication of having himself moved to a higher level of holiness and spirituality.

    הנאמר רק בקדוש ברוך הוא "ה' מלך גאות לבש"—Just as God is Described as Being clothed in Exaltedness, when a human being dresses, particularly the High Priest on Yom HaKippurim, it is also a sign of holy exaltedness.
Bet.
I would think that the Gemora’s view most closely parallels the statement of Jakob, in the sense that in order to achieve the level of human exaltedness necessary for engaging in the Divine Service, the specific clothing designed for this purpose must be worn.
Gimel.
The last two words at the end of the verse indicate that what is required is more than just manufacturing external clothing:
שמות פרק כח
(ב) וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי־קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת:
If it is expected that honor and glory will accrue to the Kohanim, a program that addresses their inner essences is as if not more important than assuring that they have the right clothing.
Daled.
1.  RaShI wants to identify who is the antecedent of the third person plural pronoun “הם” in v. 5.
שמות פרק כח
(ג) וְאַתָּה תְּדַבֵּר אֶל־כָּל־חַכְמֵי־לֵב אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּאתִיו רוּחַ חָכְמָה וְעָשׂוּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵי אַהֲרֹן לְקַדְּשׁוֹ לְכַהֲנוֹ־לִי:
(ד) וְאֵלֶּה הַבְּגָדִים אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּ חֹשֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד וּמְעִיל וּכְתֹנֶת תַּשְׁבֵּץ מִצְנֶפֶת וְאַבְנֵט וְעָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי־קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וּלְבָנָיו לְכַהֲנוֹ־לִי:
(ה) וְהֵם יִקְחוּ אֶת־הַזָּהָב וְאֶת־הַתְּכֵלֶת וְאֶת־הָאַרְגָּמָן וְאֶת־תּוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁשׁ: פ
Ibn Ezra thinks that you might have assumed that someone else should be in charge of the materials; therefore he says that apparently the artisans are sufficiently trustworthy to collect the materials themselves.
RaLBaG emphasizes the plural of “הם” in terms of not collecting funds unless there are two individuals present in order to create a check-and-balance on the collectors.
HaEmek Davar suggests that the artisans not only collected the materials, but also chose the best substances for putting together the Mishkan and the Bigdei Kehuna.
2.  Since at the outset of Teruma, the Tora states,
שמות פרק כה
(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ־לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִי:
the Tora’s directive is to receive the materials from whomever wished to donate it, rather than taking the required substances by fiat, against the current possessor’s will.
3.  The RaLBaG seems to imply that were a single person to collect the materials, as soon as he felt in charge of what he collected, he might rationalize that a certain percentage actually belongs to him personally. This is clearly not the case when there are multiple collectors present at the time of collection. (Two or more collectors could be colluding to keep part of the money, but this would not be the result of rationalization, but rather out-and-out criminality.)
4.  Avraham to King of Sodom:
בראשית פרק יד
(כב) וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל־מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל־יְקֹוָק קל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:
(כג) אִם־מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ־נַעַל וְאִם־אֶקַּח מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָם:
(כד) בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם: ס
Yaakov to Lavan:
בראשית פרק לא
(לח) זֶה עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ רְחֵלֶיךָ וְעִזֶּיךָ לֹא שִׁכֵּלוּ וְאֵילֵי צֹאנְךָ לֹא אָכָלְתִּי:
(לט) טְרֵפָה לֹא־הֵבֵאתִי אֵלֶיךָ אָנֹכִי אֲחַטֶּנָּה מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנָּה גְּנֻבְתִי יוֹם וּגְנֻבְתִי לָיְלָה:
(מ) הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי מֵעֵינָי:
Yosef to Mrs. Potiphear:
בראשית פרק לט
(ח) וַיְמָאֵן וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו הֵן אֲדֹנִי לֹא־יָדַע אִתִּי מַה־בַּבָּיִת וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יֶשׁ־לוֹ נָתַן בְּיָדִי:
(ט) אֵינֶנּוּ גָדוֹל בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא־חָשַׂךְ מִמֶּנִּי מְאוּמָה כִּי אִם־אוֹתָךְ בַּאֲשֶׁר אַתְּ־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵיךְ אֶעֱשֶׂה הָרָעָה הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת וְחָטָאתִי לֵאלֹקים:
Heh.
1.
בראשית פרק לז
(כג) וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר־בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף אֶת־כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו:
The implication is that they stripped him, and therefore the כתנת was what he wore against his skin.
2א.  
שמות פרק כח
(מא) וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם אֶת־אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאֶת־בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתָם וּמִלֵּאתָ אֶת־יָדָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם וְכִהֲנוּ לִי:
Since the clothing for the Kohen Gadol was distinct from the other Kohanim, one would have to understand that that antecedents for “אותם” depended upon whom we were talking about, either  Aharon on the one hand, or his sons (Kohanim Hedyotot) on the other.
ב. The immediately preceding verses are talking about the regular Bigdei Kehuna as opposed to those that the Kohen Gadol would wear.
שמות פרק כח
(מ) וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה כֻתֳּנֹת וְעָשִׂיתָ לָהֶם אַבְנֵטִים וּמִגְבָּעוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת:
(מא) וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם אֶת־אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאֶת־בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתָם וּמִלֵּאתָ אֶת־יָדָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם וְכִהֲנוּ לִי:
3.  
שפתי חכמים על רש"י
(ח) לאפוקי דלא קאי אבגדים כמו אותם דלעיל מיניה דקאי אבגדים. ואמר בשמן המשחה ולא בשמן זית או בזולתו שכן כתיב בפרשה שאחריה ולקחת את הבגדים וגו' ולקחת את שמן המשחה וגו':
Vav.
1.  Berachot 55a
R. Yochanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, Gives wisdom only to one who already has wisdom, as it says, (Daniel 2:21) “He Giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.”  R. Tachlifa from the West  heard and repeated it before R. Abbahu. He said to him: You learn it from there, but we learn it from this text, namely, (Shemot  31:6) “In the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom.
2.  If a person is completely unfamiliar with what wisdom entails, then adding wisdom to such an individual will not amount to much. However, someone who already appreciates wisdom and has used it, when he is suddenly given additional wisdom, it only enhances his experience and he will be that much more effective.

Tetzave Questions

Monday, January 27, 2014

Teruma Answers

Teruma 5730 “The Cherubs”

שמות פרק כה
(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ שְׁנַיִם כְּרֻבִים זָהָב מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת:
Alef.
1.  Chagiga 13b
What is the meaning of cherub? — R. Abbahu said: Like a child [Ravia];  for so in
Babylonia a child is called Ravia. R. Papa said to Abaye: But according to this, [what is the meaning of] the verse, (Yechezkel 10:14) ‘The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle’: are not the face of the cherub and the face of a man the same! — [The one is] a big face, and [the other is] a small face.
 The “Chaf” is not part of the root of the word, but rather a contraction for “Kemo” (like).
2.  Shemot 26:1
שמות פרק כו
(א) וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן תַּעֲשֶׂה עֶשֶׂר יְרִיעֹת שֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתֹלַעַת שָׁנִי כְּרֻבִים מַעֲשֵׂה חֹשֵׁב תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם:
Since the Gemora in Chagiga specifically distinguished between the face described as a “Cheruv” from those of the lion and eagle, then to say that the face of the “Cheruv” was that of a lion on one side and an eagle on the other would contradict the Gemora, which Mizrachi does not think RaShI would do.
3.  If RaShI needed to draw upon examples, having in mind the verse in Yechezkel 10:14, where these various faces were on a single angelic entity, there was at least a literary if not a thematic connection between all of them.
4.  
שמות פרק כו
(לא) וְעָשִׂיתָ פָרֹכֶת תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה חֹשֵׁב יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ כְּרֻבִים:
רש"י שמות פרק כו פסוק לא
כרובים - ציורין של בריות יעשה בה:
The term “Briyot” suggests creatures other than children.
5.  The commentator י. ש. רגיו could point to the following verses to demonstrate that the “Chaf” is not a contraction but rather part of the root of the word being discussed:
שמות פרק כה
(כ) וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו אֶל־ הַכַּפֹּרֶת יִהְיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:
Similarly:
מלכים א פרק ו
(כד) וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָת וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִית עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת מִקְצוֹת כְּנָפָיו וְעַד־קְצוֹת כְּנָפָיו:
(כה) וְעֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי מִדָּה אַחַת וְקֶצֶב אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:
(כו) קוֹמַת הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה וְכֵן הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי:
(כז) וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־הַכְּרוּבִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ אֶת־כַּנְפֵי הַכְּרֻבִים וַתִּגַּע כְּנַף־הָאֶחָד בַּקִּיר וּכְנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי נֹגַעַת בַּקִּיר הַשֵּׁנִי וְכַנְפֵיהֶם אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת נֹגְעֹת כָּנָף אֶל־כָּנָף:
(כח) וַיְצַף אֶת־הַכְּרוּבִים זָהָב:
The fact that there is an article “Heh” in front of the word suggests that what comes afterwards is part of the root.
Beit.
1.  It would appear that Ibn Ezra thinks that while there may be a tradition that the “Chaf” is indicative of a contraction, in fact it is part of the root, because one has to understand that a new word was formed, which really is a synthesis of two separate words.
2.  Yahel Ohr, a commentary on Ibn Ezra appearing in the Mechokkai Yehuda edition, explains: the word “Chanuka” is constructed of “Chanu” (they rested) and “Chaf—Heh” (the letters representing 25, i.e., the 25th of Kislev). So too the word “Cheruv” is constructed of the letter “Chaf” being attached to the word “Ruvya”.
3.  Shemot 25:20 demonstrates that the “Chaf” at the beginning of “Chruvim” has been incorporated into a single word, since the article “Heh” precedes it.
Yeshayahu 27:7 demonstrates that a “Heh” in front of a word could serve as indicating an interrogatory form, but Ibn Ezra states that is not the case with respect to Shemot 25:20.
Gimel.
1.  The fact that the commentaries cannot pin down the etymology of the word “Chruvim” indicates that it is an elusive concept that is veiled in imprecision and mystery.
In light of what RaMBaN says with respect to the Urim VeTumim (see Alon HaDeracha), the “Cheruvim” are not listed as one of the things that the artisans fabricated; they are not spoken of with the article “Heh”, i.e., “HaCheruvim”—except in Shemot 25:20. (The third element mentioned by RaMBaN with respect to the Urim VeTumim, i.e., that there isn’t a specific Commandment given to make them, is not true with respect to the “Cheruvim”  in light of Ibid. 25:18.)
2.  
תהלים פרק יח
(יא) וַיִּרְכַּב עַל־כְּרוּב וַיָּעֹף וַיֵּדֶא עַל־כַּנְפֵי־רוּחַ:
And He rode upon a cherub, and did fly; yea, He did swoop down upon the wings of the wind.
תהלים פרק קד
(ג) הַמְקָרֶה בַמַּיִם עֲלִיּוֹתָיו הַשָּׂם־עָבִים רְכוּבוֹ הַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל־כַּנְפֵי־רוּחַ:
Who Layest the beams of Thine upper Chambers in the waters, Who Makest the clouds Thy Chariot, Who Walkest upon the wings of the wind.
חשל (נחשל)-חלש
יואל פרק ד
(י) כֹּתּוּ אִתֵּיכֶם לַחֲרָבוֹת וּמַזְמְרֹתֵיכֶם לִרְמָחִים הַחַלָּשׁ יֹאמַר גִּבּוֹר אָנִי:
דניאל פרק ב
(מ) וּמַלְכוּ רְבִיעָאָה תֶּהֱוֵא תַקִּיפָה כְּפַרְזְלָא כָּל־קֳבֵל דִּי פַרְזְלָא מְהַדֵּק וְחָשֵׁל כֹּלָּא וּכְפַרְזְלָא דִּי־מְרָעַע כָּל־אִלֵּין תַּדִּק וְתֵרֹעַ:

מלתעות-וּמְתַלְּעוֹת לָבִיא לוֹ
יואל פרק א
(ו) כִּי־גוֹי עָלָה עַל־אַרְצִי עָצוּם וְאֵין מִסְפָּר שִׁנָּיו שִׁנֵּי אַרְיֵה וּמְתַלְּעוֹת לָבִיא לוֹ:
תהלים פרק נח
(ז) אֱלֹקים הֲרָס־שִׁנֵּימוֹ בְּפִימוֹ מַלְתְּעוֹת כְּפִירִים נְתֹץ יְקֹוָק:

בְּנֵי-עַוְלָה – עַל-בְּנֵי עַלְוָה
שמואל ב פרק ג
(לד) יָדֶךָ לֹא־אֲסֻרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא־לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הֻגַּשׁוּ כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי־עַוְלָה נָפָלְתָּ וַיֹּסִפוּ כָל־הָעָם לִבְכּוֹת עָלָיו:
הושע פרק י
(ט) מִימֵי הַגִּבְעָה חָטָאתָ יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁם עָמָדוּ לֹא־תַשִּׂיגֵם בַּגִּבְעָה מִלְחָמָה עַל־בְּנֵי עַלְוָה:
4.  
שמות פרק כה
(כב) וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ שָׁם וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים אֲשֶׁר עַל־אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת אֵת כָּל־ אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ
Daled.
שמות פרק כה
(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:
While v. 18 implies that they are equal in terms of their material and how they are made, v. 19 suggests that each one was an entity unto itself, allowing for the possibility that the faces were not the same.
V. 20 could also be interpreted that each one had a unique appearance and looked to the other.
Heh.
1.  Klee Yakar sees in the “Cheruvim” a representation of a teacher and a student.
R. Hirsch suggests that the “Cheruvim” represent a model to which every individual can and should aspire in terms of serving as preservers of the Commandments and thereby becoming platforms of Divine Glory.
2.  For Klee Yakar, aspects of the form of the “Cheruvim” that support his hypothesis include:
a)  The faces are those of innocent children—this is how a teacher himself should be, in addition to his student(s).
b)  The wings extend upwards—that the teacher should be very cognizant of the responsibilities Imposed upon him by the Divine.
c)  The faces face one another—those engaged in true Tora study will promote peace and caring among one another.
d)  They also face downwards—the goal of their teaching and studying is to promote the Tora rather than themselves and their abilities.
3.  For R. Hirsch:
a)  The “Cheruvim” are made of the same gold as the rest of the “Kaporet” (the cover of the Aron)—it is their responsibility to observe the rules of the Tora contained within the Aron.
b)  The “Kaporet” takes on importance and is exalted due to what it is covering within—those who keep the Commandments become exalted themselves to the point where they are comparable to “Cheruvim”.
c)  The “Cheruvim” provide a platform for Divine Glory—those who keep the Commandments provide such a platform as well for HaShem’s Presence in the world.