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.

3.  Some examples from https://www.safa-ivrit.org/changes/letters.php :

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.