Numbers in [square brackets] are the Mitzva-count of Sefer HaChinuch AND Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot. A=ASEI (positive mitzva); L=LAV (prohibition). X:Y is the perek and pasuk from which the mitzva comes. [P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start of a parsha p’tucha or s’tuma respectively. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha.
Observation Notice that when G-d speaks to Moshe, He instructs him concerning the Mishkan (236 p'sukim!) and then warns him that Shabbat is supreme. When Moshe gathers the people to instruct them, he puts the Shabbat warning up front. Interesting, no? Some commentaries say that with the change in “primary” emphasis on the Mikdash in the aftermath of the Golden Calf incident, there came a change in the messages of Shabbat and Mikdash which helps explain which is presented first, and when. Another possible explanation is that the whole portion of the Golden Calf and its aftermath is an "interruption" in the flow of the Mishkan portions: the commands to make it, and the carrying out of those commands. So we can see the beginning of this week's sedra as saying: As the Torah was saying before the (unfortunate) interruption, remember Shabbat's supremacy... SDT In the opening three-pasuk portion about Shabbat, there are 40 words - 39 plus the word HaShabbat. This can be taken as a symbolic reference to the 39 categories of prohibited Melacha, which define the nature of HASHABBAT. The Baal HaTurim says that the word LA'ASOT in the phrase, "These are the things that G-d commanded TO DO them", is spelled with a LAMED (30) and an anagram for TEISHA (9) - another remez to the Melachot of Shabbat. He adds that a VAV is "missing" from LA'ASOT, representing the six weekdays when Melachot are permitted. MitzvaWatch Lighting a fire is one of the 39 AVOT MELACHA (categories of creative activities forbidden on Shabbat). As such, we already have the prohibition from Commandment #4 - ...Thou shall not do any manner of MELACHA... Why is the Torah singling out FIRE here? The question is two-fold: Why single it out and why command it again. Sefer haChinuch says that the prohibition here is directed to Sanhedrin, not the individual. We have already been told that we may not kindle fire. The courts, says the Chinuch, may not carry out the capital punishment of burning (S'reifa) on Shabbat. Nor, by Biblical extension, may any capital punishment be carried out on Shabbat, nor may any punishment by the courts be carried be meted out on Shabbat. [114,L322 35:3]. This allows Shabbat to be a day of respite and rest even for the convicted felon on “death row”. We can also look at the Shabbat reminder in a different way. You may not kindle fire in YOUR DWELLINGS, wherever they may be, but you may - nay, you must - kindle fire (and do certain other Melachot) in THE DWELLING, the Mikdash. (That is, when specifically commanded to do so by G-d - the Menora in the Mikdash was lit on Shabbat.) Some commentators say that the repetition of fire comes to emphasize that kindling a fire is a capital offense of no less strictness, despite the fact that on Yom Tov it is one of the few Melachot that is permitted (i.e. cooking with fire, lighting flame to flame). We might have gotten the impression that FIRE is not THAT major an offense, because of Yom Tov. Comes the Torah here to emphasize the prohibition for Shabbat. We are also taught that the singling out of one of the 39 categories of Melacha indicates that the categories have an identity of their own as far as Shabbat halacha goes. For example, planting, watering, fertilizing, grafting (the permitted kind), pruning are all forms of the AV MELACHA (category), planting. Picking a flower belongs to a different category, reaping. Without going into full details, let's just say that there are differences between the following two situations: [1] A person waters and prunes his rose bush on Shabbat, [2] A person waters his rose bush and picks one of the roses. Without the concept of differentiation among the 39 categories of Melacha, the two situations would be the same, namely, a person doing two forbidden acts on Shabbat. So this is another "lesson" from the LO T'VA'ARU statement. Tif'eret Y'honatan suggests a novel reason for singling out FIRE. Since we are prohibited from doing Melacha on Shabbat because G-d rested from Creation on the first Shabbat, and since fire was not "in the picture" until the first Motza'ei Shabbat, perhaps kindling of fire is not an equal member of the family of prohibited Melachot. Comes the pasuk here to set the record straight. Fire is not only one of the 39 categories, it is the flagship of the LAMED-TET MELACHOT. Notwithstanding all of the above, which equalizes FIRE with the other Melachot, there is an OPINION that the singling out of fire (and of carrying, elsewhere) gives it a different - and lesser - status than the other Melachot, namely, that kindling is not a capital offense. Aside from the first three p'sukim, the rest of
the sedra deals with the building of the Mishkan. Parshat T'ruma gave us the
command and instructions, Vayak-hel tells us of the carrying out of the
instructions. (Note the similar terminology the Torah uses when Moshe tells about Shabbat and about the Mikdash.) The different types of materials are named. It is made clear that donations are encouraged, but completely voluntary. Then each part of the Mishkan and its furnishings are mentioned in detail. After the people heard what Moshe had to say, they left the meeting (apparently enthused and anxious to get busy). One can speculate, based on the sequence we are presented with in the Torah, that there was a fair amount of guilt from the Golden Calf that was motivating the People. The phrase SHABBAT SHABBATON appears 6 times in the Torah. Twice it refers to Yom Kippur, once to the Shmita year. One other time it might be talking about Shabbat, but possibly about Yom Kippur. The first two times the phrase appears are in Ki Tisa and Vayakhel. Both times are in the context of building the Mikdash. One of the commentaries suggests that when one does “regular” work during his week, then Shabbat is Shabbat. But when we spend our six work-days in “holy-work”, such as building the Mikdash (but not just that), then our Shabbat is further elevated, and is described as Shabbat Shabbaton.
Repeated reference is made to the hearts of the people being in what they were doing. This was a genuine positive response to G-d's and Moshe's call to build the Mishkan. The leaders of the Tribes supplied the precious stones for the shoulder-pieces of the Eifod and for the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and spices and oil for the Incense and the Anointing oil. SDT Rashi quotes R' Natan who explain why the leaders of the tribes took the initiative on the occasion of the dedication of the Mishkan. He says that they learned their lesson from this original collection of materials. The leaders decided to wait until the people finished giving, and then they would give what was missing. It turned out that there was almost nothing left to give because the people had given so generously. For Chanukat HaMizbei'ach they went first. But for the initial T'RUMA they were mildly rebuked by the Torah in an inconspicuous way - the letter YUD was dropped from the word N'SI'IM (36:27). Leaders are supposed to lead, they are supposed to initiate. Jewish leaders say ACHARAI - after me!
In this portion, the three layers of ceiling are presented. Note that the first layer was a beautiful, multicolored weave and the fasteners were gold. Over that came the more practical, less attractive, less complicated, weather- resistant Ohel of goat hair. This layer was not seen from inside the Mishkan, and might not have been seen from the outside either, according to the opinion that the Tachash and Red-dyed sheep skin covering (which was also attractive) was not just on top, but down the sides of the Mishkan as well.
The Parochet to hang between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodoshim, the Masach for the front of the Mishkan, and the Masach for the front of the courtyard were similar in style and material to the first ceiling layer. With the structure completed, next came the Aron and the Shulchan. SDT After many anonymous VAYA’AS, and he did... we come to an unusual wording for the ARON. VAYA’AS BEZALEL ET HA’ARON... Rashi says: “Because of his dedication to the construction of the Mishkan more so than others, he is honored by associating his name with the ARON. Baal HaTurim adds that Bezalel knew the secrets of the ARON, not just the technical details of its construction. Therefore his name was associated with it. Meshech Chochma explains that other parts and furnishings of the Mishkan were not just made by Bezalel, but by others as well (for the first and second Beit HaMikdash, and IY”H for the third one. But not the ARON. It was made by Bezalel. It was used throughout the tenure of the Mishkan and all during the first Beit HaMikdash. It was hidden and was absent from the second Beit HaMikdash. And the very same ARON will be rediscovered for the 3rd Beit HaMikdash, BIMHEIRA B'YAMEINU AMEN. It is truly Bezalel’s ARON.
Did you know... Even though the Torah commands that the Menora be made of gold, it may be made of other metals, if gold is not available. Furthermore, the requirement of MIKSHA ACHAT, one solid piece, only applies to the Menora when it is made of gold. Furthermore, a non-gold Menora, which is just as “kosher” for the Beit HaMikdash as a gold one, does not need the decorative orbs, cups, and flowers. Without these restrictions, it is much easier to make a Menora for use in the next Beit HaMikdash, until we get the gold and full details of the Menora’s form. In fact, there is a silver Menora in the Temple Institute that is waiting to function in the Third Beit HaMikdash. It was not hammered of one piece of silver – because it doesn’t need to be. Nor does it have G’VI’IM, KAFTORIM, and P’RACHIM, which it does not need and which we would be able to only guess as to exact detail. Next, the Golden Altar (a.k.a. Incense Altar, a.k.a. Inner Altar) is described. After this Mizbei'ach was made, the Anointing Oil and Incense were compounded.
The final vessel described is the Washing Basin and its Stand. It was made of copper. Tradition tells us that the copper came from the mirrors of the Israelite women. At first, Moshe did not want to accept them because of the vanity associated with mirrors. G-d, however, told Moshe how very precious this gift was in His eyes, because they reminded Him (so to speak) of the role Jewish women played in the redemption of the people from Egypt. Finally, the courtyard is described. The last 3 p'sukim are reread for Maftir.
The haftara tells of the making of various vessels for the Beit HaMikdash, especially those made by Chiram out of copper. Rabbi Jacobs points out that Chiram was from Dan on his mother's side and Shlomo HaMelech was, of course, from Yehuda. This has a sharp parallel to the two main artisans of the Mishkan, Bezalel from Yehuda and Aholiav from Dan. There are other points in common that make this portion a good choice for Vayak-hel. [The Parshat
Vayak-hel Homepage]
|
