Parasha: Ki Tisa · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

כי תשא את ראש, "When you count the sum, etc." Why did the Torah choose the expression תשא to describe counting instead of the customary תפקד as we find in Numbers 3,15? Why did the Torah mention ראש and did not content itself with writing כי תשא את בני ישראל, seeing that the Israelites were not to be counted by means of a head count? Besides, what did the Torah have in mind with the word לפקדיהם?

Our sages comment that a sinner causes his head to be bowed as a result of his sins. Evil is defined as something which causes man to look only at what is below him, at the ground, whereas קדושה, sanctity, results in raising up one's head and elevating a person spiritually. We note that the Torah describes even the cave of Machpelah as undergoing an elevation after Abraham purchased it (Genesis 23,17). Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 describe the cave as undergoing an elevation. Inasmuch as the Torah commands this count after the sin of the golden calf as Rashi concluded based on the words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד "and you will appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting" in verse 16, we can understand why the expression כי תשא, "when you will raise," is appropriate. We encounter a similar use of the word תשא in Genesis 40,13 when the Torah refers to Pharaoh "raising" the head of the chief of the butlers who would be reinstated into his position. In our case, the Israelites will be enabled to hold their heads high again as a result of this count which served as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. Up until this time they had not felt able to raise their heads due to the shame of having had a part in that sin. לפקדיהם, "according to their number;" this is to be understood as parallel to Numbers 31,49 where the Torah states that not a single one of the 12,000 men whom Moses had sent on the punitive expedition against the Midianites had become a casualty during that war. There too the words נשאו את ראש meant that "they counted the sum." Shabbat 64 explains that the words ולא נפקד ממנו איש, meant that not a single one of those soldiers was guilty of a sin. ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, "each one will give (this) as ransom for his soul to G'd." This is a reference to the Israelites each having forfeited their lives through participation in the sin of the golden calf. בפקד אותם, "when numbering them." The meaning is literal.

The reason the Torah added the conjunctive letter ו before the word נתנו, is that in order to be effective as ransom each Israelite first had to acknowledge his guilt; only after he had done so could he contribute the half-shekel as ransom for his life.

Another meaning of the word לפקדיהס is that the only reason a count was justified at all was the fact that their number had diminished (due to the people who had either died or been executed during that episode). The count was meant to establish how many of the people had survived. The count in Numbers 31,49 we mentioned was also undertaken only to determine if and how many soldiers had become casualties during that campaign. Basically, a census was to be undertaken only in order to count the number of soldiers going to war or returning from war. The extra letter ו in ונתנו is to tell us of an additional condition, i.e. that these people were not only to be counted but that they also had to contribute a half-shekel as ransom for their souls. This was a unique occurrence. Future counts of the Jewish people were never accompanied by the handing over of a half-shekel of every person to be counted.

ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אותם, "so that there not be a plague amongst them when numbering them." Why did the Torah write the expression בפקד אותם twice in the same verse? Seeing that at the time when the commandment of this count was given Israel was already guilty of the sin of the golden calf, one could assume that at other times it would not matter if the count would be a head count instead of counting the number of half-shekel coins, the Torah had to refer to the future by saying: "so that there will not be a plague when they are being counted."

There is also an assurance here that not only would the Israelites obtain their atonement by means of this count and the manner in which it was conducted, but it would protect them against a plague in the future. We learn by inference that a head count would be liable to result in a plague for those so counted.

There may well be yet another message in our verse. G'd commanded two things. 1) The number of the Israelites should be arrived at by means of each person to be numbered handing over an object, i.e. ונתנו, as the Torah stated in verse 13: זה יתנו, "this is what they shall give." This was the atonement factor of this count. The second commandment implied here is that a count should never be a head count but should be conducted by means of some other object. This is why the Torah had to add: "so that there shall not be a plague on them, etc." The latter condition is not one that enhances the objective of the census, it merely ensures that there will be no negative fall-out. We find this confirmed when King Saul numbered the people he mobilised in his war against the men of Yavesh Gilead, where we are told (Samuel I 11,8) "he numbered them by means of shards" (based on Rashi, Yuma 22)." Unless you interpret the verse in this fashion we must ask who permitted Saul to conduct the count by means of shards seeing that the Torah had spoken of each person handing over a half-shekel? When you accept our interpretation that in future people to be counted would simply hand over some object (other than a coin) you will have no difficulty.

I have examined the count David conducted (Samuel II 24). According to scripture there it appears that David (or better Yoav at David's command) conducted a head count. How could King David be guilty of such a gross error? While it is true that our sages in Berachot 62 claim that David was misled by Heaven into committing an error which every student in an elementary school would not become guilty of, the meaning there is somewhat different than appears at first glance. The Talmud applied to David the verse in Samuel I 26,19 (which he himself had coined when proclaiming his loyalty to Saul) "If the Lord has incited you against me, etc." The fact that David suggested that G'd would incite Saul against him, an intolerable thought, produced an evil force (angel) in accordance with a general statement to that effect in Avot 4,13. The force the sinner creates will eventually be used against him who has created it. Thus it was not G'd who seduced David into sinning by letting him forget such an elementary prohibition but David was the author of his own seduction. All of this is part of the syndrome which our sages called עברה גוררת עברה, "one sin brings another sin in its wake." Inasmuch as a person of the calibre of David most certainly would not intentionally accuse G'd of inciting people's minds to do something wrong, the kind of "evil angel" his exclamation produced could not retaliate by causing him to commit a sin other than an unintentional one. In this instance the vehicle chosen was to cause him to forget a basic halachah concerning the conduct of a census.

While this explanation enables us to understand why David committed such an oversight, it does not explain why Yoav, his commander-in-chief, did not mention David's error to him before accepting the directive to perform a head count of the people. If he understood David's directive to count the people as an order to comply with the traditional method of counting by means of a half-shekel to be handed over by each person being counted, why did he not do so? On the other hand, if David specifically ordered a head count why did Yoav not remonstrate with him reminding him of the halachah? Why did Yoav carry out a command which contravened Torah law? In situations like this we apply the principle of דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים, that when the instruction by a human king (or human being) are contrary to standing orders of a senior king, i.e. G'd, we must obey the orders of the senior king, i.e. G'd. Maimonides spells out this rule very clearly in chapter 3 of his treatise on Hilchot Melachim. Even assuming that both David and Yoav had been ignorant of the halachah at the time, why did not the Jewish Supreme Court intervene before allowing a head count to take place? Even every individual about to be counted should have objected to the procedure, if only for fear of the plague threatened by the Torah against such a procedure! If their compliance was due to their considering the saving of the half-shekel as more important than jeopardising their lives, they should at least have argued that they could be counted by means of the shards as Saul had done when he counted the soldiers he mobilised against the Ammonites! How could it be that the entire nation was so careless and submitted to a procedure endangering their lives needlessly?

I believe we must assume that David ordered a census without mentioning whether it should be a head count or otherwise. He did not think he needed to specify the details of how to conduct the census seeing Yoav was a learned man and could be assumed to know the relevant halachot. He therefore assumed that Yoav would conduct the counting of the people in a manner similar to the count performed by Saul by means of shards. When the Talmud in Berachot 62 points to the fact that David's count was not by means of the "ransom for the soul," this means that whereas Yoav did not take a half-shekel from the people whom he numbered, he did take something else such as Saul did. We have already stated that the meaning of "counts should not be conducted בלא דבר," is that unless there was a genuine reason for conducting a census it should not be undertaken. In the case of David, no such reason was evident. Yoav himself protested the need to count the people when David directed him to undertake a census. Perhaps the plague could have been avoided if Yoav had counted the people by means of the half-shekel contribution as in our portion here. You will note that we read in Samuel II 24,1: "G'd continued to be angry at Israel and He enticed David against them to say: "go and count Israel and Yehudah." It is evident from this verse that Israel had already been guilty of another (undisclosed) sin. When they were counted for no good reason they attracted to themselves the attribute of Justice and were punished for their sin.

We may view the matter thus. Seeing that one of the conditions for counting the Jewish people is that there is a genuine reason for the count, the moment even one of the conditions justifying the count is absent, the people being counted are subject to a plague. David's error was that he had forgotten this. This also explains why Yoav questioned the need to take a census and tried to dissuade David (24,3) from counting the people. Had Yoav seen a genuine need to count the people he would not have objected to it. Clearly, if Yoav objected to the count because he saw no need for it, he would have objected even more strenuously if the census was to be a head count, something expressly prohibited. Perhaps when Yoav saw that David was very insistent to go through with the count, he concluded that the king must have an adequate reason justifying him in giving such a directive; he complied [though incompletely, Ed.] believing David must have a good reason for wanting to know the number of Israelites bearing arms. He may have feared to appear like a rebel if he refused point blank. At any rate, Yoav did not conduct a head count. We cannot fault the individual Israelites for not raising objections as they were not even aware individually that a census was being taken. Besides, they did not have to know which were good reasons for conducting a census and which were not. Since when does each individual Jew have to subject every single directive of the king to his personal scrutiny?

We may say that there are three הלכות which govern census taking. The first הלכה concerns the census taken after the episode of the golden calf at which time there was a need not only to count heads but each person subject to the census had to contribute a half-shekel in order to atone for his share in that sin. The second הלכה concerns a census which is taken whenever there is a legitimate reason to count the people. At such times there is no need for half-shekel contributions, a shard is just as good to avoid making a head count of the individuals. This is what Saul did when he counted the people. The third הלכה concerns a census which is not justified by legitimate considerations. Such counts are to be avoided at all costs. David's error was that he forgot this particular הלכה because of G'd allowing him to be misled. In such cases, however, if the people to be counted were to each give a half-shekel at the time this would protect them against a plague. You may well ask why David needed to count the people instead of relying on the annual half-shekel contribution for the communal sacrifices which every male over 20 years of age had to contribute? We would have to answer that the half-shekel contributions were not a reliable instrument since even minors used to contribute the half-shekel as we are told in Shekalim 1,3, whereas the numbers counted by Yoav were men who were trained in warfare (Samuel II 24,9). David wanted to know how many men he could send into battle, if the need arose.

זה יתנו, "This is what they shall give, etc." We are told in Tanchuma on this verse that G'd showed Moses a coin of fire situated beneath His throne. It appears strange that G'd did not rather inform Moses of the weight of the coin in question. This would have been easier to comprehend than a coin made of fire. Any image such as that described by the Midrash could at best have given Moses an approximation of the size of that coin.

Moreover, why was G'd interested in a half-shekel? He should have at least asked for a full shekel! Why did G'd forbid the wealthy to contribute more and the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel?

There are mystical elements involved in this legislation which are not evident to the average person. The Midrash alluded to this when it described the manner in which G'd explained the appearance, i.e. significance, of the coin in question. The very expression זה יתנו of which our verse speaks begs the question. G'd told Moses that the visible element in the legislation is secondary to the invisible element. This is why the coin described as being shown to Moses is presented as only an image, not as the real thing. We have mentioned several times that the Presence of G'd is usually referred to by our sages as the Throne of G'd's Glory. This "Throne" and its location are determined in large measure by the conduct of the Jewish people. The prophet Isaiah refers to this in Isaiah 50,1 when he describes G'd telling the Jewish people that not He had divorced them, but their iniquities had resulted in the alienation between them. Solomon uses a similar hyperbole in Proverbs 16,28 when he describes quarrel-someness as alienating one's friends. The alienation between Israel and its G'd resulted from the episode of the golden calf which affected the roots of all the Jewish souls. G'd therefore commanded that the people give a "half-shekel" to symbolise that their previous action had resulted in something whole having become divided. The contribution of this half-shekel was to repair the damage done to the whole through the people's participation in the sin of the golden calf. When G'd showed Moses the coin of fire as being immediately beneath the throne of G'd, He drew his attention to the mystical dimension of this legislation. Payment of a ransom is not merely a transaction in this material world, but has far-reaching effects in a spiritual domain. Performance of G'd's commandments is predicated on the participation of the heart of the performer in his deed, i.e. רחמנא לבא בעי. Every מצוה is meant to close a gap that may exist between man and G'd. This is why the Torah added the words את תרומת השם, the contribution restores one's closeness with G'd.

We can now understand that if the wealthy person were allowed to contribute more, the whole purpose of the half-shekel would be denied. The same applies to the prohibition for the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel. The symbolic meaning of the "half" was paramount in drawing people's attention to what was to be accomplished. The Torah wanted to stress this element and that is why it first stressed the details about the amount. Ordinarily, the Torah should have spoken about a תרומה, a gift, a contribution, and only afterwards about the size of the contribution. The Torah changed its regular syntax in order to draw our attention to the primacy of the amount of the gift.

If we are looking for a moral-ethical dimension in this paragraph we may find in it an answer to the age-old problem of why some outstandingly pious and valuable people die prematurely. At first glance such people appear to share the same fate as that of confirmed sinners to whom G'd does not grant a normal lifespan. When the average individual reflects on this phenomenon he is apt to arrive at one of two conclusions. 1) He will deny our system of reward and punishment and conclude that there is no point in living a life dedicated to the service of the Lord. 2) Or, if he is not daring enough to accuse his mentors of having misled him and of having taught him a set of illusory values, he will conclude that the person who died prematurely was a charlatan and that his "piety" was only make-believe so that G'd punished him by having him die early. The result of such an attitude is that one would deny anyone who died prematurely the good reputation he had established while alive. The Torah counters such thinking by saying: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, "when you elevate i.e. remove to a higher world, a leader of the Jewish community through premature death," לפקדיהם, "and he does not live a normal lifespan," then the reason is ונתנו איש כפר נפשם, that "the people who have now been deprived of the leadership provided by such a person have to pay for their sins by being deprived of the presence of the pious person in question." We have used the word לפקדיהם in the sense that the Torah used it in Numbers 31,49 when it means becoming a casualty. The idea of the leader serving as atonement for the multitude is taken from our sages' interpretation of Song of Songs 1,14: אשכול הכפר דודי לי, "the person who combines within him every virtue serves as atonement for me for my beloved (G'd)." The expression לפקדיהם may also be understood in accordance with the comment of Zohar Chadash on the words כל העובר על הפקדים in verse 13. The Zohar translates these words as: "anyone who transgresses the commandments, etc." This means that the reason for the premature absence (death) of these pious people we referred to are the sins of their contemporaries. Let no one draw negative conclusions about the character of people who die prematurely and have led an exemplary life as far as their contemporaries were able to judge.

G'd said that inasmuch as it is their contemporaries who have caused the premature death of such pious people, the ones they left behind have to pay a ransom for having been the root cause of this early death by the righteous. This is the meaning of ונתנו איש כפר נפשו. We find this concept spelled out in greater detail in Isaiah 57,2: כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק, "the righteous has died because of the evil (sins)." This can mean that: a) the premature death of the righteous acts as a catalyst for the people whom he left behind to mend their ways, or, b) the righteous was removed from the earth before his time in order that he not share the retribution G'd will bring on his contemporaries. One of the ways in which the survivors express their repentance is the payment of the half-shekel as a ransom for their own sins.

The words: בפקוד אותם, mean that the process of repentance had to commence immediately, i.e. when they were being counted." In the event that they would be tardy in doing so, G'd threatened the people in question with the plague as punishment for their participation [even though passively, seeing the active participants had already been executed by either the Levites or by the hand of G'd. Ed.] It is an historic fact (according to Sanhedrin 113) that whenever pious people died prematurely in order to awaken the survivors to do Teshuvah, failure by the survivors to do so resulted in almost immediate mass retribution by G'd. The author cites occurrences in his own time as proof of this theory.

When the Torah commences with the words: זה יתנו, this introduces the manner in which atonement is to be achieved. The word זה is a veiled reference to the Torah scroll which is described as זה in Joshua 1,8: לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך. Our sages also say that just as the Torah commanded the king to always have a Torah scroll with him (Deut. 17,19), so G'd Himself always has a Torah scroll in front of Him. This is the mystical dimension of G'd pointing with a finger and saying to Moses: "This is what they are to give!" G'd must have referred to something which lies in front of Him all the time, seeing He did not define the "This" further. The message is that the atonement will accrue to the people to be counted by means of their immersing themselves in the study of the Torah and in the performance of the commandments which are written therein. According to Menachot 110 Torah study protects a person, assures him of atonement for his sins, and it is the single most potent factor in amassing merits in this world. It is an effective antidote against punishment even if the person studying Torah had been guilty of many sins previously. The Talmud there interprets the verse in Leviticus 7,37: זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם to mean that if one concentrates on the study of Torah this is equivalent to one's having offered all the kinds of sacrifices listed in this verse in order to achieve atonement. The relationship of זה and כל העובר על הפקדים is that anyone who has violated the orders (of G'd) will be able to rehabilitate himself by means of the Torah. The words כל העובר על הפקדים may also be read as belonging to what follows, i.e. that they should contribute a half-shekel each. Seeing that not everyone is capable of "immersing" himself in Torah, we have here an allusion to the traditional partnership of Zevulun and Yissachar, the former supplying the latter with the financial means to enable him to devote himself to Torah without the need to worry about making a livelihood (compare Sotah 21 on the subject). There are many people nowadays who allocate half of their money (חצי שקל) for the scholars who toil studying Torah.

The words בשקל הקודש may be translated as "for the sake of the holy shekel, i.e. Torah." Alternatively, the meaning could be that people who contribute of their money to enable scholars to study undisturbed thereby acquire a merit similar to those who do the studying. Perhaps this is what Solomon referred to in Kohelet 7,12 כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף, "for to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money." Were it not for the money supplied by generous donors the scholar could not afford to sit in the academy and study Torah. Concerning the "holy shekel" and the misleading term בקע לגלגלת, we are taught in Bechorot 5 that the holy shekel comprised twice the weight of silver in an ordinary shekel. There is a profound moral significance in this dual use of the word shekel. If a scholar who is subsidised by a layman should feel that inasmuch as he "shares" the merit of his Torah study with the donor he does so at the cost of "losing" part of the merit accumulated by his study, and both of them would wind up with only "half a shekel's worth of merit," this is not so. Inasmuch as the "holy shekel" is worth twice what an ordinary shekel is worth, both parties individually enjoy the full merit due to their respective input.

When the Torah describes a full shekel as consisting of 20 geyrah, this is an allusion to the two units of ten [the standard symbol for anything holy, as the author has mentioned on occasion, Ed.] which together form the concept of שכינה, the Presence of G'd, i.e. His throne and His sitting on it in His capacity as King of Kings. These two units are intended to fuse, just as the ideal personality of a human being is achieved through his studying Torah on the one hand and his practicing its precepts on the other. The combination of these two factors leads to the ideal possible. When the Torah emphasises מחצית השקל תרומה לה׳, this is an allusion to the damage caused to the union of G'd and His throne through the sin of the golden calf the Israelites had become guilty of. This damage can be repaired only through Torah study and performance of its precepts. Even when two people combined in fulfilling these two requirements, each one will receive the reward for having fulfilled both parts of the commandment as we already pointed out in connection with the respective roles of Zevulun and Yissachar.

העשיר לא ירבה means that he who donates his half-shekel in this world should not view himself as having made a substantial donation, begrudging it, and thereby reducing its moral value. On the other hand, והדל לא ימעיט means that a person should not use the excuse of his poverty to refrain from making his fair contribution. In both instances the consideration that must be uppermost in the heart of either the wealthy or the poor is לתת תרומת ה׳ לכפר על נפשותיכם, that this relatively insignificant gift to G'd counts as a ransom payment and atones for the capital sin committed during the episode of the golden calf. Considering that we have it on the authority of Satan in Job 2,4 that man willingly sacrifices all his material possessions in order to save his life, the amount G'd demanded is very paltry indeed.

The Torah stipulates that the minimum age at which a person had to make this half-shekel contribution was from twenty years and up. The Torah revealed a secret here when it did not demand that males from the age of 13 and up had to make this contribution. Seeing that males are considered as adults from the age of 13, why would teenagers not have been liable for this ransom? They also had participated in the golden calf episode! The Torah told us here that a person's personality (נפש) has not matured until age 20 as he has not had time to absorb and comprehend the various spiritual components which make up a true Israelite until he has reached that age. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 2,7: "You are My son, I have fathered you this day." Compare what the Zohar Mishpatim 98 has to say on that verse. [The Zohar on Exodus 21,9 writes that man is called בן from the age of 13, and בן להקב׳ה from the age of 20. Ed.] There is a sound reason why man should not be liable to punishment at the hands of heaven until he has reached that age, seeing that he has not yet matured emotionally and intellectually. Such maturity is essential to enable us to successfully battle the evil urge and to appreciate G'd's message to man. By the time man has reached the age of 20 he is considered as fully equipped to cope with all kinds of temptations.

ונתת שמה מים. "you will put water into it." Apparently it did not have to be Moses who had to fill the basin with water. Any non-priest was qualified to perform that chore.

את ידיהם ואת רגליהם. "their hands and their feet." The two words את were not really necessary. The reason the Torah wrote the word את each time is to tell us that washing of the hands without washing of the feet at the same time, or washing of the feet without washing of the hands at the same time did not accomplish its purpose. In other words the word את really means עם. The source for our explanation can be found in Zevachim 19 where we are told that the priest had to sanctify hands and feet simultaneously.

חק עולם, an eternal law. Even though the priest may have just emerged from immersing himself in a ritual bath in order to purify himself from a more severe category of impurity, this does not relieve him of the need to wash his hands and feet from the water of the כיור. The Torah warns the priest for the fifth time not to risk the death penalty to warn him that the ritual immersion did not replace the commandment to wash their hands and feet before either entering the Sanctuary or approaching the copper altar in the courtyard to perform service therein.

ואתה קח לך, "And as for you, take for yourself, etc." The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses was to pay for the anointing oil out of his own pocket. This is why the Torah prefaced the directive with the word ואתה. Moses was to perform this particular commandment personally, as opposed to the other commandments concerning which G'd had also addressed him in direct speech, commanding him to perform the respective directive. Even though the Torah included the oil and the various spices in the list of items to be donated by the general public (25,3), the Torah here revealed its intention that these items be contributed by Moses personally.

We have a Baraitha in Keritut 5 according to which Moses boiled the oil he took to anoint the priests with during the seven-day inaugural service of the Tabernacle. The remnants of the oil were preserved for future occasions. We have been taught that no such oil was ever again prepared at any time as the oil Moses had prepared was used again and again and it did not diminish in quantity. Maimonides rules in chapter in chapter 1 of his treatise Kley Hamishkan that apart from the quantity of anointing oil prepared by Moses, none was ever made again. This is the additional dimension of the words ואתה קח לך, indicating to Moses that only he would have the privilege to prepare this oil for anointing. Yalkut Shimoni item 764 sees in these words an allusion to the fact that in Messianic times it will be the resurrected Moses who will personally perform the Temple service. While it is true that the Torah also uses the expression: קח לך in connection with the fragrances for the frankincense in verse 34, the word ואתה does not appear in connection with that directive.

וקנמן בשם מחציתו, "and half as much sweet cinnamon, etc." According to the Talmud in Keritut 5 this means that Moses was to bring five hundred units of sweet cinnamon but was to use only half of it in preparing the oil for anointing. The Talmud wonders if perhaps the directive in the Torah meant that Moses was only to bring two hundred and fifty units, i.e. "half," just like the amount of Kneh bossem mentioned immediately afterwards. The answer given is that if this had been the Torah's intention the directive should have read: קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה, ומחצה חמישים ומתאים. Thus far the Talmud on the subject.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional answer to the question raised by the Talmud. If the Torah had meant for Moses to contribute only a total of 250 units of sweet cinammon, the word "half of it," would have been totally superfluous; who does not know that 250 is half of 500? The Torah intended for two quantities of 250 units to be weighed [on opposite sides of the scale but that only one half was to be mixed in as an ingredient at that time. Ed.]

I have seen a comment by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra who writes that it is not the custom of the Arabs to add even as much as the weight of a single grain of mustard to the recipe according to which they prepare such oils for incense. I do not think that this is correct. The process of weighing requires that one adds the quantities gradually in order to know when the correct weight has been achieved. I have seen that when the most experienced goldsmiths weigh gold they add another small weight to one side of the scales [and then presumably withdraw it, Ed.] in order to be certain that they have the correct weight. The reason that the Talmud did not mention our answer may be that according to the understanding of the Talmud the one unit of 250 remained separate at all times. The word מחציתו, "half of it," would then mean that Moses was to bring two amounts of 125 units each.

קדש הוא, "it is holy." This refers to the quantity being sacred. Even if the oil would be compounded of materials not listed here, i.e. something altogether profane, a combination of components in the quantities mentioned here would make it "sacred" in the sense of "forbidden." Anyone concocting such a mixture would be as guilty as a layman offering a total offering or sin-offering on his own behalf. If all such a person wanted to do was to train himself in the art of making such compositions, or in order to donate it to the community, this is permissible as we learned in Keritut 5.

The wording: "it is holy and it shall remain holy" may have yet another meaning. The words "it is sacred" refer to the oil for anointing made by Moses; it possessed an additional degree of holiness in that any private person using it to smear it on himself would be guilty of Karet. The Talmud understands the words "from it" in verse 33 as referring to the oil of anointing prepared by Moses. Any oil for anointing prepared by somebody other than Moses would not be forbidden on pain of this harsh penalty. The words "it will be holy," refer to such mixtures which would be prepared in the future. Unless such oil for anointing conformed to the exact measurements or weights as mentioned here, the user would not face any penalty. Had the Torah not written ממנו "from it," this would not have sufficed as I would have concluded that unless one smeared one's whole body with such oil one would not be guilty of the penalty threatened by the Torah.

Our sages in Keritut 6 derive from the wording of this verse that the oil for anointing had to be prepared in a holy area. If they would be right, the Torah should have written such a provision where it formulated the commandment not where it only threatened the penalty. We may therefore conclude that the sages in the Talmud do not really mean that their ruling has Biblical force; they only looked for some hint in the written text to drive home their point. Presumably, they had a tradition concerning this requirement to prepare the oil for anointing on holy ground. Our explanation follows the plain meaning of the text.

ממלח טהור קדוש. Salted, pure, holy. It appears that the meaning of "pure" refers to colours. The incense was to be of a uniform colour throughout. Seeing that it consisted of many different spices and a quantity sufficient for 368 portions of it was prepared at one time, it would most likely have had a mottled appearance unless the Torah had directed that it should be mixed in such a way that its spices would merge into a single uniform colour. Even though it possessed a uniform colour after having been thoroughly mixed, if someone examined it carefully he would notice that the uniformity was not due to all of its components being of the same colour. Such uniformity would not qualify for the definition "pure." The words: "salted, pure" mean therefore that it was to be so finely ground that even upon visual examination from close quarters its colour would appear to be uniform. This required expertise on the part of the people who pounded it into small particles.

והקטרת אשר תעשה, "And the incense which you are to make, etc." According to Keritut 6 the words: "you shall make," mean that Moses was to separate an amount needed for the daily incense offerings from the total on the day it would be used. This means that if an individual would compound an amount of incense of even half the daily portion offered on the altar, [the daily portion was divided into a half to be offered in the morning and the other half to be offered close to evening. Ed.] such an individual would be guilty of the most severe karet penalty; he would be cut off from his people (for all times).

לא תעשו, "you must not make it, etc." This means that even if the person making it had no intention of smelling the incense he had made he would still be guilty of a penalty though not the same penalty as if he had smelled the fragrance of the incense he had compounded. We derive this conclusion from the fact that the Karet penalty is mentioned in our portion only in verse 38 where the Torah speaks of someone smelling the incense.

ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל, "See, I have called by name Betzalel, etc." Perhaps the extra word בשם is intended to draw our attention not only to Betzalel's name but also to that of his father and grandfather and how those names reflected Betzalel's impact on his contemporaries. The name בצל־אל suggests that he was the man through whom a shelter was provided for G'd on earth. בן אורי suggests that Betzalel's father looked upon G'd as the source of his inspiration and enlightenment. בן חור is a reference to freedom, בן חורים. Betzalel helped free the Israelites from the remaining stigma of the golden calf by helping Israel to regain its good graces. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 51,4 in connection with the words משכן העדות in Exodus 38,21 point out that the reason for that designation of the Tabernacle was that its existence was testimony, עדות, that G'd had forgiven the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf. This very thought was also anchored in Betzalel's name and the name of his forebears. The allusions we just referred to would justify the conjunctive letter ו in front of the words ו־אמלא אותו רוח אלוקים בחכמה,"and I will fill him with a spirit of wisdom." This may also be the reason that the Torah speaks of בחכמה, instead of simply חכמה when describing G'd's input as additional to Betzalel's natural talents and virtues. Alternatively, the word בחכמה may reflect a statement of our sages in Berachot 55 based on Daniel 2,21 that G'd adds additional wisdom to people aleady possessed of a measure of wisdom. Accordingly, the words ואמלא…בחכמה, mean: "and I will add wisdom to Betzalel who already possesses wisdom."

לקדש, "for the holy place, etc." Seeing that none of the materials used for the Tabrnacle and the priests have been forbidden to be used for profane purposes with the exception of the oil for anointing and the incense, the Torah had to underline that these two had to be made on a holy site as they themselves were for use exclusively for consecrated people or holy structures.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. We have to examine why the Torah changed here to using the word ויאמר when describing G'd as speaking to Moses whereas all the time He was described as וידבר, speaking in a stern voice. I have seen a comment by our sages in the Mechilta according to which the term ויאמר ה׳ indicates that G'd did not speak to Moses through an intermediary, i.e. angel, but directly. If so, we must still analyse what change had occurred since 31,1 where G'd was still reported as speaking through an intermediary, i.e. וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר. Not only that, but why did the author of the Mechilta wait until here to give us this information? This should have been explained when we find that G'd was speaking to Moses as וידבר ה׳ the first time this occurs. [The author suggests an answer based on a variant text of the Mechilta not at my disposal. Ed.]

ואתה תדבר אל בני ישראל, "You too speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why does the Torah use the unusual ואתה in this instance? The letter ו is also unusual, as is the repetitive דבר, seeing the Torah already reported G'd as saying to Moses לאמור? Besides, why was the word לאמור repeated once more in this verse? To whom were the children of Israel supposed to communicate this directive? Even though I have already explained at the beginning of פרשת תרומה that the word דבר is needed and it is not enough to write לאמור, in this instance even the word לאמור has been repeated! Another problem is the word שבתותי in the plural. According to Shabbat 69 the reason for the plural is to decrease the liability of someone who through lack of knowledge of the principle of work-prohibition on the Sabbath has violated a string of Sabbaths. His offence would be considered as being only one offence covering all these Sabbaths and a single sin-offering would suffice to obtain atonement for such a person.. In the Mechilta on our verse the use of the plural is explained as including liability for transgressions of rabbinic commandments commonly known as שבות.

Before we offer our own commnetary on the meaning of this verse let us first examine the word אך which introduces this directive. By understanding the significance of that word we will arrive at a clearer understanding of why the Torah wrote the word לאמור twice, as well as the other details we queried at the beginning of this paragraph. Our sages in Shabbat 129 state that it is permitted to violate the Sabbath legislation for the sake of a sick person if the sick person's life would be endangered unless the Sabbath were violated for his sake. Any situation in which a life is at stake overrides the Sabbath prohibitions. This is what the Torah hinted at when it introduced this piece of legislation with the restrictive word אך, "however." The word simply means that situations may arise which override the legislation about to be recorded. The meaning of the plural is that any day which is also described as שבת in the Torah such as the Day of Atonement or the other festivals, falls into the same category when it comes to the principles permitting violation of the Sabbath or even demanding violation of the Sabbath. It also means that for the sake of such sick people one may violate more than one Sabbath if the patient has not recovered in the interval.

A further ruling derived from the above wording is the case of a patient who requires eight days' consecutive treatment. One should not delay commencement of such treatment in order to violate only a single Sabbath but one has to commence treatment of the patient at once even if this involves the violation of two Sabbath days (based on Yuma 84).

When the Torah emphasis that the Sabbaths belong to G'd, i.e. שבתותי, this may be an allusion to the reason behind the legislation to violate the Sabbath when observing it involves danger to one's life. Inasmuch as it is G'd's Sabbath, it is in G'd's interest that we observe the Sabbath as many times as possible. When violating one or several Sabbath-days results in the patient recovering and observing many more Sabbaths when he has recovered, G'd's purpose in giving us the Sabbath legislation will be fulfilled. This is the only case where we do not follow the principle of not telling one person to commit a sin in order to enable others to perform the commandments. We are told in Shabbat 4 that if someone deliberately stuck dough for bread on the walls of the baking oven in order to bake bread on the Sabbath, he may remove it (a prohibited act) in order to escape the death penalty if he had allowed it to become bread. However, a fellow Jew is not allowed to remove that dough in order to rescue the first Jew from the consequences of his sin. Even the king himself is not only allowed but commanded to violate the Sabbath for the sake of saving a patient's life. In fact, failure to do so (in the absence of trained personnel) is considered a slight against G'd's commandments.

כי אות היא ביני וביניכם, "for it is a sign between Me and between you, etc." This means that unless there are people observing the Sabbath, the Sabbath is considered as non-existent.

לדעת, "(for you) to know", etc. With this word the Torah revealed that it considers the sanctity of the Jew's soul as on a higher plane than the sanctity of the Sabbath seeing that the Sabbath is subordinate to the survival of the Jew. The word לדעת means that we are to appreciate that G'd sanctifies us.

Rashi explains that the word אך means that the work of constructing the Tabernacle is not to supersede the Sabbath legislation but that such work must be interrupted in order for even the artisans to observe the Sabbath. Halachically speaking, Rashi is correct; however, the meaning of the word אך is intended to limit the application of the Sabbath itself, not to impose limits on people concerning the Sabbath. Besides, why would anyone have thought that the building of the Tabernacle should override the work prohibition of the Sabbath so that the Torah had to caution the Israelites against making such an error? It is not our intention to cast aspersions on other commentators and especially on Rashi's sacred words; all the various commentaries fall into the category of אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, "the various commentaries are all inspired by genuine Torah study."

When the Torah said: ואתה דבר it is necessary in light of the exclusions to the Sabbath legislation alluded to by the word אך. Moses did not know when such exclusions would apply. G'd therefore told Moses orally what these exclusions were to be .The words ואתה דבר mean Moses was to relate these rules only by oral instructions and they were not to be written down in the Torah scroll. Our holy Torah not only uses words extremely sparingly but even each individual letter is never wasted. The absence of a letter we would have expected, or an additional letter which we did not expect, teaches man halachot. This is the meaning of the saying of our sages that the written Torah has seventy "faces," four levels of exegesis, and thirty-one tracks. Each "track" in turn consists of many different paths. Bamidbar Rabbah 19,3 commenting on Kings I 5,12 that Solomon composed 3.000 parables, etc., quotes a Rabbi who searched the entire Bible for comments by Solomon and did not find even eight hundred verses attributed to him. He therefore concluded that each utterance of Solomon had a number of meanings and this is what the verse referred to which credited Solomon with the composition of 3.000 parables. This is simply an example of the succinct manner in which the Holy Scriptures employ words. At the same time you must appreciate that there are homilies and halachot with which every person has to be familiar even though some of these may be laws applicable to every single Jew whereas others may be applicable only in very rare situations. There are even some which have no application in practice at all.

Do not ask why G'd in His wisdom has decided to allude to these homilies and halachot only peripherally instead of spelling them out in the written text of the Torah. The answer to such a question is right in front of your eyes. They are matters not suitable for recording in a book. Consider a statement of our sages in Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 25 where we find the following in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. He said to Rabbi Akiva: "if all the oceans were to be ink, and all the reeds were turned into quills, and all men scribes, they could not commit to paper all the halachot about ritual purity and impurity which I have learned through constant close association with my teachers during my life." All of these teachings are somehow alluded to in the Holy Torah though it has used words so sparingly. Although it is not given to man to record all these teachings in a book, Moses was taught all of this during the forty days he spent on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath legislation is only one example of the written Torah recording a minimum (apparently) of halachot, whereas the oral Torah augments this many times over. The Torah simply hinted to Moses by the way it expressed itself that there are many more exclusions to the applicability of the Sabbath legislation than the single one hinted at by the word אך. G'd instructed Moses to fill the people in on this when the Torah reports G'd as saying: ואתה דבר.

When the Torah repeats דבר אל בני ישראל לאמור, it means Moses was to tell the people of this habit of the written Torah not to spell out every little detail of its legislation but to reserve much to be communicated orally to the people by Moses. By adopting this approach we may be able to account for the apparently superfluous לאמור in many instances where this occurs. It means that the people are obligated to study these details though they are not spelled out in the Torah.

We may also understand the unusual word ואתה in the light of Shabbat 10 where the words לדעת כי אני ה׳ מקדשכם are explained in these terms: G'd said to Moses 'I have a beautiful gift in My treasure chamber, its name is Sabbath, and I want to give it to the Jewish people.'" We learn from here that if someone wishes to give a gift to a child, he must first let the child's mother know of his intentions. The Talmud asks why G'd had not advised Moses that his face was radiating light when he descended from Mount Sinai (Exodus 34,29). The first answer is that the rule does not apply when the gift becomes self-evident such as in the case of Moses' skin radiating light. G'd therefore had to tell Moses ואתה דבר, so that Moses would not draw a comparison between what had occurred when his skin began to radiate light, but that he would advise the people that the Sabbath was indeed a gift. In the case of Moses, he was bound to find out that G'd had given him this gift of a skin which radiated light. The Jewish people might not become aware of the nature of the Sabbath as a gift unless told specifically. Moses might have concluded that inasmuch as the Sabbath is something visible [such as the fact that no manna fell on that day, Ed.], he did not have to reveal further details just as G'd did not reveal to him the fact that the skin of his face radiated light. He would feel certain that the people would conclude all by themselves that the day was one of rest and enjoyment. G'd therefore told Moses אות היא, that the rest and enjoyment aspect of the Sabbath is only a symbol of the eventual Sabbath, i.e. a time when life on earth will be a "Sabbath" all week long and we do not have to content ourselves with the spiritual elevation we experience once a week when G'd grants us the additional soul, נשמה יתירה, only to remove it again at the termination of the Sabbath. G'd therefore said to Moses דבר…לדעת, to inform the people of the nature of the gift that G'd was bestowing upon them and the spiritual contentment attainable through observance of the Sabbath.

ושמרתם את השבת,"And you shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did G'd repeat the need to observe the Sabbath by adding a new rationale, namely that it was holy? Seeing that immediately before this verse the Torah had permitted violation of the Sabbath laws for the sake of sick people, we might have concluded that the holiness of the Sabbath is relative, i.e. that when compared to a sick person the Sabbath is merely secular. As a result people would violate the Sabbath to prepare medications, etc., even when the life of the patient was not in danger. The Torah therefore underlined the holiness of the Sabbath to warn us not to violate its statutes unless there was danger to a patient's life.

We can also understand this verse when considering something we learned in Menachot 64. The Talmud discusses a situation in which doctors estimated that the patient urgently needed figs [which had not yet been plucked off the tree; sometimes one stalk supports more than one fig, sometimes not. Ed.]. The question is raised that if two figs can be found each of which grows on a separate stalk, necessitating two separate pluckings, or there is a single stalk on which three figs grow, which is to be plucked? The Talmud answers that it is obvious that it is better to pluck the three figs which require only a single act of plucking, i.e. a single violation of the Sabbath. [I have quoted the Talmud correctly; the author, or at least the version I have at my disposal, quoted the Talmud incorrectly. Ed.] The author quotes a hypothetical situation where the patient needed to eat two figs in order to recover. There could be found either a) two figs growing on one stalk or b) 3 figs growing on one stalk. Would it be permissible to pluck the three figs seeing that they too grow on a single stalk and only a single violation of the Sabbath takes place? The answer the author gives is that one must pluck the two figs rather than the three. Although from the point of view of the prohibited work to be performed there is no difference if one plucks the stalk supporting three figs or the one supporting only two figs, the effect of the action is different. The Torah demands that "you shall observe the Sabbath," and this means that any work not necessary for the patient in question must not be undertaken, כי קדש היא, because of the sacred nature of the Sabbath. The Torah made the decision dependent on the nature of the Sabbath and not on the nature of the work performed. If one were to cut off more figs than needed this would be a desecration of the holiness of the Sabbath. The lesson from our verse is that the Sabbath does not lose its holiness even when it is being violated for the sake of a person whose life may be in danger unless we violated the Sabbath on his account.

מחלליה מות יומת. "those who desecrate it shall be executed." It is peculiar that the Torah first speaks about people who desecrate the Sabbath in the plural whereas it speaks of the penalty to be applied to a single violator. We may understand this in light of what we have just explained. There may be a person who was permitted to violate the Sabbath by plucking a stalk on which two figs grew which were needed by the sick person. This person plucked the stalk on which three figs grew, instead. A second person also plucked figs but not for a sick person. Both these people violated the Sabbath. Only one of the two is subject to the death penalty. The person who cut three figs for the patient instead of two is not guilty of the death penalty seeing that the basic act he engaged in when plucking the figs was not prohibited at that time for that purpose. In order to be liable for the death penalty the basic act must have been prohibited at that time.

The plain meaning of the words is that the expression מחלליה plural, refers to people violating the Sabbath intentionally. Most people do not do this if warned of the penalty that follows. Therefore, concerning the individual, i.e. the exception who insists on going through with the violation after having been warned of the consequences, the Torah says that he is to be executed. A person who has deliberately violated the Sabbath and has not been warned is liable to the Karet penalty, i.e. he will die prematurely by Divine decree.

We may also attempt to understand the peculiar wording of our verse in light of Shabbat 106. The subject is the definition of the forbidden activity "hunting." The Talmud describes that a deer had entered a private domain, i.e. the courtyard of a Jew on the Sabbath. The entrance to the courtyard was wide enough to accomodate two people, so that if one sat in the entrance the deer could theoretically still escape by running past that individual. Once two people took up position in the entrance, the deer could no longer escape. The Talmud describes that the two people took up position in the entrance one after the other. In such a situation only the second person is considered as having violated the law against hunting. The word מחלליה plural, in our verse refers to desecrations of the Sabbath which necessitated the participation of more than one person. Inasmuch as only the last person's action completed the act of the violation, only that person is subject to the death penalty, i.e. מות יומת in the singular.

Our verse makes sense also in a different context, such as the one described in Beytzah 34. There several people combine to perform the forbidden work of cooking. One supplies the kindling, the other the flame, the third places the pot in position over the kindling, the fourth supplies the water. The Talmud concludes that if the person who supplies the flame was the last one, he alone is guilty of the violation whereas the others are all not liable to any penalty. When the Torah writes מחלליה, plural, as opposed to מות יומת singular, it may refer to a situation such as outlined in Beytzah.

מות יומת. "he will be executed." I have already explained in Exodus 21,12 why the Torah repeated the word, i.e. that while the person in question is guilty vis-a-vis Heaven, G'd has given the terrestrial tribunal authority to execute this person who had forfeited his life. This is in contrast with another type of person who has also forfeited his life where G'd did not delegate a human tribunal to carry out this judgment. By mentioning such an example in the very next verse, i.e. כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה, it is clear why the word מות is repeated in our verse.

כי כל העושה בה מלאכה, "for whosoever performs any work on it, etc." The Torah underlines here that anyone desecrating the Sabbath when there are no witnesses should not jump to the conclusion that he will escape the death penalty and that he would not be considered any more culpable than someone who violates the positive and negative commandment of the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Torah says that this is not so, but that such a person will face the death penalty at the hands of G'd even if he had not been warned and his deed had not been witnessed here on earth. The clause of מות ימות in the singular which we described as a restrictive clause is applicable only to people who desecrate the Sabbath in public and after having been warned not to do so on pain of death by stoning. However, when a person commits a desecration such as we described when he cut off an extra fig which grew on the same stalk as the ones he was required to cut off, the death penalty does not apply to him even if he had been warned by competent witnesses not to do so. Seeing that the words העושה בה מלאכה suggest that there would not be any exception to the death penalty if the violation is performed knowingly, the Torah adds the word כי to alert us to the fact that such violations as cutting the extra fig by default, (without an additional action by the person cutting it) do not carry the karet penalty.

ששת ימים יעשה מלאכה, "Six days work shall be done, etc." We neeed to examine why this verse which repeats legislation recorded previously had to be written at all. Besides, why does the Torah write יעשה (passive) instead of תעשה, the active form "you shall perform," as the Torah has written repeatedly? Furthermore, why did the Torah choose to describe the Sabbath as the "seventh day," instead of as "the Sabbath," which was the only way the Torah described this day up until now? Why did the Torah revert to describing the violator as כל העושה מלאכה ביום השבת מות יומת, instead of as כל העושה בו מלאכה, or כל העושה מלאכה ביום השביעי?

Perhaps the Torah alluded to something the sages told us in Shabbat 69 concerning someone who travels in the desert and has lost count of which day of the week it is. Such a person is supposed to begin counting six days once he has become aware that he does not know which day it is. He will observe the seventh day as Sabbath. The Talmud allows such a person to do what is essential in order to keep alive even on the day which -according to his count- is Sabbath. To the query that if so, how can he distinguish "his" Sabbath from the other six days of the week, the Talmud answers that such a person must recite Kiddush and havdalah at the beginning and end of "his" Sabbath. Tossaphot add that he must not continue on his way on that day. The reason that the Talmud did not give the answer that the traveller in question must not continue on his way is that this is not a sufficient distinction vis-a-vis the other days. It could also be that according to the view of the Talmud such a person might be permitted to continue walking even on the "Sabbath."

According to the view of Tossaphot we can explain our verse thus: "Six days, etc," i.e. a person who finds himself in the desert unaware of which day it is, יעשה מלאכה may have work performed on a daily basis for six consecutive days. He is not required to perform work, as would be implied by the active form Taasseh, but he will do the minimum, whatever is needed to ensure his survival. However, ביום השביעי, "on the seventh day, the day which is Sabbath according to his calculations, שבת שנתון, it is a kind of Sabbath," i.e. a Shabbaton, a day on which one refrains from work just as one refrains from working the land in the seventh year. (compare the expression שבתון in connection with the שנת השמטה in Leviticus 25,4). The way a traveller "rests" is by not continuing his journey, just as a farmer rests by not tilling his land. The Torah adds: קדש לה׳ to indicate that such a traveller is to recite the kiddush and the הבדלה at the appropriate time as if this day would be the "real" Sabbath.

According to the view that the only difference between this "subjective" Sabbath and the "real" Sabbath is the recital of kiddush and הבדלה respectively, the words שבת שבתון have to be read in conjunction with the words קדש לה׳. The meaning is that this day has to be sanctified. When the Torah continues with: כל העושה מלאכה ביום השבת מות יומת, this penalty of execution is applicable only to a person who violates a "real" Sabbath, not to someone who violates a "seventh day" by his own count. Such a person is free from this penalty even if he had sanctified the day by reciting kiddush and thereby elevating it to the level of "Sabbath."

ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, "The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did the Torah add another "observance?" Besides, why does the Torah use the verb לעשות, "to do," which expresses an activity when the meaning seems to be that the children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath by "abstaining" from a number of activities? Our sages have pursued their own path in explaining this wording.

Perhaps the Torah employs the word ושמרו to teach the authorities to surround the basic Sabbath legislation with a סיג, a fence, or a framework, which is designed to prevent a person from not knowing which day is the Sabbath. The words לעשות את השבת would mean some action designed to ensure that we know which day is the Sabbath. It is to avoid situations where one recites kiddush when the day in question is not the real Sabbath such as the example we mentioned when discussing the last verse.

Alternatively, the verse addresses itself to someone who had lost track of time in circumstances we have described. Such a person is obligated to establish his own count so that he does not fail to make one day in seven his own personal Sabbath. Even though in this instance the Torah called that seventh day יום השבת, when in reality it is only that person's "seventh day," the Torah wanted to impress on the individual the absolute need to sanctify the seventh day. The first "seventh" day in such a person's count assumes the designation שבת.

The meaning of the word ושמרו may also follow the meaning of the word in Genesis 37,11 where Jacob is described as awaiting realisation of Joseph's dream and the word chosen by the Torah is ושמר. In our context the Torah means that the Sabbath should not be considered as a burden because many activities are prohibited on that day, but that it should be eagerly awaited and looked forward to. The words לעשות את השבת are designed to counter the prevailing perception that the Sabbath is a day on which one is passive, rests up and treats it as a day on which to indulge one's laziness. The basic purpose of the Sabbath is not to provide physical rest for the body but to actively fulfil the various commandments associated with the Sabbath.

The wording may also allude to what we have learned in Yuma 81 that one must add from the week-day to the Sabbath, i.e. that we do not commence the Sabbath only at sundown but that we light candles, abstain from forbidden activities already some time prior to sundown in order to demonstrate how welcome the Sabbath is for us. This additional time demanded by the rabbis based on this verse includes the exhortation to prepare for the Sabbath not after it has commenced, but one bathes oneself, dresses oneself, etc., all before sunset on Friday. Similarly, one does not conclude the Sabbath the moment the three stars become visible in the sky, but one adds some minutes to demonstrate that one does not wish to get rid of the Sabbath as one would get rid of a burden, i.e. at the first possible opportunity. G'd expresses His willingness to also dignify the extra hours or minutes the Israelites add to the Sabbath of their own volition with the name "Sabbath."

The verse may also reflect a conversation between the Sabbath and G'd reported in Bereshit Rabbah 11,8 according to which the Sabbath complained to G'd that whereas all the other days had been given a בן זוג, a mate, only the Sabbath was left "unattached" so to speak. G'd reassured the Sabbath by assigning Israel as its "mate." The meaning of the story is that at its inception the Sabbath lacked a detail to make it complete. G'd provided this missing detail when He commanded the Jewish people to observe it. לעשות then means "to complete it."

The words: ושמרו את השבת, "to carefully guard the Sabbath," also refer to the need to take care that no secular elements intrude into our Sabbath. A person must not think that it is enough for him not to desecrate the Sabbath and that if someone else desecrates it that this is not his concern. It is our collective duty to be on guard to prevent חלול שבת by other Jews also. We take it for granted that one safeguards oneself against possible thieves and posts guards in one's orchard, etc. One must do no less to safeguard the Sabbath. Such measures designed to "guard" the Sabbath include rabbinic ordinances to make it more difficult for us to desecrate the Sabbath through carelessness on our part. One of the best known examples is found in Shabbat 11 where reading on Friday night [with an oil lamp whose light could be adjusted Ed.] is prohibited so that one does not accidentally adjust the flame in order to be better able to read. Our rabbis have "surrounded" the Sabbath with many such ordinances.

The wording the Torah chose to describe observance of the Sabbath is designed to alert us to the totally unique nature of this "observance." This is the only negative commandment in the Torah whose observance is described as something active, i.e. לעשות את השבת. It is possible that the reason is something we learned in Kiddushin 39 where it is stated that if someone sits with his hands folded, totally inactive, not committing a violation, he receives the reward due to someone who has fulfilled a positive commandment. The Talmud questions the logic of this statement and concludes that in the example quoted the person concerned was confronted with the opportunity and the temptation to violate a commandment and he resisted the temptation by remaining inactive. We may apply this rule to Sabbath observance as opportunities to violate the 39 basic work prohibitions of Sabbath are ever present and there is no lack of temptation to do so. Anyone who even passively refrains from exploiting such opportunities to sin is considered as having actively observed the Sabbath.

The fact that the Torah mentioned the need not to violate the Sabbath and the fact that mere non-violation qualifies for reward might have led people to believe that this applies to one and all; the Torah therefore hastens to add the critical words בני ישראל, the children of Israel. The Sabbath legislation is addressed exclusively to the Jewish people. The Torah phrased the observance here in indirect language, i.e. "they will observe;" because it had already written: "you shall observe the Sabbath." Had the Torah not written also: "the children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath," I would have concluded that whereas only Jews are duty-bound to observe the Sabbath, Gentiles are nonetheless not forbidden to do so. As it is, the wording of the Torah precludes Gentiles from work-abstention on the Sabbath for religious reasons, so much so that it is a capital offence for a Gentile to observe the Sabbath (Sanhedrin 58).

The emphasis of the Torah speaking about את השבת, "the Sabbath," leads one to conclude that observance of a single Sabbath may sometimes be all that is required of a Jew; not only that, but if a Jew prepared all that is necessary for the Sabbath it would be accounted for him as if he had actually observed the commandment of the Sabbath. The words: ושמרו את השבת לעשות את השבת teach that if someone died before he could even observe a single Sabbath he will not be deprived of the reward of having observed many Sabbath days seeing he had intended to observe the Sabbath and had made preparations for such observance (Mechilta).

There may also be another hint here concerning the Torah's foregoing this legislation in the event a person's life is at stake, as we have written on the word אך in verse 13. G'd actually commanded desecration of the Sabbath in life-saving situations. The Torah here limits such exceptions to Jews; a Jew does not desecrate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a גר תושב, a Gentile who observes the Noachide laws (Maimonides Hilchot Shabbat chapter 2, item 20 by inference). The words את השבת are interpreted as an exhortation not to let someone die who is supposed to observe the Sabbath. The verse may be interpreted in the following fashion: If you have the choice between Sabbath observance and death of a fellow-Jew, apply the words ושמרו בני ישראל, preserve the Jew, rather than the Sabbath. This rule does not apply if the choice is between saving a Gentile's life or that of observing the Sabbath. In such a situation we apply the exhortation לעשות את השבת "to observe the Sabbath." The reason the Torah permitted the saving of the Jew is only in order to fulfil the end of the verse, i.e. לעשות את השבת לדורותם, "to enable someone to observe the Sabbath in the future." Seeing that Gentiles are not obligated to observe the Sabbath there is no justification to desecrate the Sabbath on their account.

Our verse may also teach us the following: "When do I (G'd) tell you to preserve the life of a Jew even at the expense of desecrating the honour of the Sabbath?" Answer: "when the situation results in לעשות את השבת, in observance of the Sabbath as a result of what you do." If, however, it is clear according to the available medical evidence, that the patient will not survive for another week even if you save his life at this moment one must not desecrate the Sabbath in order to prolong the life of such a patient.

There is yet another dimension to what is recorded here. We are taught in Rosh Hashanah 31 that the hereafter is known as a world which is "all Sabbath." We are also told in Shemot Rabbah 25,12 that the observance of the Sabbath is equal to the observance of all the other commandments in the Torah. The words ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת reflect this thought. The reason this is so is because by observing the Sabbath, לעשות את השבת, they create for themselves the world known as "all Sabbath," i.e. the hereafter. The Torah adds the word לדורותם so that we do not understand the reward of Sabbath-observance as being experienced in this present world. It is ברית עולם, a covenant which assures our eternal existence in the hereafter.

Another lesson resulting from our verse may be related to what we have learned in Beytzah 16 where we are told that we are equipped with an additional soul on the Sabbath as alluded to in the words שבת וינפש, that the rest resulted in an additional life-force, soul. This is a profound secret G'd did not reveal to the nations of the world. The Talmud states that every commandment G'd gave to the Jewish people He gave them publicly, openly, with the exception of the Sabbath. This is based on verse 17 in our chapter: "between Me and the children of Israel it is a sign forever." To the question: "how could G'd punish the Gentiles for not having accepted the Torah when He had not told them about the Sabbath legislation?" The Talmud answers that all that G'd withheld from the Gentiles was the information that he who observes the Sabbath is equipped with an additional soul (spiritual capacity) on that day. [This is not a contradiction to the statement that Gentiles are prohibited from observing the work-prohibitions of the Sabbath on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. The Talmud refers to the initial rejection of the Torah by the various Gentile Nations when G'd offered the Torah to all the nations and they all rejected it except for the Israelites who welcomed it with open arms. Ed.] G'd "punished" the Gentile Nations for rejecting His rules. Why would these nations not be entitled to argue that had they known about this clause of the Sabbath laws they might have accepted the entire Torah or at least the Sabbath? How could G'd punish people for rejecting something they did not know about? I believe that this is what our sages referred to in Shabbat 10 when they referred to G'd as having offered a "beautiful gift whose name was Sabbath." They meant that the Sabbath is different from other commandments inasmuch as it does not represent a demand made by G'd on man but it is a gift granted by G'd to man (in this instance to the Israelites). One does not receive a reward for accepting a gift; ergo the Gentile Nations have not forfeited a reward by not accepting the Sabbath legislation. They cannot claim that G'd deprived them of an opportunity to accumulate merits, to qualify for a reward. One cannot challenge G'd for His not having chosen to bestow a gift on someone. Besides, you will find that the Israelites had accepted the Sabbath before acceptance of the Torah had become an issue, before G'd had offered the Torah to the other nations. At the time the Israelites accepted the Sabbath legislation (at Marah, Exodus 15,25), the granting of an additional soul on the Sabbath had not been part of their acceptance. It was therefore quite fair for the nations of the world to be punished for their refusal to accept the Sabbath legislation which was given to the Israelites publicly. We regularly witness the punishment the nations suffer for their not having accepted the Sabbath.

The concept of the נשמה יתירה is alluded to by our sages when they described it as "a beautiful gift which G'd had reserved in His treasure chamber," a reference to the Celestial Spheres, a region that the souls are "hewn" from. The reason the gift was called שבת is that it described the world which is "totally Sabbath," i.e. the hereafter, the Celestial Regions. There is no sadness in that world and our sages describe it as a world of joy and rejoicing. In order for our Sabbath in this world to parallel the Sabbath in the Celestial Regions it is imperative that we do not allow secular concerns related to our weekday problems to disturb the Sabbath atmosphere in our world. The additional soul, a "guest" from the Celestial Regions, would feel deeply disturbed if it notices our preoccupation with worldly concerns. It may refuse to remain part of us and leave us even before the Sabbath has expired. This is why the sages have warned us that the major element in the work-prohibition on the Sabbath is connected with the thoughts we entertain when violating the actual prohibition. We have been taught in Beytzah 13 that what is culpable is what the sages call מלאכת מחשבת, performance of deliberate activities. Even conversation which is of a secular character is forbidden (Shabbat 113) as we know from Isaiah 58,13: ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר, "not to look to your affairs, nor speak about them." All of these prohibitions are designed to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits which accrue to us thanks to the נשמה יתירה, the additional soul G'd has equipped us with on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is to give us a taste of the ultimate Sabbath, i.e. the quality of life in the hereafter. All of this is meant when the Torah writes: ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, i.e. that we are to jealously guard the additional soul called "Sabbath." It alone enables us to fulfil the Torah's directive לעשות את השבת, "to create the true Sabbath." Remember that it is impossible for mortal man to attain a true likeness of the life that awaits him after death even if we do all in our power to observe the Sabbath on earth to the best of our ability. However, in order to attain that kind of life even after we die, we must first have attained a semblance of it by means of true Sabbath observance and all that this entails. The additional soul is our key to such attainment of serenity in the hereafter when the time comes for us to leave this world.

The word לדורותם may also be understood as connected to דירה, residence. The word is spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו in the middle. This is an allusion to the residence of the souls, i.e. the Celestial Regions which G'd has covenanted with us that He will give to us. This is the meaning of ברית עולם, "the covenant concerning the celestial world." It is also possible that we have here an allusion to the 613 commandments seeing that the Sabbath plus 612 (i.e. the numerical value of the word ברית) add up to 613. The succinct message is that observance of the Sabbath properly is equal to performance of the 613 commandments.

The Torah continues: ביני ובין בני ישראל,"Between Me and the children of Israel, etc." This means that no other nation will be together with us in that world. Perhaps the words even exclude the presence of angels in the Celestial Regions reserved for the Jews who have observed the Sabbath meticulously. The regions reserved for the Jewish people are "higher" than those inhabited by the ministering angels. We may understand Numbers 23,23 כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל קל, "at a time when Jacob and Israel will be told of the works of the Lord," in the sense that our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 20,20 understood them when they said that the angels themselves will enquire from the Jewish people who are close to the Lord about His accomplishments.

Another meaning of these words is that they are a reference to matters (words) which G'd has articulated but which no human being has ever understood. This is an aspect of what the sages in Beytzah 16 meant when they said that G'd did not announce the fact that He gave the Jewish people an additional soul on the Sabbath because He did not want to acquaint the Gentile Nations with His secrets. This is also what the Psalmist referred to in Psalms 147,19-20: "He reveals His statutes and commands to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing." Our sages said in Chagigah 13 that the meaning of the words אות היא לעולם, "it is a sign forever," is that we must not reveal the secret of the Sabbath to anyone. How are we to answer in the event someone were to come and enquire about details of the Sabbath legislation wanting to know what distinguishes that day from all other days? The Torah provides the answer by stating: אות היא לעולם, "it will be revealed to the people who will inhabit the Celestial Regions that the six days are radically different from the Sabbath." The revelation is וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, that G'd will then reveal to us exclusively the meaning of שבת וינפש. [The revelation will be that the meaning of shavat when applied to G'd is that He did so because it was Shabbat. ]