Parasha: Terumah · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

דבר אל בני ישראל. "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out: "speak to the children of Israel" and did not content itself with the word לאמור at the end of verse one? It was clear that G'd meant for Moses to speak to the children of Israel! Alternatively, the Torah could have omitted the word לאמור at the end of verse one and simply have continued: "speak to the children of Israel, etc."

I believe that in order to understand this we must refer to Yuma 4, according to which a person is forbidden to relate to another what he has been told by a third party unless he had been specifically permitted or instructed to do so. The Talmud bases this on the phrase: "G'd spoke to Moses לאמור 'to say'." According to this rule the Torah had to employ the line: "speak to the children of Israel," as otherwise Moses would have understood that whereas he was permitted to convey G'd's words to the people he was not duty bound to do so. When you apply this rule you will be able to account for many other instances in the Torah where the word לאמר is followed by דבר, "speak!" Our Rabbis in Yalkut Re-uveni explain the line "speak to the children of Israel" as meaning that Moses was not to appoint members of the mixed multitude to positions of authority over the children of Israel. They understood the word דבר in this instance as derived from דברות ושררה, expressions denoting authority.

ויקחו לי, and they shall take for Me, etc." Why is this paragraph introduced by the conjunctive letter ו? Perhaps we can explain this by a statement attributed to our sages in Shekalim 1,3 according to which a person had to pawn some of his possessions in order to to contribute the half shekel for the building of the Tabernacle. We read in the Tanchumah on our portion that actually the Torah speaks here about three different kinds of תרומות, contributions. Two of these contributions consisted of a shekel per head whereas the size of the third contribution varied in size according to the individual's generosity and ability to contribute. One of the fixed contributions was used for the silver sockets holding up the beams of the Tabernacle, the second one was each individual's contribution for the purchase of the animals required for the public offerings, whereas the third contribution was a free-willed gift towards the materials needed for the construction of the Tabernacle. Keeping the above in mind the conjunctive letter ו before the word יקחו suggests a contrast between this donation and the one following which was determined by the individual's generosity, and which was not imposed on each Israelite. The words בני ישראל indicate that the levy was imposed only on the male Israelites, not on the women. Only the males were counted as we we know from Exodus 30,13. Accordingly, the words: מאת כל איש, "from each man," indicate that the levy was of equal size for each person from whom it was taken. Even if a person wished to contribute more than the half-shekel the Torah legislated in פרשת כי תשא, he was not allowed to do so. The extra letter ו also alludes to the fact that something else had preceded the compulsory levy, namely the spirit of generosity mentioned in our verse. When we adopt this method of interpreting the verse, the Torah speaks here of the various kinds of contributions made in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. G'd wished for each one of these three contributions to be made due to a spirit of generosity; a person should not make a contribution until he was in the proper frame of mind.

This verse may also be explained in consonance with Baba Batra 8, according to which monies for charities may be collected by no fewer than two collectors, whereas distribution of such monies requires the presence of three people. This is in order not to allow arbitrary decisions of an a individual as to who should get part of this money and how much. The second person's presence when collecting the funds is in order that the collectors not be suspected of pocketing some of these funds for their own purposes. The Talmud derives this rule from the words: "and they shall take the gift, etc." Interestingly, both Tossaphot and the Ran claim that the presence of two collectors is mandatory when the amounts are fixed, such as a head tax levied for the poor, whereas when the amounts collected are subject to variation, i.e. each donor decides how much to contribute, three people are required to be present during the collection. Actually, according to halachah, even a single expert is empowered to collect a mandatory levy from people as we know from Sanhedrin 5 where the Talmud empowers an expert judge to pronounce judgment. Rabbi Nachman cites himself as an example of a solitary judge handing down decisions in monetary disputes. [Naturally, the litigants had first agreed to submit to the decision of the single expert judge. Ed.] Tossaphot there write that such a single judge can impose his decision on the litigant. If that is so in matters of litigation, it is obviously the case also where only a mere assertion of authority is involved such as in collecting donations, etc. If a situation normally requiring three judges may be handled by a single expert judge, how much more so can a single expert judge deal with matters which even under normal circumstances only require two laymen. This helps us to understand the words: "speak to the children of Israel" in the sense of "exercise authority." G'd empowered Moses to single-handedly exercise authority when it came to collecting funds for the building of the Tabernacle. Moses was empowered to both distribute the funds and the materials to the respective artisans without having to give an accounting and he was also empowered to collect these funds without anyone supervising what he did. This extraordinary power was restricted to Moses. Whenever anyone else engaged in a similar activity, the rule of "they shall take the contribution" applied. When you will examine the Torah's report of what actually happened (Exodus 36,3), you will find that the people took the various materials from Moses (only), seeing he alone had collected same. Moses did so both with the contributions which were of fixed amounts (the shekel "levy") as well as with the free-willed donations which varied in size and value. We now understand the letter ו which preceded the word יקחו as contrasting the extra-ordinary authority G'd had granted Moses at the outset of this portion with the normal procedures..

מאת כל איש, "from any man, etc." Perhaps the Torah means that if a certain individual was well known to be of a giving and generous nature they would not assess him as to what could be expected of him but they would accept without question whatever such an individual chose to contribute. When such an individual described his contribution as תרומתי, "this is my contribution," they would let it go at that.

The Torah also may wish to teach that the term "my gift," cannot be used except when the donor has donated it willingly, generously, with all his heart. This is why the Torah wrote: מאת אשר. If the donor had to be coerced into giving such a gift it does not qualify for the description תרומתי, [a gift truly meant for G'd. Ed.] but is merely referred to as תרומה, "a gift." The Torah alludes to this by writing ויקחו לי תרומה, "they will take a gift for Me."

A careful reading of the text will reveal that we have three expressions indicating three degrees of gifts. The Torah did not need to write מאת כל איש, as it would have sufficed to write מאשר ידבנו, "from anyone willing to donate." Perhaps all these nuances describe the three levels of charitable gifts that are commonly given by Israelites. They are: 1) gifts by the orphans; 2) gifts by women, and 3) gifts by people who are extremely affluent (or extremely poor). We are told in Baba Batra 8 that one does not obligate orphans to give charity even if the money is intended to free Jewish captives. If, however, such contributions by orphans will enhance their standing in the community, it is permitted to collect from them. We are taught in Baba Kama 119 that women are assessed only a nominal amount when charity is collected. The Talmud defines "nominal amount" in accordance with the economic standing of the women in question. Ravina is reported to have accepted golden chains from women in his town as a contribution. His rationale was that the women in Mechuzza (his town) could well afford it, that such a contribution was really something minor as far as they were concerned. As far as the extremely affluent, the third category mentioned is concerned, the Talmud in Baba Batra 8 forbids that such people be assessed a contribution. We read in Taanit 24 that the charity collectors were careful to keep out of sight of destitute people so as not to embarass them into contributing something they could not afford to give away. In our פרשה the Torah alludes to these three categories of people when it uses excess verbiage in describing the donations for the building of the Tabernacle.

According to the Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 1,5, the Tabernacle was a form of atonement for the sin of the golden calf. If so, there was a reason for the Torah to indicate that donations by the aforementioned three categories of people were not mandatory as we might have thought that unless these people also made their contributions they would not enjoy the atonement for their participation in the sin of the golden calf. The extra word את refers to the women; the extra word כל includes the orphans; the words איש אשר ידבנו לבו refer to the poor. It was permitted to accept even a substantial donation from each of these categories. We are also told in Shemot Rabbah 33,8 that Moses queried the Israelites' financial ability to build the Tabernacle. G'd said to him that even the most insignificant (poorest) Israelite was able to build the Tabernacle (donate the funds needed), and that this is why the Torah writes: "from any man who donates with his heart." This is based on the statement in the Tanchuma in connection with the manna where we are told that the descent of the manna was accompanied by a rain of precious stones and pearls. We are also told in Shir Hashirim Rabbah (Song of Songs 1,11) that the least wealthy Israelite took great amounts of loot out of Egypt and even more at the shores of the sea where the Egyptians had drowned. All this proves that the Israelites were wealthy at the time. Accordingly, the Torah wanted to make it plain that the restrictions the sages placed on raising charitable donations from the three categories of people we described earlier apply only to the norm. When people belonging to either of theses categories enjoyed affluence they were certainly expected to contribute in accordance with their means. The ruling that one does not accept (assess) charitable donations from the orphans applies only when the orphans are neither wealthy nor in need of atonement. When they are in need of atonement, such as at the time the donations for the Tabernacle were required, they certainly had to contribute. Not only that, but even if they made a nominally large donation this may have been accounted as an insufficient donation if they were truly wealthy. The donations were rated according each indiviual's financial ability. The same rule applies to the שוע, the wealthy patrician, who, even if he contributed all the materials for the building of the Tabernacle would not make a dent in his wealth. His contribution would not necessarily reflect largesse on his part. The Torah goes on to say תקחו את תרומתי, to tell us that contributions from these three categories of people are acceptable only because they are contributions to the Holy Tabernacle. Contributions for charities are not acceptable from such people.

A moral dimension of the verse may have to do with the attachment of the soul to G'd. Such a relationship may be reinforced by means of a tangible gift towards the construction of the Tabernacle. The collective soul of Israel is termed תרומה. This is based on Jeremiah 2,3: "Israel is holy unto G'd, ראשית תבואתה, the first of His harvest." The word ראשית is often applied to תרומה. Accordingly, acceptance of a tangible gift by the Jewish people achieves that G'd's Presence will dwell in Israel. The words תקחו את תרומתי refer to the שכינה which is called תרומת השם.

וזאת התרומה, This is what the gift consists of, etc. The conjunctive letter ו which introduces the word זאת may indicate that the duty of contributing to the Tabernacle could not be discharged by the offering of only one or a few of the categories of building materials required. Unless all the materials specified were contributed directly, the Israelites had not fulfilled their duty. The letter ו then stipulates an additional directive, i.e. not only must you donate generously, but you must donate of all the thirteen materials required. The Tabernacle which represented a re-enactment of the work of creation could not be completed without the presence of all the ingredients listed. Alternatively, the meaning could be that all of the thirteen kinds of materials should be equally welcome. Someone who contributed flax (linen) or skins was not to be looked down upon when compared to someone who contributed gold, for instance.

אבני שהם ואבני מלאים, onyx stones, and stones to be set, etc. Why were these items mentioned only after the other eleven types of materials? They should have been listed even ahead of gold and silver seeing they are of superior value! Perhaps the reason is that the princes who contributed these stones did so only after the people had contributed all their donations. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,16 that G'd was so displeased with the tardiness of the princes in bringing their donations that the Torah does not even spell the word נשיאים fully in the relevant passage but omits the letter י in their title (compare Numbers 7,10). Mentioning their contribution last was a punishment for their tardiness.

Another reason for mentioning these stones last may be the fact that they were not used as part of the Tabernacle but only as part of the priestly garments. We have learned in Yuma 69 that it was permitted to make use of these priestly garments, i.e. that one was not guilty of מעילה, trespass, when having made profane use of such garments. Maimonides writes in chapter five of the laws dealing with such trespasses that the priestly garments are not subject to such laws. It follows that the sanctity of the priestly garments cannot be compared to the sanctity of the Tabernacle itself. It is quite logical then that these gemstones, though intrinsically more costly than gold and silver, should be mentioned last in the order of contributions listed by the Torah. While it is true that some of the other eleven materials also served to make the priestly garments, their principal function was to serve as materials from which to construct the Tabernacle itself.

Moreover, there is an opinion cited in Yuma 75 according to which these gemstones originated in the celestial spheres and their attainment did not represent an effort on the part of their owners nor did their being given away represent a loss to those who donated them inasmuch as they had never toiled in order to acquire them.

ועשו לי מקדש, "and they will make a Sanctuary for Me." Why does the Torah refer to the structure as מקדש, Sanctuary, whereas immediately afterwards and many times subsequently it is described variously as "Tabernacle" or "Tent of Meeting?"

We may assume that the term Sanctuary covers the instruction to erect a Temple both at the time and during later periods of Jewish history. It is a comprehensive positive commandment basically applicable not only in the desert but whenever the Jewish people reside in the Holy Land. Actually this duty is incumbent upon Israel even while the nation is in exile. The only reason this commandment cannot be fulfilled when the people are exiled is that G'd has specifically forbidden that any site other than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem serve as such a Sanctuary once the first Temple had been built by Solomon. Compare the legislation in Deut. 12,9, where G'd speaks of Israel's having attained מנוחה ונחלה, "rest and inheritance," as prerequisites for the erecting of a permanent (as opposed to collapsible) Sanctuary for G'd. This is why the Torah does not introduce this subject matter by referring to a משכן, a temporary structure. Had the Torah mentioned this term first we would have thought that the commandment was of a temporary nature. Once the Torah had introduced the concept of a Sanctuary for G'd it could proceed to give us the details that were applicable in the desert at the time the Torah had been given. You will find that Maimonides writes in the first chapter of the section of his code dealing with the laws applicable to the Temple that it is a positive commandment to build a house for G'd as the Torah has written: "and they shall construct a Sanctuary for Me." He based himself on the fact that the Torah called the Sanctuary משכן already in the very verse following this commandment. Another reason it is called Sanctuary is that as soon as the people would begin construction it was already considered sacred although the structure had not yet been completed and G'd's presence had not yet taken up residence therein.

That I may dwell among (within) them: It does not say "within it," which means that the place that God will sanctify to dwell there is within the children of Israel that encircle the Tabernacle with four banners.

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, "According to all I shall show you, etc." In Midrash Hagadol on our verse it is reported that when G'd told Moses to build a Sanctuary for Him, Moses was dumbfounded asking G'd that seeing that neither the heavens nor the heaven of heavens could contain Him, how could a structure on earth possibly house Him? G'd reassured him saying that Moses had misunderstood what G'd had in mind when He issued this directive. When G'd spoke of a Sanctuary He showed Moses a structure of twenty beams in the North, twenty beams in the South joined by eight beams in the West. G'd explained that he would "reduce Himself" in honour of Israel and out of love for them. We must ask ourselves who is the source that can tell us exactly what transpired between G'd and Moses at that time? Although the words of our sages are all based on tradition, the fact remains that scripture does not even hint at such a conversation.

I believe we must assume that the sages of the Midrash were troubled by the fact that the verse does not make sense in its present form. If the verse is connected to what follows in verse 10, the Torah should not have spoken of תעשו in our verse at all. Moreover, verse 8 should have read תעשו לי מקדש. Besides, the letter ו in וכן תעשו makes no sense. On the other hand, if the words ככל אשר אני מראה אותך refer to the previous directive ועשו לי מקדש, the Torah should not have interrupted the verse by mentioning "so that I shall dwell amongst them." Seeing that G'd had mentioned prior to our verse that He was going to dwell amongst the Jewish people, this seemed to indicate that He had already completed the directive to build a Sanctuary for Him to dwell in. Our verse then would have been entirely unnecessary. It would have been sufficient to describe all the measurements of the Tabernacle without referring to something (a blueprint) which G'd showed Moses. It appears therefore that the report in the Torah indicates that the Torah corrected itself in order to prevent misunderstandings. Our sages in the Midrash concluded from all this that G'd and Moses had a conversation along the lines described in Pessikta Rabbati. They tried to reconstruct what could have transpired prior to the Torah correcting itself, as it were. It is a case of arriving at the nature of the question after one has heard the answer. The answer in our case was: "according to all that I show you." All that transpired was that Moses thought about the implications of what G'd had said. There is no need to authenticate the conversation between G'd and Moses as it was perfectly natural for Moses to have asked G'd what he did. G'd showed Moses a vision of the blueprint of the Tabernacle at that time. This is why the Torah did not use the future tense i.e. ככל אשר אראה. I will explain in due course why G'd did not content Himself with telling Moses but insisted on showing him.

We will pursue the same method to explain what our sages said in Berachot 55 concerning Exodus 38,22 where the Torah writes that Betzalel did in accordance with what G'd had commanded Moses. The Talmud adds that Betzalel even carried out work which Moses had not told him about seeing he was able to figure out for himself what G'd must have told Moses. The Talmud explains Betzalel's very name as indicative of his having stood in "G'd's shadow," i.e. becoming aware of what G'd told Moses. As an example the Talmud states that whereas Moses had instructed Betzalel to fashion the furnishings of the Tabernacle before constructing the Tabernacle itself, Betzalel reversed the procedure after having queried how one could build furnishings when one did not have where to put them. Upon hearing Betzalel's question Moses reminded Himself that G'd had indeed told him to build the structure first. He complimented Betzalel on his insight. We must ask ourselves how it was possible for Moses to have forgotten the instructions he had received from G'd in the matter? In order to account for Moses' error we must remember that G'd i.e. the Torah's report, had indeed listed most of the furnishings and their measurements such as the Holy Ark, the Lampstand, and the Table before listing details of the Tabernacle itself. Accordingly, Moses had been quite correct in first issuing instructions about the details of the furnishings to Betzalel. Why then did Moses reverse himself?

The answer is clear when we consider our verse wherein G'd is on record as showing Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle. Accordingly, when Moses received the details about the measurements of both the Tabernacle and its furnishings, he was told first about the furnishings. Moses misunderstood that these details were not communicated to him as an instruction to construct them first but that they merely complemented the picture G'd had already shown him of the overall structure. In other words, verse ten is merely a continuation of verse nine in which the visual appearance of the Tabernacle was described. The reason that G'd mentioned the Tabernacle first in 26,6, i.e. "the Tabernacle and its furnishings," is to reflect Moses' incredulity when he had first heard that G'd would take up residence in the Tabernacle. By telling Moses of the measurements of the Tabernacle, G'd emphasized the smallness of the structure. This verse also informs us of the fact that when G'd showed Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He showed him the furnishings at the same time. Perhaps the Torah also intended to convey the idea that there was no need for these furnishings to be of a large size.

Originally, Moses had decided that the sequence of construction should follow the report in the Torah which commenced in 25,10. When Betzalel questioned him he realised that he had erred and that he should have used verse nine as referring to the first part to be constructed. He excused himself by explaining that he had been informed about two possible venues and had chosen the wrong sequence. Seeing that G'd did not tell Moses the order in which the construction should proceed the author of Pessikta Rabbati is quite correct in saying that we must on no account imagine that Moses had forgotten G'd's instructions.

When Moses is reported in the Midrash as saying to Betzalel: "this is what I have heard from the mouth of G'd," this does not mean that G'd had told him in so many words that the Tabernacle was to be constructed first; it merely means that Moses meant that he had understood so from the sequence in which things had been shown to him.

To come back to our question why G'd had to show the blueprint to Moses instead of merely telling him of the measurements of the beams, etc. Had G'd merely told Moses of the measurements without showing him a visual image, Moses could have thought that the measurements were the minimum that had to be constructed but that the Israelites were free to build a larger Tabernacle if they so desired. By being shown an image of the Celestial Tabernacle, Moses realised that unless the Tabernacle on earth matched that in the celestial spheres it would not completely fulfil its purpose of transplanting a suitable residence for G'd to earth..

When we apply a moral dimension to the interpretation of this paragraph it will be seen that G'd spoke about taking up residence amongst the Jewish people not merely as a consequence of their constructing the Tabernacle but that He said: "I will dwell amongst them" even before having shown Moses what the Tabernacle was to look like (verses 8 and 9 respectively). The message is that the concept of sanctity in its various levels of intensity is independent of measurements. It is a concept which transcends such considerations. To illustrate what I mean take a look at Avot 3,7. Rabbi Chalafta describes that G'd's presence is attracted to even a single individual who occupies himself with words of Torah; he derives this from Exodus 20,21 where G'd says: "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you." Rabbi Chalafta had first made similar statements regarding groups of people engaging in Torah study. The reason he mentioned groups of different sizes was to show us that G'd's presence, i.e. sanctity, is found in different degrees of intensity depending on circumstances. This is why the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 74 tells us that G'd's presence is not to be found in a congregation numbering fewer than 600.000. The various statements of our sages dealing with the presence of the שכינה teach us that the quality of such Holy Presence varies almost infinitely, i.e. between a minimum of one and a maximum which is infinite. When G'd first told Moses that He would take up residence amongst the Jewish people Moses did not know what degree of Holiness such Presence implied. He therefore proceeded to ask G'd: "how can Your Holiness be confined to earth?" G'd replied by telling Moses that it would be in accordance with all that He would show Moses. By showing Moses the Celestial Tabernacle He made him aware that G'd would transfer His entire Holiness to earth, so to speak. The Israelites would therefore qualify to be the carriers of the מרכבה. This interpretation justifies the words כבל אשר אני מראה following the words .ושכנתי בתוכם

וכן תעשו, "in this manner you shall make it." Seeing that I have explained that G'd showed Moses the vision of the Tabernacle in order to make it clear that it had to be built according to the exact dimensions Moses had been shown, you may ask why the words וכן תעשו are needed. Have we not been taught in Shevuot 14 that: "it does not matter whether a ritually impure person enters the Temple courtyard or whether he enters the addition to the Temple courtyard (he becomes guilty in either event to offer a sin-offering to obtain atonement for his oversight), seeing that one may not add to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard except with the approval of the king, the Supreme Court, the prophet, and the Urim Vetumim, [the parchment inside the breastplate of the High Priest which would enable the latter to receive answers to questions he addressed to G'd, Ed]." The Talmud cites our verse as the source for this ruling, stating that the directive contained in our verse applies throughout the generations. The Talmud derives this ruling not merely from the letter ו in front of the word כן, but from the entire expression וכן תעשו. Rashi confirms this in his commentary. [I have abbreviated this discourse of the author somewhat in the interest of brevity. Ed.]

I have seen that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the letter ו in the words וכן תעשו refer to the furnishings of the Tabernacle seeing these had not been mentioned when G'd said: "and they shall make a Sanctuary for Me." Rabbi Ibn Ezra apparently did not bother to justify the words כן תעשו themselves although the measurements of all these furnishings are enumerated in the Torah separately. Our sages were quite correct when they understood the words ועשו לי מקדש as an overall directive which was followed by details later on. This is why the words כן תעשו pose a problem which our sages answered by saying that the measurements apply to all future generations unless they are altered with the consent of the authorities mentioned in the Talmud. I cannot understand why Rabbi ibn Ezra ignored the comment of the Talmud.

I also fail to understand the comment of Nachmanides who challenges Rashi's explanation that these words are a directive to adhere to these measurements for future generations. According to Nachmanides, Solomon was not obligated to adhere to the measurements laid down in our portion when he built the Temple in Jerusalem. Nachmanides prefers to see in this repetition an exhortation to proceed with the building of the Tabernacle and its furnishings with all possible speed. When Nachmanides refers to the fact that Solomon (compare Chronicles II,4,8) built the Temple and altar according to entirely different dimensions than the ones described in our portion, he appears to have forgotten what the Talmud says. How could he argue against the Talmud? We must therefore assume that Nachmanides thought that the true meaning of the Talmud is that the words וכן תעשו refer to subsequent generations and were not meant to describe the dimensions of the furnishings but referred to the prohibition of introducing changes in the dimensions of the Temple and its site without the approval of the authorities listed in the Mishnah. We cannot accept his words. Who can decide who is right? Furthermore, if we accept Nachmanides' view, what is the meaning of the Talmud's query whether the rule about anointment of the furnishings applied only to the furnishings in Moses' time and not to those in subsequent Temples? In answering the Talmud falls back back on our verse to prove that only the furnishings of the Tabernacle in Moses' time were sanctified by anointment rather than by being put into use. If Nachmanides were correct, why did the Talmud not simply answer that not all of the details enumerated in our portion applied for future generations?

At any rate we need to counter Nachmanides' argument that Solomon used different dimensions when he constructed the altar for his Temple. I have seen that Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi attempted to answer the problem. He writes that the words וכן תעשו do not refer so much to the actual measurements as to the proportions of those measurements, i.e. the relationship between length, width, and height respectively. As long as these proportions were maintained the actual size did not matter. Accordingly, when Moses built an altar of five by five cubits, Solomon built it with a base of twenty by twenty cubits. Rabbi Mizrachi's argument is buttressed by Tossaphot in Shabbat 98 according to which we have a problem when, according to the Talmud there, the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. Whence does the Talmud arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps the width (inside) was eleven cubits? Rabbi Yehudah answers the query by claiming that we derive the information from the measurements of Solomon's Temple. The length of the Temple was sixty cubits, whereas it is described as having been twenty cubits wide. Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah claims that seeing that the length of the Tabernacle was thirty cubits, the width must have been ten cubits. He bases his view on the words וכן תעשו in our verse. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. He goes on to ask why Solomon did not construct the height of his altar to correspond to the proportion of Moses' altar, i.e. twelve cubits high? He answers that the words וכן תעשו apply only to the length and width of the dimensions, not to the height.

I do not believe that Rabbi Mizrachi's view that the words וכן תעשו mean "for all future generations," apply only to the proportions of the Temple and not to its actual measurements, is acceptable. Rabbi Mizrachi has failed to produce support from the Talmud and we cannot accept such an argument unless it is based on tradition. If we are troubled by the apparent contradiction to the Talmud posed by the fact that Solomon's Temple was of a different size, it is better to leave the question unresolved than to come forward with unsupported theories. I am prepared to deal even with the argument Rabbi Mizrachi purports to base on Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the inside measurement of the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehudah did not base his view on the interpretation of the words וכן תעשו. The fact is that Rabbi Mizrachi did not quote or copy Rabbi Yehudah accurately, but used his opinion to support his theory. The correct interpretation of Rabbi Yehudah's view is that whereas in the case of Solomon's Temple it is clear that the width of the Temple was twenty cubits, in the case of the Tabernacle it is doubtful whether the width was ten or eleven cubits. Rabbi Yehudah used the known measurements of Solomon's Temple merely to help resolve the doubt. It is also possible that the sages in Shabbat 98 had some other proof whence they deduced that the Tabernacle's width was ten cubits, something not based on our verse at all. The fact that Rabbi Yehudah himself does not refer to our verse is pretty strong evidence that he did not accept the theory of Rabbi Mizrachi that our verse speaks only of proportions and not of actual dimensions. Moreover, the very fact that Rabbi Mizrachi is forced to say that the height of the altar was הלכה למשה מסיני i.e. that we have no scriptural guidance concerning it as long as the requirement that it was square was observed, further weakens Rabbi Mizrachi's argument.

It is worth recalling that the Talmud Zevachim 59 quotes a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi as to the height of the copper altars constructed by Moses, by Solomon, by the returning exiles from Babylonia, as well as the altar to be erected in the future. Rabbi Yossi holds that all these altars were or will be ten cubits high. He argues that when the Torah describes the altar in our portion as being only three cubits high this refers only to the part of the altar on top of its foundation. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the dimensions given for the altar built by Betzalel meant that it was three cubits high. The opinion of Rabbi Yossi is accepted as halachah by Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise on the laws of the Temple. The discussion in Menachot 97 also appears to accept that view. In view of the above, Rabbi Mizrachi's question is not in place at all. Rabbi Yehudah who disagrees and claims that the altar of the Tabernacle was only three cubits high follows the literal meaning of our text (27,1). Seeing that Rabbi Mizrachi's problem is only with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah -not accepted in halachah,- he should not have represented it as if it applied universally. As to the answer that the height of the altar was determined by הלכה למשה מסיני, I cannot agree that the Talmud leads to this conclusion. The Mishnah states that additions to the Temple Courtyard were to be made only with the consent of the authorities we listed earlier. Rabbi Shimi questions where we find scriptural proof for this. The Talmud answers by quoting the words וכן תעשו in our verse as proof that they apply throughout the ages. It is clear that Rabbi Shimi had not heard of the interpretation of the words in our verse as applying only to the height of the altar to the altar of the Tabernacle and not to subsequent structures serving as Temples. If so, why did not the questioner in the Talmud raise the problem of Solomon not having complied with the instructions of the Torah when he built his altar, i.e. the very question raised by Rabbi Mizrachi? Apparently, even assuming that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני concerning this, the questioner in the Talmud had not heard of it. Moreover, anyone immersing himself more deeply in the Talmud's treatment of the subject will conclude that Rabbi Mizrachi did not present the case accurately.

I wish to state that Nachmanides' question based on Solomon's altar having a base of tweny by twenty cubits is no problem at all. Rabbi Mizrachi's question about the height of the altars also does not present a problem. There is a lengthy Baraitha in Zevachim 62 which goes as follows: "The sages taught that the dimensions of the corner, the ramp, and the foundation of the altar as well as the fact that it had to be square were absolute, not subject to change. The dimension of the length, width, or height of the altar, however, was not absolute." The Talmud asks for the source of this information; the answer given is that the Torah speaks of ה־מזבח in 27,1 instead of merely מזבח. The letter ה always indicates that the measurements are essential and not subject to change. Thus far the Talmud in Zevachim. This teaches that if Moses had wanted to he could have constructed the altar of the Tabernacle to be a square of twenty by twenty cubits (as did Solomon) whereas he could also have made it higher than three cubits. In view of this, Rabbi Mizrachi's question has no basis in halachah. Solomon was perfectly within his rights to build an altar twenty by twenty cubits square, seeing G'd had revealed in the Torah that the dimensions of length, width, and height of the altar were not absolute. Apparently, Rabbi Mizrachi ignored the Baraitha and thought that Moses had not been allowed to build the altar to any specifications other than those mentioned in our portion. If not for this oversight, Rabbi Mizrachi did not need to give us the contradictory solutions we have quoted in his name. I believe that the simplest way to remember all these vexing problems is by remembering that the words וכן תעשו apply to all those dimensions of the altar which are absolute, i.e. the corner, the ramp, and the fact that it must be square as well as the fact that the base of the altar must on no account be less than five cubits square, i.e. the size of the altar constructed by Betzalel.

It remains for us to investigate which other parts of the Tabernacle were of dimensions that could not be changed in future Sanctuaries and which were subject to change. Maimonides writes in chapter one of Hilchot Beyt Ha-bechirah that future Sanctuaries could be constructed only of either stones or bricks. From my study of Maimonides' writings on the Sanctuary I have understood that there are only three furnishings which have to correspond both in materials and dimensions to those constructed in the time of Moses. They are: the Table, the Lampstand, and the golden altar (inside the Sanctuary). This is also stated explicitly in Menachot chapter 12. Concerning all the other measurements or the appearance of the Sanctuary itelf, the Tabernacle in the desert did not serve as a model. Accordingly, we could conclude that the meaning of the words וכן תעשו in our verse applies in the future only to these three furnishings. This is incorrect, however, seeing that in the Talmud they expressly applied these words also to the sanctity of the dimensions of the Temple Courtyard. If so, the words in our verse apply also to the structure of the Sanctuary itself. Moreover, we know that Solomon constructed the cherubs on the ark according to specifications different from those mentioned in the Torah (41,6). Solomon also made many changes in the construction of the other furnishings.

If we apply just a little intelligence to the problem we will find that there is no problem at all. We must realise that Solomon did not build either his Temple or its furnishings according to arbitrary considerations. He was not motivated by the desire to erect a magnificent edifice which would confer glory on its builder. He followed instructions received from the prophet. The prophet told Solomon that the very measurements he told him about were an ancient tradition (Chronicles I 28,11) where David handed Solomon the exact blueprints of the Sanctuary he himself had not been allowed to build. Every little detail had been ordained by G'd, and Rashi explains that the prophet Samuel had received the detailed instructions about the shape and size of the Temple from G'd. We have a story in Midrash Shemuel chapter 15 according to which Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shimon related that G'd had given Moses the details of the eventual Temple while the latter was standing. Moses transmitted the information to Joshua while the latter was standing; Joshua in turn conveyed this information to the elders while they were standing; they in turn conveyed it to David while the latter was standing. David relayed the information to his son Solomon. At that point everything had already been committed to writing as mentioned in Chronicles II 35,4 by king Yoshiyahu. All this proves that all these details had been handed down from generation to generation. Thus far the words of the Midrash. You will have noted that whatever Solomon did was based on higher authority. This is what we call הלכה למשה מסיני.

Rashi writes all this explicitly in his commentary on Chronicles I 28,19. I am quoting Rashi verbatim: "Samuel derived all this information from the Torah by means of the Holy Spirit. The area of the Temple Mount was 500 cubits square. He arrived at the conclusion that the length of the Courtyard was 100 cubits, its width 50 cubits by fifty cubits, etc." It is quite normal to expect that all these dimensions should be alluded to in the written Torah and accessible to people equipped with the Holy Spirit. We find in Kings I 6 that whereas Moses' Tabernacle contained only two cherubs, Solomon constructed four cherubs (verses 23 and 35 respectively). Not only did G'd not appear to have commanded this, but the dimensions of these cherubs were totally different from those fashioned by Betzalel. I believe we can find an allusion to these additional cherubs to be used in the Temple by looking closely at the text of our portion. According to what we have just described the people who were equipped with Divine insights would be guided by the restriction imposed by the words וכן תעשו in certain matters whereas in other matters where the Torah's text seemed to provide an opening for them they would apply such allusions when handing down the measurements applicable to the Sanctuary to be built by Solomon.

When we approach the subject in this fashion we are also able to resolve the string of questions Nachmanides raised against Rashi's commentary. We can also remove Rabbi Mizrachi's pain to see his revered teacher Rashi under attack by Nachmanides concerning the height of the altar in the desert having been of a fixed and unalterable height.

In view of the fact that our sages stated that the text of the Torah itself provides hints as to the dimensions of the Temple to be built by Solomon, I may be able to contribute two or three details of such allusions myself. Firstly, the fact that the Torah speaks first about ועשו לי מקדש, and continues with the words את תבנית המשכן is strange. The Torah should have continued with ועשו לי משכן instead of speaking of תבנית המשכן, i.e. the blueprint (dimension) of the Tabernacle. From the change in wording it is fairly clear that the Torah speaks of two different structures as we indicated at the beginning of the whole discussion. The Torah hinted at the fact that the Temple Courtyard was to be one hundred cubits by fifty cubits when it stated (unnecessarily) that the courtyard of the Tabernacle was to be one hundred by fifty cubits in 27,18. This information had already been contained in the verses 9-17. According to the rule that information not needed which is recorded in one verse may be applied to augment information missing elsewhere, I suggest that the Torah hinted at the size of the Temple itself when duplicating these dimensions here, and it is to be appended to the words ועשו לי מקדש. From the above it follows that the restrictive clause וכן תעשו does not apply to the dimension of the future Sanctuary itself, seeing we have a hint that the measurements of that Sanctuary are to be one hundred by fifty cubits.

We also note that according to Kings I 6,23 and 37 respectively, Solomon constructed a total of 4 cherubs as opposed to the two cherubs constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle. Moreover, Solomon's cherubs were of totally different measurements. We need to find justification for Solomon to have constructed additional cherubs.

It appears that there is an allusion to this in 25,18 where the Torah instructs that two cherubs be constructed of beaten gold, giving their size and adding that they are to extend from the respective ends of the lid covering the Holy Ark. Why did the Torah have to repeat the words: "and to make them" in verse 19 after having already said of the (supposedly) same cherubs in verse 18 "you shall make two cherubs, etc.?" Besides, once the Torah had told us that the cherubs were to extend from the respective ends of the lid (verse 18) why did it have to write: "one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end?" The whole phrase seems superfluous! Why did the Torah add: "on its two ends you shall make them?"

Apparently the unnecessary words are an allusion to two additional cherubs which are to be constructed when the Temple would be built. The Torah used the expression ועשית "you shall construct" when speaking of the cherubs to be constructed for the Tabernacle, whereas concerning the cherubs to be constructed in the Sanctuary of the future the Torah speaks in the third person, writing: 'ועשה כרוב אחד וגו. "[The author seems to distinguish between ve-asseh, and va-asseh, considering the latter indirect speech. Ed.] Accordingly, the instruction in verse 19 is addressed to some future occasion. The additional cherubs to be constructed in that Temple in the future do not need to extend from one end of the lid to the other. In fact, the description of these cherubs in the Book of Kings has these cherubs with their feet on the floor (Kings I 6,23-32). Seeing that the wing tips extended to the respective walls, we must assume that the feet of the cherubs were on the ground. The meaning of the word מקצה may refer to wherever the wingspan ended. On the other hand, the meaning of the additional word מזה may be: "apart from this one," referring to another set of cherubs. At this point our verse refers back to the cherubs discussed as being constructed for the Tabernacle.נSubsequently the Torah returns to discussing the cherubs of the Tabernacle saying they have to be positioned on the lid of the Holy Ark. In order that we should not err and think that the Torah again speaks of cherubs of the future, the Torah once more instructs תעשו i.e. "you are to make these (now)." The word תעשו here is hard to justify unless it was meant to prevent some error we could have made as to the meaning of this verse. The words את הכרובים in verse 19 are totally superfluous if the Torah up until this point had been speaking of only one set of cherubs. These words can only be justified if they are meant to direct our attention to one set of cherubs as opposed to another set alluded to previously. When the Torah says תעשו את הכרובים, it is clear that the reference is not to the cherubs which had been mentioned immediately prior to this but to the ones which had been the subject of discussion prior to the present ones. The Torah added that the cherubs mounted on the lid of the Holy Ark are to extend על שני קצותיו, "on the two ends thereof," in order that we should not think that though they were mounted on the lid their feet could extend to the floor (as in the case of Solomon's cherubs). No such condition is mentioned when Solomon constructed his cherubs.

Although it is a fact that when the actual construction of the cherubs is reported in 37,7-9, the Torah repeats exactly what is written in our portion and you might ask why the duplication of certain words in that portion when obviously it could not refer to the cherubs to be constructed for Solomon's Sanctuary, I refer you to Rashi on 25,19. He explains that the reason this had to be repeated was so that we should not think there were to be two cherubs at each end of the lid. Unless Rashi had agreed that the Torah had already been hinting at a second set of cherubs (the ones of Solomon), why would the Torah have had to be afraid that we could be thinking in terms of four cherubs at all? Surely Rashi's very comment supports my thesis that the Torah contains allusions to the additional cherubs Solomon constructed in his Temple. None of what I have written affects the plain meaning of these verses seeing that Shemuel Haroeh has commented in connection with 27,18 that although the explanation of the meaning of the words: "50 by 50 cubits" offered in Eyruvin 23 could not be the plain meaning of the verse and we have drawn halachic conclusions from the exegesis, this still does not mean that the plain meaning of the verse has been abandoned. The same applies here when we adopt my approach. The plain meaning of the verse is not negated by the need to answer the questions we have raised. You will also observe that here in our portion the Torah speaks of va-asseh, an expression which is absent in the report in chapter 27. This would seem to confirm that in our portion the Torah speaks of (or alludes to) two sets of cherubs.

We find that Solomon (Kings I 7,48) hid the golden altar constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle and constructed another one in its place as explained in Menachot 99. Concerning the Lampstand and the Table there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud whether only the ones used in the Tabernacle were actually used in Solomon's Temple, or whether the additional Tables and Lampstand made for Solomon's Temple were also used in rotation for their respective functions. The Talmud agrees, however, that there was only a single golden altar in the Temple and that the original golden altar was hidden. It remains for us to understand why Moses' golden altar had to be hidden.

We will observe that the Torah alluded to this by not reporting the construction of the golden altar at the place where we would have expected to read about it. The Torah commenced by describing the dimensions of the Holy Ark, a piece of furniture that stood in the innermost part of the Tabernacle. This is followed by the dimensions of the lid of said Ark. Subsequently the Torah describes the Table, the Lampstand, followed by the directives to erect the beams, and the carpets forming the roof of the Tabernacle, as well as the supporting columns, the sockets and the priestly garments. This is followed by the directives to construct the copper altar, the one positioned in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the details about the courtyard, the anointing oil. Even the details of the inaugural offerings are all described before the Torah mentions the construction of the golden altar. Clearly, the fact that the Torah delayed mentioning the construction of the golden altar must have a special reason. The reason may be that the rules applying to it are significantly different from the rules applying to all the other components of the Tabernacle. Whereas the parts of the Tabernacle which were suitable for use in the eventual Temple were permitted to be used there, this was not the case with the golden altar. This in spite of the fact that the golden altar was only used for minute amounts of incense twice daily as compared to the Table and the Lampstand which were used far more during the over four hundred years which elapsed between the building of the Tabernacle and the building of the Temple. The original Table made for the Tabernacle in the days of Moses as well as the Lampstand made for the Tabernacle were superior to the ten Tables and ten Lampstands constructed by Solomon for his Temple. The allusions to the eventual Temple are, of course, only allusions.

ועשו ארזן, "They shall construct an ark." It is strange that G'd phrased the directive to build the ark in indirect speech whereas the directives to construct the Tabernacle, the Altar, the Table, and the Lampstand are all phrased in direct speech, i.e. ועשית. Not only does the Torah employ indirect speech in this verse, but when elaborating on the details of the construction the Torah reverts to use of direct speech, i.e. "you shall cover it with pure gold, etc." Perhaps we can find in this anomaly a hint that the bulk of Torah cannot be fulfilled by any individual but requires participation of the entire nation. No single individual can fulfil all the commandments of the Torah, however much he may desire to do so. If an individual happens to be a priest he cannot fulfil the commandment of allocating the 24 gifts which the Torah directs the Israelite to give to the priest. He cannot fulfil the commandment of redeeming his firstborn son. A Levite also is prevented from fulfilling certain commandments by the mere fact that he is a Levite. The phrasing of ועשו ארון in the indirect plural may be intended to remind us of this fact.

Possibly, the use of the indirect plural here is an introduction to the construction of all the parts of the Tabernacle and its furnishings. By using the indirect plural at this point the Torah may wish to remind us that even where it uses the direct singular when giving directives, these directives are addressed to individuals only inasmuch as those addressed represent all the חכמי לב, (compare 36,1).

It is also possible that seeing that prior to receiving the second set of Tablets Moses himself constructed a wooden ark (compare Rashi on Deut. 10,1) in which he placed them as soon as he descended from Mount Sinai, the instructions given here refer to an alternate ark, the one to be constructed by Betzalel. In order to distinguish between these two arks the Torah changed its grammar. G'd had already used direct speech when He commanded Moses to construct the original ark in Deut. 10,1. At that time He added the word לך,"for yourself," to indicate that pending the construction of the permanent housing of the Tablets, Moses was to construct a temporary home for them. Whereas the directives ועשית in our portion always refer to the construction by Betzalel of something permanent, the same word in Deut 10,1 did not refer to something permanent. Moses complied personally with G'd's directive to construct a temporary ark (Deut. 10,3) as we know from: "he placed the Tablets inside" (Deut. 10,5). Phrasing the present directive in indirect plural, i.e. ועשו, was to make plain that G'd spoke of an additional ark. Had G'd merely said ועשית, I would have thought that just as the original ark was meant to be his, personally, i.e. to be paid for out of his own pocket, so the permanent ark was also meant to be paid for by himself. Alternatively, Moses could have thought that G'd spoke of the very ark Moses had already made and that now it was to be overlaid with gold inside and out, have staves attached to it, etc. In order to prevent any misuderstandings, the Torah wrote ועשו.

לא יסורו ממנו, "they shall not be removed from it." The reason that the Torah had to add the word "from it," and could not simply write: "they must not be removed," may be that without the words "from it" we would have understood that as long as the staves were not taken out of the rings completely it did not matter. However, we are taught in Yuma 72 that Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina queried an apparent contradiction between verse 15: "the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark," and 27,7, where the Torah writes: והובא את בדיו בטבעות, "and its staves shall be placed through the rings." This appears to indicate that the staves were inserted in the rings again and again. If so, how could one comply with the need for the staves to remain within the rings? The respective ends of the staves must have been thicker so that they could not slip out of the rings as demanded by the words: "they shall not be removed from it," i.e. they had to be attached so that they could not move. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the words of the Talmud that the words לא יסורו are enough to teach us that movement of these staves is forbidden. Perhaps the word ממנו has a different meaning, i.e. that even motion of the staves backwards and forwards within the rings was prohibited. In order to prevent us from thinking that this was also not allowed, the Torah wrote והבאת in verse 14.

It is also possible that but for the word והבאת I would have assumed that whereas the prohibition of removing the staves is not punishable by malkot, i.e. 39 lashes, as long as the staves had not been completely removed from the rings it is nonetheless forbidden. The word והבאת therefore comes to teach that if the Torah had wanted to forbid any kind of movement by these staves it would have written וקבעת, "you shall affix them," or וחברת "you shall attach them," instead of והבאת, "you shall insert them."

I have seen that Tossaphot on Yuma 72 ask why Rabbi Chanina based his query on the word והובא seeing that that verse deals with the staves that the copper altar was to be carried by while he ignored the word והבאת in our verse? Tossaphot ask further why Rabbi Chanina did not mention Numbers 4,5-7 which implies that the staves were removed each time the Israelites broke camp and dismantled the Tabernacle. This would contradict the Torah's directive not to remove the staves from the Holy Ark. Tossaphot answer that there were a total of eight rings and four staves attached to the Holy Ark. They base themselves on the wording: (Exodus 25,12) according to which four rings were to be attached to the four corners of the altar and another 4 rings, two each, to opposite sides of the ark. Accordingly, there would have had to be four staves, etc. I cannot justify the opinion expressed by Tossaphot. Many objections can be raised against that interpretation of the verse quoted. The matter is really very simple. The copies of the Talmud quoting Rabbi Chanina as basing himself on the word והובא are simply a scribe's error; Rabbi Chanina did indeed refer to the word והבאת.

As far as the question raised from Numbers 4,7: ושמו בדיו is concerned, I think that seeing that the purpose of the staves on the Holy Ark was that it be carried by means of them when G'd commanded that the dividing curtain be used to cover the ark when it would be transported, He instructed that the priests drape it over the ark in such a fashion that the Kehatites who would carry it on their shoulders would not need to set eyes on the exposed ends of these staves. Rabbi Yehudah of Orleans (in that Tossaphot) felt that the meaning of Numbers 4,7 is that the staves be put on the shoulders of the Levites. Other Tossaphists have already discounted such an explanation as you can see when perusing the text on Yuma 72. There are additional arguments which can be raised against Rabbi Orleans' suggestion. Considering all the arguments, it is better to adopt my solution. I have no idea how these Tossaphists propose to deal with the fact that our verse (25,12) speaks distinctly of "two rings on its side," not of four. Possibly, G'd commanded two rings to be affixed to the body of the ark in such a way that they could not move, whereas afterwards He commanded Moses to insert two more rings inside the original ones. The latter could be moved backward and forward. This would then be part of the artistic excellence employed when constructing the ark enabling those who carried it to do so with relative ease. At any rate, I cannot abide the thought that there were more than two staves by means of which the ark was carried.