KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Parashat Hashavua - Vayakhel-Pekudei
Shiur on parashat Hashavua for Vayakhel-Pekudei by Rav Alex Israel
Welcome to this Thursday's broadcast of 'KMTT the Torah Podcast' and this is as a week and today is Thursday, kafgimmel adar and today's year is Anpashat the Shavu'er and will be given by Harav Alex Israel. In our parachute this week we leave behind the dramatic events of the Ingle Hazahahah, the golden cloth. We emerge from the tumultuous smashing of the Luchot and the renewal of the covenant with the Luchotashinim that we experienced in last week's Kriyat Tatarah. And now with the parashyoth of Mayakel and Pikuday we return to the theme of the Mishkan. Once again our parashy is filled with precise dimensions, architectural details, fabrics, gold, silver, raw materials, shapes and textures of every item in the Mishkan fill the lines of the parashat. Now any reader of the Torah is confronted by an obvious question as they read these parashyots and that question relates to the repetitive nature of these parashyots. We all find ourselves asking haven't we read this before, haven't we heard this before? After all the Torah in Shruma and Tzadeh has already listed in in exacting detail all the instructions for building the Mishkan. With very precise measurements and the exact descriptions and materials we've already heard about the Aaron and the Manorah and the Shruma. And now in Mayaka Pikuday we read it all again, a point for points repetition of all that detail. Could the Torah not simply have told us that most have followed the instructions and and we could be finished. In fact there's a Pasuk in the parashyoth in Parashyoth Pikuday which sounds exactly like that. It says right at the end of Paraklamatech chapter 39. It says, "Vayara Moshet kolhamlaha vine aasuta kashet sivaha shem kain asu." Moshet did everything as he was told. And it was precisely how God had commanded it. So why do I have this line and then we don't need to have the whole of parashyot, Vayakal Pikuday. We don't need to repeat the whole thing. Why the tedious repetition verse after verse chapter after chapter. Indeed this question actually relates to two things. Number one it relates to the question of why we need the parashyot again but it also relates to the very question of repetition in the Torah. And here at this point let me maybe point something out that maybe we're not aware enough about. We are very familiar with the principle that says that the Torah never wastes words. That every single letter is precious and precisely decided upon and placed in the Torah. But in truth we should realize that the Torah frequently enjoys listing things in an enormously repetitive fashion. Throughout the Torah we have lists which repeat again and again in the same details. Very wordy lists. I'll give a few examples. Barashyot chapter 5. We have a list of genealogies which repeat the which lists the names of the generations Adam to Noah. Now they go through the words and instead of just giving a simple list they tell us a whole series of details in a sort of repetitive fashion. This repeats throughout many many genealogies that we have in Barashyot. We have the lists of Asav's army generals in Barashyot chapter Lamadvav which again is heavy and seemingly insignificant detail. Earlier in Barashyot we have the search for a wifey takk where the slave who goes to look for the wife Rifka repeats again the game the story time and time again. If we look at another safe answer if a bumming bar the census of beneath Ra'el is described twice. The gifts of the nasiim the princes of the tribes to the mishkan is repeated the same text 12 times. In other words what I'm trying to say is that the Torah sometimes seems to be unconcerned with the tedium of repetitive language listing and in fact we could argue that there actually is a literary technique a literary phenomenon in the Torah. One of the hallmarks of the Torah might well be repetition. Some literary scholars academics have actually noted this in fact I found in one a book in Robert Alter's book The Art of Biblical Narrative where he talks about and I'm quoting him he says there is an oriental sense of the intrinsic pleasingness of repetition in the underlying aesthetic of the Bible. In other words he says there's something about the ancient style of writing that enjoys repetition and I do think that there is something to this because we frequently find lists and we frequently find repetition and the Torah seems somewhat unbonded by this. That's one side of the coin regarding repetition but there is another side because Chazal were unsatisfied with these literary resolutions. After all Torah is derail looking hayim Torah is the Word of God and in halachic texts we derive binding halachic details from an extra phrase from an added word from an unusual suffix a prefix and if we do that in halacha we would certainly expect the Torah to have a sort of uniform attitude to language to to retain a similar economy of language when it's dealing with other things with narrative sections and indeed Chazal tried to deal with this. In Bereshit Rabbi there is a stamler of Acha where he says "Ya fessi ha tansha la vdei bate agot me toa tansha albanim" clearly he says "The even the slaves of the avot, of Avaram mitzvak in Yaakov," the slaves language is even dira in the very Torah of the children of Abraham and he says why? Why do I say that? Ravaha says because parashatosh al-elyezeh, shinayim beshoshatapimhu, who al-marah beshonah says al-ezeh's story stretches for two or three columns in the Torah he says it and repeats it but then there are various halachot for example the halacha of sherats which comes to do with the laws of purity and impurity when he says we only learn this from a rebuy hamikra we learn this from a derivation of the text in other words he says if there is repetition the repetition comes to tell us that something is important it is not just stylistic the repetition is there to show us that there is some importance that there is some significance in the content. That's going to be our approach today that we're not just talking about the repetitive nature of Ayaakovi Kuday and we're not chalking it up to simple literary stylistics and again as I said I do think there is something in that but we're going to try and understand the repetition of Ayaakovi Kuday on a different dimension we're going to try and understand the secret behind this. Now at the stage let me maybe mention something further which relates to repetition and then we'll move on to the structure of shimat and here I'm going to say an idea that I once heard from my teacher of Davenitiv and it's worthwhile saying here. Davenitiv once pointed out in one of his shirim that there are certain times when the Torah is very brief and there are certain times when the Torah is very wordy and he claimed that and again this doesn't work for every situation but it's certainly a thought-provoking theory. He says in an area in which the non-Jewish nations had no parallel to Judaism the Torah states things very succinctly. Non-Jewish nations didn't have Sukkot so the Torah says "Basukkot te shfushi ba yamim sit in a Sukkot for seven days and we'll figure out all the details through Torah Shabbat alpa. The non-Jewish nations didn't have shatness so it says "keep shatness" and we'll figure out the rest through Torah Shabbat alpa or certain minimal details are given. However there are certain areas particularly related to temples and to sacrifices which other nations do have and the worry is that unless the details are spelled out word for word every minutia every single tiny miniscule detail the worry is that we will slip into the modes of the nations around us. The way we hear the word temple we already think and imagine in our minds temples that we've seen or when we think sacrifices we think about the Egyptian sacrifices or Canaanite sacrifices. Hence in order to create a different reality when it comes to karbanot when it comes to the Mishkan the Torah needs to spell things out again and again and again to resist the pollution the cultural pollution of the surrounding environment and this is is is relegated to situations in which there is a danger of that osmosis from other societies. However in areas which are uniquely Jewish where there is no parallel we don't need to go to that detail and that's a very interesting theory which might go to explain why we have every single centimeter taken care of the fabrics everything specify nothing left to imagination because the worry is if it's left to imagination it might be susceptible to imitation. So what we've tried to do until now in this Shior is to relate to the question of the detailed language and the repetitive nature of Ayakkle pikuday and why it repeats what has been said in Trauma Tatsabha. However what I would like to do is deal with this in a wider context by understanding the structure of the latter half of Safer Shammat and putting it in a certain perspective. Let's again remind ourselves when we're thinking about Safer Shammat in broad terms it works like this. Parashat Trauma and Tatsabha deal with the instruction to build a Mishkhan with all of the keelim, all of the items in the Mishkhan and the big dakkuhuna, the clothes of the priests etc etc. That is followed by Parashak Kitesa which is the story of the golden calf and the aftermath and the recovery from the golden calf including the second tablets of stone. Followed by that we have Ayakkle pikuday which returns to the Mishkhan with all its detail. In other words we have a sort of symmetrical or chiastic structure. Mishkhan, Agal, Mishkhan. We start with a Mishkhan then we move to the Agal and then we move to the Mishkhan. I guess what I'm saying is this is not simply repetition but maybe there's a story here which takes us from the Mishkhan to the Agal and back to the Mishkhan. Indeed this is the theory of the Rambhan. The Rambhan Nakhmanadi says that the order of Safer Shammat, Mishkhan, Agal, Mishkhan represents the historical flow of events. Prior to the Agal, prior to the golden calf when Moshera Beynu spent 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai with Hashem, what was God telling him? So maybe God told him a lot of things but one of the things that God told him was the construction of the Mishkhan and God transmitted all the details. And then Moshek comes down Mount Sinai and he's about to transmit the Mishkhan concept to Beynu Israel but he comes down and there's the whole debacle of the disaster of the Agal and the whole plan to transmit the Mishkhan is thwarted. It is interrupted. Now Valyukkopikuday, we get a respite from the Agal. The Agal is sold. The Agal is behind us. Now we go back to the Mishkhan and now we collect the materials and we construct the furniture and it is designed. It is assembled and Safer Shammat is completed with actually the setting up of the Mishkhan. Our question still stands. In other words what I've said so far is that Ramban says Mishkhan, Agal, Mishkhan is the way things happen. Truman to Safer represents God's instruction to Moses but then the Agal interrupted everything. Valyukkopikuday represents the people fulfilling the instruction that had been given before the Agal. But once again still doesn't explain all the detail. The Ramban uses a very very interesting phrase when he talks about this theory. I'll read some of his lines. He says, "Kevanchinitratselahem hakarashbaruhu, when God forgave the people after the golden calf, Venatanlohaluchot shneot, and he gave the second tablets of stone. Vakarot imohobritshadasha, Shelekh Hashembikrubam, and he made a new covenant that God would walk in their midst. Hinekhazrula kadumutam ula havat kulutam. Now they go back to their original state, the kadumutam, ula havat kulutam, and to the love of the days of their marriage. What exactly does this phrase mean? Ahavat kulutam. It's clearly a quote from the prophet Jeremiah. Ahavat kulutayyak, but what does it refer to? And how might this solve their problem? Ravlachtsunzdim once gave a very interesting parable to explain this. Listen to the following story. You have a couple, a young man and woman who are who are in love, and they decide to get married. They're engaged and they're setting up their new house together. And what do they do? They go to the department store to go and furnish their house. They walk through the store looking at all the different things. They look at the couches, they look at the furniture, and they debate the fabrics and colors that they want, the woods, the styles, all the different things. They look through the plates and cups and the tableware, and they choose this and they choose that and they're filled with excitement about their new home. And they giggle on this smile and they're delighted in short. They set up their entire home together. And when they finish making an entire list of what they need, they go to the store assistants and they register everything and they talk to the store assistants and said, "Well, when can you bring it?" He says, "Oh, in a few weeks time, they arrange a date and everything's great." And the couple get married a week later and everything's wonderful. They love each other. They look in gaze into each other's eyes. It's all fantastic. And off they go on their honeymoon. Now on their honeymoon disaster strikes. For some strange reason that nobody will ever understand, something happens on the honeymoon that makes one of them betray the relationship. One of them has an affair. Who can imagine such a thing? Now, the couple decide that they'll stay together despite this awful slip up, this awful betrayal. And they say they're going to stay together and they're going to sort things out. But of course, the love, the sense of togetherness, well, it's not the same, is it? They fly back from their vacation, from their honeymoon and they're not gazing into each other's eyes. There's a heavy feeling between them. There's tension. It's got a lot to work through. What they thought was so light before and happy now isn't that way. And as they come back home from the airport, who's there to meet them? Well, there's a big van from the department store with all of their furniture, with the tableware, with the cups. And, you know, along comes the assistant from the shop and says, "Look, it's the fabric I got exactly the right fabric and the right wood. I got exactly the right style of plates and the right knives that you ordered. The curtains are perfectly matching." And the couple look at each other and, "Who cares? It doesn't matter anymore." They were giggling and the the loving gazes in the store have now been replaced by a spirit of an atmosphere of acrimony and distance. That is the reality of human relationships that once there is a betrayal, it is very, very difficult to repair and it will take time. The Ramban says that the reason why everything is reported, word for word, everything is repeated, word for word, is because hazrula kadwutam ula havat kululatam. They've gone right back to the beginning. Because the first instance of the Mishkal in Truman to Tzada represented the love, the love of Matan Torah, the love of God and Benaster El being together, except that we betrayed the relationship with the agal. We betrayed it when we worshipped Abu Dazara. When we danced around the agal, we broke the marriage and you'd think that this would be irreparable. You'd think that the relationship would be irretreatable, that there would be no way to repair, that there would always be the stain, the scar. Along comes our alkhad bikuday and it repeats everything word for word. No, the fabrics are the same. The wood is the same, the gold and silver is the same. Everything is as if the crisis never was. The love, the looks, the gazing, the romance, the close relationship between God and Israel has been repaired. And therefore for the Ramban, and not only is this a historical explanation, first the Mishkal, then the agal. Followed by a return to the Mishkal, this also represents a sign that the relationship has been repaired. So that's the opinion of the Ramban. Rashi, the famous commentator, cannot agree with this approach. Now let me explain why. Rashi has an opinion. Well first of all, we know that Rashi doesn't follow the principle of chronology in the Torah. He says, "Aen mukdam un mukrabatura." The Torah is not in historical order and according to Rashi, the entire instruction of the Mishkal takes place only after the episode of the agal. He says that only once the agal was totally finished, did Benastera even receive the instruction of the Mishkal. And so he can't claim that the Mishkal existed before and then was somehow interrupted and that can be repaired. So what is the role of the Mishkal according to Rashi? According to Rashi, Rashi bases himself on a Medristan choma and I'm going to read the Medristan choma to you. Rashi suggests that the entire Mishkal is actually a response to a sense of repair, a tikkun for the faults of the agal. Here's the tan choma. Ammar hakadosh barachum, God said, yavor zahav shibamishkhan vihapair al-hazahav shinah asam boha agal. Let the gold of the Mishkam come to atone for the gold of the agal. For Rashi, the Mishkhan comes as a means of atonement, as a means of repair, for the awful sin of the golden calf. And in fact in the text we can find a number of ways in which this manifests itself. The first one mentioned by the tan choma is the gold. In the golden calf, the people bring gold to build the calf. And in the Mishkam, they also bring gold. In fact, in El Parshar we read in Parachalam al-vav pasukhay that the people are so enthusiastic to build for the Mishkam, to bring their gold to the Mishkam, that Vayon Ruel Mosheleimor, the craftsman said, "Marabim haam lahavi, they're bringing too much, mide haavodalam lahaha. They've brought too much, we don't need so much gold." And Moshe has to make a pronouncement. Vay al-Vyurum Kolba Mahane, he has to make a pronouncement in the camp saying, "Ishwishwishwishwishw al-Yasu al-Yasu al-Mulahaha, lizdrumadha kolesh, stop bringing things." The enthusiasm of the people for the Mishkhan is in a sense their attempt to atone for the agal. Likewise, Aharon, Aharon Moshe's brother, who led the people to the agal, now leads the people in the Mishkam. This is meant to be some sense of kapar some sense of tikun. Moreover, if you look through Pashaikuday, you will see that at the end of every single paragraph in Pashaikuday, there is a reframe, a repeated phrase, which comes up, and that phrase is that they did, whatever they did, cut ashir, sivaha, shim et Moshe, exactly like Moshe had commanded from God. In other words, stress is, you made the agal, not according to God, now follow God in every detail. It's interesting how Pashaikudayakel and the people gathered. The last time the people that that word, "vayakel" is used in "safer shimot" is in the story of the agal, where it says, "Vayikha, hell, ha-am, a ha-ran," and say, "kum, a-se-lanu, el-o-kim-a-shil, hula-fanayun," in other words, "vayikha-haloo," they gathered to make agal now, "vayakel Moshe," Moshe gathers them to talk about the Mishkam. Let me summarize. For the Ramban, the repetition of the partial to the Mishkam in their full detail, is a verification. It's a gillowy melter. It tells us that everything is forgiven and forgotten, that the relationship is restored, that the Shkunah has returned to Amistra al. The process of repair from the agal took place in Pashaikutisa, but now Vayakel is the evidence of the restoration of relationship. It is, in a sense, the continuation, the resuming of the relationship. Rashi, though, sees things differently. Rashi says that the process of the Mishkam, the process of the Mishkam, is the very process of repair. By building the Mishkam, the people channel the energies which were used for the negative purpose of the agal, for the sin of the agal, and now they channel it to positive goals, to holy goals. So here we see two approaches as how we're meant to see the Mishkam, and how we're meant to see the book as a whole. Now here I'd like to move to a father theme, which relates to this notion of Mishkam as regards the agal, because maybe we should pay attention to the final lines of Pashaikuday. At the end of Pashaikuday, we have some exceptional lines, which tell us that God's presence in the Mishkam is so powerful that even Moses cannot enter. Mashaikud is not allowed to enter the Mishkam because the Loyachol, Mashaikud, is filled with the presence of God. I would like to explain why this is so momentous, why this is so significant. The world Mishkam comes from the world Shahein. When we make a Mishkam, we are asking God to be our Shahein, our neighbor. When we make a Mishkam, God is moving into the Shruna to the neighborhood. The idea of Shrina is about God's being associated with us. At Harasinai, we encamped around the mountain. God was in our center. Vayikhan Yistra'el, Megadahar, Amistra'el, surrounded God and God was in our midst. And yet, after this, once we sin with the agal, the Torah tells us that Mashaikah, Ta'al, Mashaikud, took a tent, the Natalomihotzlamachane, and he pitched it outside the camp, Haraikshaykmanamachane, very distant from the camp. The Karalah al-Mawaid, he called it the tent of meeting. The Haya comba bakesh Hashemi say Al al-Mawaid. Anybody who wanted to talk to God would go out to this tent to meet with God. God physically moves away from the Yistra'el and moves outside the camp. Is God ever going to return? God was in our center at Harasinai, we were so close. Is God going to return to the center of the camp after the agal, he moves out. He moves way distant. And we spend six months building a Mishkan, constructing all the crafted vessels, all the garments of the Kaingandal, in the final lines of our parasha, God comes back. As it says at the end of Mashaikuday, and on the day the Mishkan was set up, the cloud covered the Mishkan. And an evening in the Mishkan, there was the appearance of fire until the morning. Kavarashhem Alayata Mishkan, the crescendo in the end of parashikudayas, that God has come back. I think this is enormously significant because our safe air, safe Ashramat as a whole, talks about the notion not only of freedom and slavery, but the notion of building a relationship with God. We receive a Torah which tells us how to live as Jews, and then we're told that as soon as we make a Midash, says God, I will live together with you. I will live as your neighbor. What's amazing is is that as we are yearning for God's closeness, as God offers us, attempting a suggestion that He will become our neighbor, we slip up. He gives us an instruction to build a Mishkan, but so soon we mess up and we sin, and we reject God in God moves far away. And yet the message of safe Ashramat is that we get a second chance, we get a chance to rebuild. By Alkal, if it could, it says that the offer of Trauma and Tzava, the offer to rebuild the Mishkan, even though we slipped up, is still there. The Aaron is still there, the Shulchan is still there, the Monorai is still there, the Mizbe'ah has the harvest still there, everything is still there, the opportunity is still available. In other words, the repetition of Ayaka Bikuday tells us that even though in spirituality, even though in taraamis what we make mistakes, none the less there is the opportunity of Chuva. And maybe this is one of the most important spiritual messages of safe Ashramat, we all yarn for closeness with the Almighty, we all yarn for a sense of relationship. However, unfortunately there are times when we don't manage to live up to our own standards, to our own expectations, and we betray the relationship. Safe Ashramat tells us that the opportunity doesn't go away, even though we mess up, we can rebuild, we can build the same Monorai, the same Shulchan, and then indeed God will come and join us, God's presence will come, cloud and fire in our midst, if only we take the effort to repair detail by detail, garment by garment, fabric by fabric, and then we will indeed be able to read the words with true meaning, but our Suleiman Midash, or Shaqantibha Toham, we will have built the Midash, and God will indeed be within our midst, wishing everybody a Shabbat Shalom. Thank you very much. You have been listening to the Pashatah Shavuushir by Harav Alex Israel. Today Salahayomit concerns a halakhah, which I think is quite common, in other words, it's quite common that people don't exactly follow it. It is sometimes difficult in a crowded shore, but as expected mostly, it's because people don't know the halakhah. The Shulchanarur Paskins, based on the, the Umarah, the Umarah, the Ghazain Ahmad Alif, in Virat, a Sulehavur, Kinegid Hamid-Padilim, Bittur, Arba Ahmad. The Dafqalif Nahim, Umar Bitts, Nahim, Umar, Umar, Umar, the Dafqal. It's prohibited, it's forbidden to pass, meaning to walk, to move in front of someone who's davening. Technically, that means davening Shmaresay. You now have to walk in front of him within four Ahmad, four Ahmad is two meters, six, six feet, six inches. The Dafqalif Nahim in front of him, but on the side is, it is permissible. The way most Paskins understand this halakhah is that you are disturbing his kavanah, if you pass directly in front of him, somehow he senses your presence even if his eyes are closed, surely his eyes are opened, and therefore it's forbidden, it's forbidden to do so. That's the majority opinion and understanding of this halakhah. Many Paskins, including Mr. Buhrer, Umar, Umar, Umar, Umar, and the Ghra, sight the Zohar, who is more makhmir than the simple explanation of the Ghra, except for Zohar, it says you know what to pass in front of someone davening, even outside of Dawar Ahmad, and also apparently it's forbidden even on the sides. So it's not halakhah, in general speaking the rule of Paskin, is that with the Paskin, with the halakhah, this agrees with what's found in the Zohar, we should follow the halakhah, but nonetheless it is cited by many Akhurnah. So at least halakhah, when it's now like to walk directly in front of someone davening, within six feet of his presence. This applies not only where someone's davening, you walk right in front of him, which is also what I think happens, but one application of this, which is quite common, that if we're all davening, and I finish, and I'm standing in front of you, and I finish before you, I'm not permitted to take the three steps backwards that what normally takes at the end of davening. If I'm within, for Ahmad, a viewer, when I finish walking, I will be within four hours of interview. But I have to wait until you finish, and you take your three steps back, and then I take my three steps back. And this is true even if the Hazen is saying to Shah, you can, you can answer to Shah, even though you haven't taken the three steps back instead of Sashadam, but one is not permitted to take these three steps back, because that's considered to be passing in front of someone else who's davening, we have to respect other people's davening, even if they're davening very long, and much longer, and much longer, and much longer than us. This is true, even if when you started davening, he wasn't there, he started davening after you. But since you're moving, he didn't, he didn't merely come and come next to you. You're moving, and he's davening, so even though you were the first, and he came second, when you finish davening, you have to wait. Sometimes you can see this sometimes in show, people know the Salahqah, and people are standing in one front of the other, and in fact, the person at the end of the line, he holds up them all. So first he goes back to the person in front of him, he goes back to the person in front of him, like a davening effect until you get up to the front, but that's in fact what the halahqah is, and it's an important halahqah, not only because of the halahqah, that one should have kavana, but what's implicit here is that one has to respect other people's kavana, and I think it's especially important halahqah when we're davening. Obviously, you should respect other people, and then, and after the rahqahqahqah, we should help other people all the time, but I think it's extremely important that when I'm davening, I'm speaking to God and asking things for myself, that I'm not even in the slightest way, a trample on someone else's ability to speak to God, because it directly impunes, it directly, I think, interferes with my relationship with God by trying to make it a selfish one, and therefore, this is one expression, there are other halahqahq, based on the same thing, and I'm going to sit down next to someone who's davening, and we have to respect other people's space, so to speak, with their davening, and to maximize their intimate relationship with God, even when we're all davening together. So again, this is the halahqahq sukar, it's safe, sometimes the shul is crowded, you come in a little bit late, another, another application is if you come late to davening, the people davening near the door, you come to the Beit Midrash, people, a lot of people have come late all davening next to the door, and you want to get in, you want to daven, you want to daven with sibir, but if you directly pass in front of somebody, so halahqah says you don't do it, you don't pass in front of someone who's very davening, you have to stay outside, and it might even cause you to miss Tfilah with sibir, but that's not a good enough reason to interfere with his tfilah, and that's it for today, we'll be back tomorrow, with the al-qshabbat program, my guest tomorrow on the al-qshabbat program will be habab moshit algaen from shivat habizion, and until then, wishing you bhikat atoram i tzion, you have been listening to KMTT, the Torah podcast, kimitsuyun teite torah udavar Hashemirushalaym.