LESSONS IN HASHKAFA & HALACHA FROM THE PARSHA המ ור ת … · terumah” (and you shall take the terumah for Me) in the context of the building of the Mishkan, whereas regarding

1

LESSONS IN HASHKAFA & HALACHA FROM THE PARSHA

ויקחו לי תרומה וכו':

When Hashem commanded Moshe to collect funds to build the mishkan

and its keilim (the aron, menorah, etc.) he instructed Moshe to "take the

terumah" from the B'nei Yisroel. It would seem however that it would have been

more correct had Hashem commanded people to give for the building of the

mishkan instead. Why command Moshe to take? After all, everyone had to

donate to the cause?

HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt"l explains that although there was a mitzvah for

everyone to give, Hakadosh Boruch Hu deliberately avoided commanding us to

do so and He intended it as a lesson for the B'nei Yisroel. Proper giving,

explains Reb Moshe, comes from nedivus ha'lev - when it is self-motivated.

Commanding one to give is an outright contradiction to this idea. Of course the

Ribono shel Olam had to command the Jews to give. If He hadn't, the funds

might have never been collected. However, in order to get this message across,

He instead commanded Moshe to collect, leaving everyone else to understand

the inherent obligation.

Although the collection for the mishkan ended shortly thereafter, the lesson

lives on to this day. Those who are fortunate enough to have what to give

should understand that the mitzvah of tzedaka should not be done in a way that

is merely to fulfill one's obligation. Rather, one should approach this mitzvah as

�פ�ר�ש�ת��ת�ר�ו�מ�ה

T O R A H K O L L E L . C O M

2


one who wants to help. Giving tzedaka with a smile doesn't cost any more, but

it transforms an obligation into mitzvah done on a much higher level.

ויקחו לי תרומה וכו':..

In a number of places, Chazal indicate that the gold donated for the

construction of the Mishkan and its keilim served as an atonement for the cheit

ha-eigel. Chazal also tell us that parah aduma is the kapara for the cheit ha-

eigel. How are we to understand these two statements? Was the cheit ha’eigel

such a great aveira that it needed two kaparos which are seemingly unrelated,

one to atone for making a calf and one for the fact that it was made of gold?

HaRav Yitzchak Aronovitz, the Ritover Dayan (in his sefer, Kesher Torah)

offers the following approach: When K’lal Yisroel sinned by constructing a

golden calf to serve as their leader, their sin was two-fold. While ultimately they

sinned against Hakadosh Baruch Hu by constructing an idol, they also “sinned”

against Moshe Rabeinu. Not only did Klal Yisroel give up and decide that

Moshe Rabeinu was not going to return, but they in a sense also caused him to

be “demoted”. As Chazal explain, when Hashem told Moshe to descend from

the mountain, He also meant to say to Moshe Rabeinu “come down from your

greatness”. Although causing this negative effect to Moshe Rabeinu was not the

intention of Klal Yisroel, as they thought Moshe Rabeinu was dead, the cause of



3


this effect also required a kapara. As such, Hakadosh Baruch Hu commanded

Klal Yisroel to collect gold for the building of the Mishkan, a place of hashra’as

ha’Shechina, to atone for building an idol, an image devoid of Shechina, and

also instituted the mitzvah of parah aduma, the ultimate in purification of man to

atone for the sin against the greatest of men, Moshe Rabeinu. HaRav Yitzchak

further explains that it is for this reason that Hashem commands “v’yikchu li

terumah” (and you shall take the terumah for Me) in the context of the building

of the Mishkan, whereas regarding the parah aduma, Hashem tells Moshe

“v’yikchu eilecha” (and take for yourself).

The message is profound; when doing teshuva or seeking kapara, not only

must one deal with the actual cheit itself, but one must also address the

repercussions, even unintended or indirect ones, that may have been caused

through his actions. Perhaps it is for this reason that Chazal say that the parah

aduma is like a mother who comes to clean up after the mess made by her calf;

while babies certainly don’t intend to cause their mother work, when they leave

a mess it inevitably must be cleaned up.

ויקחו לי תרומה וכו':

The medrash relates a mashal: There once was a king whose only

daughter got married to a prince from another land. Realizing that he could not

ask her to stay in his palace, he requested that wherever they go, they should



4


build a room in which he (the king) could stay. Such is Hashem’s relationship

with the Torah. After he gave the Torah to K’lal Yisroel, Hashem desired to

maintain the relationship by dwelling in the Mishkan as it travelled with His

people. The medrash seems to suggest that the purpose of the Mishkan was for

Hashem’s benefit. This is clearly not so.

HaRav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zt”l suggests the following approach: In the

mashal, the guest room for the king also served as a measure by which to

preserve the relationship with his daughter. Likewise, the Mishkan serves as our

liaison with Hashem. Its purpose is to facilitate growth in ruchniyus for K’lal

Yisroel.

Ba’avonoseinu ha-rabim we no longer have a Beis HaMikdash.

Nevertheless, the lesson applies to us as well. The Mishkan, is a paradigm for

avodas Hashem; while we cannot set aside a room for the Ribono shel Olam, it

is imperative that we designate time to contemplate and ponder His greatness.

This is true even for those who are fortunate enough to dedicate their entire day

to Torah and mitzvos.

עשן לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם וכו':

The medrash cites a mashal that once there was a king who had one

daughter. When she was about to get married, the king could not bear the



5


thought of her leaving his palace forever. He called in her soon-to-be husband

and told him as follows: “The thought of her leaving me is to great to bear. On

the other hand, I cannot tell you to leave her behind. I beg of you, that wherever

you live, please build me a private room so that I can come and visit whenever I

wish.” So too, explains the medrash, that when Hakadosh Boruch Hu gave us

the Torah, it was k’vayachol, difficult for Him to part with. Not willing to withhold

the Torah from the Jewish people, He gave it to us and requested that we build

him a house, the Mishkan, so that He would always have a home in our midst.

From the words of the medrash, it seems clear that K’lal Yisroel’s marriage

with the Torah began with the construction of the mishkan. This needs to be

understood for Chazal in many places indicate that our “marriage” with the

Torah began on Shavuos, at Har Sinai. The mishkan, on the other hand, was

not constructed until several months later.

HaRav Boruch Dov Povarsky shlit”a suggests the following: A Jewish

marriage is composed of two distinct parts: eirusin (or kiddushin), and nisu’in.

While in contemporary times, these two occur literally minutes apart, in the

times of Chazal, they were usually separated by several months and often even

more than a year. The first step in a Jewish marriage is eirusin, and the kallah

(bride) becomes designated to her groom and forbidden to all other men.

Although she typically remained in her parents’ home, as far as everyone else

was concerned, she was a married woman. However, it was only at the second



6


stage, nesuin, that she moved into her husband’s home and became his wife.

HaRav Povarsky explains that at the time of matan Torah, K’lal Yisroel

separated themselves from the rest of the world. Indeed they became a holy

nation, dedicated to serving the RIbono shel Olam. It wasn’t until the

construction of the mishkan however, that we became one with the Torah. He

explains that this relationship continued only until the second Beis HaMikdash

was destroyed, when our relationship with the Torah deteriorated and we once

again became betrothed to the Torah but not married to it. This is why the

Hashem tells us (Hoshea 2:21) “v’erastich li l’olam” (I will be betrothed to you

forever) - that the relationship of erusin will endure, even if the “marriage” will

not.

While this is all true, and we await the day when we will once again unite

with Hakadosh Boruch Hu in the third Beis HaMikdash, it must only remain so

on a global level. However, adds HaRav Povarsky, even in golus, each and

every individual has the opportunity to recreate a close relationship with

Hashem Yisborach. Chazal tell us that in times of golus, “ein l’Hakadosh Boruch

Hu b’olamo elah daled amos shel halacha” - when Hashem’s home is

destroyed, He makes His dwelling place wherever Torah is studied, and one

need not be the next gadol ha’dor to grab the opportunity. By simply realizing

that limud ha’Torah is the way to strengthen the relationship, anyone can create

a strong bond with the Ribono shel Olam.



7


והיו הכרבים פרשי כנפים וכו' ופניהם איש אל אחיו וכו':

The keruvim on top of the aron faced each other - ish el achiv, yet at the

same time, the posuk tells us that they looked at the kapores, the top of the

aron. What can we learn from the very specific positioning on the keruvim on

the aron?

HaRav Zalman Sorotzkin zt”l (in Sefer Oznayim l'Torah) suggests that the

Torah is communicating a vital lesson in how we are to relate to our fellow

Jews: The first step is that we must always be "ish panav el achiv" - facing our

brother. This is the first step in any human relationship; to focus on the other

person and not on our own personal interests. The Torah however warns us

that this is provided that "pneihem el ha'kapores" - they are focused on the

Torah contained in the aron below. All of our dealings with others must be

consistent with the Torah’s instructions. Even if we have the best intentions,

helping others in a way that goes against the ratzon Hashem isn't really helping

anyone. We would like to add the following: The keruvim were not separate

entities that were fashioned and then attached to the kapores. Rather, they

were formed from the gold mass of the kapores itself. Perhaps the message

here to us is that it is the Torah that unites us. The keruvim kept their gaze on

the kapores below to remind us that through Torah, all Jews are one.



8


והיו הכרבים פרשי כנפים וכו' ופניהם איש אל אחיו וכו':

The Keruvim that rested on top of the Aron faced each other. When Shlomo

Hamelech built the Beis Hamikdash, he erected two larger keruvim which were

designed to replicate the ones on the Aron, and placed them in the azara.

These keruvim did not face each other, but rather looked out towards their

surroundings. The gemara in Bava Basra (98b) seems to understand this as

somewhat of a contradiction and is quick to resolve the issue by saying "lo

kasha kan k'sheh osin retzono shel Makom, kan k'sheh ein osin..,"; when k'lal

Yisroel does the Ribono shel Olam's will, the keruvim face each other and when

they unfortunately fall short of this, they face away from each other.

This certainly begs explanation. We are dealing with two different sets of

keruvim. Why should they be exactly the same? Moreover, if the gemara meant

to ask as to why Shlomo Hamelech's keruvim weren't fashioned exactly like

those on the Aron, then why does the gemara explain that their positioning was

contingent on K'lal Yisroel's behavior? Furthermore, what does the gemara

mean by stating that the keruvim of Shlomo Hamelech indicated that K'lal

Yisroel was not fulfilling the ratzon Hashem'?

HaRav Zalman Sorotzkin zt”l (in sefer Oznayim LaTorah) suggests the following

approach: Ideally, Shlomo Hamelech's keruvim should have faced each other.

Not only this, but they also should have been fashioned in a manner that was

identical to those on the aron. HaRav Zalman Sorotzkin explains that when the



9


Aron was constructed, K'lal Yisroel had just received the Torah on Har Sinai and

was on a lofty madreigah. Their lives were fully rooted in Torah and thus Klal

Yisroel fulfilled the ratzon Hashem,completely. As such, the keruvim were

mounted on top of the Aron representing their roots set in Torah, facing each

other, signifying their fulfillment of the ratzon of HaKadosh Boruch Hu.

In the time of Shlomo Ha-melech, K'lal Yisroel''s level had diminished and it was

rooted in gashmius. This is not the ratzon Hashem. Therefore Shlomo

Hamelech fashioned those keruvim standing on the ground, symbolizing their

firm roots in earthly matters, and he therefore faced

them away from each other since the state of Klal Yisroel at that time was not a

fulfillment of ratzon Hashem.

בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים לא יסורו ממנו:

The Torah tells mandates that the aron have badim (staves) and prohibits

their removal. Indeed, Chazal tell us that one who removes them is liable to

receive malkus. This is not true of the badim of the mizbayach or shulchan

whose function was primarily for transporting them. The Meshech Chochmah

offers us the following insight: The aron is the symbol of Torah and talmidei

chachamim who fill their days with its study. In order for Torah to be full

developed, it must be supported on a constant basis. One who “takes a break”



10


from the mitzvah of hachzakas ha’Torah is “liable”. Rather, he must maintain the

relationship on and ongoing and constant basis.

Yet there is another dimension here as well. The Meshech Chochmah cites

the opinion of the Rambam that the menorah had to be kindled during the day.

This was presumably to convey to us that its lighting was not in order to supply

light, but rather for a higher reason. The same is true of the badim of the aron,

which Chazal tell us, carried the kohanim who “transported” it, and not the other

way around. Obviously, the aron’s need for the badim was non-existent. Rather,

they were there to allow the kohanim the opportunity to “hold on” and thereby

fulfill the mitzvah or “carrying” the aron. This is also true regarding the support

of Torah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu has many ways to sustain talmidei chachimim

and mosdos ha’Torah.

The “need” presents itself in order to give others the opportunity to share in the

mitzvah of “supporting” Torah.

ששת קני המנורה:...

The menorah in the mishkan had seven flames; one in the center, and

three on either side. HaRav Zalman Sorotzkin zt”l understands the menorah as

a symbol for the days of the week. Chazal tell us that Sunday, Monday and

Tuesday are days that are “after shabbos”. Indeed, one who did not make



11


havdala on motzei Shabbos can do so until Tuesday afternoon. Wednesday

however, is “before Shabbos”. In the menorah, the six branches represent the

six days of the week with Shabbos represented by the central lamp. The lesson,

explains HaRav Sorotzkin, is that Shabbos is to be the focus of our week.

Indeed, the Gemara tells us that whenever Shamai found a good piece of

meat, he would set it aside for Shabbos. If he would find something nicer the

next day, he would put it away for Shabbos and eat the one he had found

previously instead. Although Hillel would eat whatever came his way without

preparing for Shabbos until last minute, Rav Shimshon Pincus zt”l explains (in

Sefer She’arim b’Tefillah) that he only did so in order to perfect his bitachon,

and that is why the Gemara tells us “aval, Hillel, midah acheres hayah lo” -

however, Hillel conducted himself differently (i.e. he veered from the norm).



Documents

LESSONS IN HASHKAFA & HALACHA FROM THE PARSHA המ ור ת … · terumah” (and you shall take the terumah for Me) in the context of the building of the Mishkan, whereas regarding