Mishkan For All

The Rosh says that the teruma of זהב כסף נחושת alludes to three types of giving tzedakah.  There is the gold level of tzedakah when one gives out of their own volition, the silver level when one gives in a situation of distress and the נחושת level when one gives charity already on the deathbed.  

There are three opinions as to when the commandment to build the Mishkan was said.  Rashi (Ki Sesa 31:14) says it was said after Klal Yisrael were forgiven for the agel on Yom Kippur.  The Ramban's opinion is that the commandant to create the Mishkan was said before the agel but the donations were collected only afterward and the Zohar is of the opinion that the donations for the Mishkan were collected before the sin of the agel.  These three opinions, says the Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 6,) represent three types of Jews that all participated in the Mishkan.  The opinion of Rashi is that the Mishkan is donated by balei teshuva, the Jews after they were forgiven for the agel.  The Zohar's approach is that the Miskan was given when Klal Yisrael were tzaddikim, had not sinned at all.  The opinion of the Ramban is that the commandment of the Mishkan remained throughout the sin of the agel, representing reshaim.  All three are needed and have a place in their lives for the Mishkan.  All three need a place for kedusha in a physical form that they can access and contribute to.  The Rebbe adds these three correspond to the זהב כסף ונחושת for כסף related to chesed is the avodah of tzaddikim, zahav related to din is the avodah of balei teshuva and nechoshes related to the word nachash is related to the reshaim.  The first three donations correspond to the three groups of Klal Yisrael all represented in the building of the Mishkan. 

This may line up with the forms of tzeddakah the Rosh says is alluded to in the possuk.  The tzaddik gives tzeddakah without any external push, the bal teshuva gives when they are stuck like doing teshuva after a sin and the rasha gives only at the very end of his life, he doesn't want to take away from his own enjoyment when he could use the money for himself.

Hearty Building

 Gr"a on Shir Hashirim (1:17)

The Mishkan was a place of the gathering of the hearts of Klal Yisrael.  A person's body has to go here and there and be involved in daily pursuits but the heart can remain pure.  A person's desires do not have to be held captive by the pulls of the world and the heart of a person is the Mishkan within the individual.  The Mishkan is the place where all the hearts come together.  It is a manifistation in a physical sense of the purity of heart.  It is a place which rises above the tumah of the world where one connects to a place of pure holiness.  

The Sforno (25:9) לדבר עמך ולקבל תפלת ועבודת ישראל, לא כמו שהיה הענין קודם העגל, כאמרו ״בכל המקום וכו׳ אבוא אליך״.  The Sforno goes לשיטתו in a few places that the need for a Miדhkan was established only after the חטא העגל.  And he adds the point of the Mishkan is a place to daven to Hashem.  כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים, the Mishkan was a place of prayer, where one can pour out their heart before Hashem.

Put In The Fire

Rashi says תיעשה המנורה – מלא. לפי שהיה משה מתקשה בה, אמר הקב״ה: השלך הככר לאור והיא נעשית מאיליה. לכך לא נכתב: תעשה.  Moshe had a hard time understanding how to make the menorah so Hashem told him to throw it into a fire and it came out complete.  What was so difficult about the menorah specifically?  The Menorah represents the light of Torah (as discussed in the Netziv in detail.)  Moshe was astonished as to how one is supposed to be able to learn Torah in a manner in which it will illuminate the person and the world at large?  How can one merit to learn Torah in such a manner through all the difficulties one faces? Hashem answers thrown it into the fire, when one puts their energy into learning Torah, when one learns with a hislavus, then Hashem will give one the ability to understand and to penetrate the depths of the Torah so that it illuminates himself and the world at large (see Sfas Emes 5631.)

Double Command

וְנָתַתָּ֖ אֶל־הָאָרֹ֑ן אֵ֚ת הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ

וְנָתַתָּ֧ אֶת־הַכַּפֹּ֛רֶת עַל־הָאָרֹ֖ן מִלְמָ֑עְלָה וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ 

These pessukim are a mere 5 pessukim apart and the Rishonim ask why the repetition of placing the adut in the aron?  Rashi says ויש לומר: שבא ללמד שבעודו ארון לבדו בלא כפרת, יתן תחילה העדות בתוכו, ואחר כך יתן הכפרת עליו.  The repetition is teaching us that the adut is placed in the Aron before the kaporet is on.  The Ramban disagrees and holds the aron means with the kaporet so the possuk actually sounds the opposite that the adut should be placed after the kaporet is on.  Instead, he learns the possuk is explaining the function of the keruvim is as part of the place of the Shechina - נתת הכפרת עם כרוביו, שהכל דבר אחד, על הארון מלמעלה, כי אל הארון תתן את העדות אשר אתן אליך, כדי שיהיה לי כסא כבוד, כי אני אועד לך שמה (שמות ל׳:ו׳) ואשכוןב שכינתי עליהם.  In other words, according to Rashi the aron is an aron without the kaporet but according to the Ramban the aron is an aron only with the kaporet.  

According to Rashi the first pesskuim of the Aron are explaining its function as the place of the adut and then come five pessukim about the keruvim and the Torah repeats וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ to tell us that the adut has to do with the aron not with the keruvim.  The keruvim are part of the kaporet which is the place of communication between Hashem and Moshe.  These are two different parshiot.  First is the parsha of the aron and then is the parsha of the kaproet/keruvim.  In other words, we have the aron that holds the Torah, representing connection to Hashem through Torah and then the kaporet/keruvim which represents the direct connection between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  The reason why the kaporet is on top of the aron, says the Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 26,) is because the connection between Klal Yisrael and Hashem represented by the keruvim is greater, is on top of the connection that exists via the Torah.  The Torah repeats the command וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ to tell us that that the kaporet/keruvim are separate from the aron.

According to the Ramban it is all one parsha about functions of the aron.  First, we are introduced to the aron as housing the Torah and then we are introduced to the kaporet/keruvim which represent the presence of the Shechina.  The Torah then repeats the command וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ to say that these two functions go hand in hand.  The presence of the Shechina is through the kaporet/keruvim only because the Torah is there.   

Moving Forward

 וְיָצַ֣קְתָּ לּ֗וֹ אַרְבַּע֙ טַבְּעֹ֣ת זָהָ֔ב וְנָ֣תַתָּ֔ה עַ֖ל אַרְבַּ֣ע פַּעֲמֹתָ֑יו  

Rashi translates פעמתיו as corners.  The Even Ezra objects that the word פעם never means corners and instead translates it as legs as in מה יפו פעמיך.  He adds that logically it makes sense that the ארון would have legs for it is not becoming of it to rest directly on the ground.  The Ramban says that the Even Ezra's translation is wrong as well for the word פעם doesn't mean legs rather it means steps מה יפו פעמיך – פסיעותיך.  Furthermore, if the Torah meant legs, it would just say רגליים.  Instead he says it refers to the Kohanim's steps which indicates that his interpretation that the poles were at the bottom of the Aron (not like Rashi, see Netziv and Gur Aryeh.) 

Rav Walking suggests derech remez that the according to the Even Ezra the Torah uses the word פעם since the Aron represents Torah in order to be able to hold on to Torah properly one must constantly be taking strides to move forward.  

We say in the birchat haTorah נותן התורה, Hashem is constantly giving the Torah.  The Torah wasn't just given but is being given.  One must be ready to receive.  The Ramban says the Mishkan was a miniature reenactment of Har Sinai.  It was a daily reminder of the commitment to constantly be taking steps forward in learning Torah.  

The Ultimate Investment Opportunity

Harav Hagaon Shmuel Wolman Shlita

The Ramban, in his hakdamah to Sefer Shemos, highlights the common thread of this sefer, which begins with the kur habarzel of shibud Mitzrayim, followed by the geulah from Mitzrayim, and then Krias Yam Suf, all which is a preparation for Mattan Torah, which is the purpose of everything. But the Ramban explains that the culmination of the geulah occurred only after the Mishkan was built and the Shechinah began to dwell there.

Last week’s parashah ended with Klal Yisrael proclaiming “naaseh v’nishma,” which was the pinnacle of Kabbalas HaTorah, and this week’s parashah begins with binyan haMishkan. The parashah opens with the command: דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי, and the Baal Haturim points out that the term דַּבֵּר is a lashon of piyus, as in the passuk: דַּבְּרוּ עַל לֵב יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם, which is also a lashon of piyus. Why did Hakadosh Baruch Hu deem it necessary to appease Klal Yisrael in order to make them willing to participate in this mitzvah of donating to the Mishkan? The Baal Haturim explains that since this mitzvah required financial outlay, piyus was necessary, as Klal Yisrael had to be placated and encouraged to come forward with their donations.

This seems mind-boggling. We’re talking about the Dor Dei’ah, who just saw all the incredible nissim of Yetzias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf and witnessed before their eyes the fulfillment of all the promises of Bris Bein Habesarim, and they still need piyus in order to be willing to contribute to the loftiest of causes — building a place for the Shechinah of the Eibishter Himself to dwell? Besides, this Mishkan was going to be the channel of shefa, of all goodness, and a way for Klal Yisrael to attain kapparah. So why did this fundraising drive require piyus? Moreover, Klal Yisrael just become instant billionaires from the spoils of Mitzrayim, especially after Krias Yam Suf; Chazal describe each member of Klal Yisrael walking away with eighty donkeys laden with gold and other treasures. Was it really so hard to get Klal Yisrael to donate a little something for the Mishkan?

In a letter, the Alter from Kelm adds another element to the question. All of Klal Yisrael’s wealth at this point is what we call “easy money” — it was given to them literally overnight, miraculously, straight from the Eibishter Himself. How could Klal Yisrael not relish the opportunity to give a little of it back to the Eibishter?

The Alter saw this statement of Chazal as a testimony to the power of kochi ve’otzem yadi. So prone are we to want to own our successes and assets that we can become completely blind as to how those things came about. Klal Yisrael was actually capable of starting to believe that this was their hard-earned money, to the extent that it would become hard for them to part with it. Therefore, Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe Rabbeinu that he would need to use piyus to coax them into understanding the concept of וְזָכַרְתָּ אֶת ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ כִּי הוּא הַנֹּתֵן לְךָ כֹּחַ לַעֲשׂוֹת חָיִל.

This is in itself a tremendous lesson in how to relate to wealth, and how we must constantly bear in mind that מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל וּמִיָּדְךָ נָתַנּוּ לָךְ— which gives us clarity in how we are meant to distribute our assets. But if we internalize this concept, it extends to more than wealth, and can transform our approach to avodas Hashem. Every physical capability, every talent, and every ounce of strength is nothing short of a matnas chinam from the Eibishter. And it goes without saying that we should be focused on using all of these resources to do His ratzon.

But perhaps we can offer a different explanation of this need for piyus. The meforshim offer numerous ways to explain the juxtaposition between Parashas Mishpatim and Parashas Terumah, and Tanna Dvei Eliyahu addresses this smichus as follows: וכיון שקיבלו ישראל מלכות שמים בשמחה ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע, מיד אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה.  Tanna Dvei Eliyahu is explaining that Klal Yisrael received the command to donate for the Mishkan as a result of their joyous declaration of naaseh v’nishma. How are we to understand the connection between this specific mitzvah of nidvas haMishkan to Klal Yisrael’s saying naaseh v’nishma?

The answer might lie in what seems to be a strange lashon: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה. Why is donating to the Mishkan described in terms of taking, as if Klal Yisrael was given to the opportunity to take or receive something?

The key lies in the word after וְיִקְחוּ, which is לִי. The Midrash explains that this word does not merely describe the destination of the donation, or the motive behind the giving, but is actually a description of what Klal Yisrael will be getting through their donation. Their physical act was one of giving, but Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to drive home what was really happening: Through Klal Yisrael’s donating to build the place of the Eibishter’s hashraas haShechinah, they were receiving an incredible opportunity to, so to speak, “get” the Eibishter. Through the terumah, they would “take Me.” When a person donates to the Eibishter’s Mishkan, it creates a connection with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and hence the lashon וְיִקְחוּ לִי.

How do we understand this incredible power? How can a mere donation of material goods create such a dveikus in Hakadosh Baruch Hu that can be described, kaveyachol, as taking Him?

To understand this concept, we need to discuss a few more questions regarding the donations to the Mishkan.  The Dubno Maggid asks: Why did the Eibisher’s place of hashraas haShechinah, which was purely spiritual, require all these material items — gold, silver, copper, and the like?  Furthermore, the Nesivos, in his sefer Nachlas Yaakov, notes that the Midrash seems to state clearly that Moshe Rabbeinu, who transmitted the command to donate to the Mishkan, was never told to contribute or be part of the donations to the Mishkan on a personal level. How do we understand Moshe Rabbeinu’s exclusion from this tremendous opportunity for dveikus in Hakadosh Baruch Hu?

Lastly, we know from the Gemara in Kiddushin how precious and expensive the avnei miluim were, so why were they listed at the end, and not at the top of the list, with the gold?

The answer is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not require our financial assistance, as the passuk states: לִי הַכֶּסֶף וְלִי הַזָּהָב. He was looking for nothing more than an expression of nedivus lev. In building the Mishkan, He was not seeking a place for his Shechinah, but rather the opportunity to dwell in the heart of each Yid. He wanted the process of donating to the Mishkan to create a real connection between Himself and Klal Yisrael, and He told Moshe Rabbeinu that the way to create that connection is through donating to the Mishkan. When Klal Yisrael give happily of their possessions to the Eibishter, that expresses nedivus lev, and that is the hidden power that creates the תּוֹכוֹ רָצוּף אַהֲבָה, the dveikus of וְיִקְחוּ לִי, which ultimately leads to וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם — in the heart of each individual.

Accordingly, explains the Dubno Maggid, the Eibishter commanded Klal Yisrael to specifically give their most expensive, valuable material commodities. This was not because he wanted or needed the Shechinah’s abode to be high-end; rather, it was a way for Klal Yisrael, who treasured these items, to display and embody nedivus lev through giving their cherished items to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. These items were merely a vehicle of nedivus lev. Accordingly, says the Nesivos, Moshe Rabbeinu — who was far removed from any desire for these riches — would not express nedivus lev through donating them, and he was therefore not included in this exercise.

The avnei miluim were extremely valuable, but the Gemara in Yoma tells us that they were literally dropped off by a cloud. Klal Yisrael did nothing to attain these items, so they felt barely any connection to them. Since the avnei miluim were just a handout from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they were the easiest items for Klal Yisrael to part with. Therefore, they are listed last, because the items on the list are ranked according to the nedivus halev factor.

With this understanding of the deeper meaning of the donations to the Mishkan, we can now understand the need for piyus when Klal Yisrael were asked to donate. Had they been asked merely to donate their newfound riches for the sake of the Eibishter, they would have immediately jumped at the opportunity. But they knew that the Eibishter lacks nothing and was obviously not asking for help. This was no ordinary fundraising drive or building campaign — it was Hakadosh Baruch Hu asking for nedivus halev. Yes, the physical manifestation was parting with their cherished valuables, but that was not really the request. Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted Klal Yisrael not just to give, but to crave to give, to savor the opportunity, to appreciate how giving to the Eibishter is the ultimate receiving: וְיִקְחוּ לִי. And giving at that level requires a lashon of piyus: דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Perhaps this is the depth of the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu’s statement. When Klal Yisrael joyously declared naaseh v’nishma, they showed their appreciation for the opportunity to perform Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s mitzvos and do His will. The emphasis of the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu is not just Klal Yisrael’s willingness to commit to naaseh v’nishma, but rather that they did this b’simchah, as it says: וכיון שקיבלו ישראל מלכות שמים בשמחה.

When Hakadosh Baruch Hu perceived that simchah for avodas Hashem, he saw that Klal Yisrael had reached the madreigah at which their giving would be with the nedivus halev that would create the dveikus of וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם — בתוך כל אחד ואחד. That’s when He immediately issued the command of דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה.

As we read through these parashiyos of Sefer Shemos and experience the shibud, and Yetzias Mitzrayim, with the understanding that this is all a conduit for Klal Yisrael to become the Am Hanivchar — bnei chorin, or geulim, in the words of the Ramban — we can begin to appreciate that the climactic moment of naaseh v’nishma, coupled with the construction of the Mishkan and the donations to it, created the dveikus with Hakadosh Baruch Hu that allows each one of us to feel the Shechinah deep in our hearts. But we are very clearly taught that the one and only way to create that connection and relationship is through authentic nedivus halev and avodas Hashem that is not self-serving, but is, rather, an outgrowth of appreciating that doing the Eibishter’s ratzon is never an expense — it’s the ultimate investment, which results in the precious dividend of וְיִקְחוּ לִי and קִרֲבַת אֱלֹקִים לִי טוֹב.

Katan And Terumah

The Mishna in Terumot (1:1) says משנה חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו אין תרומתן תרומה החרש והשוטה והקטן והתורם את שאינו שלו.  The Yerushalmi Terumot (1a) says  the reason ר' שמואל בר נחמן שמע לכולהון מן הכא דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה פרט לגוי מאת כל איש פרט לקטן אשר ידבנו לבו פרט לחרש ולשוטה וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם פרט לתורם את שאינו שלו.  [The yerushalmi learns terumah on produce from the terumah given to the mishkan.]  Rashi in Shabbat (153b) where this Mishna is quoted says ותורם את שאינו שלו - בלא רשות דכתיב (דברים י״ד:כ״ב) תבואת זרעך וחרש שוטה וקטן דכתיב אשר ידבנו לבו שיש לו לב להתנדב בהש"ס ירושלמי:  He seems to misquote the Yerushlami for he excludes a katan not from איש but from אשר ידבנו לבו?  The Ridvaz on the Rambam Terumot (4:2) asks why does the Yerushalmi not learn it out from the exclusion of אשר ידבנו לבו?  He answers the Yerushalmi holds that even a קטן שהגיע לעונת נדרים that has daas to make a nedavah is also excluded.  The Rambam himself (4:5) rules that a katan שהגיע לעונת נדרים can separate terumah based upon Rebbe Yose in niddah (46b.)  So, as the Emrei Binah (Terumot siman 8) points out the Rambam must not hold of the Yerushalmi that rejects a katan from a scriptural reference of איש.  In light of this, one could say for some reason Rashi wanted to contend for the opinion that a katan שהגיע לעונת נדרים can separate terumah and therefore switched the limmud to exclude him from אשר ידבנו לבו.  However, the Ketzos (188:3) points out that Rashi in Bava Metzia (71b) says a katan is excluded from shlichut because shlichut is learnt from terumah (גם אתם לרבות שלוחכם) and just a katan is excluded from terumah, so he is excluded from shlichut.  If a katan שהגיע לעונת נדרים can separate terumah he should be able to be a shliach?  He therefore concludes the Rambam must disagree and holds he is excluded since he excluded from giving a get as Rashi Kiddushin (42a) says אין שליחות לקטן דגבי ושלח ושלחה איש כתיב (דברים כ״ד:א׳) כי יקח איש ומינה ילפינן (בב"מ דף עא:) דאין הקטן עושה שליח.  So this Rashi would comew out not like the Rashi in Bava Metzia but could fit with Rashi Kiddushin.  [It is difficult why did Rashi Bava Metzia not just say like he says in Kiddushin which would work according to everyone, וצ"ע.]  Also Rashi in Yevamot (113a) explains והתורם את שאינו שלו because of a different reason - התורם את שאינו שלו - ולא צוהו בעל הבית דשליחות נפקא לן (קדושין דף מא:) מאתם גם אתם לרבות שלוחכם הלכך מה אתם לדעתכם אף שלוחכם לדעתכם:  Why did he switch his explanation from Tractate Shabbas to Tractate Yevamot? 

Building Through Sacrifice

According to Rashi Ki Sesa (36:18) the mishkan was only commanded to be built after the sin of the egel, so why are the parshiot of the mishkan before the sin?  The Malbim points out the the donations had to be given willingly and voluntarily.  לא אמר ויתנו לי תרומה, שאז היה מ"ע וחיוב על כל אחד ליתן, וה' רצה שתרומה זו תהיה מנדבת לב ורצון חפשי לא ע"י שום הכרח, ואם היה הצווי שיתנו, היו נותנים בהכרח ע"י הצווים לכן באר שאינו מצוה שיתנו רק שימנו גבאים לקבל ממי שירצה ניתן.  Why did the donations have to be given willingly?  

The Gra on Sefer Yitzirah (1:8) explains the idea of a brit: אומר לך מהו ענין ברית והוא אדם שיש לו אוהב כנפשו ורוצה שלא יפרוש ממנו אבל א"א להיות אצלו נותן לו דבר שכל מגמתו ותשוקתו אליו והן נקשרים ע"י הדבר ההוא אע"פ שנוטל ממנו את הדבר מ"מ כל מחשבתו שם הוא, ולשון ברית הוא הבטחה שע"י הדבר ההוא ודאי לא יתפרד ממנו, וזהו ענין לשון כריתה שכורת ממנו דבר הדבוק לו ונותן לו, וכן הוא הקשת שהוא דבר מאצלו יתברך, ונשתבשו בו כל הפילוסופים והמפרשים הנמשכים אחריהם לפי שהוא דבר למעלה מן השכל, וכן היא התורה והמילה הן דברים אמצעים בין הבורא ית' ובין ישראל, וכל זה לפי שאין יכולת להשיגו בעצמו ית'. וכן היו צריכין ישראל במשכן ומקדש לאמצעים כמו ארון וכרובים ונקרא ארון הברית הכל לפי שא"א להשיגו רק ע"י אמצעים.  The giving of the Torah was Hashem giving us something G-dly to us.  As the Ketzos explains in his introduction when the Torah was given to mankind, man now owns the Torah and the laws are decided based upon their decisions.  That is the דבר שכל מגמתו ותשוקתו אליו that Hashem gave us.  The Torah was given to mankind as an expression of Hasem's love for Klal Yisroel.  To complete the relationship Klal Yisroel had to give something back.  The point of the donations was not to collect a building fund, Hashem can create His own house.  The point was for Klal Yisroel to give something up of themselves for Hashem. 

ושכני בתוך כל אחד ואחד.  Hashem comes to the person who's love for Hashem is so great they are willing to sacrifice for Him.  They are willing to part with something for His sake.  The possuk  says וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה מֵאֵ֤ת כׇּל־אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִדְּבֶ֣נּוּ לִבּ֔וֹ תִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִֽי, why the double terumah, why does it say תרומה and afterward תרומתי and why is the nediv lev in the middle?  The Ohav Yisroel says על דרך רמז the world was created with a ה and the next world with a י.  For the average person, what matters to him is this world, that perosn's sacrifice is תרום ה, to give up some of his money, wealth and riches.  The tzaddik, one who is nediv lev to always be attached to Hashem, he must give תרומת י, he must give up some of his time, energy and spiritual abilities to help the greater good.  Everyone must give that which is harder for them.  The rich perosn can't say they will take out an hour to learn with someone else and the tzaddik can't just offer a donation for that is not a true giving.  A true giving is to give from yourself, whatever is most cherished and precious for Hashem. 

"As one of the Alter Rebbe’s wealthy chassidim advanced in years, he was able to marry off his children and establish them in business. A generous man by nature, when the responsibilities of his immediate family became less pressing, he committed himself to pay for the weddings and dowries of his relatives’ children. Suddenly, however, his business affairs took a sharp turn for the worse, and instead of being affluent, he found himself in debt and unable to meet his commitments. Before his financial situation became public knowledge, he hurried to Liozna to receive advice and blessings from the Alter Rebbe. At yechidus, he poured out his heart to the Rebbe, saying that he was prepared to remain impoverished himself, but he needed to pay his debts and honor the commitments that he had made to his relatives. The Alter Rebbe responded: “You are speaking about what you need. But you have not given a thought to what you are needed for." (chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/78968/jewish/Chapter-1-What-You-Need-and-What-You-are-Needed-For.htm.)

Two Functions Of Beis Din

The Gemorah in Shavuot (14b-15a) that additions to the Mikdash or Jerusalem can only be done with a king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges because it says ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו וכן תעשו and the Gemorah has a derash לדורות.  Rashi explains וכן תעשו - קרא יתירא למידרש לדורות ובימי משה דהוא מלך ונביא ואחיו כהן גדול ואורים ותומים ושבעים זקנים:

The Rambam Sanhedrin (5:1) says: וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת וְלֹא מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת וְלִמְדִידַת הֶחָלָל אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יח כב) "כָּל הַדָּבָר הַגָּדל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ."  The Kesef Mishna asks תימה הוא זה שמביא האי קרא דכל הדבר הגדול לתוספת העיר והעזרות ובגמ' מביא פסוק אחר וכן תעשו דדרשינן וכן תעשו לדורות והוא מביא האי קרא דכל הדבר הגדול?  To make matters worse, the Rambam himself brings the possuk of the Gemorah in Beas Mikdash (6:11) בֵּית דִּין שֶׁרָצוּ לְהוֹסִיף עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹ לְהוֹסִיף עַל הָעֲזָרָה מוֹסִיפִין. וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם לִמְשֹׁךְ הָעֲזָרָה עַד הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ מֵהַר הַבַּיִת וְלִמְשֹׁךְ חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ:אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר אוֹ עַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְעַל פִּי נָבִיא וּבְאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים וְעַל פִּי סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד זְקֵנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כה ט) "כְּכל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ" וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ לְדוֹרוֹת. וּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ מֶלֶךְ הָיָה: A contradiction in Rambam?   

The Briskor Rav on this halacha explains that there are two functions of Sanhedrin.  Sometimes Sanhedrin is necessary as a body of law to enact certain things.  Other times they may just act as the representatives of the entirety of Klal Yisroel.  In the Laws of Sanhedrin the Rambam is listing things where the Sanhedrin must act as a body of law to accomplish certain things.  Matters that are דבר הגדול require the act of ב"ד הגדול.  That is one aspect of adding to the Mikdash or Jerusalem.  It is a דבר הגדול and requires the Sanhedrin.  

In the Laws of Beas Mikdash the Rambam starts off saying ב"ד שרצו להוסיף he is talking about the בית דין, so then why does he say you need the Sanhedrin of 71?  And why the switch in terminology from בית דין to סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד?  And why in Laws of Sanhedrin does he call them the בית דין הגדול and in Beas Mikdash סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד?  Because the Rambam here is adding the second function of the Sanhedrin.  The בית דין that decides when to do דברים גדולים  requires as part of the process of adding to the Mikdash/ Jerusalem the סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד to represent the body of Kal Yisroel.  In this function of representing Kal Yisroel they are called סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.  It is only when they are acting as the great Beis Din to decide great matters that they are called בית דין הגדול.  Now we understand why the Rambam needs both pessukim.  The possuk of כָּל הַדָּבָר הַגָּדל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ tells us that the Sanhedrin is required to act in doing matters of great importance.  In Beas Mikdash he brings וכן תעשו as part of the process of doing sanctification the Sanhedrin is required to represent Klal Yisroel.  (Based upon a shiur from Rav Ozer.)   

Don't Copy Me

The Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah (140:5) brings the law that one is not allowed to make vessels that look like the one's of the mikdash.  The Shach understands if one makes a menorah without גביעים וכפתורים one violates this prohibition only by a menorah of non- gold metal for only then it is כשר as discussed in the last post.  Rebbe Akiva Eger brings the Tevuos Shor holds that even a menorah made of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is prohibited.  Why should it be prohibited if its not kosher for the menoras mikdash?
There are two ways to understand this prohibition of mimicking vessels of the mikdash.  The simple read of the Gemorah in Avodah Zarah (43a-b) is that its the same prohibition as making images of angelic creators which the prohibition at the end of Mishpatim, לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם.  However, the Rambam cites the prohibition in Beis Habechirah (8:10) in the context of מורה מקדש.  From here the Minchas Chinuch (39:1) proves that the Rambam holds its not the aforementioned issur of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, rather imitating the kelim of the mikdash is a lack of יראת מקדש.  This is explicit in the Chinuch (254) as well.
Based upon the last post where we established that the menorah of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is kosher for lighting, just not kosher to fulfill the din of making a menorah, says the Masseh Yad we can understand the machlokes baed upon the previous two ways of understanding the issur of mimiking the kelim of the mikdash,.  If its a violation of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, that applies here as well for it is kosher for lighting.  However, if its a violation of מורה מקדש is is inapplicable for it is not classified as an object of the mikdash.

Lighting The Lantern

The Rambam Beis Habechirah (3:3-4) says נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הַגְּבִיעִים שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים. וְהַפְּרָחִים תִּשְׁעָה. וְהַכַּפְתּוֹרִים אַחַד עָשָׂר. וְכֻלָּן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ חָסֵר אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים מְעַכֵּב אֶת כֻּלָּן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעֲשָׂאוּהָ זָהָב. אֲבָל שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים.  His source is from Menachos (28a.)  The Achronim ask why is a gold menorah without the adornments פסול, why is it worse than a menorah made out of other metals?  The Gemorah (ibid) says that the menorah must have 7 branches for it says כפתוריהם וקנותם ממנה יהיו, the word יהיו tells us that it must be the way the possuk says (Gemorah and Rashi.)  The Masseh Yad cites the Briskor Rav asks why do we need a local din over here, it should be מעכב because of the din said by all כלי מקדש that they have to be maid according to the prescribed measurements as the possuk says הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל כֹּ֖ל מַלְאֲכ֥וֹת הַתַּבְנִֽית and the Gemorah in Chullin (83b) and Eruvin (104a) is clear that we learn from here the measurements are exact?  [The assumption of the question is subject to debate is the din of הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל is מעכב and if it applies להלכה, but we will grant the assertion.]  [Also, I didn't find this question in the Briskor Rav, I did see it in the Rinas Yitzchak in the name of Rav Dovid Solevetchik who spells out he's asking according to Rav Chayim that holds הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל is מעכב.]  The Rav (or Rav Dovid) answers that the rule of הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל says that vessel isn't considered part of the mikdash; in case in point the menorah won't be kosher to be the menorah of the mikdash.  However, the vessel still has the status of a kli sharash and therefore one would be able to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting the menorah with it.

Similarly, says the Masseh Yad, regarding the menorah without the גביעים וכפתורים.  A non-gold menorah isn't kosher for the mitzvah of having a menorah as part of the mishkan. It is a valid keli that one may use to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting, but it isn't part of the mikdash. Therefore, we can say yes, a menorah without גביעים וכפתורים is no worse than a menorah of other metals. However, that only makes it kosher for lighting. The halacha that says its מעכב is in reference to being kosher as the menorah of the mikdash; that it is not. (The idea is already mentioned in מכתבי תורה from the Rogatchover #79.)

Face The Middle

Rashi in the beginning of Behaloscha says יאירו שבעת הנרות – שעל ששת הקנים, שלשה מזרחיים (ה)פונים למול האמצע הפתילות שבהן, וכן שלשה מערביים ראשי הפתילות למול האמצעי. ולמה? כדי שלא יאמרו לאורה הוא צריך.  Rashi is saying that the din of אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is said on the wicks, not on the menorah itself.  This means that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת isn't a din in the form and making of the מנורה, rather its a din in the lighting of the menorah (Briskor Rav.)  Rashi in this week's parsha (25:37) on the possuk וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ says והעלה את נרותיה והאיר אל עבר פניה – עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאין מצידיה מסובין כלפי האמצעי, כדי שיהו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים על עבר פניה – מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה.  This Rashi sounds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din that the nerot themselves should be facing the middle.  At face value it would seem that this Rashi contradicts the Rashi in Behaloshca is it a din in the wicks or a din in the nerot? It would seem that Rashi holds there are two dinim in this din.  One is a din in the lighting of the menorah, that is Behalosacha, and another is a din in the form of the menorah itself and that is parshas Terumah (see Bear Miriyam.)  [It is noteworthy that the Daas Zekanim does have a different way of learning the pessukim, as he sees in Terumah פי׳ והאירה המנורה אל השלחן שכנגד פניה של מנורה כדכתיב בפרשת ותכל וישם המנורה באהל מועד נכח השלחן מכלל דלהאיר על השלחן היתה המנורה וכן כתיב בפרשת בהעלותך אל מול פני המנורה דהיינו שלחן יאירו שבעת הנרות.]

The Rambam (Beis Habechirah 3:8) says שֵׁשֶׁת הַנֵּרוֹת הַקְּבוּעִים בְּשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה כֻּלָּן פְּנֵיהֶם לַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁעַל קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה וְזֶה הַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נֵר מַעֲרָבִי:  The Rambam is saying like Rashi in Terumah and note that the Rambam isn't writing in Laws of temmidim U'mussofim, rather in the Laws of Beis Habechirah.  One would infer from this that the Rambam holds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din in the fashioning of the menorah.  The Briskor Rav finds this to be impossible for the possuk says דַּבֵּר֙ אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֵלָ֑יו בְּהַעֲלֹֽתְךָ֙ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹ֔ת אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת, there is a command to Aharon.  If its a din in fashioning the menorah, what does it have to do with Aharon, he's the lighter, not the craftsman making the menorah?  We see it must be a din in lighting the menorah.  Therefore, he says that yes, the Rambam holds its a din that's applied to the nerot themselves, but that's merely the application, however, the yesod hadin is in the lighting of the menorah.  Hence, he concludes the nerot must only be tilting toward the middle when the menorah is lit, however,during the time its not lit, the menorah will still be a menorah even if the nerot aren't facing toward the middle.

However, in light of the Rashi in Terumah we do have a source for the simple reading of the Rambam that the din of the nerot facing the middle is a din in the fashioning of the menorah; the pssuk in Terumah.  The Rambam may derive from here the din that the menorah must have the nerot fashioned facing the middle.  Then we get to Behaloscha, when we encounter that its a din in lighting the menorah, Rashi holds it tells us something else, the wicks themselves must face inward.  The Rambam on the other hand, held it tells us that the din of facing the menorah is also a din in lighting the menorah (see Torah Or on Briskor Rav.)  What difference does it make that its also a din in lighting the menorah?  The difference will be if they aren't using the menorah of gold, rather of other metals, where it doesn't have the dinim that exist in forming the menorah (see Rambam ibid Law 4,) there still will be an obligation that when the menorah is lit, the nerot will have to be facing the middle.

Chavrusa Power

From מגד גבעות עולם volume 2 pg. 8.

                                        A similar idea in the Sukkos Dovid and he adds

Rashi in Berashis (3:24) says את הכרובים - מלאכי חבלה. In our parsha he explains כרבים - דמות פרצוף תינוק להם. Even מלאכי חבלה can become sweet children if they are learning torah properly with a chavrusa.

How To Donate

( לה:ה) קחו מאתכם תרומה לה' כל נדיב לבו יביאה את תרומת ה' זהב וכסף ונחושת

רמבּ"ן - יביאה את תרומת י״י  – כמו: יביא את תרומת ה׳, אבל יכנה ויפרש. וכן: ותפתח ותראהו את הילד (שמות ב׳:ו׳), בבואו האיש (יחזקאל י׳:ג׳), אשר לא יעבדו אותו את נבוכדנצר (ירמיהו כ״ז:ח׳), אשר אנכי נותן להם לבני ישראל(יהושע א׳:ב׳), ורבים כן.

ועל דרך האמת: הוא כמו יביאה עם תרומת י״י, שיביא התרומה העליונה בסוד: ויקחו לי תרומה (שמות כ״ה:ב׳), וכבר פרשתיו (רמב״ן שמות כ״ה:ג׳). ולרבותינו מדרש בותפתח ותראהו את הילד (שמות ב׳:ו׳), שראתה עמו שכינה(בבלי סוטה י״ב:).

The end of the Ramban is strange, why is he citing an explanation of Chazal on an earlier verse when he just finished bringing this a proof that this is the normal way of the verse to speak?  The Alter from Kelm explains that the Ramban is giving another explanation of  our verse.  Just as Chazal interpret ותפתח ותראהו את הילד, the word ותראהו isn't referring to the child, rather to the Shechina that was there, so too in our verse the word יביאה isn't going on the donations, rather it goes on what was mentioned previously, the נדיבות לב.  What built the mishkan wasn't physical materials, it was the hearts of Klal Yisroel.  

For those that want to understand the דרך האמת of the Ramban, they should look in the Zohar that יביאה refers to the Shechina.  When a person gives to the teruma to Hashem, the Shechina becomes united with him (based upon וענפיה ערזי אל.)

Ramp

Rashi (27:5) says that we know that the mizbaoch had a ramp from the end of Yisro that there is a negative commandment not to use steps to go up on the mizbaoch.  The Briskor Rav asks the need for a ramp is learnt in Zevachim 62a (Rashi ד"ה שכל מקום) from a different source?  And how do we see from Yisro that there must be a ramp built for the mizbaoch, all we know is that there is a violation of going up on stairs?  He explains that the issur is said לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי, there must be a דין מזבח, it must be considered מזבחי on the part of the מזבח that the person is scaling to violate the commandment.  Ergo, there must be a כבש that has a דין מזבח on it, otherwise there would not be any violation of going up on the מזבח.  The issur teaches us that there must be a pathway up the מזבח that is considered part of the מזבח. 

All About The Giving

Rashi says that the terumas hamishkan had to be given לשמה (לי-לשמי.)  Why does there have to be an emphasis that it should be given with intent for the mitzvah, every mitzvah is supposed to be done with intent of fulfilling the mitzvah?  The Tavas Gomah asks why is there a requirement that the terumah be given לשמה, we find many sources where its clear that one fulfills the mitzvah of tzedakah even without intent?  Each of these questions answers the other one.  One would have thought that the mitzvah is like tzedakah, the mitzvah is to support the mikdash and it could be fulfilled even if the donation wasn’t purely given for the sake of the mitzvah, קמ"ל  that isn’t the case over here, there is a mitzvah of giving.  When it comes to tzedakah, one fulfills the mitzvah because the point is that the poor person should be supported and that is accomplished even if the giver didn’t have intent for the mitzvah.  However, when it comes to donating to the mishkan, the mitzvah is the act of giving. 

Why is the mitzvah specifically to give?  The possuk in Shir Hashirim 3:10 describes the inside of the mishkan as being adorned with love.  The mishkan reflected the closeness of Hashem with Klal Yisroel.  The donations weren’t to build a building, they were supposed to reflect the love Klal Yisroel felt toward Hashem; hence the donations had to be given with the proper intent.

Torah And Mishkan

The Ramban explains it says ועשו ארון in the plural sense because everyone has a portion in Torah.  

The Nitziv (and others) elaborate on the fact that the menorah represents chochmos haTorah.  So why doesn’t it use a plural language in regard to the menorah like it says regarding the  aron?  The menorah is connected to Torah shebaal peh as opposed to the aron (which contains the luchos and a sefer Torah), represents Torah shebecsav.   Torah shebaal peh isn’t for everyone.  It requires a lot of work to acquire and not everyone is equipped for it.  But Torah shebecsav is for everyone to find their connection to it.   

Why is the first object of the mishkan mentioned the aron, one would think it should be last for it wasn't used for any avodah?  The Ramban explains that the function of the mishkan was for there to be a place of the hashras haShechina.  The main object that carried out this function was the aron for it was where Hashem spoke to Moshe and contained the Torah.  [Even the Rambam may agree that this was the main function of the mikdash, see back of Likutay Sichos volume 4 pg. 1346 footnote 24 here.]  The midrash in Pekuday says that Moshe was the one who had to stand the mishkan up.  Why did it have to be erected specifically by Moshe?  The Alter of Slobadka explains that to set up a mishkan you need the power of Torah.  Moshe is the teacher of Torah, hence he must erect the mishkan.  The hashraes hashechina only comes about through the power of Torah.  [The mishkan itself was an extension of maatan Torah according to the Ramban.] 

Terumah, Not Mikdash

If you were to sum up this week’s parsha in one word I would assume the answer would be mishkan.  However, that isn’t the name of the parsha, rather it’s Teruma.  Why is the name Teruma and not mishkan? 

The Ramban based upon the midrash, says that the mishkan was an extension of maatan Torah.  That may be why the possuk (26:30) וַהֲקֵמֹתָ֖ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֑ן כְּמִ֨שְׁפָּט֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הׇרְאֵ֖יתָ בָּהָֽר emphasizes the connection to mattan Torah for the mishkan is an extension of that event (footnote Likutay Sichos volume 24 pg. 16.)  The communicating with Hashem via avodah and Hashem communicating from the mishkan was a reenactment of the giving of the Torah.  However, we find a major difference between them.  After the giving of the Torah at Sinai, the place retains no kedusha at all.  On the other hand, the Tanna Deva Eliyahu Rabba at the end of chapter 25 (and Rashi in Yoma 72a and Succah 45a) say that the kedusha of the mishkan lasts even after it was hidden away.  It is clear from here that the kedusha doesn’t emanate from the avodah done within the walls, rather it is something intrinsic.  Why does the mishkan retain kedusha but Sinai doesn’t?  There is a stark difference between the kedusha which existed at Sinai and the kedusha of the mishkan.  The kedusha of Sinai came from above, it was a עתערותא מלעילא that occurred because Hashem infused the place with kedusha.  Such a kedusha has a tremendous power, but because of its great power it can’t fully be contained by the recipient.  Therefore, once the power source leaves, once the Divine presence retreated, then the kedusha vanishes along with it.  The mishkan on the other hand, obtained its kedusha from Klal Yisroel.  It was their donations and building that brought down the Divine presence.  This level of kedusha is brought about by the recipient and hence can be contained.  
That is why the name of the parsha is Teruma.  The greatness of the mishkan isn’t that the Divine presence came to rest in a building, that is no different than the revelation at Sinai, the greatness is that it’s the actions, the terumah of a person that can cause the Divine presence to rest (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 21.)

The Foundation Of Emunah

Rashi brings from the Tanchuma that the cedar trees used in the mishkan were obtained from trees Yaakov planted in Egypt.  Asks the Even Ezra asks how do we know that the trees were planted by Yaakov, the trees could have been obtained from the surrounding nations or from an oasis in the desert?  The Rebbe explains that all the donations are connected to the verb of veyikchu which implies that the donation was already in the possession of the people, and all they had to do was give it.  How did they already have trees in their possession?  Rashi explains that they had trees in their possession for Yaakov already planted them.

However, why did Yaakov plant the trees if there were other means of obtaining wood for the mishkan?  And why does Rashi say the comment comes from the Tanchuma, what does the source add?  The Rebbe explains that Yaakov didn’t plant the trees because there was a lack of wood; he planted trees because there was a lack of emunah.  Klal Yisroel sunk so low in the golus that they would’ve given up on being redeemed.  However, when they saw the trees that Yaakov planted, they were reminded of the promise of geulah.  It was the trees that gave them the hope to realize that one day they would be redeemed.  That’s why Rashi cites the Tanchuma.  Tanchuma comes from the word nechame.  Rashi is hinting to this idea that the trees served as the comfort for Klal Yisroel.  The Rebbe goes on to explain that the trees of our generation are the tzadik katamar yifrach.  The tzaddikim who constantly remind us about the geulah give us the strength to reach the goal (Likutay Sichos volume 31.) [See also Emes L'Yaakov here and in Vayigash 46:1 and see here.]

The trees were used to make the beams, the basic structure of the mishkan.  It is the foundations of emunah u’bitachon that our (for)fathers instill in us that give us the capability to build a mishkan.  It is only because of the אלקי אבי that there can be a זה קלי ואנוהו.  It is only an unshakable foundation from the avos that we can build a beautiful structure on top of it (Mayen Hashavua.)

Showbread

וְנָֽתַתָּ֧ עַל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד.  Why is this פסוק in the פרשה over here when we are discussing the כלים of the מקדש?  

The ספרי in עקב says that the לחם הפנים weren't made in the midbar.  The Daas Zekanim in Pekuday asks that the possuk in this week's parsha contradicts this for it says to make the לחם הפנים even in the midbar?  He answers that for the chinuch hashulchan it was required.  However, he asks that the Gemorah in Menachos 95 is clear that the lechem hapanim was offered in the midbar?

Rav Baskshi Daron (Binyan Av volume 1 #53) explains that we see from the possuk in our parsha that the lechem hapanim isn't just showbread placed on the shulchan, it isn't merely its own offering, its part of the shulchan.  A shulchan without lechem hapanim isn't considered a shulchan.  Rav Yaakov Elon uses this yesod to answer the Sifri.  The Sifri also agrees the lechem hapanim were placed on the shulchan in the midbar, however that is because of the requirement to make a shulchan which includes the lechem hapanim.  The intent of the Sifri is that there is no din korban on the lechem hapanim in the midbar.  What difference does it make if it was made as part of the shulchan or as a korban?  Do you have to burn the bazichin; if the lechem hapanim is there just to complete the shulchan than bazichin may not be required.