The Klal And The Individual

There are two types of korbanos.  There are korbanos of the tzibbur such as the korban tammid where one korban is offered for the entity of Klal Yisrael.  There is another type of korban which is a korban yachid where a private indivdual has an obligation or offers to bring a korban of his one.  The Rambam splits these two categories into the different books, the book of Korbanot which deals with the individual korbanot and the book of Avodah which coves the communal obligations.  The korban pesach is an interesting korban in that it is a korban yachid offered by every individual but at the same time it is qualified as a korban tzibbur (the Yerushalmi says that is why it overrides Shabbos, see also Yoma (51a) פסח נמי אתי בכנופיא.)  (See about this in this book pg. 192-196 (in the pg. numbers on top,) article קורבן הפסח and sicha of the Rebbe volume 18 Behaloscha sicha 2.)  Or in another words as the Rebbe clarifies in a footnote based upon the Rogatchover's breakdown (מפענח צפונות פרק ד,) normally a tzibbur is a sum that is greater than the sum of its parts but in the korban pesach the tzibbur is the combination of all the individuals lumped together.  

The Rebbe goes on to explain the "טעם פנימי" for why this duality is present in the korban pesach.  Pesach is the time of the birth of Klal Yisrale and therefore the korban pesach carries two elements of Klal Yisrael.  On the one hand it is the body of Klal Yisrael, the tzibbur that is of vital importance but at the same time every individual also is important in his/ her own right.  These two perspectives are alluded to by Hillel in Avos אם אין אני לי מי לי, everyone has their own mission and is important in their own right but at the same time, וכשאני לעצמי מה אני, one has to be acting as part of the klal, one's actions as a yachid has to have a place as part of the general klal.  This dichotomy or paradox of acknowledging both the individual and the tzibbur is fraught with tension but is the goal.   

This paradox is also highlighted by the parshios of Vayakhel and Pekuday.  The name Vayakhel means a gathering yet the parsha details every individual vessel used in the Mishkan and the name Pekuday means every individual but the parsha is all about all the pieces coming together?  The Rebbe explains (volume 21 ) that the the parsha of Vayakhel highlights that even though there are individual vessels, they were not made purely with intent for their own function but also to function as part of the general Mishkan.  Conversely, Pekuday demonstrates that after there is an entire Mishkan structure, one should not just view all the individual parts as losing their own self worth in the totality of the building, but that the totality enhances the importance of the individual.  This is also hinted to by the fact that Vakayhel Pekuday are often combine but also are sometimes separate parshios.  There is a klal and individuals and both are of importance.     

Want It

The Chofetz Chaim in Toras Habayis (Ch.7) asks why is it that we aren't able to reach the heights in learning Torah that the previous generations could?  He explains that ones ability to learn Torah depends on how much one wants it.  Since in the past learning Torah was much more important to people, they were able to learn more.  In the footnote he uses this idea to explain the possuk is the parsha, ויקרא משה אל־בצלאל ואל־אהליאב ואל כל־איש חכם־לב אשר נתן ה' חכמה בלבו כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה לעשת אתה, who obtained the chochma how to do the melacha?  Those that desired to do it, כל אשר נשאו לבו, those to whom it was important, got the ability to accomplish.  This is the peshat in the Gemarah Berachot (50a) that the possuk הרחב פיך ואמלאהו refers to Divrei Torah for when it comes to accomplishing in ruchniout, in learning Torah, if one asks, if one truly desires to accomplish, there will be a way.  In the parsha sheet מתוקים מדבש he adds to this idea the Gra on the Siddur explains the words of Hallel מאשפות ירים אביון the Gemarah says אביון תאב לכל דבר, the way to be raised, to obtain greater levels, is by desiring to grow. 

The beginning of the possuk of הרחב פיך ואמלאהו says אנכי ה אלקיך המעלך מארץ מצרים.  What is the connection between Hashem taking us out of Egypt and asking to obtain divrei Torah?  The Maharsha says since Hashem took us out of Egypt, he can give us the ability to obtain Torah.  Why do we need to derive this from the fact that Hashem took us out of Egypt?  Rav Uri Zohar explains the limud is that one might think yes, one can ask to have the ability to acquire Torah but it has to be logical.  One can't expect to beseech Hashem to become a gadol baTorah if they barely know aleph beis.  The possuk is teaching us that is not the case, I was מעלה, I elevated Klal Yisrael from the depths of tumah so that in just 7 weeks they were able to accept the Torah, so too, a person can ask for the capabilities to excel in Torah beyond his dreams.  A person that wants to excel in Torah is given the capability to do so, one though must still put in the effort to do the work, כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה, there is a נשאו לבו but it has to lead to a לקרבה אל המלאכה.

Mishkan, Melachot, Shabbat

The Baal HaTurim at the beginning of the parsha says לעשות – אותיות ל׳ תשע וחסר וי״ו לומר ל״ט מלאכות נעשה אותם בו׳ ימים ולא בשבת וכן אשר ברא אלהים לעשות הכתוב בויכולו תמצא עשיות ובריאות ומלאכות והויות והוצאות והבדלות כולם ל״ט לומר ל״ט מלאכות הן חוץ לתולדותיהם וכן תמצא מויקהל עד לא תבערו וגו׳ ביום השבת ל״ט תיבות חוץ ממלת השבת.  Chazal derive the 39 melachot from the words לעשות אותם.  Why are the 39 melachot derived from the parsha of Shabbat here and not from the earlier parshiot?  Why are the melachot prohibited the same as the 39 activities done in the Mishkan?  

The Tikkunay Zohar (#48) says the 29 melachot of Shabbat correspond to 39 curses that were given after the sin of Adam.  The Sifsay Chayim (Moadim volume 3 on Shabbat and Mikdash ) explains that before the sin, Adam didn't need to do anything to perfect the impurities in the world, only after the sin the impurities were brought into the world and Adam has to perfect it by working the world.  The melachot of Shabbat correspond to the work that must be done to remove the impurities that exist in the world.  On Shabbat, we are able to access a bit of the level of Adam before the sin and hence we abstain from the melachot which are used post sin.  

The Be'ar Moshe says that we can understand that is why the 39 melachot are mentioned only here.  Before the sin of the agel, there was a chance to correct the sin of Adam and then there would be no need for the 39 melachot ever.  Only after the sin of the agel that was such a possibility lost and now the 39 melachot become necessary during the week do they become prohibited on Shabbat when we taste a level of Adam pre sin.  

Why is Shabbat here called שבת שבתון?  The pessukim flow as אלה הדברים, these are the 39 forbidden melachot now that you need to fix the world.  Therefore, you shall work six days, if you work on those days it order to perfect the world, שבת שבתון, not only will Shabbat be holy but the week will also be elevated, שבת שבתון, the kedusha of Shabbat will spread to the entirety of the week (see ישמח משה עד"ז.)   

Two Types Of Giving

 קְח֨וּ מֵֽאִתְּכֶ֤ם תְּרוּמָה֙ לַֽי״י֔ כֹּ֚ל נְדִ֣יב לִבּ֔וֹ יְבִיאֶ֕הָ אֵ֖ת תְּרוּמַ֣ת י״י֑ זָהָ֥ב וָכֶ֖סֶף וּנְחֹֽשֶׁת

Why does it repeat take Teruma, קְח֨וּ מֵֽאִתְּכֶ֤ם תְּרוּמָה֙ and bring Teruma, יְבִיאֶ֕הָ אֵ֖ת תְּרוּמַ֣ת י״י֑?  Why does it switch from תְּרוּמָה֙ לַֽי״י֔ to תְּרוּמַ֣ת י״י֑?  

Rav Shlomo Amar explains the possuk is talking about two different types of donations.  The first group are those that are willing to give whatever it takes toward the Mishkan,  They are willing to give מאתכם from themselves like אדם כי יקריב מכם, they are willing to give themselves over to the project.  These are people willing to donate all of their resources whether it be effort, time, money etc. to complete the project.  Those people are giving 'תרומה לה, they are giving a proper teruma to Hashem that is readily accepted. 

The second group is also נדיב לב, but not to the level of the first group.  They are willing to donate their money but no more.  This group donates זָהָ֥ב וָכֶ֖סֶף וּנְחֹֽשֶׁת but they are not willing to donate themselves.  That is  תְּרוּמַ֣ת י״י֑, it is also recognized as a giving toward Hashem albeit not on the level of the first group. 

Two Forms Of Shabbos

Why does the issur of kindling a fire on Shabbos appear in this week's parsha?  

The meforshim ask why does the mitzvah of mishkan in Ki Sesa precede that of Shabbos to tell us that Shabbos doesn't override the mishkan but in Vayakhal it is reversed?  Many distinguish between before the chait haegel and afterward in different variations.  Rav Tzaddok (Vayakhal #8) explains that there are two forms of Shabbos.  One form is that Shabbos comes to elevate the days that preceded it and the other is that Shabbos comes to cap off the week with an added layer of kedusha.  This is reflected in the machlokes in the Gemorah Shabbat (69b) if one who is lost in the wilderness and doesn't know the day works six days and keeps the last day as Shabbos or keeps the first day as Shabbos and works the rest.  The debate is if Shabbos precedes or caps off the week  The original plan for Shabbos was for Adam to pass his test on Friday and enter a sublime realm of kedusha where Shabbos comes to add to that kedusha and cap off the week.  After Adam stumbled, Shabbos was necessary to uplift the upcoming days which were now mangled and marred by sin. Similarly, before the agel, in Ki Sesa, the Shabbos was the end of the week version.  It wasn't coming to fix anything but was a infusion of kedusha as a culmination of the week.  Mishkan comes first and Shabbos adds a layer of kedusha to the ever present kedusha.  After the agel, when sin again tainted the daily activities, Shabbos was necessary to allow one to bring kedusha into the days ahead.  First comes Shabbos and only afterward comes the mishkan. 

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichoos volume 36) asks why does the Rambam (Ch, 12) of Shabbos starts the melacha of fire with the case when the ashes are needed and not with the simple case of a fire for light or warmth?  After explaining the nigla, he says בפנימיות this alludes to the fact that the fire of the neshama which wishes to join with Hashem as described in Tanya Ch. 19 must be rooted in צריך לעפר, it has to illuminate the physical world.  This may be why the melacha of fire is introduced in this parsha because it illuminates the essence of Shabbos post agel.  Shabbos it here to give light, to add kedusha to our mundain days.   

An Uplifted Heart

From the Mir parsha sheet.

Harav Hagaon Binyamin Cohen Shlita

In this parashah, the Torah describes two categories of people who contributed to the Mishkan, as it says: וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת ה'. What is the difference between כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ andוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ ?

The Ohr Hachaim and the Ramban offer different approaches to understanding these two categories.

According to the Ohr Hachaim, both categories refer to those who donated to the Mishkan, but there were two levels of donors. The lower of the two levels was נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ, which refers to a person who gave willingly and happily, according to his means and capabilities, with no heaviness in his heart. The higher level is נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ, which refers to a person whose heart spurred him to go beyond his capabilities. The Torah first mentions the higher level, using the word ish — כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ — which is a lashon of chashivus, as we see in the phrase וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה. The people in this category donated with an uplifted heart, meaning that they gave more than they were able to.

The Ramban explains that the category of נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ refers not to those who donated to the Mishkan, but rather to those who performed the actual construction of the Mishkan. He notes that the term nedivus is used in connection with those who gave donations — נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ — but that term is not a fitting description of those who did work; the term used for those people is נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ.

What does having an “uplifted heart” mean in the context of constructing the Mishkan?

The Ramban explains that the Yidden had just left Mitzrayim, where they worked with bricks and mortar, and were unskilled in the various forms of craftsmanship necessary for the construction of the Mishkan. In Parashas Ki Sisa (perek 31) the Ramban expands on this point, noting that when Moshe Rabbeinu used the word רְאֵה, see, in the passuk: רְאֵה קָרָאתִי בְשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה, he was telling Klal Yisrael: “Look at this wondrous phenomenon!” Klal Yisrael were not used to using their hands for delicate work, yet they were able to perform the skilled labors required for fashioning gold, silver, and stone, as well as embroidery. Even in the professional world, it is uncommon for one person to perform all types of crafts, yet here certain members of Klal Yisrael were able to do all the necessary labors. What was their secret?

With the words נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ, the Torah reveals the secret: Their hearts were uplifted. In this regard, the Ramban quotes the passuk: וַיִּגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ בְּדַרְכֵי ה'.

A baal gaavah is someone who thinks he’s the richest, the smartest, the strongest — not necessarily in line with reality. When it comes to avodas Hashem, however, a person should have that gaavah. He has to think above and beyond his capabilities.

This principle applies not only to the building of the actual Mishkan, but also to the construction of one’s personal Mishkan: the avodas Hashem that creates one’s own dwelling place for the Shechinah. A person does not need money, knowledge, or brains to succeed. All he needs is one prerequisite: נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ — the desire to serve Hashem, independent of his capabilities. This nesius halev — the willpower and dedication to perform avodas Hashem — empowers a person to transcend his own abilities.

The passuk says: וְהַחָכְמָה מֵאַיִן תִּמָּצֵא, and the gematria of מֵאַיִן is 101. Learning 101 times indicates the person’s powerful desire to understand Torah — he chazzered so many times! Chochmah comes מֵאַיִן, from the yearning for avodas Hashem represented by the gematria 101. When a person has this nesius halev, then he’ll merit chochmah.

The Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:6) uses this very term, נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ, regarding a person who wants to be zocheh to the crown of Torah, as he writes: מי שנשאו ליבו לקיים מצוה זו כראוי לה, ולהיות מוכתר בכתרה של תורה. When it comes to avodas Hashem and limud Torah, physical limitations should not hold a person back. If there’s נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ, if the person really wants, he can achieve beyond what is physically possible.

This week is also Parashas Shekalim, and I would like to mention one lesson that we learn from the machatzis hashekel. Chazal say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu showed Moshe Rabbeinu a matbeia shel aish, a fiery coin. When I was a bachur, before I came to Eretz Yisrael, I was learning in Yeshivas Torah Temimah, and on a Friday night of Parashas Shekalim, my friend and I were in Boro Park to speak to a rebbi of ours in learning. On the way back, at about midnight, we stopped in Bobov, where the rebbe, R’ Shlomo Halberstam, was speaking with great passion during his tish. He was saying: שקלי קודש – מטבע של אש, gelt is fire, fire! And he repeated this over and over many times: “Gelt is fire, fire.”

Fire can be very damaging and destructive – but it can also be very useful: it can repair, create, warm. It all depends on how you use fire. If you get too close, it’s a disaster. But if you use it responsibly, from farther away and in a proper way, it can be a tremendous asset. Money, the Rebbe was saying, is fire. If used improperly, it can wreak terrible damage. But if it’s used properly, it can become שקלי קודש, with the ability to accomplish tremendous things.

Four Types Of Jewelry

From sichot of Frierdiker Rebbe Adar 5694 translated into English on chabad.org.

The second occasion on which women are mentioned before men is the Torah’s account of how the people contributed valuables and building materials for the Mishkan, the Sanctuary in the wilderness, and its furnishings.

One should keep in mind that the Holy Temple is not a temporary, one-time edifice. Rather, every Jewish home builds a Beis HaMikdash, in fulfillment of the command, “And they shall build Me a Sanctuary and I shall dwell among them.”

In the wilderness, when G‑d desired to bestow upon our people the greatest gift possible, the construction of a Sanctuary for His Name, even though “the silver is Mine and the gold is Mine” He asked them to contribute the necessary materials. And the first to respond were the women, who brought four kinds of gold jewelry. As understood by Ibn Ezra, these comprised rings worn on the ears, nose and fingers, and bracelets.

Only a husband and a wife together can transform the life of their family into a Beis HaMikdash, but it is the woman who must take the first step. She must make a spiritual contribution of four kinds of jewelry towards their children’s education, for it is this that will turn their home into a Sanctuary for Torah and mitzvos, a place in which G‑d’s Name will abide and which He will bless with happiness.

Contributing one’s earrings signifies listening attentively to the directives of the Torah and its sages on how to bring up children and how to conduct a Jewish home. It also signifies listening attentively to how one’s sons and daughters speak among themselves and with their respective friends. Since the tone of their speech normally echoes what they hear from their parents at home, the parents’ speech needs to set an example of respect and refinement.

The second kind of jewelry, noserings, suggests the sense of smell. A mother needs to be sensitive to the question of which boys and girls her children come in contact with and exchange home visits with, and she needs to monitor these contacts.

The third kind, rings worn on the finger, suggests that building a Sanctuary at home needs something more than the two previous kinds of jewelry. One also needs to point the way. One needs to explain the child the consequences of obedience and proper conduct and (G‑d forbid) of disobedience and improper conduct.

The fourth kind of jewelry mentioned is the bracelet. Children should be brought up with a firm hand, not only when they are disobedient, but also when they are obedient, in order to arouse a lively interest in tackling their studies conscientiously.

I am certain that all or almost all of those present would like to see their children growing up with not only physical but also spiritual health, as observers of the Torah and its mitzvos. Mothers and fathers must know, however, that merely wanting is not enough: one must take such action as will turn that desire into a practical reality.

If so, give your children the fine and wholesome upbringing of yesteryear. Enrol your sons in devout chadarim and in yeshivos in which Torah is studied in a G‑d-fearing spirit, and entrust your daughters to the hands of devout educators. Your children will then grow up observing Torah and mitzvos. Dedicate your spiritual jewelry and build a Beis HaMikdash, and then you will be “blessed with a generation of upright offspring,” with children who will bring you material and spiritual nachas, joyful contentment.

As understood by Rashi, the word used for the fourth kind of jewelry does not signify a bracelet. Rather, it may be understood as an allusion to the laws of family purity, a mitzvah which has been entrusted to women. I am certain that there is no need to speak of taharas hamishpachah to those who are present here. However, one’s own proper observance of the mitzvah is not enough. Beyond this, with tact and refinement, one should go to the trouble of explaining its importance to one’s acquaintances; out of goodhearted friendliness, one should encourage them to observe it, and this will no doubt bring happiness into their homes.

Leaving Moses

ויצאו כל עדת בני ישראל מלפני משה.  Obviously they left Moshe, what is the Torah telling us with the words מלפני משה? Rav Elya Lopian says that you could tell on the faces of Bnei Yisroel that they just left Moshe.  Being in the presence of a Moshe Rabbenu changes a person and that change must be present in the viewer's life.  He says this a mussar for the end of the zman.  Those entering bein hazmanim must carry with them the appearance of those that just came out of yeshiva.  

More on how the face of a tzaddik can create a positive change in someone from the sefer Kerem Tzvi on Shemos:

Daas

Berachos 33a - וְאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: גְּדוֹלָה דֵּעָה, שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי קל דעות יי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גָּדוֹל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנִּתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פָּעַלת ה' מקדש ה' וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דֵּעָה כְּאִילּוּ נִבְנָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיָמָיו. דֵּעָה נִתְּנָה בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, מִקְדָּשׁ נִתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת.  Rashi explains בין שתי אותיות – בין שתי הזכרות.  What is the significance of being sandwiched between two names of Hashem?

The word דעת as pointed out by the Tanya and Nefesh HaChayim means connection as in ואדם ידע את חוה אשתו. Rashi Ki Sesa (31:2) says דעת – רוח הקודש.  The two meanings don't contradict; they are complimentary.  The Sifsay Chayim in his commentary to the fourth beracha of Shemone Esray explains that דעת is to have complete clarity of the subject matter.  Having complete clarity is to understand the connection to the individual and the highest level of that is ruach hakodesh (see Rambam's description of how prophesy is to have complete clarity.)  The Mikdash is the place in this world that we connect with Hashem. Hence, one who has דעה, can experience that connection its as if s/he is in the Mikdash.  Being sandwiched between Hashem's name indicates a complete attachment that exists in the realm of דעת (see Nisiv HaTorah of Maharal Ch. 14.)

The Maharsha Ketubot (5a) says: וידיו דקאמר הכא הם שני מדותיו יתעלה והוא שניתן בין ב' אותיות האחד הימין והוא הרחמים והשני השמאל שהוא הדין והצדיקים שהוא בצלאל והנלוים אליו במעשיהם במקדש מטילים כח וגבורה בפמליא של מעלה לצרף ידיו שם שהם ב' שמותיו שהן במקדש מצד ימין ומצד שמאל שהם הרחמים והדין שע"כ נכתב מקדש בין ב' שמות אחד מימין ואחד משמאל.   The building of the Mikdash parallels the building of the world (as the Ramah writes in Toras Haolah.)  Just as the world was created by the combo of דין ורחמים, so too the מקדש.  This too is the function of דעת, to be מכריע ולשלב between these two opposing outlooks.  Through the enlightened perspective of דעת one is able to define the resulting action in a manner that is not completly dominated by either the חסד or דין stance.

Ketores Power

In light of the recent מגפה, the local kabbilists have called to our attention the holy words of the Zohar in this week's parsha, Vayakel that describes the power of ketores to be able to nullify such harsh calamities. The Zohar says that by reading the parsha of the ketores one will be saved from mishaps. In the words of the Zohar (218b) מִלָּה דָּא גְּזֵרָה קַיְּימָא קַמֵּי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא, דְּכָל מַאן דְּאִסְתָּכַּל וְקָרֵי בְּכָל יוֹמָא עוֹבְדָּא (נ''א פרשתא) דִּקְטֹרֶת, יִשְׁתְּזִיב מִכָּל מִלִּין בִּישִׁין חַרְשִׁין דְּעָלְמָא. וּמִכָּל פְּגָעִין בִּישִׁין, וּמֵהִרְהוּרָא בִּישָׁא, וּמִדִּינָא בִּישָׁא, וּמִמוֹתָנָא, וְלָא יִתְזַק כָּל הַהוּא יוֹמָא, דְּלָא יָכִיל סִטְרָא אַחֲרָא לְשַׁלְטָא עָלֵיהּ, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ דִּיכַוֵּין בֵּיהּ.  What is this unique power of the ketores?
According to the kabbilists, 11 is a number associated with "the other side" for just as their are 10 powers to kedusha so too there are 10 powers to "the other side."  However, there must be some aspect of kedusha to it for it to be able to exist and that's how we get 11.  The Arizal teaches the 11 princes of עשו at the end of Vayishlach correspond to the 11 powers of "the other side" for Esav is representative of the klippot.  The ketores has 11 spices in it has the ability to nullify the power of  "the other side."  As mentioned on this blog in the past, smell is the only sense not contaminated by sin.  That is why the neshama benefits from smell (Berachot 43b.)  It is this untainted sense that is able to recognize the kedusha even in the depths of the klippah and unite the 10 powers of disjointedness together with the 1, 11^th power of unity among them.
In the ketores we say in korbanot, before the ketores we say אתה הוא שֶׁהִקְטִירוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים.  Why do we say this preamble only before ketores and not before any of the other korbanot?  Because it is only the ketores that we tap into the אתה, directly to Hashem, to give us the ability to nullify the evil powers.
In the Mishkan there were two sets of יריעות.  the bottom layer consisted of 10 tapestries made up of various threads. On top of that were 11 tapestries designed out of goat hair.  Goats are representative of klippah (see shabbos 77b and ספרא דצניעותא פ"א.)   These 11 tapestries of goats hair represent the power of "the other side."That klippah is on the outside but underneath is kedusha, the 10 tapestries (see Zohar 213a Vayakhal.)
Now we will do advanced mathematics of 1+1=2. The mishna in Tammid (3:8) says א"ר אלעזר בן דגלאי עזים היו לאבא בערי המכוור והיו מתעטשות מריח פיטום הקטורת.  Why goats?  As we mentioned before goats are the power of klippah (1) and it is the ketores (1) that is able to nullify the power of the goats (2).  [Based upon פיטום הקטורת ועבודת הקורבנות בהלכה, באגדה ובחסידות maamer in the back.]

More Than The Study Of Law

Megillah (4a) - Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that when Purim falls out on Shabbos one must be doresh benyano shel yom.  The Gemorah asks that this is done every Yom Tov, what tell me this only in regard to Purim?  It answers that we would have thought because of the gezerah d’rabbah not to read the megillah on Shabbbos we wouldn’t teach about the megillah either.  Tosfos understands the question of the Gemorah is that other Yomim Tovim there is a greater novelty that one must teach the laws for there is a law of דורשין ל' יום לפני החג yet there still is a law of הלכות חג בחג.  It is apparent from Tosfos that this Gemorah is discussing the law of הלכות חג בחג and presumably the Gemorah means to teach the laws of Purim.  Rashi however, explains that the doresh benyano dhel yom means to expound about the megillah and Tosfos doesn’t disagree.  Furthermore, Tosfos states clearly that on Purim this requirement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi doesn’t apply for there is more פרסומי ניסא through the reading of the megillah.  What does פרסומי ניסא have to do with halacha?  It is clear from Tosfos that the law of הלכות חג בחג isn’t (just) to teach the halachos, it’s a law in פרסומי ניסא, of hakaras me’en hameorah, to mention the nes of the day.  In the Laws of Tefillah (13:8) the Rambam codifies the law of הלכות חג בחג as an explanation of the Torah reading of the day.  What does one have to do with the other?  It is clear that he holds of the same approach as Tosfos, the halacha is to teach about the greatness of the day.  (Even if one may have to also learn actual laws, (see Shaar Hatziyun 429:5) the Rambam is telling us the geder of the din.)  [I am not sure of how to read the Sheiltos Vayishlach (26) derasha l'chanukah if he is saying that the reading of Chanukah and Purim is a fulfillment of this din, עיי"ש.]  This will answer the question of the Beis Yosef (429) if there is already a law of דורשין ל' יום לפני החג, why do we need a law of הלכות חג בחג?  According to this approach they are two independent dinim, חלוק ביסוד גדרם.  See Shulchan Aruch Alter Rebbe (429:4) where this approach seems to be codified and influences how the rabbi should speak on the Yom Tov.  

A similar takanah to הלכות חג בחג is found in this week’s parsha in the Yalkut Shemoni in regard to Shabbos (in fact it compares it to הלכות חג בחג.)

ויקהל משה - רבותינו בעלי אגדה אומרים מתחלת התורה ועד סופה אין בה פרשה שנאמר בראשה ויקהל אלא זאת בלבד. אמר הקב"ה: עשה לך קהילות גדולת ודרוש לפניהם ברבים הלכות שבת, כדי שילמדו ממך דורות הבאים להקהיל קהילו בכל שבת ושבת ולכנוס בבתי מדרשות ללמד ולהורות לישראל דברי תורה איסור והיתר כדי שיהא שמי הגדול מתקלס בין בני. מכאן אמרו: משה תקן להם לישראל שיהיו דורשין בעינינו של יום, הלכות פסח בפסח, הלכות עצרת בעצרת, הלכות החג בחג. אמר משה לישראל: אם אתם עושים כסדר הזה הקב"ה מעלה עליכם כאילו המלכתם אותי בעולמי, שנאמר: ואתם עדי נאם ה' ואני אל. וכן דוד הוא אומר: בשרתי צדק בקהל רב. וכי מה בשורה היו ישראל צריכין בימי דוד והלא כל ימיו של דוד מעין דוגמא של משיח היה? אלא פותח ודורש לפניהם דברי תורה שלא שמעתן אזן מעולם.

It is clear that the point of the ללמד ולהורות לישראל דברי תורה איסור והיתר is שיהא שמי הגדול מתקלס בין בני.  (courtesy of http://www.daat.ac.il.)  It’s not a learning merely for the sake of knowing how to observe the Shabbbos and Yom Tov, it is to the pirsum hanes, to cause theקילוס  of Hashem (Binyan Av.)

[The pshat in the Yalkut needs to be explained for it starts by saying that there should be gatherings to teach the laws of Shabbos and then it says to do it on Shabbos only?  And how do we derive from there to learn the laws of Yom Tov on Yom Tov?  My great-grandfather explained that in the midbar there was plenty of time to study the laws of Shabbos every day.  However, in future generations when people are working, its limited to Shabbos.  Based upon the fact that they enacted to study the laws of Shabbos on Shabbos, we derive that one should study the laws of the day that pertain to the day i.e. the laws of Yom Tov on Yom Tov.]

This geder of vayakhal Moshe can be derived from another place we find the term hakhal es ham.  It is found by the mitzvah of hakhal where the possuk says the point of the mitzvah is to fear Hashem (this a debate between the Or Hachaim and Gur Aryeh, see here.)  As the Rambam says at the end of the Laws of the Chagigah, hakhal is meant as a remembrance of maatan torah, not (just) as a means of teaching.  (See Sfas Emes Vayelech 5642.)  The gathering of the entire nation at Mount Sinai itself was for the sake of the awesome experience that occurred, not for the learning per se (ibid.) 

This may explain why the Shulchan Aruch (689:6) cites that it is a good practice to bring young children to the megillah.  Just as hakhal one brought even the young children for the experience of inspiring them with yiras shamayim (see Meshech Chachma Vayelech,) so too for the mitzvah of megillah one should bring along even the small children for the experience of פרסומי ניסא (Binyan Av volume 2 #34.)  

שוב ראיתי that my father shlita touched on this topic here but this is in a different vein.

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.)

Shekel, Shabbos And Mikdash

Why does the Torah tell us the issur of Shabbos specifically regarding the prohibition to light a fire?  Rashi says that we are told about Shabbos here to tell us that the building of the mishkan doesn’t override it.  If Shabbos if just a detail in the mishkan it would seem more apropos to put the commandment of the mishkan first, why does it put Shabbos first?  Shabbos is the day of unity between Klal Yisroel and Hashem.  We abstain from our normal labor and focus on spiritual pursuits.  This unity with Hashem is dependent upon the unity of Klal Yisroel together, hence vayakhel Moshe.  The Berashis Raabah says 14:9 each one of the days is paired with another bur Shabbos is the odd man out.  So, Hashem said that its pair is Klal Yisroel.  In order for there to be Shabbos, there must be a body of Klal Yisroel, there is a need for ויקהל את כל עדת בני ישראל.  We are all united via our neshamos, division and differences come about because of our separate bodies (Tanya Ch.32.)  It is the pursuit of gashmious that destroys the unity of Klal Yisroel.  Therefore, the Torah warns you shouldn’t have a fire, a bren בכל מושבותיכם, in all of your worldly pursuits.  It is the hakdama of Shabbos, the רזא דאחד, the unity between Hashem and Klal Yisroel that is necessary for the building of the mishkan (based upon Toras Menachem 5749.)

The Shla says כי תשא את ראש is a hint to Shabbos for when you raise the letters of ראש  to the letters following it equals שבת.  The Emrei Noam (Vayakhal) says שבתון קודש לה' stands for shekel.  What is this connection between Shabbos and shekel? See Emrei Noam for his approach.  What is the connection between the two parshios of the week, Vayakhal and Shekalim? 

As we already discussed earlier this week, shekalim hint to the achdus of Klal Yisroel, everyone is equal and they combine toward the korbanot tzibbur, to become one unit.  It effects the unity of Klal Yisroel together and their unity with Hashem.  Why do we give a half-shekel and not a full shekel?  It is a hint that one must be completed by someone else and by Hashem.  We combine to participate in the service of God via the korbanot.  It is this unity that is the meeting ground between Shabbos and the shekel.

Nediv Lev #2

We already mentioned the Gemorah in Shevout 26b that כל נדיב לב obligates one even in a machshava to give to hekdesh.  Rashi Kiddushin 41b explains that if a person thought that he wants to make an animal into a עולה, it becomes a עולה.  The achronim point out that the Rambam disagrees.  When he brings the law in Ch. 14 of Maaseh Korbanot law 12 he says "גמר בלבו שזו עולה או שיביא עולה הר"ז חייב להביא וכו".   The Rambam says there is an obligation on the person to bring the animal, but it itself doesn’t become hekdash.  That is the opinion of the Meiri as well.

The Ketzos 12:1 says that this rule that for kodshim one is obligated by machshava alone applies only to kodshai mizbaoch, not to bedek habais.  Rashi in Shevout clearly contradicts this for he says the rule of כל נדיב לב applied to the terumah of the mishkan (which is the simple explanation of כל נדיב לב in our parsha.)  The words of the Ketzos would only seem to work in Tosfos that understands we are referring to a verse in Divrei Hayomin (2) 29:31 כל נדיב לב עולות.  (Rashi understands the Gemorah refers to terumah lamikdash and korbanot, not like Tosfos that terumah is terumas dagan and hekdash is korbanot.  Rashi can’t learn like Tosfos because he holds terumah requires it to be uttered to be chal, see Bechoros 59a and Tosfos Menachos 55a [Mishmar Halevi Temurah #16.])

Rav Solevetchik sites from Reb Chaim from the fact the Rambam only cites the law in regard to kedushas haguf it supports the Ketzos ( although it is difficult for the Rambam brings the possuk in our parsha.)  What is the difference between kedushas haguf and bedek habais?  When one is being makdish kedushas haguf, he is making a chalos of kedusha, it is a hekdash halacha and we learn from כל נדיב לב that it is obligatory through machshava alone.  However, when one donates to the bedek habais, he is making a business transaction like any other, he is being מקנה to hekdesh.  It is after hekdesh acquires the object that it assumes the laws that pertain to an object of hekdesh.  Since it is like any other business transaction, it requires speech to create the chalos like any other קנין (Rav Chaim in stencil.)

 The Rashba Kiddushin 50a brings a proof from this Gemorah that one can make a stipulation in a sale even if he doesn’t spell it out.  Everyone asks how is this a proof, it seems to contradict what the Rashba says for the Gemorah says that hekdash being chal via machshava is the exception to the rule?  Rav Naftoli Trop explains the intent of the Rashba.  There are two ways to understand why machshava doesn’t suffice to create a chalos. Number one is that a machshava is meaningless and worthless, it carries no weight at all.  Method number two is that it is valid but lacks the power necessary to create a chalos.  The Rashba says we see from the fact that one becomes obligated through machshova in regard to kodshim that a machshava does carry weight and it just doesn’t have enough power to create a chalos.

Nediv Lev #1

The Gemorah in Shevout 26b says that if one pledges to הקדש that one must keep the vow even if he only thought to vow but didn’t utter the words based upon the possuk in this week’s parsha (according to Rashi there), כל נדיב לב.  The Torah Temimah cites the debate in the Rishonim if we equate a vow to charity with a vow to hekdesh.  He asks how can it be that it won’t be valid through thought alone if the Gemorah in Nedarim 7a has a doubt if יש יד לנדר או אין יד לנדר, if it’s similar to הקדש  or not and we rule לחומרא  and equate it with kodshim?  However, we really should first ask a more basic question, what is the ספק, if one is obligated based upon thought alone, for sure he should be obligated even if אין יד.  The Torah Temimah seems to have understood that this very point if charity if like hekdesh is the doubt of the Gemorah and our pesak regarding an obligation via vow would be reflecteve of the conclusion of the Gemorah and that’s why he asks from the conclusion, not from the doubt itself.

 The Shittah Mikubetzes brings this question in the name of the Ream.  He answers that one is obligated only if there is a strong commitment never to retract but in the Gemorah the person didn’t make such a strong commitment and therefore will only be obligated because of יד.  However, the Rosh seems to disagree for in Nedarim 2a he explains that we need the law of ידות because one isn’t obligated in a neder unless it is verbalized.  Clearly, he is saying that had a neder been valid through thought there would be no need for the law of ידות.  Why can’t he give the case of the Ream, must be he disagrees and holds even if there wasn’t a thought of a complete, non retractable obligation it still will obligate the individual.  So how will he answer the question? 

The Mishna Terumos (3:8) says that if one wanted to declare an animal to be a עולה but made a mistake and said שלמים it is invalid.  Why is it invalid if he wanted to obligate himself but just messed up his words?  The Rash says if one’s speech contradicts their thought that the chalos is invalid.  We see from here that the words become part of the chalos chiuv.  Similary, we say in regard to ידים.  True there was a valid thought to give the charity but included in his chalos chiuv is the words he said and if there is no law of יד in regard to charity then it is a meaningless speech and his machshava becomes invalidated as well.  That can explain the Gemorah 6a as well.  The Gemorah says that if a person vows to bring a korban in a manner that it is a יד שאינו מוכח that it is invalid.  Why isn’t he obligated because of his machchava?  Based upon the Rosh we understand that the invalid utterance messes up his chalos chiuv (see Shitta Mikubetzes there.)  [based upon a shiur from Rav Asher Arieli.]   

The question of the Torah Temimah is difficult to understand.  The question of the Gemorah would seem to be a specific law that possibly צדקה is included in יד because it has a hekesh to neder in the verse that teaches us יד.  That doesn’t mean for all laws its treated as hekdash.  Furthermore, we rule that יש יד because we treat a doubt in regard to charity לחומרא, not that we conclude that tzedakah has a rule of hekdash.

Hearts Of Wisdom

The Torah describes the woman whom spun the wool's hair for the covering of the mishkan as נשא לבן בחכמה.  The Torah uses the expression נשא לבן or נדבה רוחן.  What is this additional expression of חכמת לב?  Rav Hirsch says that the other descriptions refer to the willingness to give (נדבה רוחן) or to give one's entire self over(נשא לבן.)  However, חכמת לב refers to that their willingness to give was guided by their brain.  Everyone rushed to donate the beautiful materials but forgot about the basic materials needed for the coverings.  However, the woman that were חכמי לב realized that this was the most important.  "This was the real actual אהל and the making of an אהל is where the quintessence womanhood is concentrated, so in that in this they displayed both careful thought and their sense of true womanhood, their חכמה." 
The woman that were חכמי לב recognized the correct roll of woman in society and reflected it through their work on the mishkan.

What's Wrong With Carrying

The Gemorah in the beginning of the 11^th chapter of Shabbos asks how do we know that הוצאה  is considered a מלאכה and the Gemorah derives it from וַיְצַ֣ו משֶׁ֗ה וַיַּֽעֲבִ֨ירוּ ק֥וֹל בַּמַּֽחֲנֶה֘ לֵאמֹר֒ אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַל־יַֽעֲשׂוּ־ע֛וֹד מְלָאכָ֖ה לִתְרוּמַ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א הָעָ֖ם מֵֽהָבִֽיא for Moshe was speaking on Shabbos (as the Gemorah derives from a gezareh shavah) and telling the people not to carry from the reshus hayachid to the reshus harabim.  That is the test Rashi has and explains in the Gemorah.  Normally we don’t need a possuk to tell us something is forbidden on Shabbos, if it was done in the mishkan it is forbidden.  Why do we need a verse for הוצאה?  Tosfos explains because it is a מלאכה גרועה, we wouldn’t have assumed it’s prohibited if not for the possuk. 

The Rambam says:

הוצאה והכנסה מרשות לרשות מלאכה מאבות מלאכות היא. ואף על פי שדבר זה עם כל גופי תורה מפי משה מסיני נאמרו. הרי הוא אומר בתורה איש ואשה אל יעשו עוד מלאכה לתרומת הקדש ויכלא העם מהביא. הא למדת שההבאה מלאכה קורא אותה. וכן למדו מפי השמועה שהמעביר ברשות הרבים מתחלת ארבע לסוף ארבע הרי הוא כמוציא מרשות לרשות וחייב.  The Rambam indicates we knew it was prohibited to carry even without the verse, it just comes to teach us that it is called a melacha.  The Maggid Mishna points out that he holds like the text of the Rav Hai Gaon in which the Gemorah isn’t asking how do I know thatהוצאה  is prohibited, that we know, rather its asking how do I know it’s a מלאכה.  This fits very well with the Rabbenu Channonel (cited in Tosfos) that deletes from the Gemorah the whole gezareh shavah for even if Moshe wasn’t warning the people not to bring anything because of Shabbos, we still see that the act of carrying is called a מלאכה.  (Tosfos points out this is supported by the Yerushalme, see Haamek Davar.)  According to Rashi, we need to know it was Shabbos to tell us this action is forbidden, however according to Rav Hai, Rambam, Rabbenu Channonel we know that carrying is forbidden, we are just looking for a source that its called a מלאכה. 

What is this debate between the Rishonim?  All the Rishonim at the beginning of Shabbos point out that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה however we learn out from רְא֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהֹוָה֘ נָתַ֣ן לָכֶ֣ם הַשַּׁבָּת֒ עַל־כֵּ֠ן ה֣וּא נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶ֛ם בַּיּ֥וֹם  הַשִּׁשִּׁ֖י לֶ֣חֶם יוֹמָ֑יִם שְׁב֣וּ | אִ֣ישׁ תַּחְתָּ֗יו אַל־יֵ֥צֵא אִ֛ישׁ מִמְּקֹמ֖וֹ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִֽי that it is prohibited to carry on Shabbos (Eruvin 17b.)  What is the possuk teaching us, is it that it is a מלאכה גרועה but is prohibited anyway, or is the verse teaching us that it is now considered a מלאכה?  Rashi and Tosfos understand that it is a מלאכה גרועה and we need two pessukim, one to tell us that you can’t carry from a private domain to public, and one to tell you that you can’t carry from a public domain to public.  They understand it’s a novelty to say a change in domain is prohibited and I need a verse for both ways.  The other Rishonim understand that its not the change in domain that is the novelty, the act of carrying itself wouldn’t seem to be classified as a prohibited act on Shabbos, קמ"ל  that it is prohibited and therefore the second verse tells us that it’s a מלאכה.  (The Rambam understands it’s from a halacha because he uses the verse in Eruvin to tell us that techumim is prohibited [Laws of Shabbos Ch. 27:1 היוצא חוץ לתחום המדינה בשבת לוקה שנאמר אל יצא איש ממקומו ביום השביעי,] therefore he’s forced to say the prohibition itself is learnt from a halacha.)

There are many differences if its called a מלאכה or not.  See Pnei Yehoshua beginning of 5^th Ch. Of Shabbos if an animal may carry from one domain to another for the prohibition to have one’s animal work on Shabbos may only apply to מלאכות.  See also Pri Migadim in his intro. to the laws of Shabbos in regard to חצי שיעור, ואכמ"ל.  [Based upon Binyan Av volume 1 #12.]

Why is הוצאה prohibited if it isn’t a constructive act like the other prohibited acts of Shabbos?  The Rabbiner Rav Hirsch explains that by refrain from positive creation on Shabbos, man demonstrates that his powers are nothing compared to the ultimate Creator of the World, this is זכר למעשה בראשית.  The prohibition from carrying is a social restriction.  A community is dependent on the people giving to each other, on the transfer of goods to each other.  זכר ליציאת מצרים is to recognize that our nationhood, established through the Exodus is only complete when it recognizes the law of God within the community and nation as a totality.  That may be why Yermiyahu warns in Ch. 19 right before the golus about הוצאה in particular for by recognizing our subjectivity to God even in this state that will keep us united as one nation until the geulah.