From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar  2 07:58:22 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed Mar  2 07:59:28 2005
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayakhel - shiur
Message-ID: <001401c51f27$8d752f20$2d00000a@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

               PARSHAT  VAYAKHEL
                               
     Is Parshat Vayakhel simply a repeat of Parshat Teruma?
     Indeed, the details of the mishkan are practically
identical in both parshiot - however, their manner of
presentation is quite different.
  To explain why, this week's shiur first considers the
different purpose of each Parsha.  Afterward, we will attempt
to tackle the more difficult question concerning the necessity
of this 'repetition'.

INTRODUCTION
     Before we discuss the similarities between Teruma and
Vayakhel, let's first note the obvious difference between
these two Parshiot.
  In Parshat Teruma / Tetzaveh, the Torah records God's
commandment to Moshe to build the mishkan - or in Hebrew, what
we refer to as 'tzivui ha-mishkan'.  In contrast, Parshat
Vayakhel / Pekudei describes how Moshe conveyed these
instructions to Bnei Yisrael.
  Let's explain how this affects their order:

THE ORDER IN PARSHAT TERUMA
     The primary focus of the tzivui ha-mishkan unit (i.e.
chapters 25-29) is the tabernacle's function, hence this unit
opens with its 'statement of purpose':
  "And you shall build for Me a mikdash in order that I shall
  dwell among you" (see 25:1-8).
and closes with an almost identical statement:
  "And I shall dwell among Bnei Yisrael, and I will be for
  them a God, and they shall know..." (see 29:45-46).

     In our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, we explained how these
opening and closing psukim serve as 'matching bookends' that
highlight how the Mishkan serves first and foremost as the
place where God's shchina can dwell with His nation.  This
observation helped us understand the logic of its flow in
topic.
     For example, that unit began by describing the aron [ark
of the covenant], which will house the luchot [tablets] - the
symbol of brit Sinai - and hence the focal point of the
mishkan, as well as the kaporet, the protective cover of the
aron, from where God will speak to Moshe.
     The next set of parshiot described the various 'keilim'
(vessels) that are situated in the ohel mo'ed, such as the
menora and shulchan (25:23-40).  This was followed by a
detailed description of the ohel moed -the portable structure
[i.e. the canvas for the tent /'yeriot ha-mishkan' and its
poles /'kerashim' (see 26:1-37)] that will house those
vessels.
  In this unit, the description of vessels precedes the
details of that tent, for they perform its key functions,
while the structure that houses them serves only a secondary
function.
     These instructions are followed by the commandment to
build an altar ['mizbach ha-nechoshet'], which will be placed
in front of this ohel mo'ed (see 27:1-8), and a courtyard
['chatzer'] constructed from curtains and poles that would
encompass it (see 27:9-19).
     This Shchina unit concludes with the laws concerning the
kohanim who are to officiate in the mishkan (chapter 28), and
the seven day dedication ceremony (chapter 29).
  In chapters 30 and 31 we found an additional unit, that
  contained a list of peripheral mitzvot relating to the
  mishkan (and its protection from the shchina], including
  the 'mizbach ketoret' and the 'kiyor'.]
  
  At the very conclusion of the tzivui ha-mishkan we find the
instruction to appoint Betzalel to build the mishkan, and the
important reminder not to build it on Shabbat.
     The following table summarizes this order in Parshat
Teruma according to its most general categories:

Intro - Shchina
 Keilim - the vessels  (chapter 25)
  *  The aron - which will house the luchot
  The kaporet - from where God will speak to Moshe
  *  The shulchan - on which the lechem will be placed
  *  The menora - which will provide light
 Structure - the ohel mo'ed (the tent - chapter 26)
  * The yeriot
  * The krashim
  * The "parochet"
 Chatzer - The courtyard (chapter 27)
  *  The mizbeiach - the altar in front of the ohel mo'ed
  *  The courtyard - "amudei ve-kelei ha-chatzer"
 Kohanim (chapters 28 & 29)
  * The bigdei kehuna
  *  The dedication ceremony (milu'im)
 Misc. Topics (chapter 30)
 The Builder - Betzalel (chapter 31)
 Shabbat (not to build the mishkan on Shabbat/ 31:11-17)

     In contrast to this 'functional order', the order in
Parshat Vayakhel is quite different, for in this unit - Moshe
must explain to Bnei Yisrael how to build the mishkan.
Therefore, the sequence will follow a more practical order,
reflecting the considerations of its construction.
     For example, the tent will precede the vessels, for the
ohel moed will house them. Furthermore, this time, the mizbach
ketoret will be included with the other vessels, even though
its function in regard to the shechina is different.
Similarly, this time the kiyor will be recorded together with
the mizbach ha'Olah.
     The following table summarizes this 'practical' order, as
presented in Parshat Vayakhel:

 Shabbat
  *  Guidelines re: when construction work is permitted (35:1-3);
 Teruma
  *  The collection of the building materials (35:4-29);
 The Builder
  * The appointment of the chief architect - Betzalel - and
    his fellow artisans (35:30-36:7);
 Structure - the ohel mo'ed - the tent (36:8-38):
    * the yeriot
    * the kerashim
    * the parochet
 Keilim  (chapter 37)
    * the aron
    * shulchan
    * menora
    * mizbach ktoret (from misc. above)
 Chatzer (chapter 38)
    * the mizbeiach
    * the kiyor (from misc. above)
    * the courtyard
 Kohanim (chapter 39)
    * their garments
 Construction
    * assembly of the mishkan on the 1st of Nissan (40:1-33)
 Shchina
    * God's glory dwells on the mishkan (40:34-38)

     As you review (and compare) these two tables, be sure to
note their similarities and differences.  Doing so, while
considering this distinction between 'function' and
'construction', will help you understand how and why the order
in Vayakhel / Pekudei differs from the order in Teruma /
Tetzaveh.
    [Note as well that the mizbach ha-ktoret and the kiyor
    that were omitted (for thematic reasons) from the Shchina
    unit in Teruma / Tetzaveh are now included (for practical
    reasons) in Parshat Vayakhel - right where they belong!
          [See also TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh.]

WHY THE REPETITION?
     With this distinction in mind, let's consider now a more
basic question, i.e. the very need to repeat anything!
  After all, the building of the mishkan was only a 'one-
time' mitzva.  Would it not have been sufficient for the Torah
to simply tell us in one pasuk that Bnei Yisrael constructed
the mishkan 'as God commanded Moshe on Har Sinai'?
     To answer this question, we return to our study of the
overall theme of Sefer Shmot.

THE MISHKAN EXCLUSIVE
     In Sefer Shmot, from the time that Moshe ascended Har
Sinai to receive the first luchot (see 24:12), the mishkan
emerged as its primary focus.  Even though Moshe received
numerous other laws during these forty days, in chapters 25
thru 31 Sefer Shmot records only those mitzvot relating to the
mishkan.
     Likewise, when Moshe descends from Har Sinai (after the
last forty days), even though the Torah informs us that he
conveyed all the mitzvot to Bnei Yisrael at that time (see
34:32), nevertheless Sefer Shmot chooses to record only
Moshe's transmission of the mitzvot concerning the mishkan
(i.e. chapters 35->40).  All the other mitzvot appear only
later, in the books of Vayikra, Bamidbar and Devarim (see
Chizkuni 34:32)!
     So the question is not only - why the 'repeat'; but also
why the exclusivity of the mishkan in Sefer Shmot?

     Ramban, in his explanation of the overall theme of Sefer
Shmot, suggests an answer:
  "... Sefer Shmot discusses the exile [i.e. the slavery in
  Egypt]... and Bnei Yisrael's redemption from that exile...
  for the descent of the children of Yaakov to Egypt marked
  the beginning of that exile... and that exile does not end
  until they return to the spiritual level of their
  forefathers... Even though Bnei Yisrael had left Egypt
  [i.e. physical redemption], they are not yet considered
  redeemed... [However,] when they reach Har Sinai and build
  the mishkan, and God returns His Shchina to dwell among
  them, then they have returned to the spiritual level of
  their forefathers [spiritual redemption]... Therefore,
  Sefer Shmot concludes with the topic of the mishkan and the
  constant dwelling of God's Glory upon it [for this marks
  the completion of the Redemption process]."
               (see Ramban, introduction to Sefer Shmot)

     According to Ramban, Sefer Shmot concludes with the story
of the mishkan because its construction marks the completion
of Bnei Yisrael's redemption.  His explanation can help us
understand the manner in which the Torah repeats the details
of the mishkan in parshiot Vayakhel / Pekudei.

SPIRITUAL REHABILITATION
     As Ramban explained, the 'spiritual level' that Bnei
Yisrael had achieved at Ma'amad Har Sinai was lost as a result
of chet ha-egel.  Consequently, God had removed His Shchina
from Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 33:1-7), effectively thwarting
the redemption process that began with Yetziat Mitzrayim.
     Moshe Rabeinu's intervention on Bnei Yisrael's behalf
(see 32:11-14) certainly saved them from immediate punishment
and secured their atonement (see 32:30, 34:9).  However, that
prayer alone could not restore Bnei Yisrael to the spiritual
level achieved at Har Sinai.  The Shchina, which was to have
resided in their midst, remained outside the camp (see 33:7,
read carefully!).
     Moshe interceded once again (see 33:12-16), whereupon God
declared his thirteen 'attributes of mercy' (33:17-34:8), thus
allowing Bnei Yisrael a 'second chance'.  Nonetheless, the
Shchina did not return automatically.  To bring the Shchina
back, it would be necessary for Bnei Yisrael to do something -
they must actively and collectively involve themselves in the
process of building the mishkan.
     In other words, Bnei Yisrael required what we might call
'spiritual rehabilitation'.  Their collective participation in
the construction of the mishkan helped repair the strain in
their relationship with God brought about by chet ha-egel.
Or, using more 'kabalistic' terminology, the construction of
the mishkan functioned as a 'tikkun' for chet ha-egel.
     A closer examination of parshiot Vayakhel / Pekudei
supports this interpretation and can explain why Sefer Shmot
repeats the details of the mishkan in Vayakhel / Pekudei.

TEXTUAL PARALLELS
     Let's take for example the Torah's use of the word
'vayakhel' at the beginning of the parsha.  This immediately
brings to mind the opening line of the chet ha-egel narrative:
  "Va-yikahel ha-am al Aharon - and the nation gathered
  against Aharon..." (32:1).

     This new 'gathering' of the people - for the purpose of
building the mishkan, can be understood as a 'tikkun' for that
original gathering to build the egel.  As opposed to their
assembly to fashion the golden calf, Bnei Yisrael now gather
to build a more 'proper' symbol of God's presence.
     Similarly, the commandment for the people to 'donate
their gold' and other belongings for this project (see 35:5)
can also be understood as a tikkun for Aharon's solicitation
of the people's gold for the egel (32:2-3).
     However, the strongest proof is the Torah's glaring
repetition of the phrase: "ka'asher tziva Hashem et Moshe"
["as God commanded Moshe"].  This phrase not only appears in
both the opening commandment (35:1 & 35:4) and the finale
(39:32 & 39:43), but it is repeated like a chorus over twenty
times throughout Vayakhel-Pekudei, at every key point of the
construction process.  [I recommend that you note this using a
Tanach Koren.  See 35:29; 36:1; 36:5;
39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31,32,42,43; and especially in
40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32, as each part of the mishkan is put
into its proper place.]
     Clearly, the Torah's repetition of this phrase is
intentional, and may very well point to the mishkan's function
as a tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Let's explain why:
     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa that the
people's initial intention at chet ha-egel was to make a
physical representation of their perception of God.  Despite
the innocence of such aspirations per se, a man-made
representation, no matter how pure its intention, may lead to
idol worship (see Shmot 20:20).  This does not mean, however,
that God cannot ever be represented by a physical symbol.
When God Himself chooses the symbol, it is not only permitted,
but it becomes a mitzva.  It is this symbolism that makes the
mishkan so important.  [See 23:17,19; 34:24, Devarim 12:5,11 &
16:16.]
     The Torah therefore stresses that Bnei Yisrael have now
'learned their lesson'.  They construct the mishkan precisely
'as God commanded Moshe,' down to the very last detail,
understanding that there is no room for human innovation when
choosing a symbol for His Divine Presence.

AN APPROPRIATE FINALE
     This concept of tikkun for chet ha-egel finds further
support in the very conclusion of Sefer Shmot.
     Although the aspect of Shchina (a central feature in
Teruma / Tetzaveh) is mentioned nowhere throughout the detail
of the mishkan's construction in Vayakhel / Pekudei, it makes
a sudden reappearance at the very end of the sefer.  After
each component of the mishkan is put into place on the first
of Nissan (see 40:1-33), this entire process reaches its
dramatic climax:
  "When Moshe had finished his work, the anan (cloud) covered
  the ohel mo'ed and God's kavod ('glory') filled the
  mishkan" (40:34).

     This pasuk describes the dwelling of the Shchina on the
mishkan in the exact same terms used to depict the dwelling of
the Shchina on Har Sinai:
  "When Moshe ascended the har [Mount Sinai, to receive the
  first luchot], the anan covered the har, and kvod Hashem
  (God's glory) dwelled upon Har Sinai..."          (24:15-
  16).

     Clearly, the Torah intentionally parallels, thereby
associating, the descent of the Shchina onto Har Sinai with
the dwelling of the Shchina on the mishkan.  Only after Bnei
Yisrael meticulously complete the construction of the mishkan
- precisely 'as God commanded Moshe' - does the Shchina return
to Bnei Yisrael and dwell therein (40:34), just as it had
dwelled on Har Sinai.
     Thus, the end of Sefer Shmot marks the completion of the
tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Accordingly, as Ramban posits, the
entire 'redemption process' - the theme of Sefer Shmot - has
also reached its culmination.
     The Shchina's return to the camp also signifies Bnei
Yisrael's return to the stature they had lost after the golden
calf.  Recall that in the aftermath of that incident:
  "Moshe took his tent and set it up outside the camp, far
  away from the camp, and called it the ohel mo'ed [tent of
  meeting (with God)], such that anyone who would search for
  God was required to go out to this ohel mo'ed, outside the
  camp" [see 33:7 and its context in 33:1-11].

     This ohel mo'ed, located outside the camp, symbolized the
distancing of the Shchina.  Once the mishkan is built, God
will bring His Shchina back inside the camp.  [See 25:8 and
29:45.]

BACK TO BREISHIT
     Thus far, we have shown that the manner by which Bnei
Yisrael construct the mishkan serves as a tikkun for chet ha-
egel and relates to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.
     One could suggest that the very concept of a mishkan -
irrespective of its mode of construction - may constitute a
more general tikkun, beyond the specific context of the golden
calf.  In this sense, the mishkan relates to a more general
biblical theme developed in Sefer Breishit.
     As explained in our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, the Garden
of Eden reflects the ideal spiritual environment in which Man
cultivates his relationship with God.  After Adam sinned and
was consequently banished from the Garden, God placed keruvim
to guard the path of return to the Tree of Life (see Breishit
3:24).
     It may not be coincidental that the mishkan is the only
other context throughout the entire Chumash where the concept
of keruvim appears.  Recall how the mishkan features keruvim:
    1) on the kaporet as protectors of the aron, which
    contains the luchot (Shmot 25:22), and
    2) woven into the parochet, the curtain which guards the
    entrance into the kodesh ha-kodashim - the Holy of Holies
    (where the aron and kaporet are located).

     This parallel suggests a conceptual relationship between
Gan Eden and the mishkan.  The symbolic function of the
keruvim as guardians of the kodesh kodashim may correspond to
the mishkan's function as an environment similar to Gan Eden,
where man can strive to come closer to God:

  1)  The keruvim of the kaporet, protecting the aron,
  indicate that the 'Tree of Life' of Gan Eden has been
  replaced by the Torah, represented by the luchot inside the
  aron.
     ["Etz chayim hi la-machazikim bah" - see Mishlei 3:1-18.]

  2)  The keruvim woven into the parochet remind man that his
  entry into the kodesh kodashim, although desired, remains
  limited and requires spiritual readiness.
     [Note that keruvim are also woven into the innermost
     covering of the mishkan (see Shmot 26:1-2).]

     In this sense, we may view the mishkan as a tikkun for
Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.  Should man wish to return
to the Tree of Life, he must keep God's covenant - the laws of
the Torah - as symbolized by the luchot ha-eidut in the aron,
protected by the keruvim.
     If so, then the Torah's repetition of the laws of the
mishkan, as well as there exclusivity, may be alluding to one
of the most important themes of Chumash - man's never ending
quest to develop a relationship with his Creator.

                        shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=====================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  An important clarification
     It is important that we clarify this tikkun aspect of the
mishkan.
     We do not claim that the mishkan itself constitutes a
tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Rather, the manner by which Bnei
Yisrael must build it serves as a tikkun.  Consequently, our
analysis here stands independent of the controversy between
Rashi and Ramban as to when God commanded the building of the
mishkan.  As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Teruma,
Ramban (mishkan commanded before chet ha-egel) and Rashi
(mishkan commanded after chet ha-egel) argue only whether the
need for a temporary mishkan resulted from chet ha-egel.
However, Rashi must agree that the basic concept of a mikdash
is necessary to perpetuate the experience of Har Sinai, just
as Ramban in Parshat Vayakhel must agree that the manner in
which Bnei Yisrael ultimately construct the mishkan reflects
their correction of the sin of chet ha-egel.

B.  'Shchina tamid'
     We stated that Teruma / Tetzaveh describes the function
of each object in the mishkan.  It may be suggested that the
actual function of each 'kli' relates to the constant presence
of the Shchina in the mishkan.
     The following table demonstrates the three levels of
kedusha in the mishkan, according to the functions of the
accessories contained in the three regions of the mishkan:

Kodesh Kodashim
     the aron - contains the 'luchot ha-eidut'
     the kaporet - from where God will speak to Moshe

Kodesh
     the shulchan - 'lechem panim lefa'nai tamid'
     the menora -  'leha'alot ner tamid'
     the mizbach zahav - 'lehaktir ktoret tamid'

Chatzer ha-mishkan
     the mizbach nechoshet- 'lehakriv olat tamid'

     The kodesh kodashim contains the luchot, the eternal
testament to the covenant at Har Sinai.  God speaks to Moshe
from in between the keruvim (25:21-22), thus perpetuating the
Har Sinai experience.  In this domain, God 'comes down' to
man; as such, no 'avoda' (ritual) is performed.
     Outside this domain, in the kodesh, the kohanim perform
their daily avodat tamid - lighting the menora, offering the
ktoret, and keeping bread on the shulchan.
     Outside the mishkan is the chatzer (courtyard).  Here, Am
Yisrael collectively offer their korban tamid on the
mizbeiach.
[See shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh for a complete analysis.]
     Significantly, each 'kli' requires an 'avodat tamid'.
The word tamid means everlasting or continuous.  Am Yisrael
must perform their daily avodat tamid in order to deserve the
continuous presence of the Shchina.
     A relationship with God does not come automatically; it
requires constant effort on the individual's part.

C.  Beyond the parallels between the mishkan and Gan Eden (as
noted in the shiur), there exist as well textual parallels
between the mishkan and the story of Creation in the first
perek of Sefer Breishit.  For example, "va-techel kol avodat
ha-mishkan..." (39:32) and "va-yar Moshe et kol ha-melacha..."
(39:43) correspond to Breishit 1:31 and 2:1.  Indeed, several
Midrashim view the mishkan as the completion of the Creation
process.
1.  Based on the above shiur, explain this parallel.
2.  The entire mishkan plan is repeated a total of seven times
in Sefer Shmot: Teruma Tetzaveh - 25:10-30:38 / 31:7-11,
   Vayk.Pkd:  35:11-19 /36:8-39:32 /39:33-42 /40:1-16
/40:17-33.
   Connect this as well to Breishit 1 (the seven-day process
of creation).
3.  Relate this parallel to the location of mitzvat shabbat,
which concludes the tzivui ha-mishkan unit (31:12-17) and
opens the binyan ha-mishkan  unit (35:1-4).

D.  The highest level of hitgalut, experienced by Moshe
(33:11) and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (Dvarim 5:4), is known
as 'panim be-fanim' - literally, face to face.  When God
'changed' His attributes to 'midot ha-rachamim' (Shmot 33:17-
34:9), He states that man can no longer see His 'face', only
His 'back' (33:20-23).
1.  Find the allusions to the human face in the mishkan:
     For example: menora=eyes, shulchan=mouth, etc.
2.  In your opinion, could this represent 'pnei Hashem'?
3.  How would the aron fit within this parallel?
   How about the function of the 'orot izim ve-elim' as a
cover for the mishkan?
4.  Accordingly, what is the significance of the 'masach le-
petach ha-mishkan" and the parochet, and the general concept
of limited entry into the mishkan?
5.  According to Rashi, would this have been the structure of
the mikdash before chet ha-egel?  According to Ramban?

E.  The theme of Sefer Shmot
     Throughout our study of Sefer Shmot, we traced three
primary topics:     (1) the Exodus (Yetziat Mitzrayim,
chapters 1->17);
          (2) Ma'amad Har Sinai (chapters 19->24, 32->34);
          (3) the mishkan (chapters 25->31, 35->40).
     Based on the above shiur, we can suggest a fundamental
relationship between these three sections:
1)  Through the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim, God fulfills His
    covenant with the Avot (the theme of Sefer Breishit) to
    redeem Bnei Yisrael from their bondage in Egypt so as to
    facilitate their development into His special nation.
2)  To become this special nation, God and Bnei Yisrael enter
    into a covenant at Har Sinai (chapters 19->24).  Bnei
    Yisrael receive the commandments which will mold their
    national and individual characters, transforming them into
    God's special nation.
3)  The mishkan, the symbol of the special relationship
    established at Har Sinai, becomes the vehicle through
    which that relationship can continue.  Although chet ha-
    egel calls into question Bnei Yisrael's ability to survive
    the terms of this covenant, the new terms of the second
    luchot allow them to build the mishkan, to which the
    Shchina returns.

     An important pasuk in Parshat Tetzaveh highlights this
overall theme.  As explained in our shiur on that parasha,
chapters 25-29, which appear amidst God's instructions
regarding the mishkan,, form a distinct unit which we may call
the 'Shchina unit' (compare 25:8 with 29:45).
     The closing pasuk of that unit - "And I shall dwell among
the people of Israel, and I will be their God" (29:45) - is
followed by an important summary pasuk:
    "And you shall know that I am the Lord your God who took
    you  out of the Land of Egypt - leshochni betocham - in
    order to dwell among you; I am the Lord your God"
    (29:46).

  This pasuk accurately reflects the overall theme of Sefer
Shmot.  It ties together (1) Yetziat Mitzrayim, (2) Matan
Torah, and (3) the mishkan with the concept of Shchina.  God
takes Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt in order that they become His
nation, and this relationship reaches its highest level with
the presence of the Shchina.  This level was attained at Har
Sinai, and it forever remains within Bnei Yisrael's reach
through the 'heir' and closest substitute to Har Sinai - the
mishkan.


From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Mar 10 03:53:57 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu Mar 10 03:55:00 2005
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Pekudei - shiur
Message-ID: <000201c5254e$b31546c0$640fa8c0@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

              PARSHAT PEKUDEI

     Sefer Shmot ends triumphantly, with the Torah's detail of
how the shechina returns to dwell upon the Mishkan.
Nonetheless, this conclusion seems to include a 'sour note',
for it also informs us that Moshe Rabeinu was not able to
enter the Mishkan!  [See 40:34-35.]
     Did something go wrong?  Was Moshe unworthy?
     To answer this question, this week's shiur examines a
textual parallel that will not only highlight the thematic
connection between the Mishkan and Har Sinai, but it will also
help us understand the relationship between the books of
Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar.

INTRODUCTION
     A rather obvious parallel exists between the concluding
five psukim of Sefer Shmot and Torah's description of how
God's glory had descended upon Har Sinai, when Moshe ascended
the mountain for the first forty days (see Shmot 24:12-18).
     As Ramban explains (in his opening commentary to Shmot
25:1), this parallel lends irrefutable support to our
understanding that a primary goal of the Mishkan was to
perpetuate the special relationship between God and His people
that had reached its apex at Ma'amad Har Sinai.  However, when
comparing these two sets of psukim, there also appears to be
some rather significant differences.  Therefore, we begin our
study by examining this parallel.

THE PARALLEL
     The final chapter of Parshat Pekudei describes how the
Mishkan is assembled for the very first time on the first day
of Nissan (in the second year /see 40:1-33).  Then, upon the
completion of its assembly, the Torah informs us of what
happened:
  "Then the anan (cloud) covered the ohel mo'ed, and kvod
  Hashem (God's glory) filled the Mishkan" (see 40:34).

     Let's compare this pasuk with a very similar description
of Moshe Rabeinu's ascent to Har Sinai (as described at the
end of Parshat Mishpatim):
  "And Moshe ascended the mountain and an anan covered the
  mountain, and kvod Hashem dwelled upon Har Sinai..." (24:15-
  16).
    [It is highly recommended that you compare these two sets
    of psukim in their original Hebrew.]
    
     This obvious parallel highlights how the 'ohel mo'ed' has
replaced 'the mountain' and, correspondingly, 'the Mishkan'
has replaced 'Har Sinai.'
     In essence, the Mishkan will now serve a similar purpose
as Har Sinai, as both serve as a medium whereby Bnei Yisrael
can 'encounter' the shechina.
     Furthermore, as we discussed in our shiur on Parshat
Tetzaveh, in both instances a completely 'direct' encounter,
although desirable, is impossible.  Therefore, Bnei Yisrael
must be shielded from God's Presence by the 'anan'.
     However, the next pasuk in each of these two sources
seems to 'ruin' the completeness of this parallel.  In contast
to Har Sinai, where Moshe actually enters the anan, as we are
told:
  "And kvod Hashem dwelled on Har Sinai and the cloud covered
  it for six days, and God called to Moshe on the seventh
  day... and Moshe came inside the anan and ascended the
  mountain" (24:16-18).

In Parshat Pekudei, we find that he cannot enter:
  "And Moshe was unable to enter the ohel mo'ed, because the
  anan was dwelling upon it..."(40:35).

     Certainly, had Sefer Shmot concluded with God 'calling'
upon Moshe to enter the Mishkan, just as He had 'called' upon
him to enter the anan at Har Sinai, this parallel would have
been complete;  Yet, for some reason, Moshe cannot enter the
Mishkan!
     Has Moshe been demoted?

JUST TURN THE PAGE!
     Even though there may be a temptation to search for a
reason for Moshe's 'demotion' (possibly due to the events of
"chet ha'gel"), the truth is that there is no 'demotion'.  To
understand why, we simply need to 'turn the page', i.e. to
read the opening pasuk of sefer Vayikra, where we find the
precise pasuk that was 'missing' at the end of Sefer Shmot:
  "And [God] called out to Moshe, and God spoke to him from
  the ohel mo'ed saying..." (Vayikra 1:1).
    
     In other words, God did call upon Moshe to enter the
'anan' that covered the Mishkan (just as He had called him at
Har Sinai) - and indeed - the parallel to Har Sinai is
complete!
  [See commentaries of Ramban, Rashbam, & Ibn Ezra on Shmot
  40:35 and on Vayikra 1:1; as they explain these psukim in a
  similar manner!]

     The following table illustrates how the opening pasuk of
Sefer Vayikra actually belongs at the conclusion of Sefer
Shmot:

     HAR SINAI  (24:15-18)         MISHKAN (Shmot & Vayikra)
     =================        =======================
the anan covers the har       the anan covers the Mishkan

kvod Hashem dwells upon it    kvod Hashem fills Mishkan

Moshe must wait until called   Moshe cannot enter (Shmot 40:35)

God calls Moshe ("vayikra el...") God calls Moshe  (Vayikra 1:1)

Moshe enters the anan &       Moshe enters the Mishkan &
God speaks to Moshe                God speaks to Moshe

  Even though our parallel is complete, we now have a new
problem, i.e. if the first pasuk of Vayikra actually belongs
at the end of Sefer Shmot, why does the Torah begin a new
sefer in the middle of a story?

   To answer this question, we must carefully study the
remaining psukim at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.

A DOUBLE FINALE
     Our understanding of Vayikra 1:1 as the logical
continuation of Shmot 40:34-35 works only if these psukim had
indeed been the final psukim of the book.  However, Shmot
40:35 is not the end of Sefer Shmot!  Rather, there remain
three more psukim (i.e. 40:36-38), which appear to 'interrupt'
this logical progression.  Let's read them:
  "And when the anan lifted from the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael
  would travel.  If it would not lift, they would not
  travel...  For the anan was upon the Mishkan during the day
  and fire would appear in it by night, before the eyes of
  Bnei Yisrael throughout all their travels" (see 40:36-38).

     Even though all five psukim (40:34-38) relate to the
topic of the anan that covered the Mishkan, these last three
psukim discuss a topic which is quite different than the first
two.  While the first two psukim discussed Moshe entering the
Mishkan, the last three discuss the effect of this anan on
Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert.
  In fact, when you read these five psukim, the transition
from 40:35 to 40:36 is rather disjoint.  And when you consider
the logical flow from 30:35 to Vayikra 1:1 (as we discussed
above), then these final psukim seem to form an
'interruption'.
  Furthermore, these final three psukim not only interrupt the
natural flow of topic, they also appear to belong somewhere
else!
  You may recall from Sefer Bamidbar that we find a very
similar set of psukim in Parshat Beha'alotcha, when theTorah
describes how Bnei Yisrael were supposed to travel in the
desert:
  "On the day that the Mishkan was set up, the anan covered
  the Mishkan... and in the evening it appeared as fire... And
  when the anan lifted from the ohel [mo'ed], then Bnei
  Yisrael would travel, and at the place where the anan rested
  Bnei Yisrael would set up their camp... "  (See Bamidbar
  9:15-23, compare with Shmot 40:17 & 40:34-38.)
  
  Clearly, the opening pasuk (9:15) points us directly to
Shmot chapter 40 - i.e. the assembly of the Mishkan and the
'anan' etc. The psukim that follow describe how Bnei Yisrael
were to travel, with almost the identical words that we find
at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.  Note as well how the next
chapter in Sefer Bamidbar (i.e. 10:1-36) narrates Bnei
Yisrael's actual departure from Har Sinai.
  Thus, the three final psukim of sefer Shmot clearly 'belong'
in Sefer Bamidbar, as one of the primary themes of that book
is Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert as they depart
Har Sinai.
     Now, we must explain why they are recorded 'prematurely'
at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.

TWO POINTERS
     Note how our analysis thus far has shown that the final
five psukim of sefer Shmot divide into two distinct topics,
each of which points us to a different book of the Bible:

  (A)  40:34-35 describes the anan dwelling upon the Mishkan,
  and continues directly into Sefer Vayikra;
  
  (B)  40:36-38 describes how Bnei Yisrael journey through the
  desert in accordance with this anan, and continues directly
  into Sefer Bamidbar.

     A very interesting structure emerges from this analysis.
Sefer Shmot concludes with two 'pointers': one to sefer
Vayikra (A) and one to sefer Bamidbar (B)!

     This 'double pointer' may be significant as it highlights
the return to God's original plan after the Exodus, despite
the events of "chet ha'egel".
  Recall the 'double purpose' of Yetziat Mitzraim, as
discussed in our shiur on Parshat Shmot (re: God's hitgalut at
the 'burning bush'):

     (A) - For Bnei Yisrael to receive the Torah at Har Sinai
and
     (B) - to travel to (& conquer) the Promised Land.

     As the events of chet ha-egel constituted a breach in the
covenant between God and His People at Har Sinai, God
consequently threatened to break His end of the deal,
consequently taking His shechina away from the people (see
Shmot 33:1-7).  Had it not been for Moshe Rabeinu's
intervention (see 33:12-17), Bnei Yisrael would not have
received the remaining mitzvot [A], nor would they have been
worthy of God's direct assistance in conquering the Land [B]
(see 33:1-7 and our shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa).

     Now that Bnei Yisrael have built the Mishkan and God's
shechina has indeed returned, God once again commits Himself,
as it were, to both elements of His original plan:

  (A) In Sefer Vayikra, Bnei Yisrael continue to receive the
  special mitzvot that will reflect their special level of
  kedusha;
  
  (B) In Sefer Bamidbar, Bnei Yisrael begin their travel
  towards the Promised Land, accompanied by God's shechina.

     The shechina's 'dwelling' upon the Mishkan thus yields a
dual effect, reflected in the distinct themes of Vayikra and
Bamidbar:
(A)    First and foremost, it affects the Mishkan itself, as
  explained and elaborated upon at length in sefer Vayikra.
  The Shechina's dwelling upon the Mishkan allows man to
  approach God and offer korbanot (Vayikra / Tzav); forbids
  one's entry into the Mishkan when one is 'tamei' (Shmini,
  Tazri'a, Metzora); demands a special kapara (atonement)
  ritual every Yom Kippur and forbids the offering of korbanot
  outside the Mishkan (Acharei-Mot).  Finally, this 'kedusha'
  emanates into all three realms of existence: 'kedushat adam'
  (Kedoshim), 'kedushat zman' (Emor) and 'kedushat makom'
  (Behar).
       [Iy"h, we'll discuss all this in our shiurim on Vayikra.]

(B)    Secondly, it affects the 'machaneh' - the camp of
  Israel, as reflected in sefer Bamidbar.  The presence of the
  Shechina raises the entire camp of Israel to a higher level,
  as God travels, as it were, with them.  The camp is arranged
  in a formation that surrounds the Mishkan (as described in
  parshiot Bamidbar and Naso), and Bnei Yisrael travel through
  the desert following the anan over the Mishkan
  (Beha'alotcha).  Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, Sefer Bamidbar
  would have concluded with the story of their conquest of the
  Land (Matot, Mas'ei).  Instead, it explains why that
  generation didn't enter the land (Shlach, Korach), as well
  as the events of the fortieth year (Balak, Pinchas).

     In this manner, the triumphant conclusion of Sefer Shmot
thematically points us in two directions: one - to the laws of
Sefer Vayikra, and two - to Bnei Yisrael's journey in Sefer
Bamidbar.

ONE DAY IN THREE BOOKS
     This interpretation can also help us appreciate why the
events that transpired on the first of Nissan, the day when
the Mishkan was first erected, are detailed in three different
books instead of just one.

(1)    In Sefer Shmot (40:1-35), we find the commandment to
  assemble the Mishkan on the first of Nissan, and the details
  of how it was assembled on that day.
    These details are found in Sefer Shmot, for they conclude
  the topic of building the Mishkan, as discussed in Parshiot
  Teruma, Tetzaveh & Vayakhel.  Furthermore, Shmot concludes
  by describing how the shechina returned to the Mishkan on
  that day, signaling the its return despite the events of
  chet ha-egel, as discussed in Parshat Ki Tisa.

(2)    In Sefer Vayikra we find the details of the special
  korbanot offered on yom ha-shmini, and the tragic event
  which occurred on that day - the death of Nadav and Avihu.
  [See 9:1 thru 10:7.] According to most commentators, that
  day coincides with the first of Nissan.
    As those events, as well as those special korbanot
  offered on that day, directly relate to many of the mitzvot
  found in Sefer Vayikra, the narrative of those events is
  recorded intentionally and specifically in Sefer Vayikra.

(3)    In Sefer Bamidbar (7:1-89), we find the story of the
  special gift brought by the nesi'im [the tribal leaders] to
  the Mishkan on the day of its dedication - six wagons and
  twelve oxen (see 7:1-4).  As these wagons were used by the
  Levites to transport the Mishkan during their travel through
  the desert to the Land of Israel, this account appears in
  Sefer Bamidbar - the book that describes how Bnei Yisrael
  traveled thru the desert.

     Hence, although all of these events took place on the
same day - the first of Nissan, the Torah prefers to record
them in three different books, corresponding to the theme of
each sefer.

     We will iy"h return to this theme in our study of both
sefer Vayikra and sefer Bamidbar.  Till then,

                                   shabbat shalom
                                   menachem
=================

FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Note the importance of the date of the first of Nissan in
Shmot chapter 40.  Relate God's selection and designation of
this date to Parshat ha-chodesh / Shmot 12:1-20.  Relate this
as well to the importance of this date in Divrei Ha-yamim II
29:1-17.

B.  Relate the main points of the above shiur to Shmot 29:45-
46, specifically relating to the question if the purpose of
Yetziat Mitzraim was to worship God in the desert or to
inherit the Promised Land / see also Shmot 3:6-12.  [Relate
your answer as well to the main point of our shiur on Parshat
Tetzaveh.]


From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar 11 03:11:33 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri Mar 11 03:12:41 2005
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Shekalim - three short shiurim
Message-ID: <0e8e01c52611$f0aa0160$640fa8c0@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

                PARSHAT  SHEKALIM

     [for MAFTIR (Shmot 31:11-16)  &  HAFTARA ]

PART I -   A 'BASE' AND A 'CROWN'

     What did Bnei Yisrael do with the silver collected from the very
first "machazit ha'shekel"? From the commandment at the beginning of
Parshat Ki-tisa (that we read as maftir for Parshat Shekalim) it is not
very clear - as it simply states that it should be given: "l'avodat OHEL
MOED" - for the needs of the Tabernacle (see 30:16).
     Even though the commentators offer two explanations for what this
specific phrase refers to: - either:
  *  to purchase the "korbanot tzibur" [community sacrifices]
  and hence a mitzvah for all future generations as well; or
  *  to construct the Mishkan itself
   and hence a one time mitzvah - for building the Mishkan
    [See lengthy discussion in Ramban on 30:16.]

  Nonetheless, from the opening psukim in Parshat Pekudei it
is clear that there was indeed a special donation of a "machazit
ha'shekel" for the specific purpose of BUILDING the Mishkan.
     In the following shiur, we will undertake a careful reading of
those psukim (i.e. 38:21-31) in attempt to find the deeper meaning of
what this silver was used for.
  [It is highly recommend that you first read 38:21-31, i.e.
  the opening psukim of Parshat Pekudei, before continuing.]

TALLYING THE GOLD & SILVER
     In Parshat Pekudei we learn that Bnei Yisrael were permitted to
donate as much gold and copper ["zahav" & "nechoshet"] as they chose.
The primary use of the gold was to make the "keilim " [vessels] of the
Mishkan ("aron", "shulchan", "menorah", etc.), while the copper was used
to make the "keilim" of the "chatzer"  - i.e. the "mizbach n'choshet"
and the "kiyor".
  [This donation totalled approx. 30 "kikar" of gold, and 70
  "kikar" of copper / note that the weight of a "kikar" was
  about 30 kilo (or 65 lbs.).]

     To our surprise, there was no donation of silver!  In contrast to
the gold and copper, the only silver collected was taken from the
mandatory donation, known as the "machazit ha'shekel" - where each
member of the male population age 20 (and up) gave a half a shekel (see
38:26).
  Since the total census was 603,550, the amount of silver collected
totaled 301,775 shekel.  As 'everyone' knows, every 3,000 shekel equals
one "kikar" [just ask your banker], thus the total amount of silver
collected was 100 "kikar", with a remainder of 1,775 shekel.
     What did they do with so much silver?

SOCKETS FOR THE BEAMS
     Actually, the answer is quite simple. The primary use of the silver
was to make "adanim" [weighted base sockets] to
support the "kerashim" [wooden planks] of the Mishkan.   To
set up the Mishkan - a total of 100 "adanim" were needed.  The first 96
"adanim" were used to support the 48 "krashim" that formed the walls of
the Mishkan.  [The northern and southern walls were 20 "krashim" each,
and the western wall need 8 "krashim" (20+20+8=48); the eastern side was
'open'.]  As each "keresh" required TWO "adanim" [sockets], a total of
96 "adanim" were needed. Plus, four additional "kerashim" were needed to
support the "parochet", but each of these "kerashim" needed only one
"eden" for support.  To summarize, a grand total of 100 [96+4] "adanim"
were needed to form the base support of all of the "kerashim" of the
Mishkan. [See Shmot 26:15-25.]
     These 100 "adanim" were made from the 100 "kikar" of silver - or
simply each "eden" was made by pouring 1 "kikar" of melted silver into
the mold.  These 100 "adanim" thus formed the  base for the walls of the
Mishkan.  The leftover 1775 shekels of silver were used to make some
hooks ["vavim"] to connect the curtains to the poles of the outer
courtyard ["chatzer"], and a sliver plating for the heads of those poles
as well.

WHO COUNTS?
     So why is this detail so important?
     One could suggest that this silver from the "machzit ha'shekel" was
intentionally chosen to form the "adanim". Considering that these
"adanim" formed the very BASE of the Mishkan (and supported the entire
structure), it may be significant that they were manufactured
specifically from the material that was donated EQUALLY by every member
of Am
Yisrael.   In contrast to the vessels of the Mishkan, that
were manufactured from the 'donated' gold and copper, the sockets that
formed the very base of the Mishkan remained unique and special - and
hence were made out of silver.
     Similarly, one viewing the Mishkan form afar, would see the silver
coating on the very top of each of the poles of the courtyard ["amudei
ha'chatzer"], and on the hooks connecting the curtains to these poles.
This detail created a silver like 'perimeter', that may have appeared
like a silver crown surrounding the Mishkan. This 'crown', just like its
'base', was made from this 'everyone is equal' donation of the silver
from the "machazit ha'shekel".
     Therefore, the very base at the bottom, as well as the shiny crown
at the top, reflect the 'collective' donation - where each member of Am
Yisrael is equal. However, in between them, we find the vessels made
from the extra donations of gold and copper from private individuals.

THE PROPER BALANCE
     This may reflect the proper balance between the need on the one
hand for everyone to be equal and work together at the very base level
of Judiasm, yet at the same time allowing for each individual to make
his own personal contribution in any additional realm that he may
choose. Yet, all said and done, when one looks from the outside, the
'finishing touches' [the silver crown surrounding the Mishkan] must
reflect the very same unity that forms its base.

     In later generations, after the Mishkan was built, the "machazit
ha'shekel" was used to buy the "korbanot tzibur". Again we find that the
very basic "korbanot TAMID & MUSAFIM" were offered daily on the
MIZBAYACH reflected the unity and collective nature of Am Yisrael.
However, in addition to those standard  "korbanot tzibur", each
individual was also permitted to offer an additional "korban nedava"
[voluntary offering], but once again, at the base level, we all stand in
front of God as "knesset Yisrael" - as one collective unit.
     What may be the deeper meaning of this 'balance' is discussed in
Part Two.

===

PART II  - MACHAZIT HA'SHEKEL & KLAL YISRAEL

     Why does the Torah command us to collect a HALF of a shekel? After
all, once we are taking up a collection, would it not be more logical
(and profitable) to collect a WHOLE shekel instead of a half?
     This special law that each member of "klal Yisrael" must bring a
MACHATZIT ha'SHEKEL (a half of a shekel) suggests that the very concept
of a "machatzit" (a half /or a fraction) may be significant.

     One could understand this "machazit" aspect not only as
quantitative, but also as qualitative.  In other words, the act of
giving specifically a 'fractional' amount (opposed to a whole),
emphasizes to the individual that he should consider himself as an
integral part of a more complete entity.
     To help explain this concept, we'll employ a parable from nature.

TWO MODELS
     The nature of the relationship between an individual and the group
that he is part of can be understood in one of two
ways:
  1) Like a tree in a forest
  Applied to our case, each INDIVIDUAL could be viewed as a
  single tree, while Am Yisrael (the "klal") would correspond
  to the forest (with many trees).
  2) Like a leaf on a tree
  Am Yisrael itself could be compared to a tree, while each
  individual Jew would correspond to the various parts of the
  tree, such as the leaves, roots, twigs, branches, etc.

     A 'qualitative' understanding for "MACHATZIT ha'shekel" suggests
that we use the latter example to explain the relationship between KLAL
YISRAEL and each individual jew. From a 'spiritual' perspective, all
members of Klal Yisrael are interdependent. [This explanation can help
us understand the concept of "kol Yisrael areivim zeh l'zeh".]

     This understanding can explain an important comment made by Rashi
in Parshat Yitro.  In chapter 19, the Torah describes Bnei Yisrael's
arrival at Har Sinai using a singular verb:
     "va'YICHAN sham Yisrael neged ha'har"
      -And Israel encamped next to the mountain (see 19:2)

Rashi comments:
     "as ONE person, with ONE heart"

     Rashi's commentary may emphasize this very point in
regard to the collective nature of Am Yisrael.  One could suggest that
the Torah can be given to Am Yisrael only AFTER we become a nation - a
collective entity.  This may indicate that our relationship with God
exists first and foremost at the national level.  At Har Sinai (and
later in the Mishkan) Am Yisrael (as a "klal") meets Hashem.  Our own
relationship with God as individuals then becomes possible, as each
individual is an integral part of that greater whole.
     This concept could also explain the pasuk that we say every morning
in "hodu" (Tehillim 105:6) that describes Avraham Avinu as ZERA (seed):
"zera Avraham ohavo, bnei Yaakov bechirav...".
     As Bnei Yisrael can be considered an 'organic' unit, then like any
other organic unit, it must have begun with one seed!

     Based on this understanding, we can advance a possible reason for
giving a "machazit ha'shekel" specifically when taking a census.  When a
group is counted individually, there tends to be a focus on the
independent nature of each individual. However, should we count the
nation collectively, i.e. by each person giving a "machazit ha'shekel",
we focus of the collective interdependent nature of the nation.
     Considering that God has given Am Yisrael a Divine
purpose as a collective group, i.e. to become God's special nation, then
we ask God to judge each individual more leniently IN ORDER that he can
fulfill that Divine purpose. Therefore, in its introduction to this
mitzvah, the Torah
states:
  "v'lo yihiyeh NEGEF b'fkod otam..." -[Count them using a
  machazit ha'shekel] in order that there should not be a
  plague when you count them." (see Shmot 31:12)

  Otherwise, counting each person individually would reflect
a lack of understanding of the collective nature of Am
Yisrael, thus invoking God's anger.

     Therefore, it is not by chance that the money collected from the
"machazit ha'shekel" is used to buy the KORBANOT TZIBUR - the collective
offerings brought each day in the Bet ha' Mikdash. These daily offerings
{korban Tamid/ see Shmot 29:42-44!] represent the entire nation as we
stand before God in the OHEL MOED - the tent of meeting - where Am
Yisrael can 'meet' Hashem, thus 're-living' the experience of Ma'amad
Har Sinai (see shiur on Parshiot Terumah/Tezaveh).

     [A shiur on the Haftara for Shekalim will follow the
     Further Iyun section.]
======

FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. Read I Divrei Hayamim chapter 21 (alt. Shmuel bet chapter 24). In
that chapter, David ha'Melech conducts an unnecessary census of Bnei
Yisrael which kindles God's anger. God gives David a choice of three
punishments, from which David chooses the most severe one from the hand
of God (what we say everyday in tachanun). After this plague has taken
some 70,000 casualties, the plague stops when David offers a korban on
the field of Arnan the Jebusite, which later becomes the site of the
MIZBAYACH and the BET HA'MIKDASH on Har ha'bayit.
     Once again, we find a connection between the MIZBAYACH
and OHEL MOED (the Mikdash) and counting the nation.
     See the various commentators on that chapter (and on the parallel
chapter in Sefer Shmuel II chapter 24) concerning why it was improper
for David to count the people.
     See also Rashi on Shmot 30:11.

B. In Parshat Kitisa, i.e. Parshat Shekalim (Shmot 30:11-16), it is not
clear what specific type of census the psukim are referring to.
     The possibilities raised by the commentators include:
1) the machazit ha'shekel for the daily korbanot tzibur,
2) a special census to collect money for the building of the Mishkan
(relate to Shmot 38:25-28!).
3) the census of Bnei Yisrael taken in preparation for their journey
towards and conquest of Eretz Canaan (see Bamidbar chapters 1->2).
4) any census which Bnei Yisrael must take before going to battle.
     In your opinion, which interpretation appears to be most logical?
[See the parshanim.]

C. In our shiur on Yom Kippur, we suggested that KIPPUR (or
KAPPARA) may imply 'protection' from a punishment which one
may deserve. Relate this concept to Shmot 30:12, where the machazit
ha'shekel is referred to as KOFER NOFSHO, and later as KESEF
HA'KIPPURIM.
     Does this relate in away to the question above (B)?
     Relate this to the concept of DAM ha'KIPPURIM found in relation to
the MIZBACH ha'KTORET (see 30:7-10), and our shiur on Parshat Tezaveh.

=========================

HAFTARA  for Parshat SHEKLAIM - II MELACHIM 12:1-17.

     The Haftara describes the collection of funds that was made during
the time period of King Yoash in order to repair and renovate the Bet
Ha'Mikdash.
     To understand WHY it was necessary to renovate the Bet ha'Mikdash
during the time of Yoash, we must first review the tragic events that
led to how he became king.
     Recall that Achav, the king of Israel, made a treaty of the King of
Sidon (and hence his marriage to Jezebell) which led to the
proliferation and legitimization of Baal worship in Israel (see I
Melachim 16:29-34).
     At the same time when Achav was king of Israel,
Yehoshafat was king of Yehuda. Although Yehoshafat was a good king, he
had also entered into a military treaty with Achav. This friendship
ultimately led to the marriage of Yehoshofat's son YORAM with Achav's
daughter ATALYA. Due to the bad influence of the house of Achav, both
YORAM and his son and successor ACHAZYA became kings who rebelled
against God (see II Melachim 8:16-29).
     Achazya, King of Yehuda, was also killed during YEHU's revolt
against the house of Achav (see II Melachim chapters 9-
>10).  In retaliation for Yehu's murder of the members of both
royal families, ATALYA, the only remnant of the House of
Achav, murdered the entire royal family of Yehuda. The only survivor of
Atalya's terror was Achazya's infant son YOASH (see 11:1-2).  The "kohen
gadol" Yehoyada kept the infant Yoash hidden, while ATALYA took over the
kingdom of Yehuda.
     Therefore, since the time of Yehoshafat's death, i.e. during the
reign of YORAM, ACHAZYA, and ATALYA, the Bet Ha'MIKDASH in Yerushalayim
was quite neglected, and the kingdom had gone astray from God.
     After reigning for six years, Atalya was finally ousted
by a coup d'etat orchestrated by the High Priest Yehoyada. Yoash, then
only seven years old, was proclaimed king. During the early years of his
reign, Yoash was a good king. With the guidance of Yehoyada, proper
worship was restored in the Bet ha'Mikdash. Nonetheless, the Mikdash
itself required major renovations.
     Finally, in the 23rd year of his reign, Yoash, together with
Yehoyada, make a special effort of raise funds for proper fixing  of the
Mikdash. Towards that purpose, Yehoyada makes the first "pushka" (tzdaka
box/ see 12:7-12), and placed it in the Bet Ha'Mikdash near to the
MIZBAYACH. From the funds collected, they were able to pay wages of
workers who finally finished the renovation of the Temple (see
12:13-16).
     Yoash's renovation of the Mikdash reflected a new start
in the proper direction for Am Yisrael after many years waning political
and spiritual leadership.  It reflected a new hope after several decades
of troubled times.
  Similarly, as we read Parshat Shekalim, let's we pray that with the
onset of
spring, Am Yisrael will become worthy once again of proper leadership,
so that it can take the proper steps towards rebuilding a just and
God-fearing society.

                         chodesh tov
                         & shabbat shalom,
                         menachem


