From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Feb 15 17:00:26 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue Feb 15 17:16:11 2005
Subject: [Par-new] Tezaveh - questions for self study
Message-ID: <006801c513a9$c35f7160$640fa8c0@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

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

               PARSHAT TETZAVEH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

A CROWN FOR THE KOHEN GADOL
1.  The Torah refers to the special band that the kohen gadol
wears across his forehead as the "tzitz" (see 28:36).  Can you
explain why that specific name was chosen?  Can you think of
any other mitzvah in the Torah that contains a similar Hebrew
word?  If so, can you think of any thematic connection between
that mitzvah and the "tzitz"?

2. Next, look up the following psukim that contain a word
which may relate to the name of the "tzitz":
  1. Yechezkel 1:7  [note the word "notzetzim"]
  2. Yechezkel 8:3   [note the phrase tzitzit roshi"]
  3. Shir ha'shirim 2:9  [note "meytzitz min ha'charakim"]

     Based on each of these psukim, based on what aspect of
the "tzitz" would it be called this name?
     Then, see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on 28:36,
noting how each commentator quotes one of the above psukim in
his explanation!

3. In what manner does the Kohen Gadol represent the Jewish
people?  How does this relate to the "tzitz"?
     What other garments of the kohen gadol contain something
special that relates his position as the representative of the
Jewish people before God.
     How does this relate to what took place at Ma'amad Har
Sinai?

"TAMID" & THE MISHKAN
1.  The opening pasuk of the parsha describes the mitzva to
light the menora, which is then referred to as a ner tamid
[an 'everlasting' light].  On what other "keilim" (vessels) in
the mishkan do we find an 'avoda' (a ritual) which relates to
the word tamid?
     As you review the sources relating to the other "keilim"
i.e. the 'shulchan', 'mizbach ha-ola', 'mizbach ha-ktoret',
and the 'aron'], see if you can find this word "tamid" - and
if so, be sure to note the context.
     [If/when you give up, see 25:10-30; 29:38-42;30:1-8]
     Which of these 'keilim' does not have an 'avodat tamid'?
          Can you explain why?

     As you review those sources, note the phrase "lifnei
Hashem" or "lifnei ha'eydut" in relation to each "avodat
tamid".  Can you explain the connection?
  In your answer, relate the concept of 'avodat tamid' to
Ramban's explanation of the purpose of the mishkan as a
perpetuation of Har Sinai (as he explains in his introduction
to Parshat Teruma.

PREISTLY RESPONSIBILITIES
2.  Parshat Tetzaveh discusses the appointment of the kohanim
to work in the mishkan, and hence the need for a special
uniform.
     For future generations, what other responsibilities do
the kohanim have in addition to working in the Temple?
  [In your opinion, is there enough work in the mikdash to
  keep all the kohanim in Am Yisrael busy all year long?]
  What are the kohanim expected to do with the rest of their
'spare time'?
  How about the levi'im?  [See Devarim 17:8-10, 33:10.]
     How are the kohanim and levi'im supposed to make a living
(i.e. who pays their salary and how is it collected etc.)?
          [See Bamidbar 18:8-24, especially 18:12-14,21.
     See also Devarim 18:1-8, in relation to 17:8-11.]
How do these implied responsibilities relate to their primary
responsibility to work in the Mikdash.
     Relate once again to the first Ramban on parshat Teruma.
     See also Divrei Ha'yamim II chapter 29 and Nechemya
chapter 8.

'LIGHTING' & 'ENLIGHTENING'
3.  This week's parsha begins with a mitzva concerning how the
kohanim are to light the menora (see 27:20-21).
     Does this mitzva appear to be in its 'logical' location,
or should it have been mentioned earlier with the mitzva to
make the menora (see 25:31-40/ compare 25:21-22).  Explain.
     The next set of mitzvot in the parsha describe the
'bigdei kehuna' (the special garments of the kohanim).  Why do
you think is the mitzva for Aharon & his sons to light the
menora juxtaposed to these mitzvot?
     See Bamidbar 8:1-4.  Is this the same mitzva or a
different one?  Does this mitzva to light the menora also
appear to be out of place?  What topic follows in Bamidbar 8:5-
22?
     In what manner do the other responsibilities of the
kohanim and levi'im (i.e. outside the Mikdash) relate to the
mitzva of lighting the menora?
     [Relate your answer to the above question!]

4.  Compare the menora to the keruvim / and the shulchan to
the aron.  In what manner is each vessel similar to the other?
     How does the function of the keruvim relate to the
function of the menora (or at least to what the menora
represents)?
     Attempt to correlate Moshe/aron to Aharon/menora as far
as the job of each leader in relation to the people!

KOHEN GADOL vs. KING
5.  In what manner is the kohen gadol similar to a king?
          [Relate also to his special garments.]
     In an ideal situation, is the kohen gadol supposed to be
the king?  If yes, explain why?
     If not, explain who should be the king, and what should
be the 'balance of powers' between the king and kohen gadol.
     Relate to Bamidbar 27:15-21, & Devarim 17:8-18:8!
          See also I Shmuel 2:35!

6.  If you have some 'spare time', see Rambam Sefer Avoda,
Hilchot Klei Ha-mikdash chapters 3, 4, & 5.  There he talks
about the leviim, kohanim and kohen gadol.  See IV.20 in
relation to the above question.  See also Rambam Sefer
Shoftim, Hilchot Melachim chapters 1-5, especially IV.10.  [If
you live in chutz la-aretz, don't read V.9-12, "ve-akamal".]

KAPARA - what for?
7.  In the seven day 'milu'im' ceremony (chapter 29), both the
kohanim and the mizbeiach need 'kapara'.
     First, verify this statement from the psukim towards the
end of the chapter.
     In your opinion, what is the purpose of the ceremony, and
why specifically do the kohanim and mizbeiach require kapara?
     What does kapara mean?  [Relate to our discussion of this
topic in our shiur on Yom Kippur (see TSC Web site) in regard
to its 'protective' nature.]
     Could this kapara also relate to 'chet ha-egel'.  Would
it explain why the kohanim must offer this korban?  Would it
explain why the mizbeiach requires kapara.  [Compare the
korbanot in chapter 29 to the korbanot that were offered on
Yom ha-Shmini as detailed in Vayikra 9:1-6!]
==============================

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Browse through parshiot Teruma and Tetzaveh  (25:1-30:10),
noting how this entire unit is included in the 'dibur' to
Moshe that began in 25:1!  [Note that we do not find another
new dibur until the beginning of parshat Ki Tisa (see 30:11).]
     Then, scan this entire unit, paying careful attention to
its division into numerous 'parshiot'.  As you browse through,
attempt to determine the main topic of each 'parshia'.
Attempt to define that topic with a word or two or at most a
very short phrase.
      Then, make a list of these topics (one line for each
parshia, and preferably only one word or short phrase for the
title of each parshia.   [You should finish with about twenty
some lines.]
Now take your list, and transform it into an outline.
     Then, attempt to determine the principle of the internal
structure of this unit.

2.  Once you have determined the general logic of the
progression of these parshiot, note any parshiot that don't
seem to be in their 'proper' place.  If you find any, can you
explain why they are 'out of place'?

3.  Review the second to last parshia of this unit - 29:38-46.
In your opinion, what is the primary topic of this parshia?
How does this topic relate to the entire unit?
     In your opinion, does its location (i.e. towards the end
of this unit) make sense?  [How does the daily korban Tamid
relate to the seven day milu'im ceremony described in 29:1-
37?]

4.  Carefully note the textual and thematic parallel between
29:42-46 and 25:8-9.  Can you explain their significance?
     In what manner could you consider 29:43-44 as a summary
of the entire unit?  [Relate to your outline.]
     In what way do 25:8 & 29:45 enclose this unit?  If so,
then what would be the thematic importance of 29:46?

5.  Based on your outline and your answer to the above
question, what is especially strange about the location of the
mizbach ha-ktoret (i.e. 30:1-10) at the very end of this unit?
     According to your outline, does this parshia belong
somewhere else?  If so, where?
     Can you explain why it is 'out of place'?  [See Chizkuni
and Seforno on 30:1, where they deal with this question.]

6.  Compare 29:42 to 30:6.  What is similar, both textually
and thematically?  Can you explain why?
     What, in your opinion, is the function of the mizbach ha-
ktoret?   Why does specifically this vessel require special
kapara once a year (i.e. on Yom Kippur / see 30:10)?

7.  In your opinion, what is the focal point of the mishkan,
the aron & keruvim and/or the mizbach ha-ola, or both?
     How does the mizbach ha-ktoret relate to each of these
'focal points'?

8.  Recall how Ramban (on 25:1) explained how the mishkan
serves as a perpetuation (and 'model') of Har Sinai.  Recall
also that the ktoret, when offered, creates an anan (a cloud /
see Vayikra 16:13, compare with 19:9, 24:15-16).
     Based on the Ramban's 'model', what (in your opinion)
would be the function of the mizbach ha-ktoret in the Mishkan?
     Would this help explain why 30:1-10 is 'out of place'?
     [Be sure to see Ramban's peirush to 30:1, noting how he
may be relating to this point.]

9.  Next, note the next set of parshiot that follow this unit,
i.e. 30:11-38.  In your opinion, should (at least some) of
these mitzvot been included in parshiot Teruma/Tetzaveh as
well?
     If so, which mitzvot, and where should they have been
recorded?
     Can you suggest a reason why they may have been 'left
out'?  Relate once again to your answer concerning why the
mizbach ktoret was 'left out'.

10.  Finally, make a list of these 'extra' topics in chapter
30, beginning with the mizbach ktoret.  Can you find a
parallel between this list and your outline of Teruma/Tetzaveh
(that you made to answer question #1.
     Can you find a parallel?  If so, can you suggest why it
may be significant?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In the above questions, we noted how the mizbach ktoret
appears to be 'out of place'.  See the various commentators on
30:1, and note how they deal with this problem.
     First,  Rashi (on 30:1).  Does Rashi deal with this
problem or does his peirush deal with another question?  If
so, what is that question?
     See Rashbam.  What question is does Rashbam deal with?
     [To help you answer this question, relate to what the
word mizbeiach is derived from, i.e. shoresh z.v.ch.
          What is a 'zevach' normally brought from?
          See Breishit 31:54, and Vayikra 3:1 & 7:11!]

     Next, see Chizkuni.  How does Chizkuni answer the
'preparation questions' above concerning the placement of the
mizbach ha-ktoret at the end of the entire unit?
     In this case, is his approach thematic or textual?

     Next, see Seforno, noting how he answers these questions?
     Is his answer based on thematic or textual
considerations?

     Finally, see Ramban.  Note how Ramban deals with many of
the questions (raised in the preparation section).
     How does Ramban answer these questions?
     As above, is Rabman's approach (here) based primarily on
thematic or textual considerations?

2.  Read 29:45-46.
     How did you understand the phrase 'le-shochni betocham'?
     First see Rashi.  How does he explain and why?
     Next see Ibn Ezra.  Is Ibn Ezra's approach the same or
different than Rashi's?  Why does he refer back to 3:12?
          [See also Rashbam & Chizkuni!]
     Finally, see Ramban!
     Why does he disagree with Rashi?
          Would he disagree as well with Ibn Ezra & Rashbam?
     How is Ramban's explanation of this pasuk fundamentally
different than all the other parshanim?
     What is its philosophical significance?

3.  Note Rashi's explanation on 29:1 that the par that Aharon
must bring during the seven day milu'im ceremony is to atone
for his sin at chet ha-egel.
     Relate this to Rashi's approach concerning when the
mitzva of the mishkan was first given.  [See last week's
shiur.]
     Then, see Rashi on the opening psukim of parshat Shmini
[i.e. Vayikra 9:1-2].  Carefully note Rashi's explanation why
Aharon must bring specifically an egel for a chatat on this
day.
     Compare his peirush to Chizkuni's (on 9:2).
     Is this the same peirush or different?  Read carefully!
According to Rashi, is the egel that Aharon must bring to
atone for chet ha-egel or to 'make a public statement'?
Explain.

4. Review 29:42, noting the word (and meaning of)
"l'doroteichem".  Then see the Ibn Ezra on this pasuk, where
he claims that the korbanot were only offered at Har Sinai,
but stopped immediately afterwards (for the next forty years)
until Bnei Yisrael arrived in Israel.
     See if you can follow the logic and proofs [sources] for
this rather amazing Ibn Ezra, noting how he relates to several
very 'realistic' considerations!

                           be-hatzlacha,
                            menachem

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb 17 12:55:26 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu Feb 17 12:56:10 2005
Subject: [Par-new] Parshat Tezaveh - shiur
Message-ID: <000b01c51519$dd6e5b90$7abaa8ac@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

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

             PARSHAT TETZAVEH - The mizbach ha'ktoret

     Order in the 'court-yard'?  Certainly that's what we'd
expect to find when the Torah presents the laws of the
mishkan; and that is exactly what we do find - most of the
time.
     However, there is one glaring exception - that relates to
the placement of the laws of the mizbach ha-ktoret at the end
of Parshat Tetzaveh (instead of at the beginning of Parshat
Teruma).
     In the following shiur, we will first clarify our
question; afterward we will offer an explanation that relates
once again to the thematic connection between the mishkan and
Ma'amad Har Sinai.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall, from last week's shiur how Parshat Tetzaveh forms
part of the larger unit (chapters 25 thru 31), which we
referred to as tzivui ha-mishkan [the commandment to build the
mishkan].  This unit contains a complete set of laws in which
God explains to Moshe how the mishkan is to be built and how
it will operate.

     In that shiur, we discussed the controversy concerning
when and why this set of laws was first given to Moshe
Rabeinu.  In the following shiur, we analyze the internal
structure of this unit, to show how (and why) it actually
contains two distinct units - that overlap in a very special
manner.

A VERY LONG 'DIBBUR'
     Before we begin, we must make one general observation
concerning why parshiot Teruma and Tetzaveh (i.e. Shmot 25:1-
30:10) should be considered a distinct 'sub-unit'.  Note how
Parshat Teruma begins with God's commandment to Moshe to
"speak to Bnei Yisrael and tell them..." (25:1) - followed by
a lengthy set of instructions that continues all the way until
the end of Parshat Tetzaveh (i.e. 30:10).  To prove this,
simply note how the next "dibur" doesn't begin until the
opening pasuk of Parshat Ki Tisa. [See the new "dibur" in
30:11, while noting that there has not been any similar
opening statement since 25:1.  However, from 30:11 till the
end of chapter 31, every parshia in a separate "dibur"!  We'll
return to this observation later in the shiur.]

     Therefore, we begin our study with an analysis of this
first 'sub-unit' (i.e. 25:1 thru 30:10).  Afterward, we will
discuss how the six short 'parshiot' in Parshat Ki Tisa (30:11
thru 31:18) that follow, even though they are outside this
unit, complete the larger unit of "tzivui ha-mishkan" - the
commandment to build the Mishkan.

AN OUTLINE OF TERUMA/TETZAVEH
     The following outline summarizes the topic of each
parshia within this unit of parshiot Teruma/Tetzaveh.  Study
it carefully, noting how it appears to follow in a rather
logical order (at least until the very end).  It will clarify
our opening question.
     [Follow this chart with a Tanach Koren at hand.]

Introduction - Donation of the materials  (25:1-7)
     & the purpose of this project:
      "Ve-asu li mikdash ve-shachantI betocham" (25:8-9)

Vessels in the Kodesh Kodashim (innermost sanctuary)
     Aron - the ark to house the "luchot"  (25:10-16)
     Kaporet -  the special lid for the ark (25:17-22)

Vessels in the Kodesh (main sanctuary)
     Shulchan - the table for the show-bread (25:23-30)
     Menora - the candelabra (25:31-40)

The Ohel Mo'ed [The tent housing these vessels] (26:1-37)
     Yeriot  - The canvas of the tent - from cloth & goatskins
     Krashim - the wooden beams supporting this tent
     Parochet - the curtain to partition the Kodesh Kdoshim

The Chatzer  [The outer courtyard & its vessels]
     Mizbeiach Ha-Ola (the altar / 27:1-8)
     Chatzer - the outer courtyard
          its curtains and poles  (see 27:9-19)

Oil For The Menora  (27:20-21)
  [A priori, we would have expected to find this commandment
  with the menorah.  See further iyun.]

The 'Bigdei Kehuna' - (28:1-43)
     Six parshiot describing the priestly garments

The Seven-Day Inaugural Dedication Ceremony (29:1-37)

Olat Tamid  (29:38-46)
     The daily offering on the altar (after its dedication)

The Mizbach Ha-Ktoret - the incense altar (30:1-10)
  [This seems 'out of place', as we will discuss.']

     As you review this outline, note the logical order of its
progression.  It begins by describing the 'aron' - the most
sacred object in the mishkan, situated in the 'kodesh
kodashim'; then continues with the vessels located in the
'kodesh', followed by the 'ohel mo'ed' [Tent of Meeting],
which houses these vessels.  Afterward we find the 'mizbach ha-
ola' - which is located outside this tent - and the courtyard
['chatzer'] that surrounds it.  This unit concludes with the
'bigdei kehuna' - the special garments for the kohanim who
will officiate in the mishkan, followed by the details of its
seven-day dedication ceremony (and the daily sacrifice that
will be henceforth offered).
     However, the final parshia describing the "mizbach ha-
ktoret appears to be totally 'out of place'.  After all, this
golden altar is one of the three vessels situated in the
kodesh.  Clearly, this parshia should have been recorded in
chapter 26 together with the laws of the "shulchan and menorah
- the other vessels located in the ohel mo'ed.

     To verify this point (that the mizbach ktoret is recorded
out of place), simply note the parallel mention of these
vessels in Parshat Vayakhel (see 35:13-15, 37:10-29, &
39:35-39).  There the laws of the mizbach ktoret are
consistently recorded together with the laws of the menorah
and the shulchan.
     Furthermore, this 'displacement' of the mizbach ha-ktoret
is only half the problem.  We will now explain how the psukim
that precede this parshia place this golden altar in even
greater 'isolation'!

OUT OF 'PLACE'  and  'OUT' OF PLACE
     Review the above outline once again, noting how the
parshia of the olat tamid (29:38-46) forms what 'should have
been' the conclusion of this unit.  Let's take a closer look
at this parshia, noting how its concluding verses forms a
beautiful summary for this entire unit (see 29:42-44):
  "Olat tamid for all generations, in front of the ohel mo'ed
  - the place where we will meet to speak to you from there."
       [note how this pasuk 'matches' 25:22!]
  And I will sanctify the OHEL MO'ED (& its vessels),
       [summarizing chapters 25 & 26]
     the MIZBEIACH (i.e. the chatzer),
          [summarizing chapter 27)
     and the KOHANIM... (i.e. their garments & dedication)
          [summarizing chapters 28 & 29]
                                        (see 29:44)
  As you review these psukim, note how the words in CAPS
correlate to the primary topics in the above outline!  But
that's not all, for the next pasuk forms almost a perfect
'bookend' for this entire unit: "ve-shachanti betoch bnei
Yisrael..." (see 29:45) - matching: "ve-asu li mikdash ve-
shachanti betocham" (see 25:8) -the opening commandment of
this entire unit - found at the beginning of Parshat Teruma!

  Finally, to top it off, this parshia concludes with its
'grand finale' - that connects the purpose of this mishkan to
the very purpose of the entire process of Yetziat Mitzrayim:
  "And they shall know that I am their God who took them out
  of Egypt - le-shochni betocham - in order to dwell among
  them; I am the Lord their God"  (see 29:42-46).

     Thus, chapters 25 thru 29 form a clearly defined unit
with 'matching bookends'.  But this only magnifies our opening
question regarding the placement of the laws concerning the
mizbach ha-ktoret (in the next parshia / see 30:1-10) - for it
is not only 'out of place' - it is totally isolated - outside
this 'shechina' unit!
     This total isolation of the mizbach ha-ktoret forces us
to search for a thematic reason for the Torah's intentional
placement of these laws after the closure of the shechina
unit.

BACK TO HAR SINAI
     To suggest an answer to this question, let's return once
again to the conceptual parallel between the mishkan and Har
Sinai, as discussed in last week's shiur, and as explicated by
Ramban:
  "... the hidden purpose ['sod'] of the mishkan is for God's
  glory which dwelled ('shachan') on Har Sinai to dwell upon
  it..." (Ramban on 25:1, see TSC shiur on Teruma).

     According to Ramban, the very purpose of the mishkan was
to serve as a vehicle that could perpetuate the Sinai
experience!  This purpose is reflected in the numerous
parallels that exist between Ma'amad Har Sinai and the
mishkan.  For example:
 * The aron:
  contains the luchot ha-eidut (25:21), the everlasting
  testimony of the covenant forged between God and bnei
  Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 24:3-12).

 * The keruvim:
  situated above the kaporet (on top of the aron), serve as
  the site from where God will continue to speak to Moshe.
  There, Moshe will receive the remaining mitzvot, just as he
  had received the dibrot from God on Har Sinai.

 * The mizbach ha-ola: -
  where Bnei Yisrael will offer their olot & shlamim, is
  similar to the mizbeiach that Bnei Yisrael built at the foot
  of Har Sinai, upon which they offered olot & shlamim (see
  24:4-8).

     Following this train of thought, we should expect to find
a parallel as well between the mizbach ha-ktoret and Ma'amad
Har Sinai - a parallel that may shed light on why the Torah
places the mizbach ha-ktoret after the Shechina unit of the
mishkan was completed.  To find it, we must first consider a
more general parallel between Har Sinai and the mishkan.

THREE MECHITZOT
     One of the most striking parallels between the mishkan
and Har Sinai relates to the concept of 'mechitzot' -
boundaries.  At Har Sinai, the people are instructed to remain
at the foot of the mountain while the kohanim are permitted to
come a bit closer (see 19:22;  24:1-2 & 24:9).  Only Moshe is
granted access to the top of the mountain (see 19:20-24 & 24:2
& 24:12).

     In regard to the mishkan, we find a very interesting
parallel.  The people are permitted to proceed only as far as
the outer courtyard of the mishkan (where the mizbach ha-ola
is located).  The kohanim are allowed into the "kodesh" (where
the shulchan & menorah are located), and only Moshe (and
Aharon) can enter the "kodesh ha-kodashim" (where the aron &
keruvim are located).
  [Additionally, Bnei Yisrael may enter the courtyard only
  after first purifying themselves (i.e. they must be
  "tahor"), just as a purification process was required in
  preparation for Ma'amad Har Sinai (see 19:10-15).]

     The following table summarizes this parallel:
     
GROUP    HAR         THE        FUNCTION
         SINAI      MISHKAN     ========
     	  =====	   =======	

Moshe    top of     Kodesh       dibur
         mountain   kodashim

Kohanim   mid-       Kodesh      meeting
         mountain  (ohel moed)
      
People    foot of    Chatzer     korbanot
         mountain   (courtyard)  
               

     So how does the mizbach ha-ktoret fit into all this?

     In our shiur on Parshat Yitro, we discussed the dialectic
nature of the encounter between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har
Sinai.  Ideally, Bnei Yisrael should have heard the
commandments directly from God ['panim be-panim'].  However,
as mortal man is incapable of withstanding God's Presence (see
Devarim 5:4-5, 20-25), God found it necessary to 'buffer' this
encounter.  due to this tension, God found it necessary to
cover Har Sinai with a cloud before revealing himself:
  "Behold I am coming to you be-av he-anan - in the thickness
  of a cloud - in order that they can hear as I speak to
  you..."  (see 19:9)
  "... And Har Sinai was full of smoke ['ashan'], for God had
  come down upon it with fire... "
          (see 19:16-18 and the TSC shiur on Parshat Yitro).

     In this manner, the anan (cloud) on Har Sinai effectively
served as a buffer between:
 - Bnei Yisrael at the foot of the mountain, and
 - God's revelation at the top of the mountain.
     One could suggest that the mizbach ha-ktoret serves a
similar function.  When the ktoret [incense] is offered on the
coals of this small altar, it creates a cloud of smoke (see
Vayikra 16:13) in the "kodesh".  In this manner, this "anan"
[cloud of smoke] forms a buffer between Bnei Yisrael, who
stand outside in the chatzer - and God, whose presence dwells
in the "kodesh ha-kodashim".

THE AXIS: -Aron -- Mizbach Ktoret -- Mizbach Ola
     This interpretation is supported by two key psukim that
describe the relationship between the mizbach ha-ola, mizbach
ha-ktoret, and the kodesh kodashim.
     The first pasuk stresses the connection between the
mizbach ha-ola and the ohel mo'ed.  As you study this pasuk,
note how redundant it appears to be:
  "olat tamid [the daily offering on the mizbach ha-ola]
   - for all generations,
   - in front of the entrance to the ohel mo'ed -
   - before God  [lifnei Hashem]
   - from where I will meet you
   - to speak to you there"   (see 29:42).

     Surely, the Torah could have explained where this public
offering is brought in half the words; yet for some reason the
Torah wishes to emphasize a thematic connection between the
"olat tamid" and the place where God will speak to Bnei
Yisrael.
  Then, in the next 'parshia', the Torah provides explicit
instructions concerning where to place the mizbach ha-ktoret.
Note once again the 'wordiness' of this pasuk, and how it
relates to the pasuk above:
  "And you shall place it [the mizbach ktoret]
   - in front of the parochet,
   - which is over the aron ha-eidut,
   - in front of the kaporet which is upon the eidut
   - from where I will meet with you."  (see 30:6).

  It is for this reason that the Torah emphasizes that the
mizbach ktoret must be located between these two focal points,
i.e. along this very same axis that connects the mizbach ha-
ola with the kodesh kodashim.
  In fact, later on in the same chapter, when the Torah
explains how the ktoret was made, it emphasizes this point
once again:
"...and you shall grind it very fine, and put it:
 - before the testimony  [lifnei ha'eidut]
 - in the tent of meeting [ohel moed],
 - where I will meet with you;  -  it shall be for you most
holy."  (see 30:36)


A 'PROTECTED' DIVINE ENCOUNTER
     In a manner very similar to what took place at Har Sinai,
God 'comes down' from the heavens, as it were, to the kodesh
kodashim; while Bnei Yisrael come from their camp, to stand
before God in the chatzer of the mishkan.
     Hence, the main section of the ohel mo'ed serves as a
buffer between God and Bnei Yisrael.  There, the ktoret must
be offered each time the kohen enters to perform his service,
which creates an anan [cloud of smoke] to 'protect' the kohen
when he enters the kodesh:
  "And Aharon shall offer the ktoret daily, in the morning
  before tending to the menorah, and when lighting the menorah
  in the evening..." (30:7-8).
  [Note also Vayikra 16:2, where Aharon must also offer
  ktoret to create a similar cloud of smoke to protect
  himself before entering the kodesh ha-kodashim on Yom
  Kippur!]
  
     With this background we can answer our opening question.
One could suggest that by placing the commandment to build the
mizbach ha-ktoret after the summary psukim at the very end of
this unit, the Torah alludes to its unique function as a
'buffer' in this covenantal encounter.  As - 'realistically' -
Bnei Yisrael may not be worthy of this encounter, the Torah
commands Bnei Yisrael to place the mizbach ktoret in the
kodesh to serve as a buffer, to protect them for the Shechina
that dwells in the kodesh kedoshim.
  [Note the similarity between the nature of this 'protected
  encounter' in the mishkan and what we referred to in our
  shiur on Parshat Yitro as 'plan A,' by which God speaks to
  Moshe while 'covered by a cloud' so that the people can only
  overhear their conversation.  See Shmot 19:9! See also
  Devarim 5:5.]

     Furthermore, the dialectic nature of this encounter is
highlighted by the placement of the laws of the mizbach ha-
ktoret outside this Shechina unit, yet within the same dibur!

THE KTORET UNIT
     Up until this point, we have treated parshiot
Teruma/Tetzaveh as one, integrated unit, as indicated by the
single dibur that introduces these two parshiot.  Now we must
consider the remaining parshiot (in Parshat Ki Tisa) that form
the final six paragraphs of the greater tzivui ha-mishkan
unit.
     Take a minute to review the beginning of Ki-Tisa (i.e.
30:11-31:17), noting how it describes several other mitzvot
concerning the mishkan that were also 'left out' of the
Shechina unit.
     When we list these parshiot in order, we find once again
a set of 'bookends':

30:1-10    mizbach ha-ktoret (* bookend 1 *)
              (as explained above)

30:11-16   Machatzit ha-shekel -
              money collected to fund the ohel mo'ed

30:17-21   Ki'yor
             the faucet for the kohanim to wash their hands

30:22-33   Shemen ha-mishcha
          special oil to anoint the mishkan's accessories and the
          kohanim

30:34-38  Ktoret (* bookend 2 *)
             the incense for the mizbach ktoret

  [At this point, the laws concerning the mishkan end.
  Chapter 31 discusses the appointment of Betzalel to build
  the mishkan and the prohibition to work on Shabbat (to
  preclude the possible, mistaken notion the work for the
  mishkan on shabbat is permissible).  Whereas these do not
  involve laws directly relating to the construction of the
  mishkan and its accessories, we have omitted them from this
  table.]
  
     The above table shows how (1) the mizbach ktoret and (2)
the mitzvah to make the ktoret delineate a second unit, which
contains several peripheral commandments regarding the
mishkan.

A PARALLEL STRUCTURE
     As your review these parshiot, note how a rather amazing
parallel structure emerges; pointing to the direct connection
between this Ktoret unit and the previous Shechina unit.  Note
how each of these peripheral commandments in the Ktoret unit
corresponds (in the same order!) to a related topic in the
Shechina unit!
     The following table illustrates this parallel:

TOPIC         SHECHINA      KTORET
              UNIT           UNIT

Accessories    aron,        mizbach
 in the        kaporet,      ktoret
mishkan        shulchan,
               menorah

Ohel Mo'ed    yeriot,     machatzit
              krashim     ha-shekel
                          le-avodat
                          ohel mo'ed

Chatzer      mizbach      kiyor
              ha'olah

Dedication  bigdei        shemen ha-
            kehuna &       mishcha
            milu'im
            (to anoint
            the kohanim)

Daily       korban          ktoret
Offering    tamid on        tamid on
            mizbach ha-ola  mizbach ha-ktoret
             

      The mitzvot found in the Shechina unit, which focus on
God's 'hitgalut' in the mishkan, are complemented by the
mitzvot in the Ktoret unit, which focus on the need to protect
Bnei Yisrael in this special encounter.
     Note as well how all of the mitzvot in the Ktoret unit
emphasize either kapara (see shiur on Yom Kippur, where we
explained how kapara involves protection from God's hitgalut)
or warn of impending death if not performed properly (see
30:10; 30:12; 30:21; 30:33; 30:38; relate to Devarim
5:21-23!).  Protection is required from the potential
punishment enacted should man not prepare himself properly for
this encounter with God in the mishkan.

     In this manner, the laws of the mizbach ktoret can serve
as an eternal reminder of how man must not only value his
ability to enjoy a relationship with God, but also remain
aware of the natural limits of this encounter.

                                   shabbat shalom,
                                   menachem

==================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Be sure to see Ramban on 30:1, where he explains why the
mizbach ha-ktoret is at the end of the unit.  See also Seforno
& Chizkuni. Relate these approaches to our analysis of this
unit in the above shiur.

B.  In our discussion of the overall structure, we noted that
(B) comprises the complete unit of tzivui ha-mishkan.  Note
that this complete unit includes seven dibur's.  [A dibur is
each time the Torah introduces God's speech to Moshe with, "Va-
yedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor" or  "va-yomer ...", etc.
     [See 25:1, 30:11, 30:17, 30:22, 30:34, 31:1, and 31:12.]
     One could view these dibur's as allusions to the seven
days of creation.  The first dibur, covering the entire
Shechina unit, may reflect the concept of God's creation of
light / Shechina (see Rashi on Breishit 1:3).  The next four
deal with other mitzvot of the mishkan.  [Admittedly, they
don't work out as good as the rest.]  The sixth dibur
describes the appointment of Betzalel to build the mishkan.
This may parallel God's creation of man on the sixth day.
Just as man in Creation [perek aleph] was to master the
material world and utilize his God-given talents towards a
divine purpose, so must Betzalel organize the materials
collected and use his God-given talents to oversee the
construction of the mishkan.  To do so, he requires 'ruach
Elokim' (31:3/ relate to the creation of man 'be-tzelem
Elokim').
     The seventh dibur is the mitzvah to keep Shabbat!  (See
31:15.)  This may serve as the basis for the many Midrashim
that describe the mishkan as the pinnacle of the creation
process.  This reflects, once again, the biblical theme that
the natural world needs to be directed towards a divine
purpose.  This is the duty of man not only in the mishkan, but
also throughout his daily life, as well.

C.  A FULL TIME JOB
     Recall from our original outline how the first two psukim
of Parshat Tetzaveh (i.e. the mitzvah to light the menorah
/see 27:20-21) also appears out of place.  If we follow the
logic of the structure of the Shechina unit, it should have
been recorded together with the mitzvah to build the menorah
(just as  the mitzvah to offer the lechem ha-panim is included
with the mitzvah to build the shulchan / see 25:30).
     Nevertheless, the Torah transfers these psukim from
chapter 26 and juxtaposes them with the mitzvah to make the
bigdei kehuna (in chapter 28).  Why?
     One could suggest that in doing so, the Torah alludes to
a more important role of the kohanim.  Aside from the honor
and glory of their position, as reflected by their special
garments, their primary job is to 'spread the light' of Torah
- the message of mishkan, as represented by the aron ha-eidut
at its focal point - to Bnei Yisrael.
     It is this mitzvah of the kohanim, to disseminate the
Torah, which may explain why it referred to as a "chukat olam
le-doroteichem - an everlasting law for all generations" (see
27:31).  Even when the mikdash lay in ruins, this mitzvah
forever remains the obligation of our religious leaders.

D.  ADDITIONAL SOURCES & RESEARCH
Re: The 'displacement' of the mizbach ha-ktoret
     We explained that the Torah 'transferred' the discussion
of the mizbach ha-ktoret to the end of the mishkan unit to
emphasize its role as a 'buffer', protecting Bnei Yisrael from
the 'hashra'at ha-Shechina' that occurs in the mishkan.  This
general idea appears in the Vilna Gaon's "Aderet Eliyahu".
The Gaon explains that neither the ktoret nor the machatzit ha-
shekel (which the Torah discusses immediately following its
discussion of the mizbach ha-ktoret) was indispensable for
'hashra'at ha-Shechina'.  They come into play once the
Shechina has already descended, in order to bring kapara for
Bnei Yisrael.  Though the Gaon does not mention the 'buffer'
idea developed in the shiur, his explanation does feature the
concept of a need for kapara when the Shechina descends and
the mizbach ha-zahav as filling that role.  Like the Gaon, the
Seforno also writes that the mizbach ha-zahav is not necessary
for the Shechina to descend.  However, rather than pointing to
atonement as the ktoret's primary function, the Seforno views
it as an expression of kavod to Hashem, and hence a prayer of
sorts asking the Almighty to accept the korbanot offered on
the other mizbeiach.  The Ramban also writes along the lines,
describing the mizbach ha-zahav as an expression of kavod
rather than a means of bringing the Shechina.
     This point, whether or not the ktoret is required to
bring the Shechina, appears to be subject to dispute.  The
Midrash Tanchuma, Tetzaveh 15, writes clearly that the
Shechina would not descend into the mishkan until after the
ktoret was offered.  This is also the view of the Da'at
Zekeinim mi-Ba'alei ha-Tosafot on Shmot 25:6.  This view would
oppose the position of the Seforno and Vilna Gaon.
     Several different answers to the question of this
parsha's location appear in other mefarshim.  Some Acharonim,
including the Meshech Chochma (30:1), view the location of
this parsha as an allusion to the halacha allowing the
offering of ktoret even without the mizbach ha-ktoret.  The Or
Ha-chayim (25:9) also sees here a subtle allusion to a
technicality, that Shlomo Ha-melech built his own mizbach ha-
ktoret rather than using Moshe's.  (This assumption is
somewhat controversial - see Torah Shleima, milu'im to Parshat
Tetzaveh, 29.)  The Tzror Ha-mor (30:1) writes that the Torah
places this parsha last to indicate the unique stature of the
mizbach ha-ktoret as the most important of all the klei ha-
mikdash.  A similar theory is advanced by Rav Dov Rabinowitz
("Da'at Sofrim"), who claims that Bnei Yisrael are worthy for
the ktoret, the most exalted of all the offerings, only after
they have loyally executed all the commands of the previous
chapters and the Shechina has taken it residence in the
mishkan.  Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim la-Torah 30:1)
suggests precisely the opposite: lest one afford too much
importance to the mizbach ha-zahav over the mizbach ha-
nechoshet, the Torah extracted the former from the discussion
of the klei ha-mikdash in order to emphasize that the mizbach
ha-nechoshet actually constitutes the primary altar.  The
Netziv understands the Torah's structure as intended to
underscore the distinct themes symbolized by the two
mizbachot.  The mizbach ha-nechoshet - along with the menorah
- represents Torah, whereas the mizbach ha-ktoret symbolizes
gemilut chasadim.  The Torah emphasizes their symbolic
distinction by separating them; their coexistence in the
heichal points to the need for the two to work in tandem.  The
Malbim, who develops an elaborate system of symbolism with
regard to the mishkan and its accessories, views the mizbach
ha-ktoret as representing the spiritual result of the avoda
performed in the mishkan.  It is therefore presented last and
apart from the rest of the mishkan's components, as it
represents that which is attained as a result of that was
discussed beforehand.



From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 23 17:30:55 2005
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed Feb 23 17:31:49 2005
Subject: [Par-new] parshat Ki-tisa - shiur
Message-ID: <000a01c519f7$5c960800$650fa8c0@TSCXO6E2MDGIHU>

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

            for PARSHAT KI-TISA
                               
     No matter how one explains the story of 'chet ha-egel'
[the sin of the Golden Calf], we encounter a problem.
If we understand (as the psukim seem to imply) that Bnei
Yisrael truly believed that it was this 'golden calf' (and not
God) who took them out of Egypt - then it is simply hard to
fathom how an entire nation would reach such a senseless
conclusion!
  But if we claim (as many commentators do) that Aharon had
good intentions, for he only intended for the 'egel' to be a
physical representation of God (who took them out of Egypt) -
then why is God so angered to the point that he wants to
destroy the entire nation!
     In this week's shiur, we look for the 'middle road' as we
attempt to find a 'logical' explanation for the events as they
unfold, based on our understanding of the overall theme of
Sefer Shmot.

INTRODUCTION
     According to the popular Midrash, quoted by Rashi (see
32:1 'ba-shesh'), Bnei Yisrael's miscalculation of Moshe's
return by one day led to the entire calamity of 'chet
ha'egel'.  However, when one examines the details of this
story (as other commentators do), a very different picture
emerges that provides a more 'logical' explanation for the
people's request.
  In the following shiur, we follow that direction, as we
examine the events as they unfold in Parshat Kitisa in light
of (and as a continuation of) the events that transpired at
the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:12-18).
  Therefore, we begin our shiur by quoting the Torah's
description of Moshe's original ascent to Har Sinai for forty
days, noting how Moshe never provided the people with an exact
date of his expected return:
  "And God told Moshe, come up to Me on the mountain... then
  Moshe ascended God's Mountain.  To the elders he said:
  'Wait here for us, until we return to you.  Behold, Aharon
  and Chur are with you, should there be any problems, go to
  them..." (see 24:12-14).

     Carefully note how Moshe had informed the elders that he
was leaving 'until he returns', without specifying a date!
Even though several psukim later Chumash tells us (i.e. the
reader) that Moshe remained on the mountain for forty days
(see 24:18), according to 'pshat', the people have no idea how
long Moshe would be gone for.
  [And most likely, neither did Moshe or Aharon.  It is
  important to note that Rashi's interpretation carries a
  very deep message re: the nature of patience and sin, but
  it is not necessarily the simple pshat of these psukim. ]

A LOGICAL CONCLUSION
     Considering this was not the first time that Moshe had
ascended Har Sinai to speak to God (see 19:3,20; 24:1,2); and
in each previous ascent Moshe had never been gone for more
than a day or two - Bnei Yisrael have ample reason to assume
that this time he would not be gone much longer.  After all,
how long could it possibly take to receive the 'luchot, Torah,
& mitzva' (see 24:12): a few days, a few weeks?
     Days pass; weeks pass; yet Moshe does not return!  Add to
this the fact that the last time that Bnei Yisrael saw Moshe,
he had entered a cloud-covered mountain consumed in fire (see
24:17-18), hence - the people's conclusion that Moshe was
'gone' was quite logical.  After all, how much longer can they
wait for?
     Assuming that Moshe is not returning, Bnei Yisrael must
do something - but what are their options?

 *   To remain stranded in the desert?
       Of course not!  They have waited for Moshe long enough.

 *   To return to Egypt?
      "chas ve-shalom' / (of course not!).  That would certainly
       be against God's wishes; and why should they return to
       slavery!

 *   To continue their journey to Eretz Canaan?
      Why not!  After all, was this not the purpose of Yetziat
      Mitzraim - to inherit the Promised Land (see 3:8,17 6:8)?

     Furthermore, that is precisely what God had promised them
numerous times, and most recently in Shmot 23:20?

     This background helps us understand why Bnei Yisrael
approached Aharon, whom Moshe had left in charge (see 24:13-
15) and why their opening complaint focused on their desire
for new leadership - to replace Moshe.  Let's take a careful
look now at the Torah's description of this event:
  "When the people saw that Moshe was so delayed in coming
  down from the mountain, the people gathered on Aharon and
  said to him: Come make us an elohim that will lead us
  [towards the Promised Land] because Moshe, who took us out
  of the land of Egypt [and promised to take us to Eretz
  Canaan], we do not know what has happened to him" (32:1).

     As your review this pasuk, note the phrase "elohim asher
yelchu lefaneinu".  In other words, note how the people do not
request a new god, but rather an elohim [some-one /or thing]
that that will 'walk in front', i.e. that will lead them [to
the Promised Land].
     To understand how 'logical' this request was, we need
only conduct a quick comparison between this pasuk and God's
earlier promise (in Parshat Mishpatim) that He would send a
"mal'ach" to lead them and help them conquer the Land:
  "Behold, I am sending a mal'ach - lefanecha [before you] -
  to guard you and bring you to the place that I have made
  ready..."
    (see 23:20 / Note the Hebrew word 'lefanecha'!)

And two psukim later, God continues this promise:
  "ki yelech mal'achi lefanecha - For My angel will go before
  you, and bring you to the Land..." (23:23)
          [Note again - lefanecha, and the word yelech.]

     Recall as well that this was the last promise that they
had heard before Moshe ascended Har Sinai.  When Bnei Yisrael
first heard this promise, they most probably assumed that this
mal'ach would be none other than Moshe himself.  [Note how the
mal'ach must be someone who commands them, leads them, while
God's Name is in his midst (see 23:21-22, compare 19:9).]
  Now that Moshe is presumed dead, the people simply demand
that Aharon provide them with a replacement for (or possibly a
symbol of) this mal'ach, in order that they can continue their
journey to the Promised Land.  Note once again:
  "Come make us an elokim - asher yelchu lefaneinu!" (32:1)
  [Again, note yelchu & lefaneinu]

     In fact, from a simple reading of the text, it appears as
though Aharon actually agrees to this request:
  "And Aharon said to them: Take off your gold... and bring
  them to me... He took it from them and cast in a mold and
  made it into a molten calf..." (32:2-4).

     If our interpretation thus far is correct, then the
people's statement (upon seeing this Golden Calf): "This is
your god O' Israel - who brought you out of the land of Egypt"
(32:4), does not need to imply that this Golden Calf actually
took them out of Egypt.  [After all, they had already stated
in 32:1 that Moshe had taken them out of Egypt!]  Rather, the
people are simply stating their own perception - that this
egel (which Aharon had just made) represents the God who had
taken them out of Egypt and will hopefully now act as His
mal'ach who will lead them on their journey to Eretz Canaan.
     In other words, in Bnei Yisrael's eyes, the egel is not a
replacement for God, rather a representation of His Presence!
  [See a similar explanation by Rav Yehuda HaLevi in Sefer
  HaKuzari I.77!  See also Ibn Ezra & Ramban on Shmot 32:1]

     This would also explain Aharon's ensuing actions: To
assure that the egel is properly understood as a
representation of God, Aharon calls for a celebration:
  "And Aharon saw, and he built a mizbeiach in front of it,
  and Aharon called out and said: A celebration for God
  [note: be-shem havaya] tomorrow" (32:5).

     Furthermore, this 'celebration' parallels the almost
identical ceremony that took place at Har Sinai forty days
earlier - when Bnei Yisrael declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma'.  To
verify this, we'll compare the Torah's description of these
two ceremonies:

* In Parshat Mishpatim - after Moshe sets up 12 monuments:
  "...and they woke up early in the morning, and they built a
  mizbeiach at the foot of the mountain and twelve monuments
  for the twelve tribes of Israel... and they offered olot
  and sacrificed shlamim" (24:4-5).

* In Parshat Ki-tisa - after Aharon forges the egel:
  "...and they woke up early in the morning [after Aharon had
  built a mizbeiach in front of it /32:5], and they offered
  olot and sacrificed shlamim..." (32:6).

     Note the obvious parallels: waking up in the morning,
building a mizbeiach in front of a 'symbol' (representing
their relationship with God), offering olot & shlamim, and
'eating and drinking' (compare 24:11 with 32:6).
     Furthermore, recall how that ceremony included Moshe's
reading of the 'divrei Hashem' - which most likely included
the laws of Parshat Mishpatim - including God's promise to
send a mal'ach to lead them (see 23:20-23.  Hence, not only
are these two events parallel, they both relate to Bnei
Yisrael's acceptance of a mal'ach that will lead them to the
land ['asher yelchu lefaneinu']!
     Finally, note how both ceremonies include a mizbeiach
that is erected in front of a symbol representing God:

 *   In Parshat Mishpatim, the symbol is the twelve monuments,
possibly representing God's fulfillment of brit avot.

 *   In Parshat Ki-tisa, the symbol is the egel, representing
the mal'ach (which God had promised) that will lead them.
  [Note, that this parallel actually continues in the mishkan
  itself! In front of the mizbeiach upon which Bnei Yisrael
  offer olot & shlamim, we find the aron & keruvim - that
  serve as symbol of God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael at Har
  Sinai.  Later, this very aron leads Bnei Yisrael through
  the desert towards the land (see Bamidbar 10:33) as well as
  in battle (see Bamidbar 10:35 & Yehoshua 6:6-10).  This can
  also explain why the Torah refers to this calf as an 'egel
  masecha' (see 32:4) - implying a 'face covering', hiding
  the true face, but leaving a representation of what man can
  perceive.]

WHY 'DAVKA' AN EGEL?
     Even though our interpretation thus far has shown how the
egel can be understood as a symbol of God's Presence, we have
yet to explain why specifically an egel is chosen as that
representation.  Chizkuni offers a ingenious explanation,
based on yet another parallel to Ma'amad Har Sinai.
     Recall that at the conclusion of the ceremony at Har
Sinai (24:1-11), Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders
are permitted to 'see' God:
  "And they saw Elokei Yisrael and - 'tachat raglav' - under
  His feet was like a shining sapphire..." (24:10)

     Obviously, God does not have 'feet'!  However, this
description reflects a certain spiritual level.  Moshe, for
example, achieved the highest level - "panim be-panim" - face
to face.  In contrast, the seventy elders perceived 'tachat
raglav' -(God's feet), reflecting a lower spiritual level.
  [This may relate to the people's request for a more
  distanced relationship, where Moshe served as their
  intermediary (see 20:15-18 and Devarim 5:20-26).]

     Although it is very difficult for us to comprehend the
description of God in such physical terms, Chizkuni (on 32:4)
notes that we find a very similar description of the Shchina
in Sefer Yechezkel:
  "And their feet were straight, and the bottom of their feet
  were similar to the feet of an egel..." (Yechezkel 1:7).
     [See also the textual parallel of 'even sapir' / compare
     Yechezkel 1:26 with Shmot 24:10.]
  [Alternately, one could suggest that an egel was chosen to
  represent the parim which were offered on Har Sinai during
  the ceremony when God informed them about the mal'ach (see
  24:5/ note that an egel is a baby 'par').]

     So if the people's original request was indeed
'legitimate', and Aharon's 'solution' a sincere attempt to
make a representation of God - why does God become so angered?
Why does He threaten to destroy the entire nation?
     To answer this question, we must once again return to our
parallel with Parshat Mishpatim.

A CONTRASTING PARALLEL
     Despite the many parallels noted above, we find one
additional phrase that is unique to the story of chet ha-egel,
and creates (what we refer to as) a contrasting parallel.
Note the final phrase of each narrative:
 * At Har Sinai (in Parshat Mishpatim):
     "... and they beheld God and they ate and drank" (24:11).
 * At chet ha-egel (in Parshat Ki-tisa):
     "they sat to eat and drink and they rose letzachek" (32:6).
          [We call this a 'contrasting parallel'.]

     It is not by chance that many commentators find in this
word the key to understanding Bnei Yisrael's sin.
  Even though the simple translation of 'letzachek' is
laughing or frivolous behavior, Rashi raises the possibility
that it may refer to licentiousness (or even murder / see
Rashi 32:7 and Breishit 39:17).  Certainly, Chazal understand
this phrase to imply more than just 'dancing'.  To Aharon's
dismay, what began as a quiet ceremony turned into a 'wild
party'.  The celebration simply seems to have gotten 'out of
hand'.  [Soon we will explain why.]
     To support this understanding of letzachek, let's 'jump
ahead' to the Torah's account of Moshe's descent from Har
Sinai (when he breaks the luchot), noting what Moshe and
Yehoshua hear from the mountain.
     First of all, note Yehoshua's initial reaction to the
'loud noise' that he hears:
  "And Yehoshua heard the sound of the people - be-rei'o -
  screaming loudly, and said to Moshe: there are sounds of
  war in the camp.  But Moshe answered - these are not the
  sounds of triumphant, nor are they the groans of the
  defeated, they are simply sounds [of wildness/ frivolity]
  that I hear" (32:17-18).
     [Note Targum Unkelus of 'kol anot' in 32:18 - kol de-
     mechaychin, compare with Tirgum of letzachek in 32:6 of
     le-chaycha; clearly connecting the loud noises to the
     loud laughing of "va-yakumu letzachek"!
     Note also the word be-rei'o - from shoresh 'lehariya' -
     to make a sound like a tru'a, but the spelling is
     r.a.a.h. reflecting its negative context like the word
     'ra'a' = bad or evil!  Compare also with 32:22!

     The noise from this 'wild party' was so loud that it
sounded to Yehoshua like a war was going on!
     Note as well what provoked Moshe to actually break the
tablets: "And he saw the egel and the dancing circles and
became enraged" [va-yar et ha-egel u-mecholot...]  (32:19).
     Moshe was upset no less by the 'wild dancing' than by the
egel itself!  [See commentary of Seforno on this pasuk.]
     With this in mind, let's return now to study the Torah's
account of God's anger with chet ha-egel, as recorded earlier
in chapter 32.
     First of all, as you review 32:5-7, note how God only
becomes angry (and tells Moshe to go down) on the day after
Aharon made the egel!  Now if Bnei Yisrael's primary sin was
making the egel, God should have told Moshe to go down on that
very same day.  The fact that God only tells him to go down on
the next day, and only after we are told that - "va-yakumu
letzachek" - supports our interpretation that this phrase
describes the primary sin of chet ha-egel.

BACK TO OLD HABITS
     What led to this calamity?  What was this noise and 'wild
party' all about?  Even though it is based on' circumstantial
evidence', one could suggest the following explanation:
     Even though the celebration around the egel initiated by
Aharon began with good intentions (see 32:5 - 'chag l-
Hashem'), for some reason, Bnei Yisrael's behavior at this
party quickly became wild and out of control.  Apparently,
once the drinking, dancing, and music began, the nation
impulsively reverted back to their old ways, regressing back
to their Egyptian culture.  [Even though this may not sound
very logical, as most of us are aware, it is unfortunately
human nature.]
     To understand why, let's return to our discussion of Bnei
Yisrael's spiritual level in Egypt, based on Yechezkel chapter
20, and as discussed in length in our shiurim on parshat
Va'era and Beshalach:
  Before the exodus, Bnei Yisrael were so immersed in
Egyptian culture that God found it necessary to demand that
they 'change their ways' in order to prepare for their
redemption (see Yechezkel 20:5-9).  Even though they did not
heed this plea, God took them out of Egypt in the hope that
the miracles of Yetziat Mitzraim, and their experiences on the
way to Har Sinai would create a 'change of heart' (see TSC
shiur on Parshat Beshalach).  When they arrived at Har Sinai,
Bnei Yisrael's proclamation of na'aseh ve-nishma (see 19:3-8 &
24:7) showed God that they were finally ready to become God's
special nation.

THE LAST STRAW
     Unfortunately, the events at chet ha-egel forced God to
change this perception.  Bnei Yisrael's inexcusable behavior
at this celebration reflected the sad fact that despite His
numerous miracles, deep down, nothing had really changed.  God
became more than angered; He became utterly disappointed.  All
of God's efforts to 'train' His nation (since Yetziat
Mitzrayim) seemed to have been in vain.
     In summary, we have suggested that there were two stages
in Bnei Yisrael's sin at chet ha-egel.
 *   The first - making a physical representation of God -
even though this was improper, it was understandable.
 *   The second - the frivolous behavior after the eating and
drinking at the conclusion of the ceremony - was inexcusable.

     We will now show how these two stages are reflected in
God's 'double statement' to Moshe (32:7-10) in the aftermath
of this sin:
(1) - 32:7-8 / God's first statement:
  "And God spoke to Moshe: Hurry down, for your people have
  acted basely ['ki shichet amcha']... they have turned
  astray from the way that I commanded them [see 20:20!] -
  they made an egel masecha [a representation of Me]...
(2) - 32:9-10 / God's second statement:
  "And God spoke to Moshe: I see this nation, behold it is an
  'am ksheh oref' [ a stiff necked people].  Now, allow Me,
  and I will kindle My anger against them and I will destroy
  them and I will make you a great nation [instead]."
     [Note, that "va-yomer Hashem el Moshe" is repeated twice,
     even though Moshe does not speak in between.]
     
     God's first statement describes the act that began with
good intentions but was nonetheless forbidden [see Shmot 20:20
-"lo ta'asun iti elohei kesef..." ].  Although this sin
requires rebuke and forgiveness (see 32:30), it was not severe
enough to warrant the destruction of the entire Nation.
     God's second statement is in reaction to 'va-yakumu
letzachek', i.e. their frivolous behavior.  Because of this
regression to Egyptian culture, God concludes that they are
indeed a 'stiff-necked people' - unable to change their ways.
Therefore, God concludes that He must destroy Bnei Yisrael,
choosing Moshe to become His special nation instead.
     Similarly, these two stages are found in the conversation
between Moshe and Aharon in the aftermath of this event:
  "And Moshe said to Aharon: What did this people do to you
  that caused you to bring upon them such a terrible sin?
  ... Aharon answered: You know this people - 'ki ve-ra hu' -
  their ways are evil" (32:21-22).

     One could suggest that Aharon's conclusion is based on
his previous experiences with Bnei Yisrael.  It is clear,
however, that Moshe understands that Aharon had no intention
that this situation would get out of hand.  After all, Aharon
himself is not punished.  In fact, he later becomes the Kohen
Gadol [High Priest].
     Once Aharon had explained to Moshe what transpired (32:22-
24) in the first stage, Moshe already understood what happened
in the second stage:
  "And Moshe 'saw' the people - 'ki paru'a hu' - that they
  became wild (out of control), for Aharon had caused them to
  become wild [to the point of] their demise, be-kameihem -
  when they got up [to dance/ possibly reflecting 'va-yakumu
  letzachek'! [see 32:25].

     Finally, the two levels that we later find in Bnei
Yisrael's actual punishment may also reflect these two stages.
First, the three thousand 'instigators' who incited this
licentious behavior (stage 2) are killed.  For that rebellious
group, there is no room for forgiveness (32:26-29).  However,
on the second day, Moshe approaches God to beg forgiveness for
the rest of the nation (see 32:30-32).  Even though they had
sinned, Moshe hopes to secure them a pardon - because their
actions began with good intentions (stage 1).
     Ultimately, Moshe will receive this pardon - but it won't
be very simple.

DELAYED PUNISHMENT OR FORGIVENESS
     Even though God had originally agreed to Moshe Rabeinu's
first request not to totally destroy His nation (see "va-
yechal Moshe... va-yinachem Hashem al ha-ra;a..." / 32:11-14),
his next request for forgiveness in 32:31-32 clearly indicates
that the execution of the 3000 'instigators' did not absolve
the rest of the nation.
     To our surprise, Moshe's second tefilla (in 32:30-32)
does not achieve forgiveness!  To prove this point, take a
careful look at God's response to Moshe's second tefilla:
  "And God told Moshe: He who has sinned to Me shall be
  punished.  Now go lead the people to [the place] that I
  said [i.e. to Eretz Canaan], behold My angel will accompany
  you, and on the day that I will punish you, I will punish
  you" (32:34).

     Note that God instructs Moshe to lead Bnei Yisrael to the
Promised Land, thus fulfilling brit avot (as Moshe demanded in
32:13), but He still plans to later punish them for chet ha-
egel, at the time that He finds fit.  Note however, that even
though brit avot will be fulfilled, brit Sinai remains
'broken'!  To prove this, note how chapter 33 explains what
God told Moshe in 32:34:
  "And God said to Moshe - Set out from here, you and the
  people that you have brought out of Egypt to the Land that
  I swore to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov (brit avot)...
  but I will not go in your midst for you are a stiff- necked
  people, lest I destroy you on the journey" (see 33:1-3).

     In contrast to God's original promise at Matan Torah that
He will send a mal'ach with His name in their midst ['shmi be-
kirbo' / see 23:20-23], now He emphatically states that He
will no longer be with them - "ki lo a'aleh be-kirbecha"
(33:3).  Due to chet ha-egel, Bnei Yisrael are no longer
worthy of the special relationship of brit Sinai.
     This 'downgrade' is reflected in God's next commandment
that Bnei Yisrael must remove 'their jewelry' that they
received on Har Sinai, undoubtedly the symbol of the high
level they reached at matan Torah (see 33:5-6).  Furthermore,
Moshe must now move his own tent away from the camp, in order
that God can remain in contact with Moshe (see 33:7).

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
     A very strange predicament has arisen (that often goes
unnoticed).  Even though Bnei Yisrael will not be destroyed
(thanks to brit avot), God instructs Moshe to continue on to
Eretz Canaan without brit Sinai.  [Imagine, a Jewish State
without 'kedusha', several thousand years before Theodore
Herzl!]
     As unthinkable as this sounds, God's decision is very
logical.  Considering His conclusion that Bnei Yisrael are an
'am kshe oref' - a stiff-necked people (see 32:9, 33:5), and
hence will not change their ways, there appears to be no other
solution.  After all, should He keep His Shchina in their
midst, Bnei Yisrael would not be able to survive.
     Fortunately for Am Yisrael, Moshe Rabeinu is not willing
to accept God's decision.  As we will see, his next argument
will set the stage for the declaration of God's midot ha-
rachamim:
  "And Moshe beseeched God: 'Look, you have instructed me to
  lead this people... but recognize that this nation is Your
  people!

     God answered: I will lead [only] you.  But Moshe
insisted: "Im ein panecha holchim al ta'alenu mi-zeh" - Unless
Your presence will go with us, do not make us leave this
place.  For how should it be known that Your people have
gained Your favor unless You go with us..."  (33:12-16)
     [These psukim are quite difficult to translate, I
     recommend that you read the entire section inside.]
     
     Note how Moshe demands that God keep His Presence
[Shchina] with them, threatening a 'sit down strike' should
God refuse.  Most powerful is Moshe's demand that God
recognize that they are His people - "u-re'eh ki amcha ha-goy
ha-zeh" (see 33:13). God ['kivyachol'] now faces a most
difficult predicament.

 *   On the one hand, He cannot allow His Shchina to return -
for according to the terms of brit Sinai - this 'am ksheh
oref' could not survive His anger, and would eventually be
killed.

 *   On the other hand, He cannot leave them in the desert (as
Moshe now threatens), for brit avot must be fulfilled!

 *   But, He cannot take them to the land, for Moshe is not
willing to lead them unless He returns His Shchina.

     Something has to budge!  But what will it be?
     It is precisely here, in the resolution of this dilemma,
where God's 13 midot ha-rachamim enter into the picture.

A NEW COVENANT
     Let's take a look now at God's response to Moshe's
request. Note that here is first time in Chumash where God
introduces the concept of divine mercy:
  "And God said to Moshe, 'I will also do this thing that you
  request... [to return His Shchina / Moshe then asked that
  God show His Glory -] then God answered: ' I will pass all
  my goodness before you, and I will proclaim My name before
  you, and I will pardon he whom I will pardon and I will
  have mercy on he to whom I give mercy (ve-chanoti et asher
  achon, ve-richamti et asher arachem")... (33:17-22).

     In contrast to His original threat of immediate
punishment should they sin (if God is in there midst), now God
agrees to allow Bnei Yisrael a 'second chance' (should they
sin).  This divine promise sets the stage for the forging of a
new covenant though which brit Sinai can be re-established,
for it allows the Shchina to return without the necessity of
immediate severe punishment.
     Therefore, God instructs Moshe to ascend Har Sinai one
more time, in a manner quite parallel to his first ascent to
Har Sinai [but with significant minor differences], to receive
the second luchot (see 34:1-5 and its parallel in 19:20-24).
     As we should expect, the laws should and do remain the
same.  However, their terms must now be amended with God's
attributes of mercy.  Hence, when Moshe now ascends Har Sinai,
it is not necessary for God to repeat the dibrot themselves,
for they remain the same.  Instead, God will descend to
proclaim an amendment to how He will act in this relationship
- i.e. His attributes of mercy.
     As God had promised in 33:19 (review that pasuk before
continuing), a new covenant, reflecting this enhanced
relationship, is now forged:
  "And God came down in a cloud...& passed before him and
  proclaimed: ' Hashem, Hashem Kel rachum ve-chanun, erech
  apayim ve-rav chesed ve-emet, notzer chesed la-alafim"
  (34:5-8).

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ATTRIBUTES
     With this background, we can now better appreciate the
words that God chose to describe His new midot.  To do so, we
must first quickly review God's midot as described at Ma'amad
Har Sinai in parshat Yitro.
     Recall that the dibrot included not only laws, but also
describe how God will reward (or punish) those who obey (or
disobey) His commandments.  Let's review these 'original'
attributes by noting them (in bold) as we quote the
Commandments:
     "I am the Lord your God...
     You shall have no other gods besides Me...
  Do not bow down to them or worship them, for I the Lord am
  a  Kel kana - a zealous God
  poked avon avot al banim - remembering the sin of parents
  upon their children... for those who reject Me [le-son'ai],
  but
  oseh chesed - showing kindness... for those who love me and
  follow my laws - [le-ohavai u-leshomrei mitzvotai]"
  (see 20:2-6).

     Note how the second Commandment includes three divine
attributes:
          1) Kel kana - a zealous God
          2) poked avon avot al banim - le-son'ai
               harsh punishment for those who reject God
          3) oseh chesed la-alafim - le-ohavai
               Kindness & reward for those who follow God.

     Similarly, in the third Commandment, we find yet another
mida [divine attribute]:
  "Do not say in vain the name of God - ki lo yenakeh Hashem
  - for God will not forgive he who says His Name in vain"
  (20:7).

Let's add this fourth attribute to the above list:
     4) lo yenakeh Hashem - He will not forgive

     How should we consider these four attributes?  At first
glance, most of them seem to be quite harsh!
     Even the mida of oseh chesed - Divine kindness, does not
necessarily imply mercy.  Carefully note in 20:6 that God
promises this kindness only for those who follow Him, and
hence not for any others.  Most definitely, all four of these
attributes are quite the opposite of mercy, they are midot ha-
din - attributes of exacting retribution.
     Although these midot have their 'down side', for they
threaten immediate punishment for those who transgress (le-
son'ai), they also have their 'up side', for they assure
immediate reward for those who obey (le-ohavai).  In other
words, these midot describe a very intense relationship, quite
similar to [and not by chance] to God's relationship with man
in Gan Eden (see Breishit 2:16-17).

MORE MIDOT HA-DIN
     Yet another example of this intense relationship, and
another attribute as well, is found at the conclusion of the
unit of laws in Parshat Mishpatim.  Recall that immediately
after the Ten Commandments, Moshe was summoned to Har Sinai to
receive a special set of commandment to relay to Bnei Yisrael
(see Shmot 20:15-19).  At the conclusion of those laws, God
makes the following promise:
  "Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you on
  the way and help bring you into the Promised Land.  Be
  careful of him and obey him, Do not defy him - for he shall
  not pardon your sins -"ki lo yisa le-fish'achem", since My
  Name is with him...
       [On the other hand...]
  "...should you obey Him and do all that I say - I will help
  you defeat your enemies...  (see Shmot 23:20-24).

     Once again, we find that God will exact punishment should
Bnei Yisrael not follow His mitzvot and reward (i.e.
assistance in conquering the Land) should they obey Him.
Finally, after chet ha-egel, we find that God intends to act
precisely according to these attributes of midat ha-din:
  "And God told Moshe, go down from the mountain for your
  people has sinned... they made a golden image... and now
  allow Me, and I will kindle My anger against them that I
  may destroy them -ve-yichar api bahem..." (see Shmot 32:7-
  10).

     Here we find yet another divine attribute - charon af
Hashem - God's instant anger.
  Let's summarize these six attributes that we have found
thus far.  Later, this list will be very helpful when we
compare these midot to God's midot in the second luchot.
     1) Kel kana
     2) poked avon ... le-son'ai
     3) oseh chesed... le-ohavai
     4) lo yenakeh
     5) lo yisa le-fish'achem...
     6) charon af

     We will now show how these six examples of midat ha-din
relate directly to the new attributes that God now declares.
Note the obvious - and rather amazing - parallel that emerges:

   FIRST LUCHOT                    SECOND LUCHOT
1) Kel kana                   Kel rachum ve-chanun
2) poked avon...le-son'ai          poked avon avot al banim...
3) oseh chesed la-alafim      rav chesed ve-emet
         ... le-ohavai             notzer chesed la-alafim...
4) lo yenakeh                 ve-nakeh, lo yenakeh
5) lo yisa lefisheichem       nosei avon ve-fesha...
6) charon af                  erech apayim

FROM DIN TO RACHAMIM
     Each attribute from the original covenant switches from
midat ha-din to midat ha-rachamim.  [To appreciate this
parallel, it is important to follow these psukim in the
original Hebrew.]
     Let's take now a closer look:

A.  Hashem Kel rachum ve-chanun --> (1) Hashem Kel kana
          rachum ve-chanun based on 33:19 (see above)
          a merciful God in contrast to a zealous God

B.  Erech apayim  -->  (6) charon af
          slow to anger in contrast to instant anger

C.  Rav chesed ve-emet  -->  (3) oseh chesed... le-ohavai
     abounding kindness for all, potentially even for the wicked
     [This may allow the possibility of 'rasha ve-tov lo']
     in contrast to exacting kindness, and hence, limited
      exclusively to those who obey Him.
  [Note that the mida of emet is now required, for this
  abounding kindness for all must be complemented by the
  attribute of truth to assure ultimate justice.]

D.  Notzer chesed la-alafim --> (3) oseh chesed....
     le-ohavai
  He stores His kindness, so that even if it is not rewarded
  immediately, it is stored to be given at a later time.
    [This may allow the possibility of 'tzadik ve-ra lo']
  in contrast to immediate kindness and reward for those who
  follow Him.

E.  Nosei avon ve-fesha... --> (5) lo yisa le-fish'achem ...
          forgiving sin in contrast to not forgiving sin.

F.  Ve-nakeh, lo yenakeh   --> (4) lo yenakeh
          sometimes He will forgive, sometimes He may not.
               [See Rashi, forgives those who perform teshuva.]
          in contrast to never forgiving.

G.  Poked avon avot al banim..--> (2) poked avon le-son'ai
          He withholds punishment for up to four generations
                    [in anticipation of teshuva / see Rashi]
  in contrast to extending punishment for up to four
  generations.
     [Even though these two phrases are almost identical,
     their context forces us to interpret each pasuk
     differently.  In the first luchot, all four generations
     are punished, in the second luchot, God may hold back
     punishment for four generations, allowing a chance for
     teshuva.  See Rashi.]

  These striking parallels demonstrate that each of the '13
midot' lies in direct contrast to the midot of the original
covenant at Har Sinai.
  This background can help us appreciate Moshe's immediate
reaction to God's proclamation of these midot:
     "And Moshe hastened to bow down and said: 'If I have
     indeed gained favor in Your eyes - let Hashem go in our
     midst - 'ki' = even though they are an am ksheh oref -a
     stiff necked people, and you shall pardon our sin..."
     (34:8-9)

     God's proclamation that He will now act in a less strict
manner enables Moshe to request that God now return His
Shchina to the people even though they are an am ksheh oref.
Note how this request stands in direct contrast to God's
original threat that "he will not go up with them for they are
a stiff necked people, less He smite them on their journey..."
(see 33:3/ compare with 34:9)!
     These Divine attributes of mercy now allow the Shchina to
dwell within Yisrael even though they may not be worthy.
     From a certain perspective, this entire sequence is quite
understandable.  For, on the one hand, to be worthy of God's
presence, man must behave perfectly.  However, man is still
human.  Although he may strive to perfection, he may often
error or at times even sin.  How then can man ever come close
to God?  Hence, to allow mortal man the potential to continue
a relationship with God, a new set of rules is necessary - one
that includes midot ha-rachamim.
     The original terms of brit Sinai, although ideal, are not
practical.  In this manner, midot ha-rachamim allow brit Sinai
to become achievable.  These midot ha-rachamim reflect God's
kindness that allows man to approach Him and develop a closer
relationship without the necessity of immediate punishment for
any transgression.

SELICHOT
This explanation adds extra meaning to our comprehension and
appreciation of our recitation of the Selichot.  Reciting the
13 midot comprises more than just a mystical formula.  It is a
constant reminder of the conditions of the covenant of the
second luchot.  God's attributes of mercy, as we have shown,
do not guarantee automatic forgiveness, rather, they enable
the possibility of forgiveness.  As the pasuk stated, God will
forgive only he whom He chooses ("et asher achon... ve-et
asher arachem" / 33:19).  To be worthy of that mercy, the
individual must prove his sincerity to God, while accepting
upon himself not to repeat his bad ways.

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

FOR FURTHER IYUN - for Part One
1.  It is not clear why Aharon does not insist that the people
be patient and wait for Moshe.  Note that, according to 24:14,
the people are instructed to turn to Aharon and Chur, should a
problem arise.  Interestingly enough, Chur is never mentioned
again.
     Relate this to the Midrash that explains Aharon's
behavior because Chur had told them to wait and was killed.

2.  Note the use of the word 'shichet' in 32:7.  In Devarim
4:16 we find a similar use of this shoresh in relation to
making a physical representation of God with good intentions!
Read Devarim 4:9-24 carefully and note its connection to the
events at chet ha-egel.  Use this parallel to explain 4:21-23.

3.  See the Rambam's first halacha in Hilchot Avoda Zara.
Relate his explanation of the origin of Avoda Zara to the
above shiur.

FOR FURTHER IYUN - for Part Two
A.  As the new covenant allows for mercy, the perception of
God becomes less clear.  While the first covenant boasted a
clear relationship of 'panim el panim' (face to face / 33:11),
this new covenant, even to Moshe, is represented by a 'face to
back' relationship:
   "But, He said, you can not see my face ... Station yourself
on
   the Rock as My Presence passes by ... you will see my back,
but
   My face must not be seen."["LoTuchal lir'ot panai - ki lo
   yir'ani ha-adam va-chai -... ve-ra'ita et achorai - u-panai
lo
   yira'u.]
   (33:20-23).
This new level has a clear advantage, midat ha-rachamim -
however there is still a price to pay - the unclarity of
Hashem's
hashgacha.  No longer is punishment immediate; however, reward
may also suffer from delay.  Hashem's hashgacha becomes more
complex and now allows apparent situations of tzadik ve-ra lo-
rasha ve-tov lo.
1.  See Chazal's explanation of "hodi'eni na et drachecha"
(33:13)
How does this relate to our explanation?
2.  As communication is clearer when talking face to face with
someone as opposed to talking to someone with his back turned,
attempt to explain the symbolism of the above psukim.
3. Why must Moshe Rabeinu also go down a level in his nevu'a?

B.  The second luchot are carved by man, and not by God.
Attempt to relate this requirement based on the nature of the
13 midot.
     Relate this to the mitzva for Bnei Yisrael to build the
Mishkan, which follows in parshat Vayakhel.
Compare this to the mitzva to begin building a sukka
immediately after Yom Kippur, and in general, why the holiday
of Sukkot follows Yom Kippur.

C.  After God declares His 13 midot of Rachamim (34:6-9), He
makes a promise (34:10), and then adds some commandments
(34:11-26).
     Are these commandments new, or are they a 'repeat' of
mitzvot which were given earlier in Parshat Mishpatim?
           [Relate especially to Shmot 23:9-33.]
If so, can you explain why they are being repeated?
     [Hint: Which type of mitzvot from Parshat Mishpatim are
not repeated?]  Relate your answer to the events of chet ha-
egel.

D.  In the story of chet ha-egel, we find a classic example of
a 'mila mancha', i.e. use of the verb 'lir'ot' - to see
[r.a.h.].
     Review chapters 32->34 in this week's parsha while paying
attention to this word.  'See' for yourself if it points to a
theme.  As you read, pay careful attention to: 32:1, 32:5,
32:9, 32:19, 32:25, 33:10, 33:12-13!, 33:20-23, 34:10, 34:23-
24!, 34:30, and 34:35.  What does it mean when God 'sees'...,
when man 'sees'..., and when man 'sees' (or is seen by) God?
Relate also to the use of this verb (r.a.h.) at Ma'amad Har
Sinai, especially 20:15, 20:19.  See also 19:21, 24:10, &
Dvarim 5:21!  Could you say that 'seeing is believing'?
     If you had fun with that one, you can also try an easier
one: the use of the word 'ra'a' [evil / reish.ayin.hey.] in
32:12-14.
Relate to 32:17, 32:22, 32:25?, 33:4.  Relate to Shmot 10:10;
see Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, Rashbam.

E.  Chazal explain that God's original intention was to create
the world with his attribute of 'din' [judgement], but after
realizing that it could not survive, He included (in His
creation) the attribute of 'rachamim' [mercy] as well.  [See
Rashi Breishit 1:1 - 'bara Elokim...']
     Relate this to the above shiur.  Would you say that this
Midrash reflects Sefer Shmot as well as Sefer Breishit.

F.  Note 'kol tuvi' in 33:19.  Relate this to "va-yar Elokim
ki tov" mentioned after each stage of creation in Breishit
chapter 1.
     Can you relate this to the above question and above
shiur?
     See also Rambam Moreh Nevuchim I:54 / second paragraph.
          [page 84 in Kapach edition Mosad Harav Kook]

G.  Note 34:10 "hinei anochi koret brit..." &  34:29-30.
Relate this to why we refer to midot ha-rachamim in selichot
as 'brit shlosh esrei' .

H.  Connect Part I of the above shiur to a similar concept of
a mal'ach leading Bnei Yisrael, represented by a physical
symbol - as in Bamidbar 10:33:"ve-aron brit Hashem noseia
lifneihem derech shloshet yamim la-tur lahem menucha".  See
also Bmd. 10:35-36 & Yehoshua 6:6-11.


