[Par-reg.w] Vayakhel Pekudei - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
mleibtag at gmail.com
Mon Mar 20 15:33:11 EDT 2017
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
PARSHAT VAYAKHEL
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
A 'TZEDUKI' MEETS THE 'IBN EZRA' !
1. In his commentary to 35:3, in regard to whether it is
permissible to leave a candle lit on Shabbat, Ibn Ezra
["katzar"] tells of his conversation with a certain Kaarite
["tzeduki"], who tries to determine the halacha based on the
psukim of Chumash - without relying on the tradition of
Chazal.
If you have some time (and understand Hebrew), read this
Ibn Ezra, as he not only tells over a great story, but also
gives us insight into his great appreciation of Chazal,
despite his insistence to understand the literal meaning of
every pasuk. Note especially Ibn Ezra's conclusion at the end
of his commentary to 35:3, in regard to the balance between
Biblical commentary and "psak halacha"!
BETWEEN SHABBAT & THE MISHKAN
1. As you most probably are aware, the halachic definition of
melacha [work] that is forbidden on Shabbat [better known as
the 'lamed-tet melachot'] is derived from the various
categories of 'work' that were required to construct the
mishkan.
[See Mishnayot Masechet Shabbat chapter 7.]
The opening three psukim of parshat Vayakhel are one of the
primary sources for this definition.
As you review these psukim (i.e. Shmot 35:1-4) in their
context, attempt to explain why. Would you consider this
halachic interpretation as 'pshat' or 'drash'?
2. Next, carefully compare the topic and structure of the
psukim in Shmot 35:1-4 to the content and structure of Vayikra
23:1-4.
What textual pattern is similar?
In your opinion, does the phrase 'eileh ha-devarim' in
35:1 relate to the laws of Shabbat that follow in 35:2-3, or
to the laws of the mishkan that follow in 35:4-20? In your
answer, be sure to relate to the phrase "la'asot otam" at the
end of 35:1.
If you have ample time, see the following commentators:
See Ramban on 35:1. Note how Ramban relates to 34:32.
[See also Chizkuni.]
See Seforno, noting how he relates to 34:32.
See Ibn Ezra ('katzar') / and the gemara he quotes -
Shabbat 70a. Why does Ibn Ezra argue with this
interpretation?
Why do most all of the commentators explain 'eileh ha-
devarim' as relating to the mishkan and not shabbat?
Is this pshat? If so, why is 'shabbat' the first mitzva
that Moshe tells the people, before he tells over the laws of
the Mishkan? [See Ramban on 35:1.]
Relate this to your answer to question #1 above.
3. If indeed the phrase "eileh ha'devarim" in 35:1 refers to
the laws of the Mishkan that begin in 35:4 and onward, then
note how 35:10 introduces the list of items that Bnei Yisrael
must construct from the materials that they donate (in 35:5-
9). Then, count how many different items that are in this
list that continues from 35:11 thru 35:20. Does that number
come close to number of categories of work that are forbidden
on shabbat?
Are you aware of what led Chazal to conclude that there
are specifically 39 categories of work that are forbidden on
shabbat, and not more or less! [Relate to the list in 35:11-
20 as well as to the parallel list in 39:33-42.]
4. Next, review the laws of shabbat as presented in 31:12-17,
noting how these psukim form the final 'parshia' after a
sequence of seven chapters of laws concerning the mishkan
(i.e. the mishkan unit of chapters 25->31). Explain how this
juxtaposition supports Chazal's definition of "melacha" on
shabbat. [Note especially the word "ach" in 32:13!]
5. Note the word 'brit' and its context in 31:16; relating
this brit to the word 'ot' in 31:13. Where else in Chumash do
we find the concept of an ot brit? [If you give up, try
looking in Breishit chapters 9 and 17.] Why does a brit need
an ot? [Or 're-phrased' - Why does a bride need a wedding
ring?]
In your opinion, why would the concept of shabbat being
an "ot brit" immediately follow the laws of the mishkan (whose
focal point is the 'luchot ha-brit')? In your answer, relate
to the mishkan's name - i.e. the "ohel mo'ed", and what that
name implies. [Note also Vayikra 23:1-3!]. Relate this to
Shmot 29:44-46 (and our shiur on parshat Tetzaveh).
6. In Parshat Emor, when the Torah forbids work on the
"moadim" [Jewish holidays/ see Vayikra chapter 23], it
consistently uses the phrase: "kol melechet avoda lo taasu" -
in contrast to the phrase: "kol melacha" in regard to shabbat.
From what you recall, in what manner is the halachik
definition of work for "yom-tov" different from its definition
for shabbat?
Based on these two phrases, can you explain why?
In your opinion, does the prohibition of "melacha" on "yom
tov" relate to the Mishkan as well, or is it forbidden for a
different reason? If so, can you suggest a reason why?
In your answer, relate to the difference between
'creativity' and 'physical labor'; & the reason why we don't
work on Yom Tov, based on the phrase "mikra kodesh" in Vayikra
chapter 23.
[If you have ample time, see Ramban on Vayikra 23:7 for a
comprehensive discussion of this topic.]
BETWEEN CHET HA-EGEL and the MISHKAN
1. When Moshe gathers the people (in 35:1) in order to
command them concerning the laws of the mishkan, why do you
think that Torah chooses specifically the word 'vayakhel' to
describe this gathering?
Relate to Shmot 32:1.
2. Is the melacha of 'ha'avara' (35:3 /increasing a fire,
i.e. making a flame or furnace hotter) in any way connected to
chet ha-egel? If so, how? [Relate to 32:4,24.]
Is this melacha connected in any manner to building the
mishkan or making any of its vessels? [e.g. How did they make
the aron & the menora etc.?]
3. What other parallels can you find in Vayakhel / Pekudei to
chet ha-egel? Relate to the phrase "ohel moed" in 33:7 (in
contrast to its use in 25:8), and see Rashi on Shmot 29:1 in
regard to why Aharon must bring a "chatat" offering during
the seven day 'miluim' ceremony, and why he offers
specifically a "par" [bull] .
4. Even if we assume (like Ramban) that the commandment to
build the mishkan was given before chet ha-egel, when do Bnei
Yisrael first hear this mitzva? When they do hear this
mitzva, would you expect that these laws be relayed in a
manner that relates in some way to the events of chet ha-egel?
If so, cite some examples.
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Review parshat Vayakhel, noting the primary topic of each
of its 'parshiot'. As usual, make a vertical listing of these
parshiot, using one word (or at most a phrase) to summarize
each parshia. After you complete your list, attempt to
organize your list into an outline.
Then, take your outline, and compare it to the similar
outline that you prepared for Parshat Teruma. Based on your
comparison, attempt to identify the governing principle for
internal structure of each outline.
What defines the order in Parshat Vayakhel?
What defines the order in Parshat Teruma?
In your opinion, which 'order' makes more sense? Attempt
to explain the reason for the differences, based on the
setting (and/or purpose) of each Parsha.
2. Is the description of how the vessels are made in Parshat
Vayakhel exactly the same as their description in God's
commandment to Moshe in Parshat Teruma? If not, what aspect
is different?
Is there any mention in parshat Vayakhel concerning the
function of the various vessels of the mishkan?
If so, where?
If not, in your opinion, why not?
3. Is there any mention of the Shchina in Vayakhel / Pekudei?
Is there any mention of the Shchina in Teruma / Tetzaveh?
If so, where, and why?
Can you explain the reason for the differences.
Are there any commandments in Teruma / Tetzaveh that are
not repeated in Vayakhel / Pekudei? If so, which ones?
Are those commandments that are 'missing' here repeated
somewhere else in Chumash? If so, where? [If you give up,
see Vayikra chapter 8, & compare with Shmot chapter 29.]
Can you explain why?
In your answer, relate to the difference between 'building'
the mishkan, and 'using' it.
Keep this question in mind when you study Sefer Vayikra.
4. Recall how the aron forms the focal point of the mishkan,
and how the kaporet forms its 'protective cover' (see Shmot
25:10-22 & TSC shiur on Yom Kippur).
In your opinion, what is the purpose of the keruvim on
the kaporet? Similarly, what is the purpose of the keruvim
embroidered on the parochet? (See Shmot 26:31.)
Is there a mention of keruvim earlier in Chumash? If so,
what was their function? [If you give up, take a look at the
end of chapter three in Sefer Breishit.]
What is the thematic significance of this parallel?
5. Review Mishlei 3:1-18, noting especially 3:18 in its
context. What does the 'etz chayim' refer to? Can you relate
this to the etz ha-chayim in Gan Eden and the keruvim that
protect it?
Relate your answer to the above question as well.
6. Attempt to find any thematic similarities between the
story of Adam in Gan Eden, and the story of the first & second
luchot (in relation to chet ha-egel).
See if you can relate this to any of the point discussed
above in regard to the purpose of the mishkan and what it
symbolizes.
PART III - PARSHANUT
[Even though the following questions begin with Ki Tisa,
you'll soon see their connection to Vayakhel.]
WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT GIVEN TO MOSHE?
1. Based on what you remember thus far in Sefer Shmot, what
specific mitzvot did Moshe Rabeinu receive on Har Sinai?
When did Bnei Yisrael receive these mitzvot?
[Support your answer with a pasuk!]
[In your answer, relate to mitzvot that Moshe received
during both the first forty days and the last forty days.]
2. After you answer question #1, read Shmot 34:27-35, paying
special attention to pasuk 32. [Did you relate to this pasuk
in your answer to question #1! If not, re-answer question
#1.]
In your opinion, which 'commandments' does this pasuk
refer to? [You can suggest different possibilities.]
Now, see the following commentators on 34:32,
Rashbam / [Explain the 'unit' he is referring to.]
Ramban / [In what way does he differ from Rashbam?]
Ibn Ezra /[What 'tna'im' is he referring to?
In what way does he differ from Ramban?]
Seforno/ [Is this the same as Rashbam or different?
Explain what is different and why!]
Chizkuni / Does Chizkuni answer this question?
3. Carefully review this Chizkuni (on 34:32) once again,
noting how he explains how and when the Torah, as we have it
today, was written. See also the Gemara that he quotes from
Gitin 60a concerning "torah megilla megilla nitna".
According to this Chizkuni, how can one understand the
reason for Chazal's exegetic approach of 'ein mukdam u-
me'uchar ba-Torah'?
FOR MEN & WOMEN?
4. Review 35:21-29, noting how these psukim describe what the
people donated, in response to Moshe's request (in 35:4-5).
As you study these psukim, note how they describe the
donations of both the women and the men (respectively).
Then, make special note of the opening phrase in 35:22 -
"va'yavou ha'anashim al ha'nashim". As you attempt to
translate this phrase, what problems do you encounter? In
your opinion, what does this pasuk mean - based on both its
words and context? [You can suggest several possibilities.]
See Ibn Ezra (katzar), noting how he offers three
different interpretations. [In the Ibn Ezra aroch, he only
brings one opinion.]
Next see Ramban, noting how he explains how the women
brought their donation 'ahead' of the men. Can you explain
what leads Ramban to this conclusion?
Then, see Chizkuni, who seems to imply that the men took
away their wives' jewelry, for the sake of the Mishkan; but
then offers a simpler interpretation. Can you explain what
leads Chizkuni to his first conclusion?
Finally, see Seforno - who offers a very original
interpretation for why the men had to 'accompany' their wives
when they donated their jewelry. Note how he based this on
Baba Kamma 119a. Can you explain what leads Seforno to his
conclusion?
ANCIENT JEWLERY
5. In 35:22, we also find a list of different types of
jewelry - "chach, v'nezem, v'taabat, b'chumaz...."
Note the various translations for each of these words in
Rashi, Ibn Ezra (aroch), and Chizkuni. Attempt to explain the
reason for the various differences.
VANITY MIRRORS?
6. Read 38:8, and attempt to translate this pasuk. Which
words are difficult, and basically - why is important to know
where the copper of the kiyor came from? {Where did the
copper for the mizbach ha-nechoshet come from? See 38:29-31!
See Rashi, noting how answers the above questions.
According to Rashi, explain the difference of opinion between
Moshe and Hashem concerning the use of this copper.
Next, see Ibn Ezra (also on 38:8). In what manner is his
peirush totally different than Rashi's? According to each,
why did the women donate their copper mirrors specifically for
the kiyor?
Then, see Ramban, noting what point bothers him in
Rashi's peirush. How does Ramban answer this question, why
does he quote Unkelos, and why does he maintain that Unkelos
seems to follow in the lines of Ibn Ezra's peirush.
Finally, see Seforno. What textual difficulty does his
peirush deal with. How does his peirush relate to Ibn Ezra's?
be-hatzlacha,
menachem
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
for PARSHAT PEKUDEI
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
FOR PEKUDEI & PARSHAT SHEKALIM
As this year is a leap-year, it just so happens that we
read Parshat Shekalim together with Parshat Pekudei - which is
a 'perfect combination' for those of you who enjoy the study
of Chumash. Before we begin this special battery of questions
- we should note the reason for Parshat Shekalim.
When the Temple stood, every Jew was obligated to donate a
"machatzit ha'shekel" [a half of a shekel] during the month of
Adar. These coins would go into a special fund, that would
be used to buy the "korbanot tzibur" [the public offerings]
for the upcoming year (that begins in Nisan). [See first
mishna in Mesechet Shekalim, and/or Rambam Zmanim/Shekalim
1:1.]
1. Even though we often take this law for granted, its source
its Biblical source is not so easy to identify. To start you
study, carefully read Shmot 30:11-16 (i.e. Parshat Shekalim),
and based on these psukim alone, what appears to be the
purpose of this donation: As you study, answer the following
questions
- Who is obligated to donate this "machatzit ha'shekel"?
- When (or how often) does this obligation take place?
- What is supposed to be done with the money collected?
In your opinion, do these psukim relate in any manner to
this 'yearly' obligation to donate a "machatzit ha-shekel"?
If not, what is the source for the obligation to give the
yearly machatzit ha-shekel?
Based on these psukim alone, should there be a limit to the
amount of silver that one could donate for building the
Mishkan?
2. Next, compare this command to God's original instruction
to Moshe concerning raising money to build the Mishkan as
described in Shmot 25:1-9! Be sure to compare this as well to
the actual implementation of 25:1-9, as described in the
beginning of Parshat Vayakhel, noting especially 35:4-5 and
35:21-24.
Based on these psukim, does it appear that there was
supposed to be a voluntary donation of silver, similar to that
of gold and copper, or was the silver given in a special
manner?
In 35:4-5, Moshe Rabeinu explains to the people the various
metals that he would like for them to donate. Based on your
understanding of 35:5, should there be any limit on the amount
of silver (or gold or copper) that any single person could
donate?
Respectively, what was the intended use for the gold, silver
and copper (i.e. what vessels were to be made from them)?
In your opinion, how does Shmot 25:1-9 and 35:4-24 relate
to the commandment of Parshat Shekalim (i.e. Shmot 30:11-16)?
Whether or not it does relate, can you explain why this
specific donation of silver (in 30:11-16) needs its own
special 'parshia'?
3. Next, read (and study) the opening psukim of Parshat
Pekudei, paying special attention to the details of 38:25-28
in regard to the silver, within the overall context of the
general tally described in 38:21-31!
How does this tally relate to what was described in 38:21-
24?
How does the tally of the silver relate to the
commandment in Shmot 30:11-16?
As you review Shmot 38:24-31, note how the Torah's
description of the tally of the silver is worded in a
different manner than its tally of the gold and copper. [Note
the words "tnufa" & "pkudei".] Can you explain why?
Considering that one 'kikar' is the equivalent of 3,000
shekel; how does 38:27-30 correspond to the phrase "avodat
ohel moed" in 30:16?
Based on what is described in Parshat Pekudei, when and how
did Moshe relay to Bnei Yisrael that commandment in 30:11-16
(which God had given to him at an earlier time on Har Sinai)?
Finally, see Chizkuni's commentary to 38:30, noting how
he explains what happened to the additional metals that were
donated, but not included in this tally!
4. Next, review the opening chapter of Sefer Bamidbar, noting
the details of census that was taken on the first day of the
second month. Pay special attention to Bamidbar 1:1-3 and the
total of that tally 1:44-47.
Compare those details to Shmot 38:25-28 and Shmot 30:11-
16! Is it possible that this was all the same census, or must
one conclude that two different censuses were taken? [If so,
what problem arises? // See Rashi on Shmot 30:15 and 30:16!
If you have ample time, see also Raman's rebuttal of Rashi's
view in middle of his lengthy commentary to Shmot 30:12!]
5. For an interesting reference to the collection of the
"machatzit ha'shekel", read the story about the special
collection made to renovate the Mikdash during the reign of
Yoash, as described in Divrei Ha'yamim II 24:4-14, noting
especially the phrase "maasat Moshe" in 24:6 and 24:9.
Note as well the special collection that Bnei Yisrael
took upon themselves during the time of Ezra, as described in
Nechemya 10:33; but to appreciate that pasuk, you'll need to
study its context as you review chapters ten and eleven in
Sefer Nechemya.
As long as you have your Tanach open, see also the tragic
story of what happened when David ha'melech counted the
people, as described in Shmuel II chapter 24. In your
opinion, how does that story relate to the commandment in
Shmot 30:11-16? Was David ha'melech wrong by the very
counting of the people, or because he didn't use the
"machatzit ha'shekel" method? [See the various opinions of
the commentators on that chapter!]
6. Review 30:11-16 once again, noting the Torah's use of the
word "kapara" in relation this commandment. In you opinion,
would the need to donate this "machatzit ha'shekel" be related
in any manner to the sin of the Golden Calf? In you answer,
relate to where this 'parshia' is recorded in Chumash.
Then, see Rashi on 30:16 and Chizkuni on 30:12
7. Review Bamidbar 28:1-3, noting how this commandment to
bring the daily "korban tamid" (and later the "musafim") is
directed to the people of Israel. In your opinion, how can an
entire nation bring one offering (or set of offerings)? Which
funds would be used to offer this korban?
Relate this to Chazal's understanding of the law of
"machatzit ha'shekel" that is brought by the entire nation.
Relate you answer as well to Shmot 29:38-46, and to the
collective nature of Am Yisrael as they stand before God in
the "ohel moed".
8. After studying the above sources, you are ready to study
the lengthy Ibn Ezra and Ramban on Shmot 30:11-16. Enjoy!
Based on the above sources, would it be logical to
conclude that the primary source for the "machatzit ha'shekel"
may be "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai" in addition to (or supported
by) various 'hints' to this obligation in Shmot 30:11-16?
[for Parshat Pekudei]
MAKING A POINT!
1. Scan Parshat Pekudei (using a Tanach Koren / or similar),
noting the last phrase of almost every single 'parshia'
(especially in chapter 40). Can you discern a pattern? If
so, attempt to explain why this phrase is repeated so many
times.
Next, review the opening psukim of Parshat Vayakhel (i.e.
35:1-4), looking for a similar phrase (or context). What are
the very first words that Bnei Yisrael (who gather in 35:1)
hear from Moshe Rabeinu (see 35:1). Can you explain the
connection the phrase that is repeated so often in Parshat
Pekudei?
Attempt to relate your understanding of the Torah's
emphasis on this phrase (in regard to building the Mishkan) to
the events at "chet ha-egel". Relate to the nature of
Aharon's sin, i.e. his 'good' intentions, despite the
disastrous results.
2. Note the opening six psukim of Vayikra chapter 9 (in regard
to the ceremony on "yom ha'shmini"), especially 9:5-6. In
what context does Moshe explain to the people - "zeh ha'davar
asher tzivah Hashem..."? Note also, the concluding words of
9:7, 10, & 21.
Then, note what happens in 10:1-2. Based on these
observations, what seems to be the primary reason for why
Nadav & Avihu are punished? [Note as well the "taamei
ha'mikra" on the phrase "asher LO tzivah otam"!]
See Rashi on 10:2 and Seforno on 10:1.
WHO'S COUNTING?
1. Compare the amount of gold, silver, and copper that was
collected to build the mishkan, with the amounts that were
collected by David ha-melech to help Shlomo build the first
Bet ha-Mikdash, as described in Divrei Ha-yamim I 29:1-9!
What can we infer from this in regard to the difference
in size between the Mishkan and the Mikdash.
[See as well Divrei Ha-yamim II 1:15 & 4:18 & 5:1, noting
how Shlomo used these precious metals. Note as well the
parallel between Shmot 40:34-35 and Melachim I 8:10-11.]
2. In Megillat Esther, we are told about the amount of money
that Haman gives to Achashverosh as a bribe to issue the
decree against the Jews. See Esther 3:9; and compare that
amount of silver to the amount that the Jews collected to
build the Mikdash, as recorded in Divrei ha'yamim I 29:7. Can
you suggest any possible thematic connection? [See our TSC
shiur on Megillat Esther!]
THE MISSING "MILUIM"
1. In case you didn't notice, just about all of the
commandments re: the Mishkan that were recorded in Parshiot
Teruma /Tetzaveh (i.e. chapters 25-30) are repeated in
Parshiot in Vayakhel / Pekudei.
As you verify this statement, you should notice that one
major section is missing. [If you didn't find it, then note
that the details of chapter 29 (the 7 day milu'im ceremony) is
not repeated.]
Where do we find the story of its execution?
Again, in case you give up, you'll find those 'missing
details' in Vayikra chapter 8! [That should be obvious.]
2. To prove that Vayikra chapter 8 'belongs' in Parshat
Pekudei, note the command in Shmot 40:9-15, whose execution
doesn't take place in 40:17-33 (as do the commands of 40:1-8)
but are detailed instead in Vayikra chapter 8. Note as well
other textual similarities between Vayikra chapter 8 and Shmot
chapter 40 (e.g. the phrase "kaasher tzivah Hashem et Moshe",
etc.).
Can you suggest a reason why the Torah may have preferred to
record this seven-day dedication ceremony in Sefer Vayikra
instead? In your answer, relate to the primary difference
between the type of laws regarding the Mishkan that are found
in Shmot, and the type of laws that are found in Vayikra.
Relate your answer to the difference between 'building' and
'using' the Mishkan. Would you consider the seven day miluim
as part of the 'building' process, or part of the 'using'
process? [or a bit of both?]
========
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Note the date of the events that take place in Shmot
chapter 40. Based on 40:1 and 40:17 (and Shmot 12:1-2), why
do you think that specifically this day was chosen?
Next, carefully review Shmot 40:34-38. In what manner to
these psukim form the conclusion not only of chapter 40, but
also of the entire unit that began in chapter 35? How do
these 'finale' psukim relate as well to Shmot 25:8 and 29:44-
46?
2. What would you say is the primary topic 40:34-38?
Despite their common topic, can you divide these psukim into
two distinct topics? If so, explain what each topic is, where
they can be divided, and why.
In what manner is this flow (or change) of topic not
logical?
3. Next, compare 40:34-38 to Shmot 24:12-18, especially 15-
18.
Did you find any textual parallels? If so, can you
explain their thematic significance?
What does this parallel suggest in regard to the
connection to the purpose of the Mishkan and how it serves as
a perpetuation of Ma'amad Har Sinai? [See Ramban in his
introduction to the laws of the Mishkan at the beginning of
Parshat Terumah (Shmot 25:1).]
4. Compare these two sources once again, noting not only what
is similar, but also what is different. Based on this
parallel, does Sefer Shmot appear have a 'happy' or 'sad'
ending?
[In other words, was it ideal that Moshe was not able to
enter the Ohel Moed, even though he was able to enter the
cloud at Har Sinai - or does appear that something went
wrong?]
Would there be any reason why he should have entered the
Ohel Moed? [Relate to Shmot 25:21-22!]
If the parallel between Shmot 24:16 and 40:35 would be
complete, what 'ideally' should have happened at this point
immediately after 40:35?
5. Next, read Vayikra 1:1, comparing it with Shmot 24:16 &
25:22!]
How would this observation answer the above question?
See Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra to Vayikra 1:1;
noting how they all relate to this parallel.
Based on this parallel, where (more precisely) in chapter
40 should Vayikra 1:1 have been recorded?
6. Next, return to 40:36-38, noting how this set of psukim
begins a 'new' topic that relates more to how Bnei Yisrael
would travel through the desert.
Compare these psukim with Bamidbar 9:15-18. Based on 9:15,
how doe these psukim relate to Shmot chapter 40?
What is the textual and thematic connection between the
concluding psukim of Sefer Shmot on Bamidbar 9:15-22? [Rather
obvious?] Can you explain why these details are repeated
in Sefer Bamidbar?
7. Based on these two observations regarding Shmot 40:34-38,
what would you say is the relationship between the conclusion
of Sefer Shmot and Sifrei Vayikra and Bamidbar?
How would this relate to the main topic of each of these
books?
Relate your answer to the two primary reasons why God
took Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, based on Shmot 3:8 & 3:12.
Note as well Shmot 29:46.
8. With these questions in mind, read once again Ramban's
introduction to sefer Shmot, as well as his introductions to
Vayikra and Bamidbar. How does he define the difference
between each of these three books?
See also Seforno's introduction to Chumash (found in
Torat Chaim sefer Breishit) and his explanations of sefer
Vayikra and Bamidbar.
9. In the last chapter of parshat Pekudei, the Torah
describes the events that take place when the mishkan is
assembled on the first of Nissan. Note, however, that certain
other events also take place on this very same day, as
recorded in Vayikra 9:1-10:10, and in Bamidbar 7:1-89 and 9:15-
23.
Can you explain why these events, even though they all
take place on the same day, are recorded in three different
books?
Quickly review those events as recorded in each sefer and
attempt to explain how each specific event relates to the
theme of the sefer in which it is recorded.
Can you explain why the Torah doesn't simply record all
these events together in one sefer?
========
PART III - PARSHANUT
ONE WHAT DAY WAS THE EIGHTH DAY?
1. Recall from Shmot chapter 29 (and Vayikra chapter 8) that
a seven day dedication ceremony takes place before the mishkan
becomes fully 'functional' on the 'eighth' day.
In your opinion, do the events which are described in
chapter 40, that take place on the first of Nissan, correspond
to the first day of the seven day milu'im ceremony or to the
'eighth' day? Support your answer.
Be sure to relate to Vayikra 9:1-6, and Bamidbar 9:15.
Does your answer to this question affect how you
understand on what date Bamidbar chapter 7 begins?
[In other words, on what days in the month of Nissan did
the nesi'im offer their korbanot?]
2. After you answer this question, see Ibn Ezra on 40:2.
What are the two opinions that he offers, and why does he
prefer the opinion that the seven day milu'im ceremony began
on the first of Nissan? Be sure that you can follow his
logic.
Then, see Rambam, noting how he too relates to both
opinions, but prefers the opinion that the yom ha-shmini
ceremony took place on the first of Nissan, and the miluim
began seven days earlier. Note as well how he relates to Ibn
Ezra's peirush.
Why 'should' Ramban prefer Ibn Ezra's peirush? [Relate to
his approach to 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar'.] Why then does he
prefer the other opinion? Which source does Ramban consider
primary?
According to Ramban, when were the mitzvot of Vayikra
chapter 1 - 7 given to Moshe Rabeinu, and from where?
How does Ramban solve the 'problem' of ein mukdam u-
me'uchar between these events and the order of events in sefer
Vayikra? [See Ramban on Vayikra 7:38 and 25:1.]
VANITY MIRRORS
3. Note that according to 38:29-31 this copper that was
collected was only used for the mizbach ha-nechoshet, but
apparently not for the "kiyor". Based on Shmot 30:18, does
this make sense?
Then, see 38:8, noting the special mention of how the
"kiyor" was made. Relate this pasuk to the above question.
Then, see Rashi on 38:8, noting his explanation for why
specifically this copper was used for the "kiyor". Then, see
Ibn Ezra on 38:8, noting how his explanation is quite
different.
According to each commentator, which behavior was deserving
of praise?
Finally, see Ramban on 38:8, noting how he quotes both
commentaries. Note also how Ramban relates to the "ohel moed"
that is mentioned in 38:8. What 'chronological' problem in
38:8 leads Ramban to search for a different meaning for the
phrase "ohel moed" in this pasuk? Relate as well to Shmot
33:7!
THE MISHKAN, or JUST THE MISHKAN?
4. Read 39:33. In your opinion, what does the word Mishkan
refer to, i.e. just the ten "yeriot" - or to the entire
complex? In your answer, relate to the Hebrew grammar of
39:33, and to the "pshat" of Shmot 26:1 in relation to 26:15.
[Relate as well to the phrase "et ha'mishkan" in 35:11.]
Then, see Ramban on 39:33, noting how he understands this
pasuk, and why he adds a "vav" to "et ha'ohel"!
See also Seforno on 39:33.
be-hatzlacha,
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170320/20d0849e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayakq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30436 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170320/20d0849e/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayakq.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170320/20d0849e/attachment-0002.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkudq.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 50176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170320/20d0849e/attachment-0003.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkudq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41829 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170320/20d0849e/attachment-0003.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg.w
mailing list