[Par-reg] Vayakhel/ Pkudei - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Sun Mar 7 04:35:20 EST 2010
**********************************************************
***
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 mail.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Questions for Self Study - by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***************
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 --------------
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/attachments/20100307/ff148647/attachment-0002.pdf
-------------- 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/attachments/20100307/ff148647/attachment-0003.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list