[Par-reg] Vayakhel - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Feb 21 04:36:58 EST 2011
**********************************************************
***
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
-------------- 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/20110221/dbf84205/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list