[Par-reg] Pekudei - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Feb 28 03:16:20 EST 2011
**********************************************************
***
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 --------------
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/20110228/552b4751/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list