[Par-reg] Vayakhel - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Feb 17 04:45:15 EST 2014
*********************************************
****************
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20140217/fabd4665/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/attachments/20140217/fabd4665/attachment-0001.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/attachments/20140217/fabd4665/attachment-0001.doc>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list