[Par-reg] Pekudei - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Feb 24 15:19:09 EST 2014
*********************************************
****************
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/attachments/20140224/e0d4e7d6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20140224/e0d4e7d6/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- 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/attachments/20140224/e0d4e7d6/attachment-0001.doc>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list