[Par-reg] Vayakhel - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
mleibtag at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 15:03:57 EST 2019
*************************************************************
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/20190225/402e9f04/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/20190225/402e9f04/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/20190225/402e9f04/attachment-0001.doc>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list