"Take for me" (rc)

Terumah, running commentary, pt i, pass i

The parsha begins at Shemot 25:1

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר

וַיְדַבֵּר -- where? When? We have to look to the previous parsha. The previous pasuk, at the very end of Mishpatim, read וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה בְּתוֹךְ הֶעָנָן, וַיַּעַל אֶל-הָהָר; וַיְהִי מֹשֶׁה, בָּהָר, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה. The implication is that this speech was to Moshe when he ascended the Har. And see Ibn Ezra who says the same:

בעלותו אל ראש ההר דבר לו על דבר המשכן. והטעם: שיעשו מקדש לשם הנכבד וישכון בתוכו. ושם ידבר עם משה ולא יעלה אל ההר.

Now, it is possible that this was later, when Moshe was not on Har Sinai at this time. After all, this is a new sidra. And there was a petucha at the end of the previous pasuk. And his ascending the mountain could be the end of one narrative, and this interjects for some reason, with the narrative picking up in a later parsha.

However, the text itself appears to tell us that this is indeed on Har Sinai. See pasuk 40. וּרְאֵה, וַעֲשֵׂה: בְּתַבְנִיתָם--אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה מָרְאֶה, בָּהָר. Perhaps Hashem previously showed him on the Har, but this strongly suggests that this was a topic of conversation on Har Sinai.

Ibn Ezra also makes an excellent point of the טעם here. Rather than a limited revelation on Har Sinai, the instructions here allow for a continuous, Sinai-type revelation throughout the travels through the midbar.

ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ-לִי תְּרוּמָה: מֵאֵת כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ, תִּקְחוּ אֶת-תְּרוּמָתִי

וְיִקְחוּ-לִי -- take when it seems to mean give? See Ibn Ezra. Take from themselves, and thus give, or perhaps this is a command for the collectors to collect.

אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ -- See Rashi as good-will, generosity. The point is that it is optional, but the point is therefore that this allows for an outpouring of the love Israel has for Hashem, as people can express their desire for a relationship via this material support.

ג וְזֹאת, הַתְּרוּמָה, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ, מֵאִתָּם: זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, וּנְחֹשֶׁת

זָהָב וָכֶסֶף וּנְחֹשֶׁת -- does Hashem want, or need, bling? Hashem created the entire world, and the entire world is His. And Hashem is surely above the desire for kesef and zahav. That an atom of gold has 79 electrons does not make it more valuable to Hashem than lead, which has 82 electrons. The obvious answer is that this is valuable from the human perspective. Could Hashem have commanded the Mishkan and its vessels be created out of clay? Certainly. But the point is to have the pomp from the human perspective, as a means of honoring and valuing this connection to Hashem.

ד וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי, וְשֵׁשׁ וְעִזִּים

וּתְכֵלֶת -- it is up to the experts to determine what each of these historically is. I am not researching it here, since this is not my goal in this commentary. See those other sources, just as Rashbam told us to look elsewhere when his own commentary is sparse.

There is a dispute between the Karaites and Pharisees as to the identification of the color of techelet. See Ibn Ezra. This is silly of the Karaites, who define it as black on the basis of etymological analysis of the word as tachlis. If there ever is a place for reliance on tradition of the meaning of words, it is for colors, and an assumption that one can analyze a new definition to the color, when it was well known in the ancient world and thus in the time of Chazal, is just silly.

Does this mean the dye of techelet, argaman, and tolaat shani, or wool that has already been dyed with it? The traditional explanation is the latter. We can support it with izzim at the end, if it means goat-skin. But more than that, in Shemot 35, we have וְרֹקֵם בַּתְּכֵלֶת וּבָאַרְגָּמָן בְּתוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי וּבַשֵּׁשׁ, such that they are weaving thread which is already dyed that color. Thus, the traditional, standard interpretation seems correct.

וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי -- there was an article a while back where they found the worm in the Negev, IIRC, which secretes the dye -- perhaps orange. I cannot find this article at the moment.

וְשֵׁשׁ -- linen, and thus white.

וְעִזִּים -- and translated as goat hair, or perhaps we might say goat skin. The context in this pasuk of threads makes goat hair better, since the skins are in the next verse. But I would suggest that it does not refer to goats at all. The context within this verse is colored cloth of various sorts, and az can mean bright and intense color. Thus, it means other sundry bright and intense dyes and dyed cloth.

ה וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים, וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים

תְּחָשִׁים -- mean maybe some unique, short-lived animal, or perhaps simply some animal we no longer know the name to. Or maybe we do know its identity. At any rate, see Ibn Ezra.

וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים -- I suppose this building material must be stuck somewhere, but it does seem awkward at the end of this list.

ו שֶׁמֶן, לַמָּאֹר; בְּשָׂמִים לְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים
ז אַבְנֵי-שֹׁהַם, וְאַבְנֵי מִלֻּאִים, לָאֵפֹד, וְלַחֹשֶׁן

לָאֵפֹד, וְלַחֹשֶׁן -- building see how avnei shoham and avnei miluim distributes to their respective target in order, as per Rashi.

ח וְעָשׂוּ לִי, מִקְדָּשׁ; וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם

מִקְדָּשׁ -- a house of sanctity. See Rashi. See Ibn Ezra that its sanctity stems from the fact it is the mishkan of Hashem. Perhaps one can say instead that this is what the people are doing -- veasu li Mikdash -- by attitude and created a sacred place, and Hashem responds in kind by dwelling in that Mikdash.

וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹכָם -- this is the goal. A continuous presence of Hashem within the midst of Israel in the midbar, rather that the limited engagement at Har Sinai.

Is this different from the malach which went before them in a pillar of cloud or fire? It would seem so.

Betocham rather than betocho because the point is that he is dwelling within the midst of Klal Yisrael, rather than being some outside force, at the top of the mountain. And making clear the close relationship between Hashem and his people.

ט כְּכֹל, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ, אֵת תַּבְנִית הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וְאֵת תַּבְנִית כָּל-כֵּלָיו; וְכֵן, תַּעֲשׂוּ

מַרְאֶה -- textual descriptions of this are terribly difficult to understand. Does this refer to a vision? Or is this textual layout called the tavnit, which Hashem is telling him and thus revealing to him? I would favor the former.

י וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן, עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים: אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ, וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ, וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי, קֹמָתוֹ

וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן -- this is given first, and perhaps is prominent because of its importance, not only in housing the Luchot, but because from atop the aron Hashem will speak to Moshe.

יא וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר, מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ; וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב, סָבִיב

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר -- if it were solid gold, it would be much heavier. Acacia wood on the inside with a gold covering would presumably be much lighter, and yet has all the same effect as if it were entirely gold.

זָהָב טָהוֹר -- Presumably gold without other alloys. This is the purest, and probably therefore the most honorable.

יב וְיָצַקְתָּ לּוֹ, אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב, וְנָתַתָּה, עַל אַרְבַּע פַּעֲמֹתָיו; וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת, עַל-צַלְעוֹ הָאֶחָת, וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת, עַל-צַלְעוֹ הַשֵּׁנִית
יג וְעָשִׂיתָ בַדֵּי, עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים; וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם, זָהָב
יד וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת-הַבַּדִּים בַּטַּבָּעֹת, עַל צַלְעֹת הָאָרֹן, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-הָאָרֹן, בָּהֶם
טו בְּטַבְּעֹת, הָאָרֹן, יִהְיוּ, הַבַּדִּים: לֹא יָסֻרוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ

לֹא יָסֻרוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ -- I gave a graduation speech about how this shows that we must always be prepared to take our Torah with us as we go out into the world. A nice homiletic message. But indeed, it seems that there is a lack of permanence here, as if the Aron, where Hashem decides to manifest his presence, may always move from place to place.

טז וְנָתַתָּ, אֶל-הָאָרֹן--אֵת, הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן, אֵלֶיךָ

אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן -- when Moshe goes up to receive the Luchot in the future.

The following is now troubling.

יז וְעָשִׂיתָ כַפֹּרֶת, זָהָב טָהוֹר: אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבָּהּ
יח וְעָשִׂיתָ שְׁנַיִם כְּרֻבִים, זָהָב; מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם, מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת
יט וַעֲשֵׂה כְּרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה, מִזֶּה, וּכְרוּב-אֶחָד מִקָּצָה, מִזֶּה; מִן-הַכַּפֹּרֶת תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת-הַכְּרֻבִים, עַל-שְׁנֵי קְצוֹתָיו
כ וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה, סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל-הַכַּפֹּרֶת, וּפְנֵיהֶם, אִישׁ אֶל-אָחִיו; אֶל-הַכַּפֹּרֶת--יִהְיוּ, פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים
כא וְנָתַתָּ אֶת-הַכַּפֹּרֶת עַל-הָאָרֹן, מִלְמָעְלָה; וְאֶל-הָאָרֹן--תִּתֵּן אֶת-הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ
כב וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ, שָׁם, וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים, אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת--אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

How can this be? Gold statues upon which Hashem's presence manifests itself?! This is difficult.

I claimed the theme at the very end of Yisro is that Hashem does not need golden idols or fancy hewn altars to come down and bless us. Hashem at Har Sinai communicated directly. And I interpreted לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי as that there was no need for an idol together with Hashem, as an intermediary. And that this is not the idea of idolatry as fetishism, worship of the actual inanimate idol, but the idol as representative of some higher deity above.

And yet here we have wrought gold statues, and Hashem speaks from between them! The answer may well be that it is not Hashem which enters the statues. No one will worship the cherubs themselves. Rather, Hashem manifests, often as cloud filling the area, and speaks from there. The keruvim are just environment, after the pattern of the ministering angels surrounding Hashem above.

But Chazal grapple with precisely this question. I offered a peshat commentary on those verses at the end of parshas Yisro. But besides for that, see Rashi (based on Mechilta) on those psukim. The pasuk in full there is:

יט לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן, אִתִּי: אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם

Rashi:

יט) לא תעשון אתי -
לא תעשון דמות שמשי המשמשים לפני במרום:
אלוהי כסף -
בא להזהיר על הכרובים, שאתה עושה לעמוד אתי, שלא יהיו של כסף, שאם שניתם לעשותם של כסף הרי הן לפני כאלהות:
ואלוהי זהב -
בא להזהיר שלא יוסיף על שנים, שאם עשית ארבעה, הרי הן לפני כאלוהי זהב:
לא תעשו לכם -
לא תאמר הריני עושה כרובים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות כדרך שאני עושה בבית עולמים, לכך נאמר לא תעשו לכם:

Note the extreme focus on the non-local keruvim. This is not just a derasha, but dealing with a tremendous chip on the shoulder. How do we square this injunction with the construction of keruvim. Thus, אלוהי כסף does not exclude them, because they are made of gold. And ואלוהי זהב does not exclude them, since they are somehow an exception, but if you would make more than the two that somehow managed to squeeze by, they would indeed by "as if" gods of gold. And לכם is used to limit this use of cherubs to this one instance, but no personal keruvim in other places of worship and Torah study should be made.

There is a more general apparent conflict. At the end of Yisro, a simple altar made of earth or stones, so long as the stones were not hewn and thus too fancy. And here (perek 27), an altar of acacia-wood, overlaid with copper. At the end of Yisro, בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי, אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ. And here there is a particular designated place. This requires deeper consideration.

Perhaps there is a difference between worship in general, where Hashem comes down to bless, and the Mishkan, where Hashem is to more permanantly dwell and converse with Moshe. That might require a keruvim, and the desire of the people to donate and set up a place for Hashem with some measure of pomp.