posts so far for parshas Terumah

2012

1. Terumah sources, 2012 edition -- updated and improved.


2011

1. Teruma sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Why I am in favor of murex trunculus techelet. Part one and part two.
   .
3. Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?  Is the Maharsham correct that a talmid chacham should gain all secular knowledge from Torah, parallel to the menorah which was beaten out of one piece of molten gold?
   .
4. The extra vav that wasn't -- As it appears in Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni. See also this earlier post, by the same title.
   .
5. How does Onkelos translate Tachash?  A strange word. Is it an animal or a color?
   .
6. How does *Rav Yosef* translate Tachash?  We saw in the previous post that sasgona is sky-blue. Did Rav Yosef, the expert Targumist, get this wrong? There are numerous other difficulties with the gemara, especially when compared with the parallel Yerushalmi. This post presents an admittedly extremely speculative reconstruction of the original sugya, in which a number of issues are resolved, and tala ilan becomes kala ilan.
   .
7. All who add, subtract --  How to understand a gemara in Sanhedrin, about a pasuk in parshat Trumah.
   .
8. The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees --  An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?

2010

1. Terumah sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftarah.
   a
2. Are the Samaritans right about the spelling of תיעשה? Of course, it would not just be the Samaritans, but various masoretes masoretic texts as well. And it is possible that the malei spelling stems from misunderstanding a midrash.
   .
3. What was bothering Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi? Continuing the conversation on a post in Mishpatim. How Rashbam differing from Chazal is not the same as Rashi differing from Chazal. And considering how Ibn Caspi onegrof would potentially argue with the conclusions of Chazal.

2009

1. Take for me -- part of the running commentary. What is the ultimate purpose of the mishkan? Why bother with gold and silver? Isn't this focus on externalities, and the golden statues of keruvim, at odds with the message at the end of parshat Yitro, where the altar could even be of earth, and where idols (perhaps imbued with a manifestation of a deity above) were disallowed?
   .
2. Terumah sources -- links by perek and aliyah to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus a whole slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara.

2008

• The identity of the tachach -- is it even an animal? if it is, what is it?

2006

• The Mishkan Reflecting A Changed Relationship With Hashem
• A midrash which resonates, with no additions from me. Morasha/Meorasa. Before marriage, the chasan must visit his father-in-law's house to visit his bride, but afterwards, she lives with him. See inside.
• The Identification of Izzim
• as goats' hair. Or perhaps as other sundry bright and intense dyes and cloths.
• The Identification of Techelet
• As blue or black. And how the Karaite approach of ignoring tradition for the meaning of color, trying instead to deduce it from analysis of the root, is extremely misguided. And the meaning of the Rambam's identification. And more.
• Tekhelet as Black as Kohl?
• Further analysis of Rambam. Kohl is kochal, a Biblical cosmetic. But what color is it?

2005

• You have to see it to understand it
• How words are not enough.
• The Extra Vav That Wasn't
• I left this open at the end, with a to-do list. But a discussion of how Rashi comments that a vav is extra and superfluous, and why this is troubling, since we do not have this vav in our Chumashim

2004

• Difference between construction of Mishkan and Bet HaMikdash
• now with a comment by meanderings!
• Why was the Mishkan entirely voluntary while the Temple was obligatory? Some thoughts.

2003

• Inside Like the Outside
• From the somewhat dry material of the description of the mishkan, Chazal find homiletic gold. Just as the ark must be covered with gold inside and out, so must man. Learning Torah is not enough. One also has to be a moral and righteous person, with fear of Heaven, and in fact, Torah is just a means to that end - belief in, fear of, and service of Hashem.

to be continued...

Are current events in Egypt a fulfillment of Yeshaya 19:2?

Summary: No. Maybe. For now, not unless you ignore half of the pasuk, and the rest of the perek.

Post: Tomer Devorah is rather excited about all the goings-on in the world of late. It is snowing! This is surely a sign of the apocalypse. So all the more so, current events in Egypt are such a sign:

"...And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they shall war one man against his brother, and a man against his friend,...." (Yeshayahu 19.2)
Violent Scenes As Egyptians Turning On Each Other
Protests in Cairo turned violent on Wednesday afternoon, with protesters throwing large rocks at each other as pro-Mubarak demonstrators tore down anti-Mubarak banners that have decorated Tahrir Square for three days. Tanks on the periphery of the square were starting to move in anticipation of unruly crowds.

Live video broadcast by Al Jazeera showed men on camels and horseback hitting people in the square with whips as they rode through the crowds.

Women and children were hiding behind tanks in the streets as men in suits threw stones at each other. The protests have not been this violent in nearly a week. The army was using tear gas to disperse crowds.

Note the ellipses in this Dowdified quote of the navi. The full pasuk in Yeshaya is:

ב  וְסִכְסַכְתִּי מִצְרַיִם בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְנִלְחֲמוּ אִישׁ-בְּאָחִיו וְאִישׁ בְּרֵעֵהוּ, עִיר בְּעִיר, מַמְלָכָה בְּמַמְלָכָה.

2 And I will spur Egypt against Egypt; and they shall fight every one against his brother, and everyone against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

Why not cite the end of the pasuk, city against city and kingdom against kingdom? Easy. Because at the present moment, there is no fulfillment of that part of it. It is not the case that protesters seized one city, and are waging war against another city in Egypt.

If Egypt is a single country, how can it be city against city and kingdom against kingdom? Well, Radak explains:

 ונלחמו איש באחיו ממלכה בממלכה אף על פי שמצרים כולו מלכות אחת והיו בהם שרים תחת המלך הגדול, זה מולך במדינה אחת וזה מולך במדינה אחרת, כמו מלכי כנען.

"Even though Egypt is one kingdom, there are many nobles under the one king; this one rules in one province and this one rules in another province, just like the kings of Canaan."

That is one straightfoward interpretation of the pasuk. If I understand Malbim correctly:

ונלחמו איש באחיו -הנה דרך הנהוג בעת ילחמו ממלכה בממלכה, ישלימו כל הערים העומדות תחת פקודת הממלכה ביניהם, ויהיו לאגודה אחת ללחום נגד מתקוממיהם בלב אחד, וכן עת תלחם עיר בעיר, ישלימו בני העיר להיות כאיש אחד נגד העיר העושה עמה מלחמה, וכשילחמו משפחה עם משפחה אחרת, איש ברעו, אז יצטרפו כל האחים והקרובים אשר במשפחה ההיא להיות בקשר אחד. אבל פה תחלה ילחמו איש באחיו, עד שתהיה פירוד בין האחים בני המשפחה, ואח"כ איש ברעהו, אשר אינו ממשפחה אחת, ילחמו משפחה במשפחה, ואח"כ ילחמו עיר בעיר אחרת ואח"כ ממלכה בממלכה אחרת, ובאופן זה תהיה המלחמה עליהם מבית ומחוץ, מלחמה פנימית של האחים והמשפחות והערים, ומלחמה חיצונית של הממלכות.

He takes it as war within and war without, that another country will wage war on Egypt. But first, internal civil war including one city against another city.

Metzudat David just says that there were many countries in the land of Egypt. See also how Shadal interprets it, as one district on another district.

I could imagine things shaping up in this manner in the future, e.g. with supporters of Mubaruch vs. Islamic Brotherhood gaining certain areas, and waging war on one another. But this hasn't happened yet.

Now, is this the only civil war in history? No. Isaiah prophesied from around 740 BCE to about 698 BCE. One prominent civil war after that was one in which Pharaoh-Hophra, also known as Apries, had a general named Amasis who declared himself Pharoah. This could well be mamlacha against mamlacha. Some scholars indeed suggest this (and see here):

Necho II had taken the Egyptian empire to beyond the Euphrates, but as the Babylonia Empire grew they were pushed back, Apries tried to protect Jerusalem from the Babylonians but this effort ended in complete failure. When his troops returned to Egypt from Jerusalem they began to revolt. Just as he was putting this insurrection down he suffered another loss on his eastern border where he had attempted to put down an incursion by Greek forces in Libya. His defeated the army on returning from this second failure started a full out civil war. During this civil war Apries’ general Amasis declared himself pharaoh in 570 BC, forcing Apries to flee. With the assistance of the Babylonian army, Apries marched back to Egypt in 567 BC to reclaim his throne. It is believed that he was killed in battle with Amasis’ forces. Amasis managed to push back and hold off the Babylonians, and was fortunate to have died in 526 BC shortly before the Persians attacked. In 525 BC six months after Amasis’ son Psamtik III came to the throne the Persian (the fierce king of vs 4) began their final assault. Egypt became a vassal of the Persian Empire.

If I wanted to point to another civil war, supporting one Pharaoh against another, I could point to 48 BCE, in which Cleopatra had her supporters against those who supported her brother/husband Ptolemy XIII. Why assume that present day events are the ones Yeshaya is talking about. Especially as we are not yet at full scale civil war, and other parts of the very same pasuk have not been fulfilled, such that the end of the pasuk needs to be replaced by "..." !

Then, there is the rest of the prophecy. You don't get to take half a sentence out of context from a full chapter. There are many other pesukim in that perek. To be credible, explain to be the relevance and fulfillment of most or all of the other pesukim in that perek. For example,

ג  וְנָבְקָה רוּחַ-מִצְרַיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲצָתוֹ אֲבַלֵּעַ; וְדָרְשׁוּ אֶל-הָאֱלִילִים וְאֶל-הָאִטִּים, וְאֶל-הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶל-הַיִּדְּעֹנִים.

3 And the spirit of Egypt shall be made empty within it; and I will make void the counsel thereof; and they shall seek unto the idols, and to the whisperers, and to the ghosts, and to the familiar spirits.

Perhaps back in Yeshaya's time, or those of Pharaoh-Hophra, they worshiped idols, and consulted whisperers, ghosts, and familiar spirits. Are they doing this nowadays in Egypt? Or is this to be metaphorical? One must account for this very next pasuk.

ד  וְסִכַּרְתִּי, אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, בְּיַד, אֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה; וּמֶלֶךְ עַז יִמְשָׁל-בָּם, נְאֻם הָאָדוֹן יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת.

4 And I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.

Well, we will see what happens next in Egypt, whether a dictator arises.

ה  וְנִשְּׁתוּ-מַיִם, מֵהַיָּם; וְנָהָר, יֶחֱרַב וְיָבֵשׁ.

5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be drained dry,

In terms of

ה  וְנִשְּׁתוּ-מַיִם, מֵהַיָּם; וְנָהָר, יֶחֱרַב וְיָבֵשׁ.

5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be drained dry,

Radak says that this is metaphor. See inside. But explain to me the whole perek, or else I will just think that this is cherry-picking a quote to match. That would be the Sharpshooter's fallacy. There are enough apocalyptic sources in Tanach, Talmud, Kabbalah, Chassidus, and so on that I could cherry-pick a quote to match almost any situation.

The extra vav that wasn't

Summary: As it appears in Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni. See also this earlier post, by the same title.

Post: There is a masoretically troubling word in parashat Terumah. In Shemot 25:22, we read:

22. I will arrange My meetings with you there, and I will speak with you from atop the ark cover from between the two cherubim that are upon the Ark of the Testimony, all that I will command you unto the children of Israel.

כב. וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ שָׁם וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

Rashi comments on this:

"and all that I command you unto the children of Israel" -- behold this vav is extra and extraneous, and there are many like it in Scriptures. And so shall you interpret: And that which I speak with you there, it is all that I command you to the children of Israel.		ואת כל אשר אצוה אותך אל בני ישראל: הרי וי"ו זו יתירה וטפלה, וכמוהו הרבה במקרא, וכה תפתר ואת אשר אדבר עמך שם, את כל אשר אצוה אותך אל בני ישראל הוא:

So too, Ibn Ezra notes the presence of this extra vav:
וטעם וי"ו ואת כל אשר אצוה. ככה הוא. 

Chizkuni also seems to have, and explain, this extra vav. While this printing omits the vav in the citation (three lines from the bottom):

This one does not:

"And all that I command" -- The explanation is: and I will speak with you from atop the kapores, and I will also speak to you there all that I command you.

There is also the Septuagint text which seems like it might be based a vav there:
21 καὶ γνωσθήσομαί σοι ἐκεῖθεν καὶ λαλήσω σοι ἄνωθεν τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν δύο Χερουβὶμ τῶν ὄντων ἐπὶ τῆς κιβωτοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἐὰν ἐντείλωμαί σοι πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραήλ.
22 And I will make myself known to thee from thence, and I will speak to thee above the propitiatory between the two cherubs, which are upon the ark of testimony, even in all things which I shall charge thee concerning the children of Israel. 

While I don't know of any masoretic note or codex which supports this ve'et, Vetus Testamentum lists a number of texts which have the vav in place:

Minchas Shai writes:

"et kol asher -- I am astonished at three gedolei haDor, who are great scholars, Ibn Ezra, Rashi and Chizkuni, who explain ve'et kol asher with a vav, as if such was written in their sefarim. And we have already investigated this matter, and we found it in the mesora rabbata that it places this pasuk among those three which have a command 'et kol asher'. And two of those are: et kol asher anochi metzaveh etchem of parshat Re'eh, and et kol asher atzavenu of Shoftim, and in those as well, it was written without a vav. And there is no room for argument. And so writes the Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi upon Rashi -- 'I have searched in many sifrei Torah and I have not found this."

But, while Mizrachi did not find it in any Sifrei Torah, we saw that the author of Vetus Testamentum did find a number of sefarim which had this reading. Also, Masoretic notes were composed on the basis of looking at texts, so this just demonstrates a masoretic tradition based on the same texts we have (and based on the Leningrad codex, etc.). Also, I would point out that this is an instance in which the principle of lectio difficilior  works against our Masoretic text. It is stranger, on the surface, to have the vav, yet it can work out grammatically, as Rashi and Chizkuni explain.

After writing this, I found Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman's article on this: "Was Rashi's Torah Scroll Flawed?". I see that I hit on many of the same points, but he also delves deeper, and e.g. considers Chavel's suggestion that it is about אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, the el is written without a vav, instead of ve'el. He also considers many variant manuscripts and printings that exist. His conclusion, though, is that Rashi's sefer Torah indeed had that extra vav.

Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?

Summary: Is the Maharsham correct that a talmid chacham should gain all secular knowledge from Torah, parallel to the menorah which was beaten out of one piece of molten gold?

Post: The following gem, from Revach.net, relevant to parashat Terumah:

Parshas Truma: Maharsham - A Talmid Chochom Must Have Worldly Wisdom

The Menora had seven branches, but needed to be made out of one solid piece of gold that was hammered into shape. Why was this so essential? Why couldn't it be made out of separate chunks of gold to make it easier to make?

The Maharsham (Tcheiles Mordechai) explains that these seven branches represent the seven secular wisdoms of the world. The Menora represents Torah and a talmid chochom must know all these wisdoms. If each branch was developed separately and then added to the menora, one would think that a talmid chochom must study each one of these subjects independently in order to complete his wisdom.

Hashem cmmanded Moshe to make the seven branches by shaping it out of one piece, the Torah. One must study Torah, and from plumbing the depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world, if he is willing to work hard and bang and shape himself.

You can see this Maharsham inside, in Techelet Mordechai on parashat Terumah:

"In Shemot Rabba and in Rashi, that Moshe had difficulty with the form of the menorah, and Hashem showed him a menorah of fire. And there is to say that behold, this that it was made all of molten gold, and was not made piece by piece, but was rather hammered with a sledgehammer -- it appears to me that the seven branches of the menorah hint at the seven branches of wisdom. And that it should not arise in one's mind that a talmid chacham needs to learn each one by itself. This is not so, for in the Torah is hidden all wisdom, and if he merits it, he will attain all of it from the Torah. And in Shas, in the first perek of Bechorot (8a), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya derived the gestation period for a snake, something which the scholars of philosophy were unable to attain! And since the snake caused sin to come to the world and brought death to the world, and the Torah is the Tree of Life, to fix the sin of the snake, whose gestation is seven years, therefore the Menorah was made of gold and hammered with a sledgehammer to hammer out {להפשיט} the seven branches. And this is what is stated {Yirmeyahu 23:29}:

כט  הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ, נְאֻם-ה; וּכְפַטִּישׁ, יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע.  {ס}

29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? {S}

And Moshe did not understand the intent behind this. Therefore he showed him the menorah of fire, which is like a hammer which breaketh the rock in pieces, and out of which all spreads."

This ends the Maharasham.

Yet, I wonder if that is indeed true. Here is a non-comprehensive list of Tannaim and Amoraim who did not get their all their secular knowledge from the Torah, but rather by study or consulting secular experts, from the book Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud, by Fred Rosner:

More than that. It is funny how everyone always cites this gemara about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya as comprehensive proof that you can get all knowledge from the Torah. While this may indeed be the intent of the statement, as a matter of fact, the gestation period of the snake is NOT seven years. And the gestation period of other animals listed in that gemara are also off! See here and here.

Furthermore, we have practical experience of rabbis who did NOT gain their knowledge from secular study, but from the Torah. The result is a gadol who believes that Jews have a different number of teeth than gentiles. And people who believe as a matter of faith, based on a Malbim and a Chasam Sofer, that a pomegranate has exactly 613 seeds. Torah scholars do need to study secular subjects, in order to be familiar enough with metzius to pasken.

Nowadays, we have the luxury of studying secular subjects in a kosher Torah atmosphere, and it need not be a threat to our faith. The Maharsham, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, did not have this luxury. He had to contend with haskalah and early Reform. But it would be an error to take a polemic written in one intellectual and social environment and blindly apply it to our own.

The seven branches of wisdom he is referring to, by the way, are the trivium and the quadrivium. These are:

• grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy.

But those are a result of a historical accident, not because there are intrinsically precisely seven subjects.

YU Torah on parashat Terumah

Audio Shiurim on Terumah
Rabbi Yosef Blau: Generosity of Heart, Sense of Obligation 
Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: The Philosophico-Teleological Template of the Mishkan and Its Relevance To Our Avodas HaSheim 
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: The Mitzvah of Making the Klei Hamikdash
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Imitating our Creator by being Involved
Rabbi David Hirsch: Just One Mitzva 
Rabbi Avishai David: The Secret of the Mishkan
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Immutable Eternal Love
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Zikaron and Avnei Miluim 
Rabbi Michael Taubes: The Placement of the Aron Kodesh in Shul 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: On the Wings of Love 
Rabbi Dovid Miller: Where is Gemilas Chasadim in the Mishkan? 
Rabbi Reuven Brand: The Unique Role of the Aron
Rabbi Mordechai Willig: Making Your Torah Primary
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Life Lessons from the Aron 
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: The Aron in the Mishkan 
Rabbi Ephraim Greene: Being a Vessel for Torah 
Rabbi Andi Yudin: Through and Through 
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Sanctifying the Material 
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: We Still Have the Shechinah 
Rabbi Jesse Horn: How the Ramban looked at Parshas Terumah 
Rabbi Eli Belizon: The Requirement to Guard Teruma 
Rabbi Itamar Zolberg: Binyan Beit Hamikdash in our days (Hebrew)
Mrs Ilana Saks: Illuminating the Menorah
Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: The Mitzva of Building a Bais Hamikdash 
Rabbi Zev Reichman: Rav Hirsch's Insight into Beit HaMikdash 
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Life Lessons from the Aron 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Lechem Ha’panim
Rabbi Avi Schneider: It's all in the Numbers 
Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: Priest-Man's Burden: Carrying the Mishkan 
Rabbi Hanan Balk: Mishkan as an Expression of the Human Body 
Rabbi Zvi Romm: Haftarat Truma - The Roles of the Mishkan and the Mikdash

Articles on Terumah
Rabbi David Horwitz: The Keruvim: Problems and Solutions
Rabbi Meir Orlian: The Length and Width of the Ark 
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Understanding the Command to Donate 
Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Alone
Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Tachash and True Simcha
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Message and Meaning of the Menorah
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Old Torah, New Reality
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Lessons from the Poles 
Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: Afraid of a Woman?
Rabbi Josh Hoffman: It's Not Material
Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin: The Cherubim and a Case of Mistaken Identity 

Also, a "featured shiur" by Rav Herschel Schachter from a few days ago: The Mitzvah of Tzitzis and Tcheiles

Does Naaseh veNishma imply the former before the latter?

Summary: Presenting Ibn Caspi's take on this.

Post: In parashat Mishpatim, the following pasuk {24:7}:

7. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."

ז. וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע:

The gemara in Shabbos 88a records the following regarding naaseh v'nishma:

R. Simla lectured: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,'²⁴  six hundred thousand ministering angels came and set two crowns upon each man of Israel, one as a reward for²⁵  'we will do,' and the other as a reward for 'we will hearken'. But as soon as Israel sinned,²⁶  one million two hundred thousand destroying angels descended and removed them, as it is said, And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments from mount Horeb.²⁷  R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: At Horeb they put them on and at Horeb they put them off. At Horeb the put them on, as we have stated. At Horeb they put them off, for it is written, And [the children of Israel] stripped themselves, etc. R. Johanan observed: And Moses was privileged and received them all, for in proximity thereto it is stated, And Moses took the tent.²⁸  Resh Lakish said: [Yet] the Holy One, blessed be He, will return them to us in the future, for it is said, and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;²⁹  the joy from of old³⁰  shall be upon their heads.

R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,' a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them, Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels, as it is written, Bless the Lord, ye angels of his. Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil his word, That hearken unto the voice of his word:³¹  first they fulfil and then they hearken?

Or, in the original Aramaic and Hebrew:

דרש ר' סימאי בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע באו ששים ריבוא של מלאכי השרת לכל אחד ואחד מישראל קשרו לו שני כתרים אחד כנגד נעשה ואחד כנגד נשמע וכיון שחטאו ישראל ירדו מאה ועשרים ריבוא מלאכי חבלה ופירקום שנאמר (שמות לג, ו) ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים מהר חורב א"ר חמא בר' חנינא בחורב טענו בחורב פרקו בחורב טענו כדאמרן בחורב פרקו דכתיב ויתנצלו בני ישראל וגו' א"ר יוחנן וכולן זכה משה ונטלן דסמיך ליה ומשה יקח את האהל אמר ר"ל עתיד הקב"ה להחזירן לנו שנאמר (ישעיהו לה, י)ופדויי ה' ישובון ובאו ציון ברנה ושמחת עולם על ראשם שמחה שמעולם על ראשם אמר רבי אלעזר בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע יצתה בת קול ואמרה להן מי גילה לבני רז זה שמלאכי השרת משתמשין בו דכתיב (תהלים קג, כ) ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברישא עושי והדר לשמוע

Rashi explains this preceding naaseh to nishma as follows:

עושי דברו לשמוע - מוכנין לעשות קודם שישמעו ולא כדרך שאר עבדים ששומעים תחילה את הדבר לידע אם יכולין לקבלן עליהם אם לאו:

"They are prepared to perform before they hear, and not in the manner of other servants, who first hear the matter to know if they are able to accept it upon themselves or not."

There is also a famous midrash regarding offering the Torah to all the nations and them refusing after first asking what is in it, while Israel simply says naaseh venishma -- that they are willing to do, even before hearing the contents.

While this is poetic, and there is certainly nothing wrong with it on the level of derash, it might not be the peshat of this pasuk. I'll provide Ibn Caspi's take on this:

"The stone of this statement was already an obstacle to all the early ones {meforshim}, as if precedence in the order of the language then requires precedence of time. And we have already explained in the sefer haSod {J: presumably his supercommentary to Ibn Ezra}, ain mukdam umeuchar baTorah, there is no fixed chronological order in the Torah. All the more so since in what preceded {this pasuk} from the words of Hashem, the majority were commandments of action and the minority commandments upon the heart. Therefore they preceded and said naaseh on the actions and nishma on the ones of the heart."

That is, we do not need to be confounded that hearing must precede action, since who says that the order in the phrase is the order they need to be carried out? (I would suggest that perhaps we can even claim it is a hendiadys.) Furthermore, Ibn Caspi understands nishma in a different manner, namely that both are means of fulfillment of the preceding.

What do some other meforshim do to explain this pasuk? Well, we have Rashbam:

נעשה ונשמע - נעשה מה שדיבר וגם נשמע מה שיצונו עוד מכאן ולהבא ונקיים. 

I think he can readily take nishma as accept, but he takes pains to put these in order. Moshe, in the beginning of the pasuk, had informed them of the contents of some of the mitzvos: וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם. Thus, the naaseh is agreement to what they have heard, while nishma is what Hashem will further command them. And they are accepting this even before hearing those particular details.

Seforno, as I understand him, is saying that the latter is the reason for the former:

נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע. נַעֲשֶׂה לְתַכְלִית שֶׁנִּשְׁמַע בְּקולו, כַּעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁים אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס (ע"פ אבות א, ג), כְּעִנְיַן "עשֵׂי דְבָרו לִשְׁמעַ בְּקול דְּבָרו" (תהלים קג, כ). 

The naaseh is for the purpose of the nishma {heeding} his words. Like servants who serve the master not to receive reward {but for the purpose of serving the master}.

Enough of this for now. There is another important point at play, I think. Consider that the people already said  naaseh more than once, and that this appears at the end of Mishpatim, where the trumpets and clouds, and the full glory of Matan Torah was back in Yitro. Before this instance of naaseh veNishmah, which followed hearing the details of the sefer habris, a few pesukim back we had:

3. So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."

ג. וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיְסַפֵּר לָעָם אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה וְאֵת כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וַיַּעַן כָּל הָעָם קוֹל אֶחָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה:

This is just a naaseh, but is does follow hearing details. But then, back to parashat Yitro, in perek 19 -- read until pasuk 8:

1. In the third month of the children of Israel's departure from Egypt, on this day they arrived in the desert of Sinai.		א. בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינָי:
2. They journeyed from Rephidim, and they arrived in the desert of Sinai, and they encamped in the desert, and Israel encamped there opposite the mountain.		ב. וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר:
3. Moses ascended to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "So shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel,		ג. וּמֹשֶׁה עָלָה אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִן הָהָר לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב וְתַגֵּיד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
4. You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought you to Me.		ד. אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי:
5. And now, if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples, for Mine is the entire earth.		ה. וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:
6. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of princes and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the children of Israel."		ו. וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
7. Moses came and summoned the elders of Israel and placed before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him.		ז. וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
8. And all the people replied in unison and said, "All that the Lord has spoken we shall do!" and Moses took the words of the people back to the Lord.		ח. וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל יְ־הֹוָ־ה:

This was the covenant that Hashem was offering them, but they had not yet heard all the details of this covenant. They did not yet receive the aseres hadibros, or the content of the sefer that Moshe later read to them. They accepted to do before actually hearing.

Therefore, I would say that the pasuk in Mishpatim, about naaseh venishma, is just Chazal seizing on a particularly fortuitous turn of phrase in a pasuk. The actual naaseh venishma as they intend it is back in Yisro, in Shemos 19:8. But throughout, the refrain of the Bnei Yisrael is that everything Hashem says they accept to do. Thematically, then, this naaseh veNishma is not bad as peshat.