English translation — פקודי א

In the explanation of the verse¹

"These are the accounts of the Tabernacle etc. which were accounted at the command of Moses, the service of the Levites under the hand of Ithamar etc." there is a dispute among the commentators²

A.

A)

One explanation is,

that ,

"These are the accounts of the Tabernacle" refers to the work of the Tabernacle that is in the previous portion

(in P' Vayakhel),

where it is related in detail about the making of the Tabernacle and its vessels.

And accordingly, the meaning of "<b>accounts</b>

(of the Tabernacle etc. the service of the Levites etc.)

from the term appointment and office,

that the Tabernacle and its vessels are the "accounts of the service of the Levites which Moses accounted under the hand of Ithamar"³

(and as related in Chumash Bamidbar⁴

that the Levites were appointed to carry the Tabernacle and its vessels).

b)

"These are the accounts of the Tabernacle etc." means the accounting of the gold, silver, and copper of the donation for the Tabernacle which is

(further)

calculated in our portion.

And accordingly, "פקודי" is from the word counting and accounting — and the explanation of "the service of the Levites by the hand of Itamar" is&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;,

that Itamar was the

appointed

(and treasurer)

over the gold, silver, and copper

(with the help of the Levites&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;).

one finds a wondrous thing in Rashi's commentary on this verse,

where his commentary on the first part of the verse is seemingly contradictory to his commentary on the second part of the verse:

"These are the accounts" Rashi translates "in this portion were counted all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan etc.",

d.

h.

the plain meaning of "the accounts of the Mishkan" is — the calculation of the donation of the Mishkan,

and consequently this refers

(not to Parshas Vayakhel,

but)

to what comes later "in this &lt;b&gt;portion&lt;/b&gt;";

But on "service of the Levites" Rashi explains: "The accounts of the Tabernacle and its vessels is

the service entrusted to the Levites in the wilderness to carry and to lower and to set up, each man according to his load that was appointed to him, as is said in Parsha Nasso"

That is,

that "the accounts of the Tabernacle

(and its vessels)

" means

(<b>not</b> the subsequent <b>accounting</b> of the donation of the Tabernacle etc.,

but)

the <b>appointment</b> over the Tabernacle,

"to carry and to lower and to set up etc."

2.

At first glance, one can explain this according to the conclusion of Rashi on "These are the accounts of the Mishkan" — "

(They counted all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan etc.)

And they counted <b>all its vessels for all its service</b>",

4.

5.

That by "the accounts of the Mishkan" is meant not only the calculation of the donation of the Mishkan,

but also the counting of "all its vessels for all its service"

(which are enumerated further in the portion"

(after the account regarding the making of the priestly garments)

at "And they brought the Mishkan to Moses").

And based on this, the connection of the matter of "the accounts of the Mishkan" with "the service of the Levites" in the continuation of the verse is understandable — because <b>the</b> matter in "the accounts of the Mishkan"

(the counting of the vessels for all its service)

is connected with the service of the Levites "to carry and to lower and to set up"¹²,

as it is stated in the portion of

Nasso¹³

"And by names you shall count the vessels of the charge of their burden"

(and as understood simply,

that the appointment over the burden of the Mishkan includes the task to keep an account of all the vessels of the Mishkan and to watch that they all be whole.

e.

etc.).

It remains, however, not understood: what compels Rashi to say that "the accounts of the Mishkan" includes two types of counting¹⁴

and means

(not only the account of the donation of the Mishkan,

but)

also the counting of "all its vessels for all its service"

(and consequently to explain that "the service of the Levites" is like the matter that is in connection with the appointment over the vessels of the Mishkan¹⁵

"to carry and to lower and to set up etc.")?

And on the contrary: at first glance this is a forced interpretation,

because the Torah interrupts between the two censuses with the story of the making of the priestly garments — it is difficult to say that "&lt;b&gt;These&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;are the accounts&lt;/b&gt; of the Mishkan" refers

(also)

to a matter in the parshah after the next one.

Since Rashi translates "pekudei" as a term of counting,

he should have learned according to the interpretation of the commentators

(the aforementioned),

that "the service of the Levites by the hand of Itamar" means — that the count of the donation of the Mishkan Moshe gave over to the Levites by the hand of Itamar.

3.

In addition to the question at the end of Rashi's wording "and all its vessels were counted for all its service" — one must also understand the beginning of Rashi's wording,

"In this portion all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan were counted for silver and for gold and for copper."

The content of this commentary is also in Rashbam,

But there it stands <b>in brief</b>: These are the accounts — the account of the silver and the gold and the copper.

Rashi, however, <b>lengthens</b> his wording:

a)

<b>In this</b> <b>parshah</b> were counted, etc." — when Rashi says,

"the count of the weights of the donation of the Mishkan, etc.",

one already understands that "These are the accountings" refers

to "this parshah".

Because of what is the emphasis "in this parshah"?

Commentators¹⁶

explain,

that since there is an interruption of several verses until the Torah begins the accounting¹⁷,

therefore Rashi must warn that nevertheless the wording "<b>These</b> are the accountings of the Mishkan" fits,

because the accounting stands "in this parshah".

One must however understand: Rashi should have said: ,

Eleh Pekudei — the count of the weights of the donation of the Mishkan etc. mentioned in the portion"

(and the like)

E.

Earlier explain ,

Eleh Pekudei"

("the count of the weights etc.")

and then add where this is said

("in this portion")]

— in the manner of Rashi at the beginning of Parshat Toldot: "And these are the generations of Yitzchak — Yaakov and Esau mentioned in the portion"; why does Rashi begin "in this portion were counted etc."?

b)

"Were counted all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan" — what is the practical difference of this emphasis?

Further: one finds a difference between Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonatan: in Onkelos it says "these are the <b>counts</b> of the Mishkan",

but in Targum Yonatan he says "these are the counts of the <b>weights</b> <b>and their sums</b> of the Mishkan".

One sees that Onkelos

(which is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture,

as is known — that is, according to Rashi's method)

says only the expression "count",

and Rashi selects

(ibid.)

the expression of Yonatan¹⁸

and adds "my weights",

and on the other hand: he <b>omits</b> the word "and their sums"¹⁹

D.

And one must say the explanation of this:

In his commentary

(on "These are the accounts")

Rashi comes to warn of a simple question²⁰

: the wording "These" indicates a <b>beginning</b> of a matter,

and moreover

(as Rashi brings at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim)

— "<b>Every</b> <b>place</b> where it says 'These' <b>invalidates</b> the previous ones."

It is not understandable: even if one interprets that "These are the accounts of the Tabernacle" refers

(not to the previous parshah,

but)

to the accounting of the donations that is stated further in the parshah,

it is nevertheless a <b>continuation</b> and <b>conclusion</b>

(the opposite of <b>invalidates</b>)

of the previous parshah — that after it is told how the Jews donated to the work of the Tabernacle and they used their donations for the making of the Tabernacle — Moshe Rabbeinu gave an accounting to the Jews²²

how much the donations amounted to and how they were used.

The question arises: why does it say here the term "אלה"

(which "invalidates the earlier ones"²³)

and not "ואלה"?

And <b>the</b> question Rashi addresses through the addition that "פקודי המשכן" refers

(not only to the account of the donations²⁴,

also to the count of "all its vessels for all its service" — whereby it is explained how "<b>in this</b> <b>section</b>" begins a new matter related to the Mishkan.

As follows.

5.

At first glance it appears²⁵,

that with his commentary "in this portion <b>were counted</b> all the weights etc." Rashi intends to explain the word "pekudei"

(not as an expression of appointment²⁶,

but)

as an expression of counting and reckoning.

But this is <b>contradicted</b> by Rashi himself through the continuation of his commentary "and all its <b>vessels</b> were counted etc.": When "pekudei" is an expression of counting — its meaning²⁷

(not "countings",

the action of counting,

but)

but)

the summarizing <b>numbers</b>,

the specific <b>sum</b> of the count — as is proven in the beginning of Ki Tisa "when you take the sum of the children of Israel <b>according to their numbers</b>",

where Rashi explains "when you wish to receive the <b>sum</b> of <b>their count</b> to know how many they are" — and <b>this</b> meaning of "pekudei" does not fit regarding the count of "all its vessels for all its service",

since regarding the vessels the Torah did not give the sum and number of the vessels,

rather the verse is merely counting

("counting"),

enumerates and <b>describes</b> the vessels.

And since Rashi says that "Eleh Pekudei" is related to the <b>both</b> "counts" — both the count of the donation of the Mishkan and the count of the vessels — he thereby clarifies: firstly,

that "Pekudei" is interpreted here as appointment and assignment,

and

(b)

that also the count of "all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan"

(just like the count of the vessels)

does not mean that he gave an accounting to the Jewish people of the total sum of the donations

(and how they were used)

in order to protect himself from suspicion and the like²²,

but only that he counted and went along,

he <b>counts</b> <b>out</b> the "weights of the do-

nation of the Mishkan"

(in the manner of the count of "all its vessels for all its service").

(and not a language of "sum" and the like)

: with this Rashi wants to further clarify that here it is not about giving a total of "&lt;b&gt;sum&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;their count&lt;/b&gt;"

("their sum"),

but the Torah only lists the &lt;b&gt;weights&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

of the donations "for silver and for gold and for copper"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;].

And the purpose of this count is in the manner of the count of the vessels for all its service —

That is, when both "minyanim" are connected with "Pekudei",

with the role of the appointee:

Exactly as the minyan of the vessels was related to the fact that the Jews brought the Mishkan and all its vessels to Moses, that he should see and determine that they were made properly, etc.

(And as the verse³⁰

concludes there, "And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded.")

— And therefore all the vessels are enumerated in detail,

as is the order when the appointee must confirm that all the vessels and details are as many as needed and in their completeness —

Thus the content of calculating the weights of the donation of the Mishkan,

that Moshe,

being the appointed one and "master of the house" of the Mishkan³¹,

kept an "account" of the weights of the donation of the Mishkan³².

And.

And this is the novelty "in this parshah" regarding parshas Vayakhel:

In Parshas Vayakhel, the entire content of the words is about the preparations for the making of the Mishkan and about the making itself — first about the donation for the Mishkan and then how Bezalel and Oholiav etc. made the Mishkan and its vessels.

But in our parshah, it speaks about "Pekudei HaMishkan" — about the ac-

Appointments and roles of those who were appointed over the Mishkan.

Where do we see "in this parshah" a matter of "appointment" over the Mishkan?

Rashi says "in this parshah were counted all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan etc. and were counted all its vessels for all its service",

which is the role of an appointee to keep an account of all the details³³.

And in order to further clarify the novelty of "this section",

that here it speaks about the "appointments" regarding the Mishkan,

the verse continues "

(asher pakad al pi etc.)

the service of the Levites by the hand of Itamar etc.",

and as Rashi explains on this "the accounts of the Mishkan and all its vessels is the service given to the Levites in the wilderness to carry etc.": Rashi thereby explains the continuation of the verse,

that precisely this matter of "the accounts of the Mishkan"

(the matter of the appointment regarding the matters of the Mishkan)

— which at the time of the making of the Mishkan was "appointed by the hand of Moses" — is

(<b>after</b> the erection of the Mishkan)

the service was handed over to the <b>Levites³⁴</b>

as recounted in parshas Nasso³⁵

at length,

that the Levites are appointed over the matters of the Mishkan.

7.

According to this explanation, further difficulties in this section are clarified:

Regarding the account of the donations of the Mishkan from our parshah, there is a discussion among many commentators,

at first glance:

a)

The Torah tells only what was done with the silver and copper, but not what was done with the gold

(it only states how much gold there was).

b)

Even regarding silver, the account was only of "silver of the census of the congregation,"

which everyone had to give "the half-shekel"

(the donation for the sockets)

— but there is no account of how much silver came in as a <b>donation for the Tabernacle</b>

(and as explained in Rashi³⁸,

that from the <b>totality</b> of the silver that was given as a donation they made all the vessels of service).

c)

Besides the donations of gold, silver, and copper, there were another <b>ten</b> kinds³⁹

which were donated for the donation of the Tabernacle,

as explained in the verse — and one does not find in the verse,

that Moses gave an account of <b>those</b> donations⁴⁰?

d)

In the verse⁴¹

it stands that they brought donations for the Mishkan until it was "&lt;b&gt;and it was left over&lt;/b&gt;" — they brought more than

they needed: and an accounting was not made of that "left over"?

Regarding the last three questions, one learns⁴²,

that Moshe gave an account only of the things that had very great importance,

but not of those that were not so precious and important"

(And so too the sum of the silver from the donation of the Mishkan was not a large amount; and the "surplus" was not a "significant thing"⁴³).

But this is not a sufficient answer: if the reason for "they counted all the weights etc." is because a charity treasurer must give an account of the charity funds in order to prevent <b>suspicion</b> etc." — it must be so whether it concerns a large or not a large sum: from the aspect of "and you shall be innocent before the Lord and before Israel" one must give a full and <b>detailed</b> account,

at least — down to one shekel⁴⁴.

And since so it is difficult: how does it come that Rashi does not answer the aforementioned questions — the questions are in the plain meaning of Scripture,

and as one indeed sees that several commentators answer them and with several answers

(each according to his way).

But according to the above in Rashi's commentary the difficulty from the outset is not⁴⁵

: with the counts that stand in this portion the Torah does not intend to say that Moshe gave a particularized <b>account</b> <b>of</b> all the donations

the Mishkan,

only that these are counts that Moses,

as appointee over the Mishkan,

carried out in order to keep account of the donations: and to make known <b>the</b> matter, one example is enough,

the count of the main donations,

"for silver and for gold and for copper"⁴⁶.

And therefore there is also no question that he did not give a detailed account of what was done with the gold — because the intention here is not the account of what was <b>done</b> with the donations and how they were used,

in order to clear himself from suspicion

(that which the Torah specifies what the donations were used for comes only incidentally)

— rather,

as Rashi is precise in his language "were counted all the weights of the donation of the Mishkan",

that the count of the weights stands in this portion

("These are the accounts")

— because in this consists the <b>role</b> of the appointee —

And therefore there is no necessity and consequently one avoids calculating the multitude of details&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

What was done with the gold — even not incidentally,

as with the other donations.

Ch.

From the wine of Torah in Rashi's commentary:

As mentioned earlier, the precise wording of Rashi "they counted all the &lt;b&gt;weights&lt;/b&gt; of the donation of the Mishkan" — that Moshe here counted the "weight".

Here the &lt;b&gt;equivalence&lt;/b&gt; etc. of the gold, silver, and copper is not relevant,

but only the &lt;b&gt;weight&lt;/b&gt;.

The difference between weight and equivalence is: weight is &lt;b&gt;only&lt;/b&gt; the material of the thing and its quantity; but the equivalence of a thing is connected to its importance,

its quality,

its &lt;b&gt;form&lt;/b&gt;.

Their parallel in the service of man,

that a Jew makes a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

through that which he fulfills commandments,

does in matters of Judaism in general,

there are the two matters⁴⁸

: the actual action — the "weight",

and the intention of the commandment — the "equivalence" of the action,

its content and form.

One might think,

that when a Jew "gives" to the Above only a physical action without any intentions — is it fitting to say that with this one can build a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He?

On this one guards,

that the <b>weights</b> of the donation of the Mishkan are "appointed over

by <b>Moshe"</b>: Moshe Rabbeinu "puts himself in" and is "appointed over" also the "weights" that Jews give,

which this itself makes them worthy to become a

(part of it)

Mishkan for G‑d, blessed be He.

Until the coin that Jews give thereby becomes⁴⁹

a "coin of <b>fire"⁵⁰</b>

— taken through the fire of the soul" — and by this one builds the Mishkan

(details)

in its completeness,

And by this — one anticipates and merits the building of the general Beis HaMikdash — the third,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the farbrengen of Shabbos Parshas Pekudei 5725)