English translation — תרומה ב

Sicha b<pg>142</pg>

A.

"And acacia wood"<sup>1</sup>

— and Rashi<sup>2</sup>

: And from where did they have [them] in the desert? Expounded Rabbi Tanchuma<sup>3</sup>

Our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit that Israel would in the future build the Mishkan in the desert and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt.

And one must understand: This explanation of Rabbi Tanchuma is ostensibly an Aggadic statement without a source in the plain meaning of Scripture,

and what compelled Rashi to adopt this explanation when one could explain simply,

that Bnei Yisrael bought these trees from the merchants of the nations⁴,

or as the Ibn Ezra explained^*4

(and likewise in the Baalei HaTosafot on the Torah⁵)

that there was a forest of shittim trees near Mount Sinai from where they cut the trees⁶.

In the commentaries⁷

they answered that the necessity is from what is stated later in the portion of Vayakhel⁸

"And everyone with whom shittim wood was found",

behold it is explicit in the verse that the wood was already in the possession of Israel

(and as the Ibn Ezra also brought⁹).

But it is difficult to say that this is Rashi's necessity — for Rashi did not mention this verse,

and it is understood that it is a very great difficulty to say that Rashi relies here¹⁰

on a later verse

(in Parshat Vayakhel¹¹).

2.

And one can say the explanation in this — simply:

The commandment regarding the donation of the Mishkan was stated in the language — "And they shall take for Me a portion..

You shall take My portion..

the portion which you shall take from them"<sup>12</sup>,

and at first glance it should have said in the language of "giving"

(or bringing and the like),

that is, the action of the donor from the children of Israel to give the portion of G-d,

And why was it stated in the language of "<pg>143</pg>

taking"

(which refers to the men, the treasurers who take<sup>13</sup>

the portion from the children of Israel)?

[And regarding the givers

(donors),

it is mentioned in the verse only about the action of the separation,

as Rashi explains: "Terumah,

a separation they shall separate for Me from their property as a donation",

that this is not the action of the donation

(giving)

to God,

but only the separation of the terumah from

(the rest of)

their property for the sake of a donation

(and the taking by the treasurers — "And they shall take for Me"<sup>14</sup>

— is after the action of the separation already exists)].

And the meaning of the verses,

that all the things enumerated in the verse

(which are the donation of the Mishkan)

were already in the possession and in the hand of the children of Israel beforehand,

and only the action of taking from them was lacking.

In a slightly different style: if it were written the language of giving,

which implies that there is an obligation on the givers to give,

this includes also that they do everything in their power so that there be giving,

including also cutting trees or buying them etc.; but the language of taking its content is that from the side of the giver everything is prepared¹⁵

and nothing is lacking except the act of taking of the treasurer^*15.

[And one can say that therefore Rashi explains and is precise that "And they shall take for Me a portion" does not mean the giving to G-d,

but only "setting apart,

they shall set apart for Me from their property a donation",

which emphasizes even more that the thing that they donate is already found with them,

and their action is only "setting apart",

to set apart these things from the rest of their property].

And this is the explanation of Rashi's question

(on "and acacia wood")

— "And from where did they have [it] in the wilderness"¹⁶,

that is,

from where did they have acacia wood prepared in their hand in the wilderness, and it was only lacking taking from their hand

[namely that Rashi's emphasis "in the wilderness" does not mean because trees do not grow in the wilderness,

but that it is not the way of people to use wood

(and especially such wood)

when they are on the way in the wilderness].

And Rashi answers "Rabbi Tanchuma explained that our father Jacob foresaw etc. and brought cedars etc. and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt"¹⁷.

And with this is also resolved the precision of Rashi's language "Rabbi Tanchuma explained" — that this is an unusual language in Rashi,

and furthermore — the words of Tanchuma seemingly are not an explanation of the words of the verse,

but an aggada that resolves a question that arises in the narrative of the making of the Mishkan,

and how does the language "Rabbi Tanchuma explained" fit?

And it should have said "It is brought in the Midrash Tanchuma"

(or — as usual in many places in Rashi¹⁸

— to write the explanation and conclude it

(his explanation)

with a citation of its source: Tanchuma).

But in this Rashi emphasizes,

that the necessity to bring the words of Rabbi Tanchuma is not because<pg>144</pg>

a question that arises in the entirety of the story

[because the question from where were the trees could be answered in other ways,

as above],

but rather because of the interpretation of the language of the verse,

in which it is emphasized that the things that were donated for the work of the Mishkan were prepared in their hand and nothing was lacking except the taking,

as above.

3.

And one can say,

that this is also the intention of Rashi in his commentaries on the verse¹⁹

"and turquoise and purple etc.",

and his language: And turquoise,

wool dyed with the blood of a chilazon and its color is green.

And purple,

wool dyed from a type of dye whose name is purple.

And linen,

it is flax.

For at first glance it seems that Rashi comes to explain what these three things are²⁰.

But it is not understood:

a)

In the end Rashi did not explain what "argaman" is

(And he only writes that it is a color "that is called argaman")

!

[And one should add: we find a dispute about this between the Rambam and the Ra'avad,

that the Rambam²¹

explained "that it is the wool dyed red"

(And similarly the Ibn Ezra explained here "like the color red"),

and the Ra'avad²²

explained that "argaman is woven from two kinds or from three colors, therefore it is called argaman".

And behold, it is simple that Rashi does not hold like the Ra'avad,

for he writes "a type of color whose name is argaman" — behold, that this is the name of one color

(and not — several colors woven together)²³.

Also from the unqualified language of Rashi "a type of color whose name is argaman" it is proven that he does not hold that it is "red"²⁴

— for if so, he would have explained

(just as he explained that "techeilet..

its color is green").

And perforce, the method of Rashi is a third method — that "argaman" is a color in its own right²⁵.

And if so, the main point is missing — that he would have needed to explain what is the color of argaman²⁶].

b)

Why does Rashi need to explain that “shesh is linen” — for we already find the word “shesh” above in the portion of Mikeitz²⁷,

“And he clothed him in garments of shesh,”

and there Rashi did not comment at all²⁸,

and it must be said that it is because the meaning of the word “shesh” is known even to a “five-year-old for Scripture”

(who understands the simple meaning of the Holy Tongue)

and there is no need to explain it.

And why was it necessary to explain it here?

d.

And therefore it seems to me that the main intention of Rashi in his commentaries here is not to explain what these three things are,

but rather to answer the above general question that arises in the verses here — “From where did they have in the desert” these things:<pg>145</pg>

From the language of the verses here it is understood,

as above,

that these things were already in the possession of Israel and only the taking of the treasurers was lacking; and seemingly: granted, silver, gold, and copper — we already learned above that Bnei Yisrael borrowed from the Egyptians "vessels of silver and vessels of gold etc."²⁹

(and after this the spoils of the sea,

as explained in Rashi³⁰

that Bnei Yisrael found in the sea "ornaments of gold and silver and precious stones" of the Egyptians),

and it is understood that they had them ready; but "from where did they have in the desert" the color techeilet

(which is from the blood of the chilazon)

or the color argaman etc.?

And in general it is not understood that in their exodus from Egypt Bnei Yisrael would take with them for their needs in the desert flasks of dyes.

And therefore Rashi explains,

that "techeilet" means — "wool³¹

dyed with the blood of the chilazon"³²,

and likewise "argaman" means "wool³¹

dyed with a type of dye whose name is argaman",

and there is no question at all from where they had these things in the desert,

for it is explicit in the verse that they had many sheep while still in Egypt

(and as Moshe's words to Pharaoh "with our sheep and with our cattle we will go"³³,

and in the exodus from Egypt it is explicit that they took with them "sheep and cattle, very heavy livestock"³⁴)

— and thus it is understood and not surprising that there was found among Bnei Yisrael much wool³⁵,

including — wool dyed in various colors^*15.

And in order that it should be clear and simple how there was for Israel from the ready "linen",

Rashi adds and emphasizes — "and linen is flax",

that Rashi already brought in his commentary³⁶,

that flax grows in Egypt,

and accordingly it is understood,

that when "they emptied out Egypt"³⁷

they took with them also flax.

And based on this — that also in his earlier commentaries Rashi came to explain "from where did they have in the desert" the things enumerated in the verse — is simply resolved the precision of the Taz³⁸

in our Rashi,

that Rashi begins his commentary with an added vav³⁹,

"And from where did they have in the desert" — "and he did not say 'from where' without a vav".

[In the Ba"Z&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

resolves that it was "difficult for him [to say] 'wood of acacia..

to say 'and acacia..

therefore it is written 'and from where did they have',

explanation that it is additionally difficult 'from where did they have etc.',

and we must say that the verse refers to what Yaakov planted in Egypt and about this it said 'wood of',

from those acacias that were already from Yaakov's planting".

But it is perplexing in his resolution,

for we find in this manner in many places in Rashi

[that he begins his explanation with a question

(like "why is it adjacent etc." and the like)

and in the commentators they explained that the main question that Rashi comes&lt;pg&gt;146&lt;/pg&gt;

To explain in his commentary is not this question,

but rather that there is in the verse "the feeling from outside",

which is settled by the answer to the question that Rashi brings in his commentary]

— and nevertheless Rashi did not begin the question with a connecting vav].

And according to what is explained above, it is understood simply,

that also in his earlier commentaries Rashi deals with the answer to this question; except that here,

regarding the acacia wood,

since there is no answer,

seemingly,

in the simple meaning of the verses — Rashi details and asks "And from where did they have them in the desert".

And in order to emphasize that this question comes in continuation of his earlier commentaries — Rashi begins "And acacia wood,

And from where did they have them in the desert".

5.

However, the matter is still not entirely settled.

For indeed, from the verses it is proven that also the shittim wood was from that which was prepared in the possession of Bnei Yisrael,

and consequently it was necessary to say that they had already been prepared beforehand

(by the command of Yaakov etc.)

— but this itself requires a reason: since they could obtain shittim wood from the merchants of the nations or from the nearby forests — why did Yaakov Avinu need to exert himself more than two hundred years⁴⁰

before the command regarding the work of the Mishkan — in bringing and planting cedars in Egypt?

Seemingly, one could say,

that Yaakov knew that the command of Hashem regarding the work of the Mishkan would be in the content

(in the language)

"you shall take" as above,

from which it is understood,

that His will, blessed be He, is that the things needed for the work of the Mishkan should be prepared in the hands of Yisrael,

and since in the natural way there is no reason or cause that Bnei Yisrael would carry shittim wood from Egypt,

Yaakov needed to command them about this and to prepare the cedars.

But this further increases the question — for according to this, it turns out,

that the command in the language "Take" compelled Yaakov's action in preparing the cedars more than two hundred years before the command; that is, therefore the command was in the language "You shall take" so that Yaakov would plant the cedars in Egypt — and a reason is needed?

And the explanation of this is hinted at by Rashi in his mentioning the name of the author of the statement — "Rabbi Tanchuma":

"Tanḥuma" is from the language of consolation.

And therefore "Rabbi Tanḥuma explained" that "our father Jacob foresaw with the holy spirit etc.",

since this matter is the consolation of Israel:

When the children of Israel are in the exile of Egypt,

in a situation of the difficulty of the bondage,

and up to the decree of "every son that is born you shall cast into the river"⁴¹

etc. — then in addition to the promise of "and I will surely bring you up also"⁴²,

"they draw" consolation and comfort all the duration of the exile, seeing with their very eyes the cedar trees that Jacob brought and planted in Egypt,

that its taste in this great trouble⁴³

was because "he foresaw with the holy spirit that in the future [they] would...

build a Tabernacle in the wilderness",

"and he commanded his sons

(and his sons to their sons and their sons' sons after them)

to take them with them when they go out from Egypt".

That is: acacia wood for the Mishkan itself — they could, as above, obtain in several ways,

but so that the consolation of Israel would be

(the concept of Rabbi Tanchuma)

— Jacob brought cedars and planted them in Egypt

(and commanded his sons that they take them with them when they leave Egypt),

so that during all the time of the exile and bondage of Egypt these trees would be before their eyes that &lt;pg&gt;147&lt;/pg&gt;

were planted on condition that they take them when they leave Egypt,

meaning that

(he saw)

these cedar trees remind and emphasize the redemption of Israel.

And this is also the hint in the language of Rashi and in its beginning

(Introduction of the matter)

"Rabbi Tanchuma explained" — that is: the matter of consolation

("Tanchuma")

is in a manner of explanation

(a matter of plain meaning,

and not hint and homiletic interpretation),

for this consolation was not only a promise in speech and the like,

but consolation in a physical thing,

visible to the eyes of flesh,

consolation in plainness.

And with this another precision in the language of Rashi is resolved,

that he was not satisfied to say that Yaakov planted cedars in Egypt but adds and specifies "and he brought cedars to Egypt" — for at first glance,

what difference does it make that he brought the cedars from another place?

And even more perplexing: later on the verse⁴⁴

"And you shall make the planks" Rashi repeats the content of his explanation how our father Jacob prepared cedars etc.,

with all the details of the matter

(And further adds new details)

— and nevertheless omits there this detail that Jacob brought cedars to Egypt⁴⁵.

And according to the above it can be said,

that this detail pertains to the matter of consolation — that the children of Israel will see with their fleshly eyes cedars that were brought from some place

(from the land of Israel⁴⁶

— which indicates a state of redemption),

that this emphasizes even more that they are not absolutely subject under the control of the Egyptians,

but rather ascend also rise up⁴²,

they will go out and ascend to the land of Israel

(and will take these cedars with them).

6.

And one should add in the "wine of Torah" that is in Rashi's commentary — that this explanation of Rabbi Tanchuma is "consolation" additional to the exile of Egypt also on all the exiles and on the length of this last exile

(that all the kingdoms

(and exiles)

are called by the name of Egypt⁴⁷).

For it is stated in the books⁴⁸

that the exile is compared to the journey of the Children of Israel in the desert,

"desert of the peoples"⁴⁹

and the purpose of this journey is — "to build a Tabernacle in the desert",

namely to make in the desert and from the realities of the "desert"

(which is a place of the husks,

snake, fiery serpent, and scorpion, and thirst etc.⁵⁰

a place desolate of any matter of holiness)

a Tabernacle and Temple for Him, blessed be He,

a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms,

than which there is no lower lower realm.

And at the conclusion of this service, one merits to fulfill the commandment⁵¹

"And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" literally,

in the third Holy Temple,

in which will also be revealed the Mishkan that Moses made,

"the Sanctuary of the wilderness"⁵².

And the strength to overcome the darkness of the exile,

and especially the double and multiplied darkness of the heels of the Messiah,

and on the contrary "to build a Mishkan in the wilderness" — this is from the action of our father Jacob who "brought cedars to Egypt and planted them".

And one can explain the elucidation of this:

The "cedars"

(from which "and they made",

were made the shittim wood for the Mishkan)

they are also a hint to the righteous who are called "cedars" as it is said⁵³

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon",

as explained in the Baal HaTurim⁵⁴.

And in more particularity, they are a hint to the princes of Israel

(an expression of exaltation),

<pg>148</pg>

that stand in a manner of elevation

(he will err)

like cedars.

And this is the connection specifically to Yaakov Avinu — because "Nasi" is an acronym for "Nitzotzo shel Yaakov Avinu"⁵⁵,

for just as Yaakov Avinu was "the one who unites all of Israel"

(as it is written in the sicha here)⁵⁶,

and in the language of our master the Alter Rebbe⁵⁷

that the soul of Yaakov was "inclusive of all the souls of Israel from beginning to end" — so it is with every Nasi of Israel,

that his soul is a general soul that includes all the souls of the people of his generation,

and therefore he unites them all⁵⁸.

And this is what is written and Rashi explained that Yaakov Avinu brought "cedars" to Egypt,

for all the princes are a spark of Yaakov Avinu,

and their source is from Eretz Yisrael,

for truly they are above the matter of exile⁵⁹,

but in order to instill in Bnei Yisrael the strength to overcome the darkness of exile and to build a Mishkan in the desert,

He "planted them" in Egypt,

at the time of the exile.

And this is the consolation of Yisrael when they are in the "desert of the nations",

that they have the "cedars" that Yaakov Avinu planted in every generation⁶⁰

which are above the exile,

and they appear to Bnei Yisrael and influence strength upon all Yisrael not to be affected by the darkness of exile but rather to overcome it,

until they build and make a Mishkan in the desert.

And then they merit the complete consolation — consolation literally, simply,

in actuality literally — that the only possible consolation for the length of this last exile is — the true and complete redemption⁶¹

through our righteous Messiah,

literally, simply,

below ten handbreadths literally,

and speedily in our days literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Terumah 5747)