English translation — ויקהל ב

Sicha b<pg>203</pg>

A.

"And every man with whom was found blue and purple and scarlet and linen and goats' hair and rams' skins dyed red and tachash skins brought them"<sup>1</sup>,

And Rashi explained: "And every man with whom was found" — "blue or purple or scarlet or rams' skins or tachash skins all of them brought".

And at first glance it appears that Rashi's intention is to explain that the "vav"

("and purple and worm and etc.")

is not a vav of addition

(that only one who "had with him blue and purple and worm scarlet and etc." — all the things enumerated in the verse — brought

(all of them),

but one who did not have with him all the things, all of them, did not bring

(even one of them)),

but rather it means either or,

that every man who had with him blue or purple or worm scarlet and etc.,

each one of them brought from what was with him.

And the necessity to explain thus<sup>2</sup>

is from the language of the verse itself: "And every man who had with him."

For if you say that only one who had all the things brought,

it should have said "which were found with him,"

in plural language,

that all the things were found with him.

And since it is said "which was found with him,"

in singular language,

behold it speaks about each thing by itself — blue or purple or worm scarlet and etc.

But one must understand:

a)

What is the simple understanding at all to explain the intention of the verse that specifically those who had in their hand all the things brought<sup>3</sup>,

and those who had in their hand only part of them did not bring?

It is not reasonable at all,

and especially in the plain sense of

(the verse,

and consequently in the plain sense of)

the matter that one who wants to donate only one of the things cannot bring! And why did Rashi need to inform us of such a simple thing?

[And one cannot say that for greater clarification "He wanted

(Rashi)..

to explain what does not need explanation" — for if so, "why did he not explain thus in

(verse⁴)

hook and nose-ring etc. that are the first in the verse",

for what it says there "every generous heart brought a hook and a nose-ring and a ring and a body-ornament, all golden vessels",

the intention is or or it says,

a hook or a nose-ring or a ring etc.⁵].

b)

Since Rashi elaborates and writes

(almost)

all the types⁶

— why did Rashi skip and omit from the verse two types

(words)

— "and fine linen and goat hair"?

2.

Some commentators⁷

explain,

that Rashi comes to resolve only the continuation of the language of the verse,

which appears as a contradiction: it begins "And every man with whom was found" singular language and ends "they brought" plural language; therefore Rashi explains that what is said "And every man with whom was found"

(singular language)

is because it refers to each thing individually — each<pg>204</pg>

man with whom was found blue or a man with whom was found purple or a man with whom was found crimson wool etc. — and the end of the verse "they brought"

(plural language)

means "they all brought",

each and every one from whom was found a species from these species,

for in this the plural language fits⁸.

But this explanation requires examination for several reasons:

a)

That it opened in singular language "every man" and concluded in plural language "they brought" is common and not very difficult in simple understanding of the verse,

And as proven from the verse before this "every generous heart brought" — and it did not write "every generous of heart brought"⁹.

b)

According to this, the main explanation of Rashi is missing from the book — for he should have said "or a man who had with him argaman"¹⁰

And so forth.

c)

Even if the vav is a vav of addition, it is possible for Rashi to answer the above question: "Every man who had with him techelet and a man who had with him argaman etc. — all of them brought"?

d)

Still not resolved why Rashi omitted "linen and goats' [hair]"¹¹?

c.

In the Sichas HaSefarim here¹²

explains the simple understanding that specifically one who has all the items shall bring, and one who does not have all the items shall not bring, and also that which he omitted from the verse linen and goats' [hair] — "Because we find that these three kinds, namely techeiles, argaman, and tola'as shani, all three of them are always in all the work of the Mishkan and in the garments of the Kohen Gadol,

so too rams' skins dyed red and tachash skins, from both of them together they made a covering for the tent, as Rashi explained above in parshas Terumah¹³

therefore it might enter your mind that everyone who has all these items specifically shall bring, and one who has only one kind shall not bring, since all three are needed for the work, for they do nothing from this without that; but linen [is found] in the garments of ordinary priests, which were made from linen alone, and likewise those four garments of the Kohen Gadol in which he served in the inner service on Yom Kippur and also in other services,

and likewise with goats' hair, they made nothing from it except goats' [hair] curtains; it is obvious that they would bring alone, and therefore Rashi did not mention linen and goats' [hair] because it is a simple matter¹⁴

that they would bring alone."

But it requires examination in its explanation&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

: what is the reasoning according to its simple meaning, that since these things came together in the work of the Mishkan and the priestly garments, therefore their giving also needs to be together!&lt;pg&gt;205&lt;/pg&gt;

Also: in the simple meaning of the plain text we do not find that each one of the children of Israel knew all the details of the making of the Mishkan and the priestly garments and from which things they were made,

and simply they knew about this

(before the making)

only

(the heads)

the "wise-hearted" who did the work of the Mishkan&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

and why would it enter the minds of the bringers,

that only one who has all three kinds

(blue and purple and scarlet wool)

should bring, but not if he has only part of them.

And furthermore, the main point: even according to his explanation, there is no assumption that one must bring all the species that are in the verse together,

rather "these three species, namely techeiles, argaman, and tola'as shani",

or "ram skins dyed red and tachash skins" — and thus one is forced to divide the verse into two,

and to explain the vav of "and ram skins etc." meaning "or ram skins etc."

(unlike the other vavs in the verse)¹⁷

; and what place is there for such an assumption,

and especially since it has no hint in the language of the verse?

4.

And one can say the explanation of this,

with an introduction of another precision in this verse,

that it says in it "and every man with whom was found etc." and not as in the preceding verse "every generous-hearted person"¹⁸.

At first glance, one could say: The donation of the Mishkan came after the Holy One, blessed be He, was appeased to Israel regarding the making of the calf&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(And thus the Mishkan is called "Mishkan of Testimony" — "testimony to Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the incident of the calf, for He caused His Shechinah to dwell among them"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;).

Therefore: In those items from which the calf was made

(Namely, gold vessels in general,

and in particular the ornaments that were made of gold),

the verse emphasizes "every generous heart brought a hook, and a nose-ring, and a ring, and a body-ornament, every gold vessel",

that the giving of these items for the work of the Mishkan was with a generous heart,

with special intention and special feeling of heart,

to atone&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

for the giving of these items for the making of the calf&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

; but regarding other items of the donation of the Mishkan,

which are not related to the making of the calf,

there is no need for emphasis that they came with a generous heart,

and therefore it says simply "every man with whom was found".

But this is not a sufficient explanation,

for even though in the donation for the Mishkan there were also things that were not given from their kind for the making of the calf,

nevertheless,

since the entirety of the donation for the Mishkan came after the Holy One, blessed be He, was appeased regarding the making of the calf,

it is logical that also in the giving of the other things for the donation of the Mishkan there should have been the good will and generosity of heart to give them to the Mishkan,

whose significance is "and I will dwell in their midst"²³,

the opposite of their donation to the calf,

and as indeed it is stated in G-d's command to Moses at the beginning of Parshat Terumah

(regarding all thirteen things)

"from every man whose heart motivates him."

And if so, why does the verse emphasize "every generous-hearted one" only regarding "the clasp and the earring etc. all articles of gold"²⁴?

<pg>206</pg>

And therefore it must be said that in all the giving there was the generosity of heart of the children of Israel,

and as is explicit in the verse before this²⁵

"And every man whose heart lifted him came, and everyone whose spirit motivated him brought the offering of the Lord etc."

And since so, there is room to say that generosity of heart is indeed emphasized in the verse also in the giving of the other things: just as regarding gold it is said "every generous heart brought a clasp and a ring etc. all vessels of gold",

for the bringing of ornaments etc. and all vessels of gold indicates generosity of heart most,

so too it is in the verse after this "and every man with whom was found blue and purple and scarlet etc.",

which we would interpret

(with the conjunctive vav)

that the quality of generosity was in this, that everyone with whom were found all these kinds brought all of them.

That is: it is not the simple understanding that one who had only one thing could not bring it,

rather the simple understanding is that this verse comes to inform us of the greatness of the generosity of heart of Israel for the work of the Mishkan,

that one who had from all the kinds did not suffice with one thing but brought from everything.

And therefore Rashi needed to negate this explanation,

and explains that the intent of the verse is not to emphasize that whoever had everything brought from everything,

but rather it says "or or",

Everyone who had with him turquoise or purple or scarlet wool etc. all of them brought.

[And it can be said that the advantage of this explanation²⁶

(that it says "or or")

Rashi hints at in the precise wording of his conclusion of his explanation — "all of them brought",

namely that according to this explanation the verse speaks of the donation of all of Israel

(since simply — after the spoils of Egypt and the Red Sea²⁷

by each and every one there was at least one of these kinds),

but not so if you say that the verse speaks only of one who had from all the kinds

(and brought from everything),

it turns out that the verse speaks only of a certain number of donors].

And one could say,

that the generosity of heart in these kinds was expressed in the action and the particular exertion of Bnei Yisrael in addition to the actual giving and bringing — for techeiles does not mean that they brought wool alone and dye alone,

but rather "wool dyed with the blood of a chilazon"²⁸

; and likewise argaman²⁸

and tolaas shani.

And since not only did they bring these things for the work of the Mishkan,

but they also exerted themselves to dye the wool in its appropriate color etc.^*28

— behold this is proof of the generosity of their heart and their "good will"²⁹

in their giving for the making of the Mishkan.

And one could say,

that the aforementioned matter

(the expression of generosity of heart in the action and exertion etc.)

is hinted at in Rashi here,

in that Rashi omitted from the verse "and linen and goats' hair",

for only these kinds that Rashi enumerated,

techeiles and argaman and tolaas shani, skins of rams and tachashim³⁰,

their making is necessary<pg>207</pg>

and a special action on the part of man; but not so with linen

(which is flax)

and goats

(i.e., goat hair²⁸)

there is no necessity

(from the perspective of the essence of the donation of the Mishkan)

that there be in them a special action of man besides the bringing of them to the Mishkan³¹

(for the harvesting of the flax and the shearing of the hairs are only a necessary preparation,

in order to enable their bringing to the Mishkan).

And therefore it is understood,

that in the bringing of linen or goats^*31,

each one of them by itself,

the generosity of heart of the bringer is not evident.

[And one should not explain that generosity of heart in linen and goats is only in the bringing of both of them together,

for in this his good will etc. of the bringer is evident — and this is the reason that Rashi omitted "and linen and goats" from listing with those about which it is certainly "or" — for this is a novelty and a great change and it would have been necessary for Rashi to explain].

5.

And one should add to this regarding the halachah:

In the donation for the Mishkan there is an obligation that it be for its sake,

as Rashi³² explains

"They shall take for Me a portion — for Me, for My name."

And one must clarify what is the law regarding things that require an action and special preparation for the Mishkan

(such as the techeiles, argaman, and tolaas shani, etc.,

which require dyeing as above)

— whether also the act of preparation must be for its sake.

And behold Rashi explained

(on the verse³²

They shall take for Me a portion)

"Terumah — separation,

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

that is, that even before giving the donation to the treasurers there must be a separation of the money

(by the owners)

to G‑d.

And based on this, it is logical,

that also the preparatory actions

(necessary so that the items be fit for the donation of the Mishkan)

must be "for My sake"³³.

And it can be said that this is the reason for the assumption that what is stated "And every man with whom was found blue and purple and scarlet wool" means that they brought all the types together

(and not part of them or only one type)

:

When one brought only one of these kinds

(which require an act of preparation as above)

— there is room to say,

that he is not believed that the dyeing of the wool was for its sake,

for it is possible that dyed wool was already lying with him,

and he did not trouble to dye new wool with the intention "for its sake"

[And the bringing itself is not a clear proof of the "for its sake" so much — because since there was with them great wealth from the spoils of Egypt and the spoils of the sea&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold, in this small giving there is no proof of a desire to trouble for the donation of the Mishkan]

;

And only when one sees a special effort of the bringer to participate in the donation of the Mishkan,

by bringing all the kinds "blue and purple and scarlet wool and etc.",

then he is believed that he also troubled and dyed the wool for its sake.

And this negates Rashi in his commentary "And every man with whom was found blue or purple or crimson wool" — that the intention is not in the verses that they brought all the species&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

but "or or" it says.

And one may say,

that the proof that the action of preparation

(in the dyeing of the wool etc.)

was for its own sake is&lt;pg&gt;208&lt;/pg&gt;

From this that each one who had from these things

(even only one of them)

brought them to the Mishkan,

and brought all that he had from these things³⁵

(and not like hook and ring etc. every vessel of gold,

that it was not said that they brought all the jewelry and gold that they had³⁶),

and this is sufficient proof that the preparation action was in the manner of "for My sake"³⁷.

6.

And it can be said that in this matter Rashi differs

(on the Torah)

and the Midrash:

It is brought in the Midrash&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

: Jacob our father..

called to his sons, said to them: know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to say to your children to make a Mishkan, but let all its needs be prepared in your hand etc. And some of them prepared themselves for the matters and some of them forgot, and when Moses came and they made the Mishkan, some of them brought from themselves and some of them brought only from what was placed in his hand, as it says: every man with whom was found turquoise and purple, and it says&lt;sup&gt;*38&lt;/sup&gt;

everyone with whom was found acacia wood.

And the commentators explained&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

that in these two verses above it is written "with whom was found"

(regarding turquoise and purple etc. and regarding acacia wood),

which means that it was with them as a deposit prepared from their fathers — but not so regarding the hook and ring and every golden vessel and the like, where it is stated that it was from the generosity of the heart and of the one bringing

(not that it was prepared beforehand,

from their fathers).

But Rashi does not explain "with whom was found" said regarding turquoise and purple etc. that it was prepared with them from their fathers&lt;sup&gt;*39&lt;/sup&gt;,

and if so, he holds that they prepared and set aside these kinds for G‑d.

And one can say that it depends on the definition of the law of lishmah that was required in the donation of the Mishkan⁴⁰,

for one can say about this two ways⁴¹

— a)

that it is a law in the action of the person⁴²,

or b)

that it is a matter that belongs and is grasped in the object,

this object needs that it be done lishmah.

And in this is the difference between the Midrash and Rashi's commentary:

According to the midrash,

the obligation of "for its sake" in the donation of the Tabernacle pertains to the holiness of the things from which the Tabernacle was made,

so that there should be the "and I will dwell in their midst,"

within the things in the Tabernacle — the things need to be prepared for their holiness.

And this means that this concerns the essence of the object of these things that they be designated for the work of the Tabernacle⁴³.

And therefore the midrash explains,

that what is written "that was found<pg>209</pg>

with him blue and purple etc." means that among the children of Israel these things were already prepared beforehand for the work of the Tabernacle,

for these things that needed preparation,

there was a special command from Jacob our father that their needs be prepared in their hand,

so that they would be certain that the things would be done from their beginning

(that is, also at the time of the act of preparation)

"for My name,"

for the sake of the Tabernacle,

and then they could bring them to the Tabernacle.

But not according to Rashi, the obligation of "for My sake" is a law in the action of the person⁴⁴,

for since the making of the Mishkan is connected with atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf

(in which it was evident that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the deed of the Golden Calf as above⁴⁵),

therefore they needed that their donation to Hashem be "to Me — for My sake"

(the opposite of their giving to the Golden Calf).

And therefore it is impossible for Rashi to explain "that which was found with him",

that these things were already prepared as a deposit from their forefathers^*45

(for then there is no intention "for its sake" of the person who donates),

rather it refers to the donors themselves,

that they prepared and set aside these species "for its sake".

7.

And behold, based on all the above, the distinction that we find between the men and the women in the donation for the Mishkan will be sweetened — that although the men also donated to the Mishkan with generosity of heart,

nevertheless,

they brought only what was required of them,

namely the actual items of "blue wool and purple wool and crimson wool etc.",

but the women,

behold, not only did they donate to the work of the Mishkan even more than the men,

as it is written⁴⁶

"And the men came upon the women"⁴⁷,

but furthermore,

they were not satisfied with bringing the actual items,

rather they brought spun thread

(for this they also themselves spun the blue wool and the purple wool, the crimson wool and the fine linen,

and also "they spun the goats' hair")⁴⁸.

And based on the above, one can say a reason for the matter also according to the halachah:

To the men they could not permit that they bring spun material,

because after they sinned with the calf there is no certain trustworthiness that they will do their work for its sake⁴⁹,

and they could trust the wise-hearted that the Holy One, blessed be He, "filled them with wisdom of heart"⁵⁰

;

but not so the women,

for they did not participate in the sin of the calf⁵¹,

and consequently there is no place at all for doubt regarding the doing and action of "for My sake" — because certainly with them there is utmost generosity of heart⁵²

for all matters of holiness⁵³,

and especially<pg>210</pg>

In the matters of the Mishkan,

and as it was in practice,

that they did not refrain themselves from any exertion so that their donation would be more enhanced,

to the extent that for this — "they spun the goats",

"upon the goats they spun them"⁵⁴,

because of the greatness of the generosity of their heart for the matters of the Mishkan,

they also exerted themselves in "extra craftsmanship" in the work of the Mishkan.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayikra-Purim 5747)