English translation — ויקהל ג

Talk 3<pg>211</pg>

A.

In the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And Moses said to the children of Israel: See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah" Rashi explains: Hur,

was the son of Miriam.

And we need to understand: Chur was already mentioned in the Torah earlier

(at the end of Parshas Beshalach<sup>2</sup>)

in the war against Amalek

(and Moshe, Aharon, and Chur went up to the top of the hill,

and Aharon and Chur supported his hands

(of Moshe)),

and also at the end of Parshas Mishpatim<sup>3</sup>

— there it is related that when Moshe ascended the mountain,

he said to the elders "Aharon and Chur are with you etc." — and in both places Rashi explains that Chur "was the son of Miriam"<sup>4</sup>

; and if so, why did Rashi need to repeat this in our parshah<sup>5</sup>?

In the commentaries<sup>6</sup>

they explained Rashi's intention,

that "it is difficult: is it not the way to trace a person only to his father, as he traced Oholiav<sup>7</sup>

and why did he trace Betzalel after Chur, his father's father, except certainly because Chur

(being the son of Miriam)

was the primary lineage of Betzalel, and therefore he traces him after him."

But superficially this is not a sufficient excuse,

because:

a)

In our parshah it is told about the speech of Moses to the children of Israel

(about the appointment of Bezalel etc.),

but already earlier in Parshat Tisa⁸

are explained those same matters in the words of G-d to Moses — "And G-d spoke to Moses etc. See I have called by name Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of

Yehudah",

And there Rashi did not explain anything.

And if it is difficult for Rashi why he traces Betzalel after his father's father — he should have explained it earlier in Parshat Tisa⁹?

b)

Even if you say that "Chur was the main lineage of Betzalel",

what is Rashi's compulsion that this that the verse traces him to Chur is because he was the son of Miriam

(which is not mentioned in the verse)

— and could we not say simply,

that this is because of the virtue of Chur himself.

And as is proven from the two places mentioned above the greatness of the level of Chur —

(a)

Only Aharon and Chur ascended with Moshe at the time of the war with Amalek

(And particularly according to Rashi there¹⁰

"From here [we learn] that for a fast three are needed to pass before the ark etc." — and Chur was one of the three)

;

(b)

At Moshe's ascent to the mountain he said "To the elders..

Aharon and Chur are with you; whoever has a matter [of law] shall approach them" — behold that the level of Chur was great

(even)

above the seventy elders.

Furthermore: In Rashi above¹¹

it is brought that at the time of the making of the calf Chur was rebuking the children of Israel and they killed him,

that is:

(a)

At the time that Aharon only endeavored to delay the children of Israel¹²

— behold Chur "was rebuking them",

(b)

And because of this he was killed,

i.e. the superiority of self-sacrifice for the sanctification of the Name.

And so,

from where does Rashi derive to innovate that the intention of the verse is to trace Betzalel to

(Chur being the son)

Miriam — and not¹³

to Chur himself¹⁴?

2.

And it can be said,

that Rashi's "Chur the son of Miriam was" is not an independent statement,

but rather it is the beginning of Rashi's commentary afterwards on the verse⁷

"And to teach He put in his heart, him and Oholiav son of Achisamach of the tribe of Dan",

and this is its wording: And Oholiav¹⁵,

from the tribe of Dan, from the lowliest of the tribes, from the children of the handmaids, and the Place made him equal to Betzalel for the work of the Mishkan, and he is from the greatest of the tribes, to fulfill what is said¹⁶

And the noble is not honored before the lowly.

That is: the intention of the verse in mentioning the lineage of Bezalel and Oholiab is to emphasize the distance between them,

that Bezalel is "from the great ones of the tribes" and Oholiab "from the lowly ones of the tribes" — and nevertheless "the place made him equal to Bezalel"; and for this reason the verse emphasizes "son of Hur",

and Rashi explains "the son of Miriam" — "to inform<sup>17</sup>

the greatness of his lineage from the great ones of lineage and the <pg>213</pg>

a level both from the father's side and from the mother's side, through which is more fulfilled what is said..

And one does not show favoritism etc.".

[And one can say that this is also in accordance with what is written regarding Oholiav "from the inferior ones of the tribes from the handmaidens",

meaning that his lowliness pertains to the maternal lineage,

and therefore it is reasonable to say,

that the greatness of the lineage of Bezalel is

(not only from the father but also)

from the mother].

And based on this it is resolved why Rashi did not explain on the verse "Bezalel etc. son of Hur" in Parshat Tisa that Hur was the son of Miriam — because in Parshat Tisa one can say simply,

that the text wants to trace Bezalel's lineage to Hur because of Hur's virtues that are explicit in the text

(and in Rashi)

as above in section 1; and only in our parshah,

in which the main intention is to emphasize that "He does not show favor to the noble before the lowly",

Rashi adds that the lineage to Hur comes to describe the greatness of Bezalel's lineage

(also)

from the mother¹⁸,

as above.

But still the question stands in its place: also about Oholiav it was already said above in Parshat Tisa¹⁹

(in God's speech to Moses)

— "And I, behold, I have given with him Oholiav the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan",

and there Rashi did not explain anything.

And if you say that the intention of the verse in mentioning the lineage of Bezalel and Oholiav is to emphasize the matter of "a noble is not recognized before a poor man" — Rashi should have explained this above in Parshat Tisa

[And indeed it is so in the Midrash²⁰

(which is the source,

apparently,

of this Rashi),

that the content of this matter

("that great and small are equal before the Holy One, blessed be He")

was brought above on the verses of Parshat Tisa].

And it must be said that such is the way of the Scriptures to trace a person after his father and his tribe, and there is no necessity to say

(according to the simple meaning)

that the intention of the verse in Parshat Tisa is to teach "a noble is not recognized before a poor man" — and if so, what is the difficulty in the simplicity of the verses of our parshah that compelled Rashi to explain that the intention here is "to fulfill what is said, 'and a noble is not recognized before a poor man'"?

3.

And the words of the Levush appear²¹,

that Rashi is troubled by the change in the language of the verses,

that above

(in Parshat Tisa¹⁹)

it is written "And I, behold I have given with him Oholiav etc. and with him" — one could explain its meaning that He gave him

(him — the secondary one)

to serve in this work, not that he should be a chief craftsman like him,

but in our parshah Moshe says "He has put into his heart to teach, him and Oholiav" implying that he should be equal to Betzalel in teaching this work to the craftsmen,

that he should be a chief like him,

therefore Rashi explains here

(specifically)

Oholiav from the tribe of Dan etc. to fulfill what is said "Do not favor the noble before the lowly"²².

But still it is not understood:

What is the necessity that the place equated Oholiav with Betzalel is "to fulfill what is said <pg>214</pg>

It is said, and do not favor the great over the poor",

And this is the reason that the scripture emphasizes their lineage — for one could say simply,

that the reason that both of them were chosen to instruct and supervise the work of the Mishkan is because of the greatness of their wisdom,

And that is that Oholiav is equal to Betzalel "in instructing this craft to artisans and he will be a head like him"<sup>*22</sup>

It is because he is equal to Betzalel in "wisdom of heart"

[And on the contrary: what is the practical difference of a matter of lineage when it comes to a matter that requires "wisdom of heart"?].

And based on this, from where does Rashi derive to innovate that the reason for their equation is "to fulfill what is stated, 'And you shall not show favor to the great before the poor'"²³

[And that the text traces their lineage etc. is not a difficulty at all,

for such is the way of the texts

(And in our very case,

that the text traces their lineage also above in Parsha Ki Tisa),

as above]?

At first glance, one could answer,

for from the verbosity of the text here it is proven that Bezalel was the main one²⁴

[That is, in addition to that in Parsha Ki Tisa²⁵

the text elaborates only about Bezalel and it is proven that he alone was the head of all the craftsmen,

now also from the texts of our parsha it implies that Bezalel was the main one],

for at first there is elaboration in the text about the virtue of Bezalel — "See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel etc. and He filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom etc. and to devise thoughts etc. and in craftsmanship of stone etc. in all manner of skilled work"²⁶,

and only afterwards does the text continue²⁷

"And to teach He put in his heart, he and Oholiab etc. He filled them with wisdom of heart to do all the work of a craftsman etc.",

and it implies from this²⁸,

that Bezalel's wisdom was greater than that of Oholiab.

And if so, it is difficult: why did He equate them regarding the teaching of the work?

And therefore Rashi explained that it is to "fulfill what is stated, 'And you shall not show favor to the great before the poor.'"

But based on this it is not understood on the other side: If the wisdom of Bezalel was indeed greater than that of Oholiav — how is it possible to equate them only in order to fulfill "and do not favor the great before the poor"?

After all, just as one may not show favor to a rich person because of his wealth,

so too there is no place to show favor to a poor person when he is not worthy of it — only to equate him with the rich!

Also one must understand:

a)

Why is it necessary to emphasize the matter of "do not favor the great before the poor" by comparing Bezalel and Oholiav

(and especially that the difference between them is not in a matter of "great" and "poor" simply, but in the matter of lineage)

— when the content of the matter of "do not favor the great before the poor" is explained in the verse before this,

and in connection with the making of the Mishkan — the commandment of the half-shekel,

in which it is explained²⁹

"the rich shall not increase and the poor shall not decrease"?

(and especially that there were two giving of the half-shekel

(one for the donation of the sockets and one to buy from them public offerings³⁰)

which in the language of Rashi³¹

— "the poor and the rich were equal in them").

<pg>215</pg>

b)

What is the precise wording of Rashi "to fulfill what is said etc." — an unusual language in Rashi's commentary³²,

and it should have said "as it is said",

"and this is that which is written" and the like.

4.

And one must say the explanation in this:

Rashi's intention is to explain

(not only the reason that "the Omnipresent equated him to Bezalel",

but also)

the cause of the change in the language of the verse between the command of the Name to Moses and the words of Moses to Bnei Yisrael: In the command of the Name the equating of Oholiav to Bezalel was not emphasized,

and specifically in the words of Moses to Bnei Yisrael it is explicit "and to teach etc. him and Oholiav etc.".

And even though we find&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

several times in the Torah that not all details of the commandment were specified, whether in the words of G-d to Moses or in the words of Moses to Bnei Yisrael

(and in many places originally only one of them was stated in the Torah,

either G-d's commandment or Moses' words to Bnei Yisrael)

— because it is obvious that Moses our teacher transmitted all of G-d's commandments to Bnei Yisrael,

and everything that he said to Bnei Yisrael in the name of G-d he was commanded about this —

It is different in our case,

where the discussion is not about the addition of a detail alone,

for then one could explain that the text did not bother to specify it twice,

but rather a change in content: in Parshat Tisa&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

the name of Oholiav is specified only together with the other wise-hearted men

("And I, behold, I have given with him Oholiav etc. and in the heart of every wise-hearted man etc."),

for even though this being specified on its own indicates his superiority over the other wise-hearted men&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

there is no necessity to say that he is equal to Bezalel to the extent that he is considered "a head like him"

(and on the contrary,

from this it implies that he is "closer" to "every wise-hearted man")

; whereas from the commandment "and to teach etc. he and Oholiav etc." in our parshah it implies that both were equal in teaching the craft.

And since this is so,

why was this matter not stated immediately in G-d's commandment in Parshat Tisa

(and does this omission not give room for error that Oholiav is not equal to Bezalel)?

And from this Rashi learned,

that this emphasis of equating Oholiav to Bezalel is a matter that pertains primarily only regarding the knowledge of the children of Israel,

but as for the body and essence of God's command it does not pertain

(so much).

And this is what Rashi wrote "And Oholiav of the tribe of Dan etc. to fulfill what is said 'And you shall not respect the great before the poor'" — and he emphasizes "to fulfill what is said"

(and he did not write "and this is what is written" and the like)

: Rashi's intention is not that the reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to equate Oholiav to Bezalel is because of "you shall not respect the great etc." — for it is obvious that the main importance in appointing heads of craftsmen is because he is "a wise-hearted man..

to know to do all the work of the holy service"³⁵

and nothing more³⁶

(And if he is not in this category, the reason of "you shall not respect etc." will not help to appoint him as head),

that is,

that this that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to appoint both of them as heads in the instruction of the work is only because there was in them an equality due to which Oholiav was worthy to be equal to Bezalel in this³⁷

; but regarding the children of Israel there was here an additional matter,

that there was a need to fulfill

(namely to give "fulfillment" and force — like<pg>216</pg>

They fulfilled and accepted³⁸,

a document that was ratified by its signatories)

among the children of Israel the content of the matter of "No stranger was recognized"

(as will be explained below),

and therefore Moshe emphasized to Bnei Yisrael the comparison of Betzalel and Oholiav despite the greatness of their distance in the matter of lineage.

5.

Explanation of the matter:

Regarding the donation of the Mishkan, we find that it was according to the measure of what each one of Bnei Yisrael had,

in the language of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

— "The hand of all of them was not equal in it, but rather each person according to what his heart donated."

And as is related in our parshah&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

about the distinctions of the offerings from "that which was found with him,"

the waving of gold,

turquoise and purple etc. or "the offering of silver and copper" etc.

And seemingly this arouses a question and astonishment: The Mishkan is a general and most essential matter for Bnei Yisrael,

and especially according to Rashi's explanation&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

that the Mishkan is "a testimony to Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the incident of the calf."

And if so, how is it possible that in such a general and essential matter there be emphasized and forever a distinction between the rich who took an important part in the donation of the Mishkan and the poor&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

who were not able to take an important part in the donation of the Mishkan?

[And only regarding the adanim

(the foundation of the Mishkan)

and the public offerings were all equal

(in giving the half-shekel),

as above].

And it is found,

that the order of the making of the Mishkan through the donation of Bnei Yisrael was in a manner that gave room for error that there is a distinction among Bnei Yisrael in their connection to the Mishkan of Hashem

(according to the level of the donation of their heart).

However, since all the children of Israel participated in the donation of the Mishkan,

and each one according to the generosity of his heart,

behold, the hand of all of them is equal in it

(and the differences between them are only from the aspect of the quantity of the giving)

— in the manner of Rashi's explanation⁴²

"One who increases and one who decreases, provided that he directs his heart to heaven."

But in any case,

since in actuality there are differences,

this causes a weakness in that all the children of Israel belong equally to

(the making of)

the Mishkan.

And therefore,

in order to rectify this,

there was a need "to fulfill what is said, 'And you shall not honor the great before the poor,'"

that is,

to give "fulfillment" and validity so that the children of Israel would know that all are equal in the making of the Mishkan

(to nullify the weakness that was caused in this as a result of the donation of the Mishkan in which the difference between rich and poor was emphasized).

And this is done through Moshe's emphasis in his words to Bnei Yisrael that the work of the Mishkan was given into the hands of Betzalel and Oholiav,

that despite their distance in the matter of lineage — Betzalel was "from the great ones of the tribes" and from the family of Moshe Rabbeinu

(for his grandfather Chur — "was the son of Miriam")

and Oholiav "from the lowliest of the tribes, from the children of the handmaids" — nevertheless, the Place made them equal for the work of the Mishkan — "to fulfill what is said, 'And He does not favor the noble over the poor',"

through which "was fulfilled" among Bnei Yisrael the "foundation",

that in the making of the Mishkan all of Yisrael are equal.

And based on this, the reason is also understood why the equalization of Bnei Yisrael in the matter of giving the half-shekel was not enough "to fulfill what is said, 'And He does not favor etc.'"⁴³

— for<pg>217</pg>

Here it was necessary to nullify the weakness in this matter that through

(the distinctions in)

the donation of the Mishkan,

and for this they needed to emphasize the equality in the work of the Mishkan

(which was done through the donations of the children of Israel).

6.

The explanation of this in the inwardness of the matters:

The reason for this that there were two types of giving for the donations of the Mishkan — the donations in which "the poor and the rich were equal",

and the freewill offering of the Mishkan that "the hand of all was not equal in it, but each person according to what his heart prompted him" — because this corresponds to the two types of service among Israel⁴⁴

:

There are matters in which all Israel are equal,

and there are matters in which each one differs from his fellow,

and in general: the performance of the commandments — that "one Torah and one judgment for all of us in the fulfillment of the entire Torah and commandments in the aspect of action"⁴⁵,

and the intention of the commandments,

love of G‑d and fear of Him etc.,

that "each one according to his own measure"⁴⁶,

"which are according to the knowledge of G‑d in the brain and heart"⁴⁵.

However, the ultimate intention is,

to draw down the matter of unity also into the "generosity of heart" of Bnei Yisrael⁴⁷,

that it should be felt,

that despite the differences that exist in this between one and another,

nevertheless they are all equal before Him, blessed be He.

And this is hinted in that the making of the Mishkan

(with the things that came in the generosity of Bnei Yisrael,

"each person what his heart donated")

— was in a manner of "the noble was not recognized before the poor".

And this is the reason that this matter is emphasized specifically in the speech of Moshe to Bnei Yisrael,

and not in the command of Hashem to Moshe — because all this matter is to draw down the matter of unity into that level where the differences among Bnei Yisrael are seen,

and there is no place to emphasize this in the command of Hashem to Moshe.

Furthermore,

in the command of Hashem to Moshe — it is still above the differences among Bnei Yisrael;

When Moses transmits the command of G‑d to the children of Israel,

this "reaches" the level where there exist distinctions between one person and his fellow,

and Moses draws down into them the matter of unity⁴⁸,

"He does not show favor to the great before the lowly."

(From the talks of Shabbat Parshat Vayikra and Shabbat Parshat Tzav 5729,

Shabbat Parshat Vayakhel 5746)