English translation — ויקהל א

A.

On the words "Vayakhel Moshe" at the beginning of the sedra,

Rashi explains: "On the morrow of Yom Kippur when he descended from the mountain".

One must understand: What is not right in the simple understanding of the words "Vayakhel Moshe",

that in order to clarify this,

must Rashi explain that this was "on the morrow of Yom Kippur etc."?

commentators¹

say,

that the explanation of "on the morrow of Yom Kippur etc." Rashi takes

(<b>not</b> from a nuance in the language of the verse "And Moses assembled",

but)

from logic: since "the zealous hasten to perform commandments"²,

reason compels that Moses did not delay to convey to the Jews the command regarding the making of the Mishkan,

which he heard from the Almighty on Mount

(Sinai),

but he did it immediately on the morrow after his descent from the mountain.

But it is not understood:

a)

In his commentary on Chumash one does not find,

that Rashi should explain the time of a certain event

(even in a case where it is compelled by reason and the like³

that this happened at a certain time),

except there where it pertains to the understanding of the plain meaning of the verse.

This assumption,

that Moshe Rabbeinu certainly did not delay in conveying the command regarding the making of the Mishkan — rather he did it in a manner of "the zealous hasten",

immediately at the first opportunity — this is, after all, ostensibly a thing that is understood simply and plainly⁴

; and since so,

why does Rashi need to let it be heard,

in a way of a novelty,

that this happened "on the morrow of Yom Kippur"

(because Moshe did not postpone it for later)?

b)

2.

Regarding the second question, the commentators say⁵

: Since in the last verses of the previous portion it speaks about the manner and order of conduct of Moshe's speech to Jews — which relates to a longer period of time <b>after</b> Yom Kippur⁶

— therefore one could think,

that also the matter of "Vayakhel Moshe"

(which comes after that)

took place a prolonged time after Yom Kippur; therefore Rashi needs to clarify that it was on the morrow of Yom Kippur.

It is, however, difficult to explain thus:

Let us assume even that "Vayakhel Moshe" was as far removed in time from Yom Kippur,

it must still turn out that the order of conduct that is told in the verses at the end of Parshas Tisa

(Vayidaber Moshe Aleihem etc.,

Vei'acharei Chen Nishu etc.)

had extended for a long time &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; "Vayakhel Moshe" — d.

h.

the entire time that Moshe spoke with Jews — even after the establishment of the Mishkan&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;,

or at least until the day of the establishment of the Mishkan&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;.

According to this, we must then.

In any case,

learn that that which the verses — which describe the manner of speech of Moshe to Jews and their conduct thereby — come in the text earlier &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; "Vayakhel Moshe" it is because this order was initiated and began immediately when Moshe came down from the mountain,

before Vayakhel Moshe.

And since so,

is then the question returns to its place: why should one have a mistake and think that the "Vayakhel Moshe" was a duration of time after Yom Kippur and not learn according to the simple reasoning,

that he did this immediately after Yom Kippur?

3.

One more thing needs to be understood:

From the side of the reasoning mentioned above

(Section 1)

of "the zealous hasten to perform mitzvos",

one would have had to learn that the "Vayakhel Moshe" occurred after <b>earlier</b> than "<b>the day after</b> Yom Kippur": on the day of Yom Kippur itself.

Because there is a foundation to say,

that Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Mount Sinai "within 6 hours" of that day

(In a similar manner as one finds regarding his first descent from the mountain,

17 Tammuz⁹

— since the forty days are comparable to those first forty days,

there is no place to differentiate regarding their end and descent from the mountain^*9)

— he had enough time on that day of Yom Kippur itself to convey to the Jews the command regarding the making of the Mishkan¹⁰.

If so,

why does Rashi teach that he did it only <b>the day after</b> Yom Kippur?

At first glance one could say that the necessity for his interpretation

(that "Vayakhel Moshe" is "<b>the day after</b> Yom Kippur" and not on Yom Kippur itself)

Rashi takes from the fact that before conveying to the Jews the command regarding the work of the Mishkan, Moshe preceded them only with the warning regarding the observance of Shabbos

(in order to say that the work of the Mishkan "does not override Shabbos")¹¹,

but not the announcement of "the warning of Yom Kippur".

— Now if one were to say,

that the "Vayakhel Moshe" occurred on Yom Kippur itself,

he would have first of all had to announce to them the warning of Yom Kippur in order to prevent them from doing the work of the Mishkan¹²

immediately on this first day itself.

In truth, however, one cannot answer like that.

Because the reason for all the laws of Yom Kippur — and included in them "and no work shall you do"¹³

— is,

as explained in Scripture¹⁴

"For on this day He shall atone for you, etc."

it is therefore understandable that the entire concept of Yom Kippur began only at the moment when the Almighty said "I have forgiven according to your words",

which <b>from</b> <b>then</b> <b>on</b> was established "for pardon and for forgiveness"¹⁵

And since that is so,

And since that is so,

it is therefore simple that on that day when Moses came down from the mountain,

on which it first began that the day of "in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month"¹³

should be a day of forgiveness — it is not possible that the laws of Yom Kippur should apply to it

(even not to the part of the day that was already after the "I have forgiven"¹⁶)

— while the earlier part of that day,

before the Almighty said "I have forgiven",

was not Yom Kippur¹⁷.

This is also implied from what is told in Parshas Yisro¹⁸.

Earlier it states there: "And Yisro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G-d etc. to eat bread etc.",

and immediately after that begins the verse "And it was on the next day" about which Rashi says "It was the day after Yom Kippur".

And since in the plain sense "And it was on the next day" also means — the morning after "And Yisro took",

it thus turns out that "And Yisro took" was on the day of Yom Kippur,

when Moses our teacher came down from Mount Sinai.

— And since on that day they offered "a burnt-offering and sacrifices"

(and they came "to eat bread etc.")

it is thus proven that the laws of Yom Kippur did not apply at all on that day²⁰.

4.

After Rashi explains that "And he assembled Moshe" was on the morrow of Yom Kippur,

he continues — in the same discourse beginning²¹

: "And it is the causative form,

that he does not gather people by hand but they are gathered by his word.

And its Targum is 'and he gathered.'"

Here too it is difficult to understand:

a)

What connection exists between the subject of "And He is the Lord who acted etc." and the subject of "the day after Yom Kippur",

that because of this connection Rashi includes both subjects²²

in one heading²³?

b)

The manner of gathering people is always done not with hands,

but through speech — and yet alongside it is often stated the word asifah not in the active voice.

For example: "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel"; "And he gathered seventy men etc."²⁴,

and also earlier²⁵

it says "Go and gather the elders of Israel".

Why must specifically in our verse it say "Vayakhel — in the active voice"²⁶?

3)

What in general does Rashi innovate <b>here</b> "l'he'fil" — several times the l'he'fil is used in the Chumash,

and Rashi does not dwell on this: "vayilbash oto"; "vayirkav oto"^*26

; and more?

4)

What is Rashi's point with the conclusion "u'targumo v'achnish"²⁷?

5.

So the explanation in all the above is:

From the perspective of the plainness of the matters

(without Rashi's commentary)

one would learn that "And Moses assembled" took place on Yom Kippur itself,

on that same day when Moses came down from Mount Sinai — and one would thus learn,

because for this there is a double proof:

Behold, from the side of the reasoning

("The zealous hasten")

which says

(as above, section 3)

that Moshe Rabbeinu would not have waited until morning to convey the command,

but rather do it immediately on that same day.

As Rashi says in an earlier parshah,

that Moshe would immediately convey to the Jewish people the mission from the Almighty.

And especially after,

that the command of making the Mishkan "And I will dwell in their midst"

carried within itself the announcement of the Almighty's forgiveness and atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf of the Jewish people "

— then certainly Moshe Rabbeinu exerted himself to convey to the Jewish people this good news that earlier

And behold, from the side of the language of the verse,

with which it would be understandable why it says "Vayakhel" a language of "Hif'il"

(He made that they should gather together,

not "Vaye'asef" which means he gathered them together)

: It is self-understood,

that Moshe Rabbeinu's descent from the mountain with the latter tablets should cause that all the Jewish people should assemble,

by themselves,

in order to hear what Moshe would convey to them.

Therefore it does not say here the language "Vaye'asef"

(language of Pa'al),

because then it would mean,

that he did

(carried out)

the assembling.

In contrast, "Vayakhel Moshe"

(language of Hif'il — made others do)

means that Moshe Rabbeinu,

with his coming,

effected the assembling of the Jewish people; he made them do the action of gathering themselves together.

that it is not smooth to say that their gathering together was&lt;b&gt; entirely &lt;/b&gt;in a passive manner — because the meaning of "And Moses assembled" still implies that Moses&lt;b&gt; did &lt;/b&gt;something in this gathering,

then the explanation in this is:

Earlier in the portion of Tisa it is related&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

that "and they were afraid to approach him" and through that which "Moses called to them" was "and they returned to him etc. and afterwards all the children of Israel approached etc."

And this is also meant by "Vayakhel",

i.

in this "Vayikra" was contained Moses' activity in the "Vayakhel".

But the gathering together,

was not done by Moses our teacher — he only brought them near to himself — it is already also correct that here it says "Vayakhel" in the causative form and not in the simple form].

On this Rashi innovates that "Vayakhel Moshe" is "on the morrow of Yom Kippur": d.

e.

h.

One cannot say that this took place on that same day,

for then the Jews had gathered together of themselves,

because the style of the narrative "Vayakhel Moshe" implies that he wants to tell an important matter about Moshe and a virtue of Moshe that he gathered together etc.

Therefore one must teach,

that this took place "on the morrow of Yom Kippur",

for then it was through Moshe.

According to this,

why does it say here "Vayakhel" in the active voice?

To this Rashi answers,

that since "he does not gather people by hand but they are gathered by his speech" the active voice is appropriate even when someone gathers them together³².

For after all he does not gather the people together actually with his hands,

but only that his speech brings about that they should be "gathered".

6.

Based on this, one will also understand what Rashi concludes "ותרגומו ואכניש":

Since with "ויקהל משה" the verse comes to tell an important matter and a virtue regarding Moses,

that <b>he</b>—Moses—had gathered together the Jews,

then why should one learn that "ויקהל

(משה)

" is in the causative form and to teach—that since it was only "by means of his speech" it is not considered an "action"

(despite the fact that the term gathering,

also regarding a gathering of people which is done by means of speech,

is [in] the term action

(as above section 4))

— one could nevertheless better learn that "ויקהל" is in the "action" form²³?

(not with a chirik),

it is <b>necessarily</b> that it is lamed-heh of the causative

(And as we find regarding "Vayikra shem beShem Hashem El Olam",

that when our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explain that Avraham <b>made</b> calling,

they say: "Do not read Vayikra

(yud with a chirik)

but Vayakria"³⁴

(with a patach)

— because yud with a chirik indicates a verb form and yud with a patach indicates lamed-heh of the causative)

— because also by the language "pa'al" one finds in many places that the yud stands with a patach,

as in "and Hashem killed etc." ³⁵,

in our parshah itself — "vaya'asu"³⁶.

and more].

therefore Rashi here <b>innovates "</b>and it is the language of the causative",

and brings a proof for this "and its Targum

(that when Rashi brings "Targum" simply — he means Targum Onkelos³⁷)

va'akhnish",

that the word "vayakhel" the Targum translates

(not "vekh'nash" — only language of pa'al)

"va'akhnish" — language of the causative.

7.

Why did Moshe indeed wait with giving them the command about the making of the Mishkan until the next day,

and he did not give it to them on that same day?

In parshas Yisro

(and also at the end of parshas Mishpatim)

it is told about the greatness of the elevation of the giving of the Torah and the giving of the Tablets,

how this caused the tremendous mesirah and nesinah and devotion of Jews to the matter of receiving the Torah and the Tablets.

One must therefore understand,

that likewise it was at the time when Moshe brought down the second Tablets,

And on the contrary: one can say that even more than with the first tablets.

Because the second tablets

(on Yom Kippur)

were indeed connected with "Hashem was appeased to Israel with joy and a whole heart and said to Moshe: I have forgiven according to your words"³⁸,

It is understandable that Moshe with the Jews were on that very day entirely absorbed in the matter of "I have forgiven" and within that the tablets — Torah — and there was for them no place for other things,

even not for such a matter as the making of the Mishkan.

And therefore that day was occupied exclusively with matters of

("I have forgiven" — repentance and)

Torah.

And although also these matters of Torah

(which Moshe then learned with them)

contained commandments regarding action — but in the then-current study of the sections and the halachos, only the aspect of <b>the Torah</b> of it was heard³⁹.

Only on the second day,

<b>the day after</b> Yom Kippur,

he gathered together the Jews and said to them: "These are the words that Hashem commanded to do them",

"This is the thing that Hashem commanded"; then he conveyed to them the command of the Most High regarding

(about Shabbos and)

the work of the Mishkan — as a matter of Torah that is heard primarily as the <b>to do</b>,

the aspect of study in order to come to <b>action</b>,

And as told in Parshas Yisro⁴⁰

That <b>the day after</b> his descent from the mountain "Moshe sat to judge the people etc. between a man and his fellow, and I make known the statutes of God and His teachings."

8.

And from this one can derive a lesson in the service of man

(like the commentaries of Rashi,

which also contain "the wine of Torah"⁴¹

— inner-directed lessons in the service of God)

There are those whose entire hishtadlus is — to make from the world a "Mishkan and Mikdash" to the Above — they need to know,

that as high as such avodah is,

it cannot replace

(the mitzvah and)

the matter of limud haTorah,

which is greater than all mitzvos⁴².

And therefore during the learning one must be so united with the matter being learned⁴³

and so mesur and naton to Torah,

until one should have no connection then to any other matters,

even not to the matter of "Kechu me'item terumah... yavo'u veya'asu... es haMishkan..."⁴⁴

; until the halachah⁴⁵

: ein mevatlin tinokos shel beis rabban

(even)

for building the Beis HaMikdash⁴⁶.

And as hinted in our parshah <b>itself,</b>

and as a preface to the Mishkan — "Veshachanti"<b>: He preceded </b>for them the warning of Shabbos to the command of the work of the Mishkan, to say<b> that it does not </b>override Shabbos⁴⁷.

But,

on the other hand,

one can think that one can fulfill [the obligation] with the study of Torah alone — about this they say,

that "&lt;b&gt;the day after&lt;/b&gt; Yom Kippur",

immediately &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; learning,

one must exert oneself in the service of making the world a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

For whoever says, "I have only Torah," even Torah he does not have,

together with Torah there must also be acts of kindness&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

9.

Another matter of "the wine of Torah"

(and also in halachah)

in our Rashi commentary:

The wording of the verse is "&lt;b&gt;And he assembled&lt;/b&gt; Moshe".

But Rashi in his commentary on this uses the wording&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;

(&lt;b&gt;Not&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;"&lt;/b&gt;he does not &lt;b&gt;assemble &lt;/b&gt;etc. &lt;b&gt;assembled ones etc.",&lt;/b&gt;

but)

"he does not &lt;b&gt;gather etc. gathered ones etc."&lt;/b&gt;

In the way of the simple meaning, it is no question — because gathering is a word that is more common than assembling.

But in the inner aspects of the matters, one could say that Rashi thereby

(with his changing from the term assembly to a term gathering)

hints at a matter of the inner dimension of the Torah:

The word "קהל" is a name that denotes the collective

(men)

not as a multitude and combination of several individuals but as a new reality — <b>קהל״׳.</b>

And in this consists the advantage of "ויקהל" over "ויאסוף": "ויאסוף" means — he gathered together a number of people in one place

(or matter),

but even after the gathering it can be that each one of the gathered ones is a separate reality.

In contrast "ויקהל" means that he created from them a "קהל": everyone who enters into the קהל becomes nullified from his individual distinctiveness and becomes a part of the קהל.

And this is the reason that by the making of the Mishkan it says <b>"ויקהל </b>משה את כל עדת בני ישראל",

that Moshe made from all Jews one קהל — because the purpose of "ועשו לי מקדש" is indeed the revelation of G‑dliness of "ושכנתי בתוכם",

therefore all Jews had to become one קהל,

for specifically then,

when they are "כולנו כאחד",

can there be among them the revelation of "הוי׳ אחד"⁵⁰.

Therefore one also finds,

that the Tabernacle had to be built specifically from public funds

(just as the public,

also their money is <b>one</b> thing),

and not from money that belongs to many individuals as a partnership^*50.

True indeed,

that only at the making of the Tabernacle did it become public funds,

but <b>came</b> it nevertheless from <b>individual</b> donations,

everyone whose <b>heart</b> motivates him shall bring it,

every Jew had to donate according to <b>his</b> heart from his <b>particular</b> property⁵¹

<b> </b>— and <b>yet</b> it says <b>"And Moses assembled</b>"

(with the hint to the communal existence)

already at the <b>announcement</b> of the donations for the Tabernacle — because this itself is the lesson: this donation that every Jew gave according to his heart from his own money,

he had to give from the outset in such a way that his particular ownership in that money should become nullified,

that it should become public funds.

Yud.

Every thing that feels like a reality cannot by nature suffer any other reality.

And therefore,

when they come into

(some manner of)

integration — even only in an integration of "assembly"

(that also after this,

each one remains a particular reality,

as above)

— this is connected with a movement of self-nullification on the part of those assembled and integrated.

For the very fact that they come together in one assembly for one purpose,

already indicates a certain measure of self-nullification,

of absence of self-spreading

(because when one's reality is in self-spreading,

he will not be able to even just come together with the other⁵²).

But nevertheless,

the self-nullification that exists by "assembly",

is no more than a matter of nullification of the somethingness

(only the nullification of his "somethingness",

as the reality stands in selfhood and self-spreading — and <b>not </b>nullification in reality).

Not so by "and he assembled" it is an integration in a manner of nullification <b>in reality: </b>he becomes nullified entirely from his own reality and becomes only a part of the congregation-reality.

And this is the precise meaning of "And Moshe assembled": this—the power that exists by a Jew,

that he should hear how his entire existence is only a part of K'lal Yisrael,

of the congregation of Yisrael — "Vayakhel" — it comes from "Moshe" whose meaning is self-nullification of "and we [are] what" — self-nullification in actuality⁵¹

Yes.

Nevertheless, Rashi changes his language and says: "that I [do not] gather ..

gathered"

(not "I assemble ..

assembled"),

because with this he wants to indicate a lesson in the order of the service: the empowerment from Moshe the faithful shepherd and the ultimate elevation is indeed the manner of self-nullification in actuality,

"And Moshe assembled",

which the Torah says and exhorts of Jews.

Rashi, however,

(whose purpose is to teach a Jew gradually,

beginning from a "five-year-old" etc.)

is precise and teaches,

that the beginning is in the manner of "assembly",

self-nullification of the existent.

And then from level to level,

until — to the self-nullification in actuality of "And Moshe assembled".

But also the language "gathering" of Rashi is connected with "And Moses assembled"&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

D.

E.

That in order to effect in oneself the self-nullification even only of "gathering",

one must have for this an empowerment from Moses — because from its own side one cannot come together with another even in the manner of "gathering",

as above.

12.

Although that also because of the self-nullification of "gathering" one must arrive at the empowerment of Moses,

it is however understood that this aspect of "Moses" which effects the matter of gathering

(self-nullification of the entity),

is not comparable to the level of the aspect of "Moses" which effects the "And he assembled"

(self-nullification in existence)

When the illumination of the aspect of "Moshe" shines for a Jew, which is commensurate with his existence,

then only "bittul hayesh" is opened in him — he does not lose his entire selfhood,

because this illumination of Moshe,

which opens up the bittul,

is indeed measured and contracted according to his existence; but when the aspect of Moshe shines in him,

as it is <b>higher</b> than his existence,

then "bittul bimtziut" is opened in him.

And this Rashi hints with his explanation that "Vayakhel

(Moshe)

" is a term of "hif'il": this is the level of Moshe which does not stand in any descent to act in a way of enclothing

("with hands"),

but "hif'il" through his speech — for speech in general is "something felt and seen as a thing in itself, separate from its source"⁵⁶.

That

is,

the level of Moshe stands in its place,

and from this specifically is opened

(in a way of automatically)

the "Vayakhel",

bittul bimtziut.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel 5725)