From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:18
AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Pekudei,
5765
Balancing
the Books
By
Rabbi Joshua (calculatingly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
In honor of
my cousin Alan Moss and his bride Rachel (Vinegar), on the occasion of their
wedding, which took place in Chicago this past Sunday.
This week's
parsha begins with an account of the materials that were donated for the
building of the mishkan and its component parts, as we read: "These are the
accountings of the mishkan of the testimony which were counted by Moshe "
(Shemos 36:21). Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman HaLevi Epstein, in his commentary Maor
VaShemesh, notes the use of the word 'eileh,' - these - rather than 've-eileh' -
and these. The rabbis tell us that whenever it says eileh in the Torah, without
the connecting vav, that which immediately precedes this word is being rejected.
What, then, is being rejected here? Rabbi Epstein suggests that there is an
allusion here to the fact that even after the destruction of the mishkan,
and later the Temple, we are later able to draw spiritual sustenance through
studying the sections of the Torah that discuss its construction. These sections
carry within them this ability, to infuse us with the spirituality inherent in
the mishkan and the mikdash. However, in order to benefit from them in this way,
we must invest a great amount of effort in our study, and, each time we approach
these sections, we must study them as if we have never studied them before.
Therefore, whenever we approach these sections of the Torah, we need to leave
behind our previous efforts at learning them, and read them completely anew.
That is why the word eileh which implies a rejection of that which proceeds, is
employed here by the Torah. While this explanation is inspirational, it does not
seem to be the real implication of the word eileh in this context, since it does
not relate to anything in the actual text of the Torah that actually precedes
this section, but to the efforts one makes to study this section. I would,
therefore, like to suggest a different approach.
The Midrash Shemos
Rabbah at the end of parshas Pekudei (52:5), mentions that there was a 'kipas
ha-cheshbonos,' or ' Arch of Accounts,' outside of Yerusholayim, where people
would go to make their monetary calculations, or, in modern parlance, to balance
their books. The reason for this, says the midrash, is that sometimes the
person's finances may turn out to be in arrears, which will cause him distress,
and Yerusholayim is a place of happiness and rejoicing, as King David wrote of
the city, "Beautiful in situation, the joy of the whole earth" (Tehillim 48:3).
One may then ask, if this is so in regard to Yerusholayim, it must certainly be
so in regard to the site of the mishkan, especially according to the Rambam, who
says that Yerusholayim is an extension of the temple. Certainly the mishkan is
not place of distress. Why, then, was an accounting made before its
construction? Perhaps this is the reason for the Torah writing 'eileh' in
connection with the accounting being made. The midrash (Shemos Rabbah, 51:8)
tells us that the word eileh used here is in contrast to the word 'eileh' used
in connection with the incident of the golden calf, or eigel, when the people
said 'these are your gods, Yisroel' (Shemos, 32:4). The materials donated for
the mishkan, in fact, came to atone for the donations made for the eigel. Thus,
the word 'eileh,' aside from the fact that it is the same word that was used in
connection with the eigel, also has the connotation of rejecting that which
precedes it, namely, the accounting made at the sin of the eigel. The accounting
for the mishkan, then, far from being a cause for distress, was a cause for
celebration, because it signified the atonement the people achieved for the sin
of the eigel, and the joy they had in contributing towards the building of the
mishkan.
Rabbi Epstein, in fact, does mention the possibility that
the word 'eileh,' as implying a rejection of what preceded, is a reference to
the eigel, but rejects that explanation, because that incident is recorded in
parshas Ki Sisa, not in Vayakheil, which immediately precedes our parsha.
However, perhaps we can maintain this explanation, because the traumatic effect
of the incident of the eigel had far-ranging repercussions, whose residual
effect was still felt at the time of the accounting made by Moshe. Rabbi
Mordechai Rogov, zt"l, who served for many years as a Rosh Yeshiva in the Hebrew
Theological College in Chicago, mentions, in his Ateres Mordechai, the midrash
concerning the kipas ha-cheshbonos that was located outside of Yerusholayim, and
explains it as referring, on a broader plane, to moral reckonings of events in
Jewish history. People who do not recognize God's providence in history become
distressed over events that occur in their lives as well as in the lives of the
Jewish people, in general. Someone who understands that these events are brought
about through divine providence will not be distressed. Yerusholayim, and the
holy Temple, are places where God's providence is more evident than elsewhere,
and any doubts a person may have come only as a result of his looking at the
events from the point of view of the natural order of things. In Yerusholayim,
where divine providence is more evident, and a person realizes that the fortunes
of the Jewish nation are beyond the natural order of things, he will not be led
to distress when viewing the state they are in.
Rav Yoef Dov
Soloveitchik, zt"l, also understood this midrash in a broader way. In 1967,
after the great victory of the Six Day War, he received a letter from a teacher
of high school girls in Israel, asking why he, who had spoken and written so
eloquently of the great importance of the State of Israel for the Jewish people,
had not moved there. Rav Soloveitchik answered that, in fact, he and his wife
had decided to divide their time between Boston and Israel, spending six months
a year in the Holy Land. However, he said, his wife had died a few months
previous to his receiving the letter, and he was still in a tremendous
state of depression over her passing. He then referred to the midrash
about the kipas ha-cheshbonos outside Yerusholayim, and argued that if even the
distress caused by an adverse monetary situation was enough to keep a person
from entering Yerusholayim, due to its nature as a place of joy, how much more
so should his state of depression over the loss of his wife prevent him from
entering (see MiPninei HoRav, by Rav Tzvi Shachter, pages 198-199, for more on
this letter). With the remarks of Rav Rogov and Rav Soloveitchik in mind, we can
return to our original question.
The incident of the golden calf, as
we noted, had a traumatic effect on the Jewish people. We have had occasion, in
the past (Netvort to Vayakheil-Pekudei, 5759), to discuss the remarks of Ramban
in his commentary to Vayakheil, as expanded upon by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in
which he says that the gathering of the people described in the beginning of
that parsha implies a reconciliation of the people with God, with Moshe, and
with each other. The death of so many people as a result of the tragic incident,
and their distancing from God, still reverberated among them, and there was a
need to overcome these effects in order for a proper mood of joy to be attained
for the forthcoming inauguration of the mishkan, which the midrash refers to as
an actual wedding day between God and his people. The reckoning of the material
donated for the mishkan, then, constituted a rejection of the earlier
contributions made to the eigel, and, on a broader plane, served to negate all
of the reckonings and calculations the people had been making in the shadow of
that tragic event. In this way, they were readying themselves for the day of
their greatest joy, the inauguration of the mishkan. Perhaps, in this light, we
can give an additional reason for the delay of that inauguration from the
completion of the work, which took place on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, until
the first of Nissan in the following year. In the past (see Netvort to parshas
Pekudei, 5763, available at Torahheights.com), we explained this delay on the
basis of the remarks of Rabbi Yosef Salant, in his Be'er Yosef, who wrote that
since the sin of the eigel was a result of the impatience of the people when
Moshe did not return when they expected him too, they needed to inculcate the
quality of patience within themselves as part of their atonement for that
incident. However, in light of our current discussion, perhaps we can add that
another reason for the delay was to give the people additional time to rise
above the distress caused by the incident of the eigel, so that they would be in
a state of joy when the time of the inauguration finally arrived, as fitting for
that culminating moment in the life of the nation.
Please
address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following
address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.
To subscribe to Netvort, send a message
with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe,
send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same
address.