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.