Israel and The Sin of Expulsion
The Implications and Consequences of Expulsion for the Jewish People
In our Parsha, Tzav is Moshe’s command from Hashem to Aaron HaKohen and his sons to take up and clothe themselves in their Vestments, their garments of service in the Mishkan, and to begin their daily Avodah (service and offerings in the Mishkan).
For seven days, Moshe taught Aaron HaKohen and his sons the laws of their Avodah in the Mishkan. (You might say that they were given, as they term it in the US, OJT from Shemayim.) On the eighth day, Aaron and his sons began their Avodah.
The first word of our parsha; Vayikra is the source of much discussion as to why the word ends with a small “aleph” and tells much about Moshe Rabbeinu’s level of principle, integrity and his standard of leadership of B’nei Yisrael. R’ Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, z’l in the new Hirsch Chumash (published by Feldheim in 2005 and translated to English by Rabbi Daniel Haberman) renders translation of our Parsha’s opening posuk:
“And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Appointed Meeting [Mei-Ohel Mo’ed], saying:” (Hirsch Chumash, Sefer Vayikra, page 1, Perek 1, posuk 1)
Our Parsha Pekudei begins;
“These are the accounts of the Mishkan (the Sanctuary), the Mishkan of testimony, which were drawn up on Moshe’s orders …” (Shemos, Perek 38, posuk 21 — Metsudah Linear Chumash, page 579).
In short, Pekudei is the accountant’s parsha, the parsha of crunching the numbers.
The Sefer L’lmod U’Lamed (Parsha Pekudei, pages 97-98) asks what the primary reason was for Moshe’s detailed accounting of the costs of the construction of the Mishkan. The Sages tell that “there were apparently some who suspected that Moshe might have keep some … contributions for his own use.” (L’lmod U’Lamed, page 98).
Our Parsha Vayakhel is dedicated to teaching B’nai Yisrael about Shabbos which has always, until recent times, been the unifying, defining factor of Judaism. It alludes to all else — Yishuv HaAretz, Kiddushin, etc. It symbolizes the Jew’s faith in Hashem. And the melachot involved in the construction of the Mishkan were meant to define the paradigms of melachot prohibited on Shabbos.
The parsha begins by stating that “Moshe assembled the entire congregation of B’nai Yisrael…” (Perek 35, Posuk 1) Torah’s loshen (language) “Adat B’nai Yisrael”, in the context of learning the laws of Shabbos as related to the construction of the Mishkan, seems to indicate a unity — the Assembly of the B’nai Yisrael.as if one single entity.
I’ll start by departing from norm and writing this in the first-person and by asking forgiveness in advance for the absolute bleakness of this piece. But if you don’t forgive me, well — that’s okay too! But I’m gonna say what needs to be said regardless of forgiveness, and regardless of who holds of me where because I see the below as true and accurate portrayal, on the whole, of the state of Am Yisrael today. What’s more, I can almost see R’ Meir Kahane writing precisely this.
For many years, this author has spoken or written about a posuk in Parsha Ki Tisa which alludes to an event which is recorded in Torah 40 years later, in a subsequent Parsha.
The posuk being referred to (Sh’mos, Perek 30, posuk 30) says that while Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai being given Torah, Hashem said;
“You shall anoint Aaron and his sons and sanctify them to minister (to serve) Me.”
This seemingly obscure posuk, which pops up 8 times in various different forms in Parsha Tetzaveh and again in our Parsha, raises a few challenging questions which cut to the chase of what we continue to face today. One question is; what about that Pinchas Ben Elazar? Why was he not anointed as a Kohen with his brothers? The other question is: What about the first-born and the Priesthood?
In our Parsha Tetzaveh, the laws regarding the anointment, the vestments and the Avodah (service) of the Kohanim are enunciated for the Jewish people.
R’ Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, z’l offers this commentary on the Kehunah and the Bigdei Kehunah (the vestments of the Kohanim) in the new Hirsch Chumash (published by Feldheim in 2005 and translated to English by Daniel Haberman), pages 662-663 in Sefer Sh’mot:
The priestly garments must be supplied and owned by the nation. From this fact alone we draw the important conclusion that only when a Kohen dressed in these garments can be considered a Kohen. Only… [in this attire] does he appear as the nation’s servant in the Sanctuary of the Torah. Only thus does his service become the nation’s service in the Sanctuary… Only thus does… his service attain the character of a Mitzvah given to the nation by Hashem in His Torah….
In our Parsha, we begin learning about the construction and the contents of the Mishkan (Tabernacle).
The Shem Mishmuel [Parsha Terumah, pg. 169-172) cites R’ Shimon who said;
Nearing the conclusion of Parshat Yithro, Torah records the high moment to date in world history; The Asseret HaDivrot (The 10 Statements) were given on the 6th day of the month of Sivan. After Hashem presents Moshe and the B’nai Yisrael with The Asseret HaDivrot, he instructs Moshe to fashion the construction of an earthen altar — a Mizbeiyach on which to bring the various offerings to Hashem (Sefer Sh’mot, Perek 20, posuk 21).
R’ Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, z’l in the new Hirsch Chumash (published by Feldheim in 2005 and translated to English by Daniel Haberman), provides commentary on posuk 21 (New Hirsch Chumash, Sefer Sh’mot, Parsha Yithro, Perek 20, posuk 21, page 359):
We learn that when Yithro had heard all that Hashem had done for B’nai Yisrael, he left Midian with Tzippora and Moshe’s two sons and went to join with the Jews.
We are not absolutely certain as to whether any one specific event Yithro heard boosted him to circumcize himself and to go out to join the B’nai Yisrael, and if so, which exact event it was, or whether it was the sum total of all he had heard which convinced him to become a Jew.
In the sefer Ner Uziel: Perspectives on the Parsha, Rabbi Uziel Milevsky z’l writes on our Parsha Yithro (p. 380-383) indicating that were Yithro to have come to join the Jews after Yetziat Mitziyim or after the cri’at Yam Suf, it would have been unlikely that he could have joined with the Jews due their concern as to what his motivations might be; i.e. whether he was anxious to be on a winning team, on the right side. It would seem to this author that this is not unlike many athletes who, when reaching free agency status, seek the best deal, to earn more than their peers, to join onto the team which has gone all-the-way.