Matanos l'evyonim on Purim

 Is matan b'seiser preferable in Matanos l'evyonim on Purim? 

Someone sent me the following question, and it led to the Meil Tzedakah. 

Good Morning,  R’Eliezer.

      Can I as your opinion on something ?

      If you had two foods in front of you:   one has a small amount of non-kosher ingredient inside, but it is definitely Batul, while the second food has 100% kosher ingredients – I think that most people would choose to eat the food that is completely kosher and not have to rely on the halachic concept of bitul.   (Notwithstanding that famous shita of the Bnei Yissoscher who prefers to use the food with bitul).

 

    So, here is my question.    For Matanot L’Evyonim, when I give $100 to my rabbi to distribute for me, how do I know that he won’t be giving all of my $100 to just one poor man?    But my mitzva is to give to two poor men!    Therefore, my understanding is that we rely on the halachic principle of  ברירה  since this is a D’Rabanan matter.   We’ll assume, halachically, that my $100 that he distributes will wind up going to two poor people.

 

     Maybe it is better for me to instead give $50 to one rabbi and $50 to a different rabbi to ensure that my money really does get into the hands of two different poor people – and not to have to rely on the concept of   ברירה  (just like we prefer to not rely on the concept of ביטול  if we don’t need to).

If I give $50 to Rabbi Hertz, who deals with Chabad folks, and if I give another $50 to Rabbi Matanky – it is extremely unlikely that both rabbis will give my money to the same poor man.

 

Where is the flaw in my logic ?    Would giving to two rabbis for distribution really be a preferred method of giving Matanot L’Evyonim ?

I responded as follows:

Hello.

Chavilos. 

I am sure that a reputable rov will distribute the tzedaka with the explicit intention that each donor's gift will go to as many aniyim as optimal for the donor's kiyum hamitzva. As the gizbor, he has the power to make that condition.  Even if he does not, I think it's fair to assume that this is implicit.

Interesting addtion: From the Torah LiShma:

That one ought to actually do the act of giving to each separately to avoid the problem of Chavilos Chavilos.

Furthermore, here is an important thought. Not well known, but it deserves consideration. From the sefer Me'il Tzedaka, by Rav Eliahu Hakohen, Izmir, the 1700s: On Purim, contrary to the mitzva of Tzedaka the whole year, it is better to hand the matana to the poor man yourself. 

חלק ב, סימן א, סימן רכ

...ועל דרך פשט נראה לתת טעם לשבח, למה בשאר ימות השנה נותנה לארנקי של צדקה, ובפורים יתן לעני מיד ליד

דיש לומר מה שנותנה לארנקי של צדקה, כדי שלא יתבייש העני.

ובפורים, שכולם מקבלים זה מזה, עניים ועשירים, דכתיב "ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים" (אסתר, ט, כב), אם כן אינו מגיע בִּיּוּש לעני המקבל, לפי שמתחזק העני באמרו: גם הנותן לי מקבל מתנה מחברו. לכן יתן הצדקה בפורים מיד ליד לקיים מצוַת צדקה בעצמו, דמצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, שהם גבאי צדקה. 

There you have it. On Purim, he says, it is better to hand the matanah to the poor person directly, not through a gizbar.

Besides his svara of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, it is possible that the point of the matanos is like the point of the Mishloach Manos, is to be marbeh rei'us. If so, it is possible that you're not marbeh rei'us when you give it to a gizbar, so you davka should give it directly.

Obviously, there are many aniyim who would be ashamed to take even on Purim. But assuming like the Me'il Tzedaka, if you have someone who all year would want mattan b'seser, but on Purim is not embarrassed at all, it would be better to give directly.

UPDATE:

Thank you to R Moish Pollack for his he'ara. He wrote

That is why it says to give to a evyon. Rabbi Moshe Kaufman said in his Sunday morning shiur an evyon is defined as not embarrassed.

I responded 

Thank you very much for that comment!

This is actually a machlokes between the Chavos Yair and the Aruch HaShulchan.

Chavos Yair in his Mekor Chaim:

ידקדק לשלוח לעניים מרודים ומופלגים הנקראים אביונים

Aruch Hashulchan in תרצ'ד ג

יראה לי דאף על גב דבתורה "עני" ו"אביון" שני דברים הם, כדכתיב ב"תצא": "לא תעשוק שכיר עני ואביון", ושני דברים הם כדאיתא בבבא מציעא (קיא ב) ד"אביון" יותר מעונה מעני. ולשון "אביון" הוא האובה ואינו משיג (רש"י שם), ונגד זה "אביון" אין לו בושת לבקש, והעני יש לו בושת. ואמרינן שם לעניין שכיר, דעני קודם לאביון עיין שם. מיהו על כל פנים שני דברים הם, וכיון דבמגילה כתיבא ו"מתנות לאביונים" – נימא דדווקא אביון ולא עני?ומכל מקום אינו כן. וראיה דבפרשת "ראה" כתיב: "כי יהיה בך אביון… כי לא יחדל אביון… פתח תפתח את ידך לאחיך לענייך ולאביונך בארצך" – הרי שפתח ב"אביון" וסיים בשניהם, אלמא דהכל אחד. והא דכתיב "ומתנות לאביונים" – רבותא קאמר: לא מיבעיא עני שיש לו בושה, ובשכר שכיר הוא קודם, אלא אפילו לאביון – יצאת ידי חובתך, ואף על פי שהוא בעצמו מבקש ממך, וכל שכן לעני שמתבייש לבקש, ואתה מקדים ונותן לו – שיש מצוה יותר.

The Me'il Tzedaka I brought down is also on the side of the Aruch HaShulchan. I wish I could find it inside, but I don't have access to the Otzar.

After Shabbos I hope to write a little more.

Good Sheva Brachos vort on Teruma

This was the base of my drasha at my nephew Simcha Feinstein's Sheva Brachos.on 2/24/26.

From Harav Moshe Revach, Rosh Yeshiva at Beis Medrash LaTorah in Skokie.

This week’s parsha opens with the call for donations toward the building of the Mishkan, the portable sanctuary that would accompany the Jewish people in the desert. Gold, silver, copper, fabrics, skins and then atzei shittim omdim, acacia wood that was standing upright.

The Gemara in Sukkah 45b 

[my presentation: gives two explanations of 'omdim." One is that they must be placed in their direction of growth- with the growing point upwards.  Given that the creation of a Jewish home reflects the building of the Mishkan, we understand the significance of דרך גדילתם. This young couple should build a home with their roots planted in the kedusha of the homes from which they come, with their growing points forever heavenward, aspiring, reaching for the greatest accomplishments Hashem wants them to strive for. 

The second explanation is...]

(explains that the Torah could have simply said “acacia wood”, but it emphasized) ...that it was “standing” because these beams are destined to stand forever. One might think that once the Mishkan was dismantled and replaced, its materials were gone for good. The Gemara reassures us to not worry because they are still in existence and will return[1].

How are we to understand this? Once something has fulfilled its function, we normally move on. We do not preserve the scaffolding after the building is complete. We do not hold on to the prototype after the finished model exists. So why must the beams of the Mishkan remain? Why are they not simply part of history?

I saw an answer[2] that the Mishkan was not meant to be the final stage of our relationsip with Hashem. It was not the permanent resting place, what the Torah later calls (Devorim 12:9) “el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah,” “the place of rest and inheritance,” referring to the Bais HaMikdash. The Mishkan was temporary and transitional. It was, in a sense, a starter home for the relationship between the Jewish people and Hashem, a silhouette of what would one day become the Bais HaMikdash.

However, the Mishkan represented something that even the Bais HaMikdash could not fully replicate. If the Bais HaMikdash is the home after marriage, then the Mishkan represented the engagement period. And while a marriage is deep and textured, nevertheless the engagement carries something else — anticipation. Freshness. Passion. The electricity of something that is about to unfold.

[Hischadshus.]

True, a happily married couple possess a depth and stability that is not there before their shared history. But the intensity, the excitement, the constant anticipation that characterizes an engaged couple is unique. It is filled with longing and forward movement.

The Jewish people knew that there would one day be a permanent and stable Home for their relationship with Hashem. And therefore, in the desert, with the Mishkan, they were living in that earlier stage, the stage of becoming, a relationship still charged with movement.

The Torah preserves the Mishkan, and it will eventually return to us to teach us that the early fire, the original excitement of connection, is not meant to fade. Even as we build stable institutions, communities, and routines, we must protect and rekindle the energy of the desert — the sense that we are still on the way to something greater.

In fact, this language appears explicitly in the haftarah read before Shavuos, from Hoshea. There the verse says, “Ve’erastich li le’olam” — “And I will betroth you to Me forever.” Why are we talking about an eternal betrothal, an engagement and not an eternal marriage?

Like we are explaining, engagement is the stage of promise, of anticipation, of future-oriented love. Yes, there are elements of a long-term marriage that are far deeper and richer than engagement but engagement has the intensity of anticipation, the electricity of becoming, and Hoshea is saying our long term relationship should have the passion of an engaged couple.

If a person ever wants to strengthen his marriage, a very practical exercises is to look carefully at his wedding or engagement pictures. Study the faces. The smiles that are not forced. The way the kallah and chassan are looking at each other — almost with disbelief at their own good fortune. Try to remember that version of yourself. Remember the anticipation. The nervous joy. The sense that something extraordinary was beginning. Revisit those images and ask yourself: can I reawaken even a fraction of that amazement? Can I see my spouse again with the same sense of blessing and gratitude that I felt then? Those feelings do not have to disappear. The pictures can serve as anchors.

The engagement period is not more real than the marriage. But it reveals something true, how deeply we valued the other person before life became complicated. It is a great idea to have these pictures or albums very handy and accessible, displayed privately but prominently, and do this exercise often.

The hidden Mishkan functions in a similar way.

It preserves the engagement energy of our relationship with Hashem. It captures the moment when we first built a home for the Divine Presence — when the nation was filled with longing and anticipation. Even after the Bais HaMikdash was built, even after centuries passed, that early passion was not erased. It was hidden, like a photograph carefully stored, waiting to be revisited.

With this understanding, we can address another question.

Why, when it came to the Mishkan, was there such an insistence that the donations be given willingly? The parsha opens with the words, “Take for Me a contribution from every person whose heart moves him.” The giving had to come from generosity of heart.

Years later, when it came to the Bais HaMikdash, there were communal obligations. Dovid and Shlomo made a tax requiring everyone to donate (Melachim 1:5:2).  When building a Shul, Halacha rules that members of a community can be compelled to contribute (O.C. 150). Why, then, was the Mishkan different that it be built only from voluntary contributions?

We can now explain based on this above insight. In the Mishkan, people did not simply donate money into a general fund. They donated the actual materials that would become part of the structure — the gold that would form the vessels, the silver that would form the sockets, the wood that would stand as beams. Nothing was donated merely to be exchanged for something else. What a person gave was what entered the Mishkan.

Now that we are saying that the Mishkan and its vessels were not destroyed but hidden away, we can understand that those donations themselves are meant to serve as eternal testimony to our initial love and dedication. They are the photograph meant to remind us of our initial feelings, to love freely given. Therefore, it could not be from forced obligations. The picture has to be perfect. Hashem wanted our engagement picture to be of people saying, “I want to give.”

May we learn to revisit the sacred photographs of our beginnings — in marriage and in faith — and allow that original sense of wonder to illuminate the life we are building now.

[I then discussed the Mishna in Megilla about birkas chasanim requiring a minyan, which I have discussed regarding the Davar shebikedusha aspect and something from Reb Sholom Shvadron in the end of this piece  and in this piece.  I ended by giving them a bracha that they should wake up after four hundred years of marriage and say to themselves "Thank God I found this person."]

Rabbi Moshe Revah

Mrevah2@touro.edu

_________________________

[1] See also the Gemara in Sotah 9b that teaches that the Mishkan was not destroyed but hidden away.

[2] I saw this answer by R’ Yisrael Reisman quoting R’ Shaul Alter, but I could not find the original source. 

Questions for Titzaveh

1.   Where do we see in this week’s parsha, for the first time, that members of a tribe should stick together.

2. Three of the Shivas Haminim are mentioned in the parsha.

3. A unique use of the blood of a korban. It appears only here and it was done only once in history.

Alternatively, depending on the crowd. and for people who learned יומא נח ע"ב andנט ע"ב   Althoughit is assur to use things of kedusha for personal needs, once their avoda is done they lose their kedusha, they automatically become chulin and muttar. This is the rule of אין לך דבר שנעשית מצוותו ומועלין בו. A basic application of this rule is that once the blood of a korban has been put on the Mizbei'ach, it loses its kedusha- it is נעשית מצוותו. There is one, and only one, exception to this rule, and it is in our parsha.

4. What in the parsha is described as "constant," tamid? (5 answers)

5. We find that Pinchas became a Kohen much later. Why wasn’t Pinchas, whose father was Elazar the Kohen, automatically a Kohen.

6. Give examples of when it is a mitzva to wear Shatnez.

7.  What do these three things have in common: Everyday Tzitzis, the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.

8.   Assuming, as Rashi in 28:21 does, that the stones on the Choshen are placed in birth order, what is a good nickname for Reuven. 

9. Ephraim and Menashe should be entitled to separate billing, but only Yosef's name is on the Choshen. But the symbol of Yosef is doubled. Where?

10. There are two places in the Parsha that show that you cannot assume that a four-sided equilateral is a square.  In these cases, we are told that it should be four sided and equilateral and still, the Torah finds it necessary to tell us that it should be a square.  Once we have been told that all the sides are equal length, to be told that it should be square seems unnecessary. 

What are these cases, and why is it necessary?

11. The title "Levi" derives from the fact that before birkas kohanim, the Levi washes the Kohen's hands, as in Latin, to wash is Lavare, so Levi means "washer." 

No, that is just a joke. This is a pure coincidence. But where in this week's parsha do we find a Levi preparing Kohanim for their Avodah by washing them, or seeing them immerse in the mikva.

12.  Most avoda in the Mishkan is done during the day. Name three in the parsha that are done Bein Ha’arbayim.

 

 

 

 

1.   Where do we see in this week’s parsha, for the first time, that members of a tribe should stick together.

-Rav Reuven Chaim Klein points out that the word shevet is used for the first time for a tribe (28:21) in our parsha.  

 I assume that the word shevet for a tribe refers to its legal autonomy- shevet meaning scepter- or the flag that they identified with. In 2003, I was shmuessing with my shiur about whether there is an English equivalent for using a staff or stick to describe a group of people. Yoni Wainhaus said we find it in the word “club.” It’s not true etymologically. Club relates to ‘clump.’ But it was a good thought. 

 

2. Three of the Shivas Haminim are mentioned in the parsha.

-Olives and pomegranates are mentioned in the parsha. Olive oil is used in the Menorah (27:20), woolen pomegranates are attached to the bottom of the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol (28:34). and wheat for the menachos, (29:3).

 

3. A unique use of the blood of a korban. It appears only here and it was done only once in history.

Alternatively, depending on the crowd. and for people who learned יומא נח ע"ב andנט ע"ב   Althoughit is assur to use things of kedusha for personal needs, once their avoda is done they lose their kedusha, they automatically become chulin and muttar. This is the rule of אין לך דבר שנעשית מצוותו ומועלין בו. A basic application of this rule is that once the blood of a korban has been put on the Mizbei'ach, it loses its kedusha- it is נעשית מצוותו. There is one, and only one, exception to this rule, and it is in our parsha.

-Taking blood that had been thrown on the mizbeiach and putting it on Aharon and his sons.

29:21

וְלָקַחְתָּ מִן הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְהִזֵּיתָ עַל אַהֲרֹן וְעַל בְּגָדָיו וְעַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בִּגְדֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ וְקָדַשׁ הוּא וּבְגָדָיו וּבָנָיו וּבִגְדֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ.

 Chizkuni says that's the way it was:

ולקחת מן הדם אשר על המזבח לא מצינו הזאה כזו לאסוף הדם אחר שנזרק אלא להאחות אותו למזבח לקח הדם שנתקדש במזבח. והזה עליהם להעיד ולהיות עד ואות לדורות שהם משרתיו ועליו לא יקרבו זרים.

 

Daas Zkeinim finds it hard to believe:

ולקחת מן הדם. צ"ע אם כשנזרק כבר על המזבח אם היה חוזר ולוקח ממנו להזות עליהן:

 

Netziv in Haamek Davar also reads it kipshuto.

 

In any case, it would be subject to Meilah, because even though it was on the Mizbeiach, it was not נעשית מצוותו until it was put on the Kohanim.

 

4. What in the parsha is described as "constant," tamid? (5 answers)

-The following five things are described as being tamid:

(1) The Menorah is lit tamid – this is either the daily lighting or the lamp called the Ner Maaravi (27:20).  

(2) The choshen of the Kohen Gadol is always on the heart of the Kohen Gadol (28:29). 

(3) The tzitz is constantly on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol (28:38). 

(4) The Tamid is brought twice each day (29:38). 

(5) The Ketores is brought every day (30:8).

Side observation:  The word תמיד appears in the Torah exactly 24 times, either as תמיד  or as התמיד. How many of those times are in dinim of Kodshim?  Twenty three.

Of the twenty four in Chumash, twenty three are in dinim of Kodshim.  "HaTamid" appears seven times, every single one in kodshim.  Of the seventeen 'Tamids' in the Torah, sixteen are Kodshim and one is not.  The single, the solitary, the sole exception is in Devarim 11:12.

אֶ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ דֹּרֵ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ תָּמִ֗יד עֵינֵ֨י  ה' אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ בָּ֔הּ מֵֽרֵשִׁית֙ הַשָּׁנָ֔ה וְעַ֖ד אַחֲרִ֥ית שָׁנָֽה׃

 

5. We find that Pinchas became a Kohen much later. Why wasn’t Pinchas, whose father was Elazar the Kohen, automatically a Kohen.

-It was only on this day that people were made Kohanim, and the Torah specifies that they were Aharon and his four sons. Nobody else became a Kohen that day. Only after this day were those born to kohanim automatically Kohanim. Any children they had prior to that investiture were not automatically Kohanim.  Pinchas had been born earlier, so he was not automatically a kohen.

 

6. Give examples of when it is a mitzva to wear Shatnez.  

 -Efod: כח, ו.

Choshen:    כח טו.

(Avneit/belt of the Kohen Gadol, and possibly that of the Hedyot as well: שמות לט, כט in parshas Pekudei. It is mentioned in Tetzaveh but the material is not specified. See Yoma 6a.))

 

7.  What do these three things have in common: Everyday Tzitzis, the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.

-A solitary thread of techeiles.

28:28, the Choshen on the chest,

וְיִרְכְּסוּ אֶת הַחֹשֶׁן מִטַּבְּעֹתָו אֶל טַבְּעֹת הָאֵפוֹד בִּפְתִיל תְּכֵלֶת 

28: 37-8 the Tzitz on the forehead,

 וְעָשִׂיתָ צִּיץ זָהָב טָהוֹר וּפִתַּחְתָּ עָלָיו פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם קֹדֶשׁ לַיהֹוָה. וְשַׂמְתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת וְהָיָה עַל הַמִּצְנָפֶת

and Tzitzis, in the end of Parsha Shelach, Bamidbar 15:38,

וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת.

 

8.   Assuming, as Rashi in 28:21 does, that the stones on the Choshen are placed in birth order, what is a good nickname for Reuven. 

-If the stones were in birth order, Reuven's stone was the Odem.    So, Ruby. This works in every major language except Hebrew and Chinese.

French: "Rubis"

Spanish: "Rubí"

German: "Rubin"

Italian: "Rubino"

Portuguese: "Rubi"

Japanese: "ルビー" (Rubī)

Chinese: "红宝石" (Hóng bǎoshí) - meaning "red gemstone"

Korean: "루비 보석" (Rubi boseok)

.

9. Ephraim and Menashe should be entitled to separate billing, but only Yosef's name is on the Choshen. But the symbol of Yosef is doubled. Where?

-Again, assuming that the stones were by birth order, Yosef was the next to last, the Shoham. Besides the twelve stones of the Choshen, there were two additional stones on the shoulders of the Kohen Gadol, on the Eiphod - Shoham stones- the stone associated with Yosef.

It is probably just a coincidence, but it's interesting that in Breishis 48:5, Yaakov tells Yosef that he is giving him a double inheritance:

ועתה שני בניך הנולדים לך בארץ מצרים עד באי אליך מצרימה לי הם אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי

Later in that discussion, in 48:22, Yaakov says

ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי

Rashi says the word שכם means the city of Shechem. But the Ramban, for example, says it is a description of a portion of Yerusha, that Yaakov had given Yosef an extra portion of the yerusha. So you have that word Shechem describing the extra that is given to Yosef via Ephraim and Menashe, and that is where the Shoham stones were, on the כתפות האפוד, on Aharon's שכם.

 

10. There are two places in the Parsha that show that you cannot assume that a four-sided equilateral is a square.  In these cases, we are told that it should be four sided and equilateral and still, the Torah finds it necessary to tell us that it should be a square.  Once we have been told that all the sides are equal length, to be told that it should be square seems unnecessary. 

What are these cases, and why is it necessary?

-The Choshen is described in 28:16 as being square, a zeres by a zeres.

 רבוע יהיה כפול זרת ארכו וזרת רחבו.

The same is true in the instructions for the Mizbei'ach Hazahav (30:1),

ועשית מזבח מקטר קטרת עצי שטים תעשה אתו.  ב אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו רבוע יהיה ואמתים קמתו ממנו קרנתיו.

So what it the pshat? Why is it necessary to say square if we were already told that the four sides must be equal?

1.    Shina alav hakasuv l’akeiv.

2.    In the name of Reb Chaim- two separate requirements. The specified size, and square.

3.     Malkie- don’t make it a rhombus.

4.     Gary- otherwise, you could make a cylinder into which a square of that size could be inscribed, and just disregard the chords. That would satisfy the requirement of having those measurements.

 

11. . The title "Levi" derives from the fact that before birkas kohanim, the Levi washes the Kohen's hands, as in Latin, to wash is Lavare, so Levi means "washer." 

No, that is just a joke. This is a pure coincidence. But where in this week's parsha do we find a Levi preparing Kohanim for their Avodah by washing them, or seeing them immerse in the mikva.

 -29:4

ואת אהרן ואת בניו תקריב אל פתח אהל מועד ורחצת אתם במים

 Rashi says this is Tevilla in a Mikva. I am pretty sure that the ורחצת means that Moshe Rabbeinu had the mitzva to actually put them into the Mikva, just as והלבשת means that he dressed them, not that he saw to it that they got dressed.

12.  Most avoda in the Mishkan is done during the day. Name three in the parsha that are done Bein Ha’arbayim.

-1, the afternoon Tamid, 29:29

וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם

2 and 3, lighting the Menora and burning the afternoon Ketores, 30:8

וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה קְטֹרֶת תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי ה' לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם

 

Questions for Teruma

1. The Menorah, which was situated right outside the Kodesh kodashim, had decorations called kaftor (25:33.) What two other items with the same letters were nearby.

2.  Medrashim say that the Mishkan was a microcosm of the universe, and that it reflects the human form as well. The ibn Ezra says that פעמותיו by the Aron means feet, that the Aron had four legs. (Most meforshim say פעמותיו means "sides" or "corners.") What six other things are described using parts of the body?

3. Only one item is described in length and width but not its height.

4.     How do we know that besides the description of the Menorah and its accessories, Moshe was shown their image.

5.   Which two vessels were hammered out of a block of gold.

6,  One who seeks wealth should face north when he davens. For wisdom, south. Why?

 Alternatively: Where should the Rabbi's seat be, and where should the president of the shul's seat be.

7.   Itemize the living things that were needed to build the Mishkan.

8.   In one place, the torah describes things that were carefully lined up to face each other as “a man to his brother.” In two other places, other things are described as “a woman to her sister.”

9.   Where did they store the badim of the Aron when they were not traveling.

 Alternatively: There are many mitzvos asei in the Parsha. Name the one issur in the parsha.

10.  There is a machlokes in Menachos 88b whether the lamps that held the oil were a fixed part of the Menorah or removable. Bring a proof from the simple language of our parsha.

11.  Of the four keilim, service vessels, commanded in the parsha, we are told what to do with three of them but we are not told what to do with the fourth.  Tell me what they are.

12.   In Hebrew, a beginning Mem can be a mem hamakom; it means “the place of.” Example: Rashi in 25:8 says that says Mikdash means ועשו לי מקדש. וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה. Give me three other examples in the parsha.

13. The mitzva of giving and collecting the donations is in third person- "They." Almost all the keilim are said in the second- "You." Only one of the keilim is in third person. Which? Why?

*************************************************

1. The Menorah, which was situated right outside the Kodesh kodashim, had decorations called kaftor (25:33.) What two other items with the same letters were nearby.

 הכפורת שמכסה את ארון הברית (שמות כה יז), 

הפרוכת שמפרידה בין הקודש לקודש הקדשים (כו לא),

2.  Medrashim say that the Mishkan was a microcosm of the universe, and that it reflects the human form as well. The ibn Ezra says that פעמותיו by the Aron means feet, that the Aron had four legs. (Most meforshim say פעמותיו means "sides" or "corners.") What six other things are described using parts of the body?

Ribs, tzal’os, the sides of the Aron 25:12 and the sides of the Mishkan, 26:20

Face, kruvim 25:20 and Lechem Hapanim, 25:30

Hands, the pegs of the krashim, 25:17

Head, the Amudim columns, 26:24

Shoulder, the entryways, 27:14-1

Foot or Leg, yerach, for the base of the Menorah, 25:31

3. Only one item is described in length and width but not its height.

The kapores. The Gemara in Sukkah 5a says it was a tefach thick, proving it from the Misgeres of the Shulchan, which was a tefach. The Chizkuni says the walls of the Aron extended upward to cover the sides of the Kapores so its height was not evident.

ועשית כפרת לא נתנה התורה מדה בעובי הכפרת לפי שלא היה נראה שגבהו של דופן חיצוני של ארון מכסהו.

   

4.     How do we know that besides the description of the Menorah and its accessories, Moshe was shown their image.

25:39, 40.  

כִּכָּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ אֵת כׇּל־הַכֵּלִים הָאֵלֶּה׃ וּרְאֵה וַעֲשֵׂה בְּתַבְנִיתָם אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה מׇרְאֶה בָּהָר׃

It also says אשר הראית בהר on the general construction in 26:30, וַהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר הׇרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר. Rashi there says שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְלַמֶּדְךָ וּלְהַרְאוֹתְךָ סֵדֶר הֲקָמָתוֹ. So what is different here? This is addressed in Menachos 29a and Tosfos there dh hacha. The Gur Aryeh is the best discussion that I know of, and he also addresses 25:9. Here is the Gur Aryeh.

מגיד שנתקשה וכו'. דאם לא כן למה הוצרך לומר "וראה ועשה בתבניתם". ואף על גב דבמשכן נמי כתיב (להלן כו, ל) "והקמות את המשכן כמשפטו אשר הראית בהר", אמרו בפרק הקומץ רבה (מנחות כט.) שם כתיב "כמשפטו", ו"משפטו" שייך לומר על שהיה מלמד אותו סדר הקמתו, ו"הראית" דכתיב שם כמו "אתה הראית לדעת" (דברים ד, לה), דשייך בענין הידיעה לשון ראיה. אבל כאן דכתיב "וראה ועשה בתבניתם אשר אתה מראה", לא שייך בענין ה"תבנית" לומר ראיה, אם לא הראה לו הקב"ה תבניתם ממש. וקשה, דהרי כתיב למעלה (פסוק ט) גם כן "ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן ואת תבנית כל כליו וכן תעשו", והתוספות בפרק הקומץ (מנחות כט. ד"ה הכא) הקשו זה, ותרצו דהכא כתיב "אשר אתה מראה בהר", מה הוצרך לומר "בהר", רוצה לומר בודאי שבהר ירד מנורה של אש, אבל לעיל דכתיב (ר' פסוק ט) "כאשר אני מראה אותך", יש לפרש אותו כמשמעו, על ידי למוד והודעה. אלא דקשיא לי על פירוש התוספות, דאם כן מה שכתוב (ר' להלן כו, ל) "והקמות את המשכן אשר הראית בהר", ורוצה לומר שהיה מלמד לו סדר ההקמה, אם כן "בהר" למה לי, כיון דלא קאי על משכן האש שירד מן השמים:

ולי היה נראה לומר דלא דמי, דלעיל כתיב (פסוק ט) "ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן וגו'", ורוצה לומר שהראה לו הקב"ה בלמוד את תבנית המשכן שיעשו בסוף, ו"תבנית" דכתיב בקרא קאי על המשכן שיהיה נעשה. אבל כאן דכתיב "וראה ועשה בתבניתם", אין לפרש שיהיה עושה אותם בתבניתם שיהיה להם בסוף, דאין לומר 'עשה כלי זה בתבניתו שיהיה לו בסוף', כי הבי"ת של "בתבניתם" לא יתכן לפרש כך, שהרי עושה תבניתם עצמו, לא "בתבניתם", ולפיכך צריך לפרש "וראה ועשה בתבניתם" שהיה מראה לו תבנית שלהם, ואמר לו "עשה בתבניתם", ופירוש ברור הוא מאוד:

אבל על דברי רש"י יש לדקדק, שאמר 'מלמד שנתקשה משה במעשה המנורה', ואם כן איך יאמר "בתבניתם" לשון רבים, אבל בגמרא (מנחות כט.) קאמר 'מלמד שמנורה של אש ושלחן של אש וארון של אש ירדו מן השמים', פירשו "בתבניתם" על שלשתן. ואין להקשות מהא דאמר שם 'ג' דברים נתקשה משה עד שהראה לו באצבע; מנורה, שרצים, חודש'. דמשמע שלא נתקשה משה רק במנורה, ופירש הרמב"ן דרבי יוסי דקאמר כי ארון של אש ומנורה ושלחן של אש ירדו מן השמים פליג אהא דקאמר רבי ישמעאל דג' דברים נתקשה משה. ואין צריך לומר דפליגי, דלא קשה, דשאני התם שהראה הקב"ה למשה באצבעו, וזהו כי נתקשה במנורה עד שהוצרך להראות לו באצבעו כך תעשה וכך תעשה, כי כאשר מראים לאדם הצורה והוא מבין מיד – אין זה נקרא שהיה קשה עליו, אבל זה שהוצרך להראות באצבעו בענין זה וזה תעשה – נקרא בודאי קשה. אבל לפירוש רש"י שאמר כי משה נתקשה במנורה, ומביא ראיה מהא דכתיב "וראה ועשה בתבניתם", דזה הכתוב מדבר במנורה ושלחן וארון, כדמשמע "בתבניתם" ולא 'בתבניתו', קשה:

ויראה כי דעת רש"י כי כל כלי המקדש הראה לו, ולא בשביל שהיה קשה על משה להבין את צורת שאר הכלים, רק בשביל שהוצרך להראות לו המנורה – הראה לו הכל, שכל כלי המשכן הם כמו כלי אחד, שהם צריכים זה לזה, ואין זה בלא זה, ולפיכך אילו היה מראה לו המנורה בלבד היה כאילו הראה לו חצי דבר, ואין זה [ראוי] כך לעשות להראות לו חצי דבר, שאין זה תבניתו שלימה, והכתוב אומר "ועשה בתבניתם" תבנית שלם, ולכך הראה לו כל הכלים. והשתא לא קשה גם כן מהא דלעיל, דג' דברים נתקשה – מנורה שרצים חודש, ואחר כך מביא שם (מנחות כט.) רבי יוסי אומר ארון של אש ומנורה של אש ושלחן של אש ירדו מן השמים, היינו דודאי שלא נתקשה רק במנורה, אך כי כאשר הראה לו המנורה היה מראה לו כל הכלים, כך דעת רש"י:

 

5.   Which two vessels were hammered out of a block of gold.

The Kapores with the Keruvim, and the Menora. (Also the Chatzoztzros in Behaaloscha.)

25:18  וְעָשִׂיתָ שְׁנַיִם כְּרֻבִים זָהָב מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת׃

25:36  כַּפְתֹּרֵיהֶם וּקְנֹתָם מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ כֻּלָּהּ מִקְשָׁה אַחַת זָהָב טָהוֹר׃

6,  One who seeks wealth should face north when he davens. For wisdom, south. Why?

 Alternatively: Where should the Rabbi's seat be, and where should the president of the shul's seat be.

BB 25b  אמר רבי יצחק הרוצה שיחכים ידרים ושיעשיר יצפין וסימניך שלחן בצפון ומנורה בדרום 

Worth knowing: הליכות שלמה תפילה פ"ח ס"א says it means davka when you daven for that thing, not the whole Shmoneh Esrei. But this is a daas yachid mamash and seems to be contradicted from an open Gemara.

As for Rabbi and President's seats; If you are setting the shul up to reflect the Mikdash, then the Rabbi should be where the Menora was, in the south, and the president where the shulchan was, in the north. If the Aron Kodesh is on the east, that means the rabbi would be your right and the president on your left. In the Mishkan and Mikdash it was the opposite, because the aron kodesh was on the west side.

However, the Pri Megadim in OC 94, brought in the MB 94 sk 11. says the Rov should sit to the north of the aron kodesh, because when he davens he will turn toward the aron kodesh, meaning he will turn southward, which is proper, because he ought to be davening for chochma.

I said that this is talui in the machlokes Louis Brandeis and his professor in Harvard law. 

In another incident, the (openly anti-semitic) professor continued his antagonism and asked Louis a question during a test. He asked, "If you found a bag of wisdom and a bag of money on the street, which one would you take?" Louis replied, "The one with the money, of course." Attempting to stereotype Louis as greedy, the professor said he would have chosen wisdom. Louis cleverly responded, "Each one takes what he doesn't have."

Accordingly, it seems to me that the Rov ought to daven for wealth, and the president for wisdom. But I guess according to the Pri Megadim the pshat is that each davens to be able to do their job better.

7.   Itemize the living things that were needed to build the Mishkan.

Sheep for wool. Goats for skin and also goat hair. The Tachash. Whatever the Tcheiles was extracted from. The worm that provided the dye for תולעת שני, according to the Yerushami Kilayim 9:1, and the ibn Ezra, the Kil Yakar Vayikra 14:4, the Noda BiYehuda OC II:3 and the Malbim in Yeshaya 1:18 learn learn like that. However, Rashi in Yeshaya, the Rambam in Parah Aduma 3:2, the Rashbam, and Rabbeinu Bachaya in 25:3 all say that the dye comes from a plant associated with that worm, not the worm itself.

8.   In one place, the torah describes things that were carefully lined up to face each other as “a man to his brother.” In two other places, other things are described as “a woman to her sister.”

Ish el ochiv  The Kruvim.  

Isha el achosa, and the pegs of the amudim.

Ish el ochiv, 25:20

וְהָי֣וּ הַכְּרֻבִים֩ פֹּרְשֵׂ֨י כְנָפַ֜יִם לְמַ֗עְלָה סֹכְכִ֤ים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם֙ עַל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת וּפְנֵיהֶ֖ם אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו אֶ֨ל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת יִהְי֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הַכְּרֻבִֽים׃

The covers, the hooks of the covers, 

Ishal el achosa 26:3,5,6

חֲמֵ֣שׁ הַיְרִיעֹ֗ת תִּֽהְיֶ֙יןָ֙ חֹֽבְרֹ֔ת אִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָ֑הּ וְחָמֵ֤שׁ יְרִיעֹת֙ חֹֽבְרֹ֔ת אִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָֽהּ׃ 

וְעָשִׂ֜יתָ לֻֽלְאֹ֣ת תְּכֵ֗לֶת עַ֣ל שְׂפַ֤ת הַיְרִיעָה֙ הָאֶחָ֔ת מִקָּצָ֖ה בַּחֹבָ֑רֶת וְכֵ֤ן תַּעֲשֶׂה֙ בִּשְׂפַ֣ת הַיְרִיעָ֔ה הַקִּ֣יצוֹנָ֔ה בַּמַּחְבֶּ֖רֶת הַשֵּׁנִֽית׃ 

חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים לֻֽלָאֹ֗ת תַּעֲשֶׂה֮ בַּיְרִיעָ֣ה הָאֶחָת֒ וַחֲמִשִּׁ֣ים לֻֽלָאֹ֗ת תַּעֲשֶׂה֙ בִּקְצֵ֣ה הַיְרִיעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר בַּמַּחְבֶּ֣רֶת הַשֵּׁנִ֑ית מַקְבִּילֹת֙ הַלֻּ֣לָאֹ֔ת אִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָֽהּ׃ 

וְעָשִׂ֕יתָ חֲמִשִּׁ֖ים קַרְסֵ֣י זָהָ֑ב וְחִבַּרְתָּ֨ אֶת־הַיְרִיעֹ֜ת אִשָּׁ֤ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָהּ֙ בַּקְּרָסִ֔ים וְהָיָ֥ה הַמִּשְׁכָּ֖ן אֶחָֽד׃

and the pegs of the amudim in 26:17

שְׁתֵּ֣י יָד֗וֹת לַקֶּ֙רֶשׁ֙ הָאֶחָ֔ד מְשֻׁ֨לָּבֹ֔ת אִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָ֑הּ כֵּ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל קַרְשֵׁ֥י הַמִּשְׁכָּֽן׃

9.   Where did they store the badim of the Aron when they were not traveling.

 Alternatively: There are many mitzvos asei in the Parsha. Name the one issur in the parsha.

25:15  בְּטַבְּעֹת הָאָרֹן יִהְיוּ הַבַּדִּים לֹא יָסֻרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ.

10.  There is a machlokes in Menachos 88b whether the lamps that held the oil were a fixed part of the Menorah or removable. Bring a proof from the simple language of our parsha.

See 25:31,36, 37

וְעָשִׂיתָ מְנֹרַת זָהָב טָהוֹר מִקְשָׁה תֵּעָשֶׂה הַמְּנוֹרָה יְרֵכָהּ וְקָנָהּ גְּבִיעֶיהָ כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ.

.כַּפְתֹּרֵיהֶם וּקְנֹתָם מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ כֻּלָּהּ מִקְשָׁ ה אַחַת זָהָב טָהוֹר. 

וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה וְהֶעֱלָה אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ וְהֵאִיר עַל עֵבֶר פָּנֶיהָ

and Or HaChaim Bamidbar 8:2.

Yes, it’s a machlokes Tannaim in מנחות פ'ח:ת, but the Ohr HaChaim says it’s clear in the pesukim that they were separate, and he is sorry he wasn’t in Eretz Yisrael when the mishna was written to show the Tannaim how clear it is in the words.

11.  Of the four keilim, service vessels, commanded in the parsha, we are told what to do with three of them but we are not told what to do with the fourth.  Tell me what they are.

This is Reb Chatzkel Abramsky's diyuk.

We are told what to do with the Menorah, the Shulchan, and the Aron. We are not told what to do with the Mizbei'ach.

וְנָתַתָּ֖ אֶל־הָאָרֹ֑ן אֵ֚ת הָעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ (25:10)

וְ וְנָתַתָּ֧ עַֽל־הַשֻּׁלְחָ֛ן לֶ֥חֶם פָּנִ֖ים לְפָנַ֥י תָּמִֽיד (25:30)

וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת⁠־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ (25:37) .

Why? Reb Chaim Brown says because the Mizbei'ach is not a kli, it is part of the tzura of the Mikdash, and this is why it was so much larger in the Mikdash, as opposed to the other keilim, which remained the same size as they were in the Mishkan. 

12.   In Hebrew, a beginning Mem can be a mem hamakom; it means “the place of.” Example: Rashi in 25:8 says that says Mikdash means ועשו לי מקדש. וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה. Give me three other examples in the parsha.

Mizbei’ach/Zavach; Menorah/Neir: Mishkan/Shechina.

13. The mitzva of giving and collecting the donations is in third person- "They." Almost all the keilim are said in the second- "You.". Only one of the keilim is in third person. Which? Why?

The Aron begins with Ve'asu, they.  The Ramban says that unlike the other keilim which could be delegated to a craftsman who would use whatever material was available, in the case of the Aron every person had to give a discrete object that was actually used in the fabrication of the Aron, or, possibly, every person actually did some work on the Aron. The lesson about each person's direct and personal contribution to the Torah is inescapable.

וְכֵן אָמְרוּ בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה (שמות לד ב) מִפְּנֵי מָה בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים כָּתוּב "וְעָשִׂיתָ", וּבָאָרוֹן כְּתִיב "וְעָשׂוּ אָרוֹן", א"ר יְהוּדָה בֵּר' שַׁלּוּם אָמַר הקב"ה יָבֹאוּ הַכֹּל וְיִתְעַסְּקוּ בָּאָרוֹן שֶׁיִּזְכּוּ לַתּוֹרָה. וְהָעֵסֶק, שֶׁיִּתְנַדֵּב כָּל אֶחָד כְּלִי זָהָב אֶחָד לָאָרוֹן, אוֹ יַעֲזֹר לִבְצַלְאֵל עֵזֶר מְעַט, אוֹ שֶׁיְּכַוְּנוּ לַדָּבָר:

The Medrash we have is

דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן, מִפְּנֵי מַה בְּכָל הַכֵּלִים הָאֵלֶּה כְּתִיב: וְעָשִׂיתָ, וּבָאָרוֹן כְּתִיב: וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רַבִּי שָׁלוֹם, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָבוֹאוּ הַכֹּל וְיַעַסְקוּ בָּאָרוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכּוּ כֻּלָּם לַתּוֹרָה.