Vayakhel, Shemos 36:28. Li'me’kutze’os Hamishkan. Love, Lions, and Corners

It has been said that cultures for whom certain things or concepts are particularly important will develop many separate words to describe relatively minor variations in these things or concepts. For example, instead of using one noun with a variety of adjectives, different nouns are created. This is known as Focal Vocabulary . The famous example, though I'm told that linguists dispute its truth, is that Eskimos have a many different words for snow. If that's your entire landscape, of course you will, over time, develop words whose meanings incorporate the various states of snow, such as hard, granular, soft, slippery, loose, slushy, etc. I assume that skiers have the same arsenal of nouns. In Hebrew, it's Sheleg, period.

In Hebrew, how many words are there for lion? Five: Ari, Kfir, Layish, Shachal, and Gur refer only to lions, which, evidently, are symbolically powerful in our culture. In English, there is only one-- Lion. How do you say you like or love? You like your neighbor? Ani oheiv oso. You love your wife? Ani oheiv osah. You like pizza? Ani oheiv pizza.

Having said this, let's look at the parsha. How many ways are there to say "Corner" in Hebrew? Pinah, or keren. But in this parsha, it appears in an unparalleled panoply of iterations.
36:28– by the krashim, Me’kutze’os.
37:3– by the Aron, Pa’amosav.  (By the way, the Ibn Ezra apparently got fed up with all these synonyms, so he translates "Pa'amosav" as feet.  According to him, the Aron Kodesh had feet, and didn't sit directly on the ground.  His raya is from "Mah yafu pa'amayich ba'ne'alim."  Of course, this is contradicted in the Gemara in the beginning of Sukkah, but do you think he cares?  Tosfos in Yoma says it had not four, but eight rings, four for the badim that actually carried it, and four for the decorative badim.)
37:13– by the Shulchan, HaPei’os.
38:2– by the Mizbach ha’olah, Pinosav.
(Karnos, of course, appear on the Mizbechos, but they really look like Karnayim, so I'll leave those out.)

So, if you want to talk about fighting, use Latin (bellum, pugna, macto, litis, certo). For love, Greek (agape, eros, storge, philia, thelema). For lions in corners, Hebrew is your language of choice.  (You might be interested in looking into the field called Phonaesthetics.)
(This actually is like the Yerushalmi in Megilla 1:9. The Yerushalmi there says "four languages are proper for the world to use;

א"ר יונתן דבית גוברין ד' לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואלו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסיי לאילייא עברי לדיבור

Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for elegy, and Hebrew for speech." The meforshim there learn לקרב means "to draw near, or convince," but I think it means "for war." There's no reason to think the list changes from nouns to verbs, and stam their pshat is tzarich iyun.)

What’s pshat? Why so many ways of referring to corners? After Parshas Teruma and Tetzaveh, where we were endlessly boxed, (Mishbetzos on the Choshen and the Eifod and the Kesones Tashbeitz), suddenly we are cornered.

Rabbi Yitzchok Resnik PhD (abd) said that these parshiyos, which describe the fabrication of the Mishkan and its contents, speak to craftsmen in their specialized language. Every craft, every profession, has its own lexicon, its own patois or jargon. For example, "A stretcher and a joint" has an entirely different meaning to a bricklayer and to a paramedic. Perhaps these are terms that are used variously by cabinetmakers, by goldsmiths, and by carpenters, and they express differences in how they are crafted or how they are used.

I said, just for homiletic aerobics, that intersections can have many different meanings. When two things that are moving in different directions meet, they might be unaffected by the meeting, they might simply end where they meet, or they might change completely, they might attain a new identity. A corner is the intersection of two sides, and maybe these different words express the various outcomes of intersection.


Previous postings on Vayakhel and Pekudei, every one of which is lots better than the above:

The Latent Holiness of Human Love

The Wisdom of Mussar and Seichel: This is not an Oxymoron.

Knitting our Brows about Why King David Couldn't Build the Beis Hamikdash

The Hidden Prophecy of the Destruction, and Rebuilding, of the Batei Mikdash

Pekudei. Why Couldn’t Dovid Hamelech Build the Beis Hamikdosh?

Moshe Rabbeinu, who sacrificed so much to lead his people to the Land of Israel, did not live to enter the land.  So too, David Hamelech, who so desired to build the Beis Hamikdash, was not able to see even the beginning of its construction. David himself notes this in his last testament to his son, Shlomo, as recorded in I Divrei Hayamim 22:7-8. He said that he very much desired to build the Beis Hamikdash, but Hashem did not allow him to do so.
ז וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד, לִשְׁלֹמֹה בנו (בְּנִי)--אֲנִי הָיָה עִם-לְבָבִי, לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי. ח וַיְהִי עָלַי דְּבַר-יְהוָה, לֵאמֹר, דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ, וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ: לֹא-תִבְנֶה בַיִת, לִשְׁמִי--כִּי דָּמִים רַבִּים, שָׁפַכְתָּ אַרְצָה לְפָנָי.
David said to his son, Shlomo... I so desired to build a house for Hashem... but Hashem's words came to me, saying "You have spilled much blood, you have made great wars, you will not build a house in My Name, for much blood have you spilled to the earth before Me."

This is extremely vexing, especially when later, Hashem tells Shlomo that the hashra’as hashchina in the Mikdash he built was only in the zchus of Dovid. How can it be that the Hashra'as Hashechina is only because of David, but that David was not allowed to construct the vessel that held the Shechina? David Hamelech was the mechaber of tehillim, who didn’t touch Shaul in the cave, and whatever he did in battle he did because he was an eved Hashem; he was commanded to defend the Jewish People and conquer Eretz Yisrael, and if he didn’t, it would have brought terrible disaster; Jews would die and Eretz Yisrael would not have been conquered. How on earth can it be that this was the reason he was not zocheh to build the Beis Hamikdash?

Harav Shimon Krasner's Nachlas Shimon, Shmuel II volume I Siman 25:27 discusses this topic.
He brings:

• the Ramban in Korach 16:21 that Dovid was machzik middas hadin, and was not the right one for a Beis Rachamim; 
• the Rambam in Shmoneh Prokim that says that although it was only used against our enemies, the middah of achzorius passels in binyon hamikdosh. This is similar to the Ramban, but attributing 'achzorius' to Dovid seems harsh. Maybe this is an Ibn Tibbon artifact. 
• the Aruch Hashulchon in the beginning of Hilchos Beis Habechira that since Dovid’s time was one of war, it was not the time of “menuchah” (Ki lo basem ahd ahta ehl hamenucha) that the possuk said was a condition precedent for building the Beis Hamikdosh; 
• the Radak in Divrei Hayomim that says Uriah's killing was 'unfustified, and the expression "much blood" refers to that of the innocent and righteous goyisheh bystanders who were unintentional but inevitable victims of those wars– collateral damage. Killing a combatant is fine; but killing an unarmed bystander, even a member of the aggressor nation, is not. It may be necessary, but it is still a necessary evil.

Then, the strangest of all, he quotes R’ Dessler in the Michtov Mei’eliahu.
The Michtov Mei’eliahu brings a Yalkut that says that Nosson told Dovid that all the blood he spilled was like korbonos before Hashem, and the problem was that if Dovid built the Beis Hamikdash, it could never be destroyed. So Dovid asked, so good, adderabbeh, let it stand forever! Nosson answered that if it were to be indestructible, there would be no object upon which Hashem could pour out his wrath, and Klal Yisroel would have not safety valve of “ahl ho’eitzim v’ahl ho’avonim.”
Rav Dessler gives a moshol: if a person has a kli that is hekdesh and is not treating it properly, you can solve the problem by elimnating one of the two things. Either you can take away the kli, or you can take away the person. If Dovid had built the Bayis, taking away the Bayis would not have been an option.

This Yalkut does indeed exist.Shmuel II remez 145:
האתה תבנה לי בית וכתיב לא תבנה בית לשמי כי דמים רבים שפכת כיון ששמע דוד כך נתיירא אמר הרי נפסלתי מלבנוות בית המקדש. א"ר יהודה בר' אלעאי אמר לו הקב"ה דוד אל תירא חייך כי הם לפני כצבי וכאיל לכך נאמר שפכת ארצה ואין ארצה אלא צבי ואיל שנאמר על הארץ תשפכנו כמים. ד"א חייך הם לפני כקרבנות דכתיב כי דמים רבים שפכת לפני ואין לפני אלא קרבן שנאמר ושחט את בן הבקר לפני ה'. אמר לו ואם כן למה איני בונה אותו, אמר לו הקב"ה שאם אתה בונה אותו הוא קיים ואינו חרב, אמרו לו והרי יפה א"ל הקב"ה גלוי וצפוי לפני שהם עתידים לחטוא ואני מפיג חמתי בו ומחריבו והם נצולין שכן כתיב באהל בת ציון שפך כאש חמתו, אמר לו הקב"ה חייך הואיל וחשבת לבנותו אע"פ ששלמה בנך בונהו לשמך אני כותבו מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד. ר' הונא בשם ריב"ל אלף וחמש מאות אמה חפר דוד לעמוד על משתיתא של ארץ, דתניא ג' בתולות הם, בתולת אדם, בתולת קרקע, בתולת שקמה. בתולת אדם שלא נבעלה מימיה. בתולת שקמה כל שלא נקצצה מימיה, בתולת ארץ כל שלא נעבדה מימיה. רשב"ג אומר כל שאין בה חרס. כיון שחפר דוד אלף ות"ק אמה מצא שם חרס וכו' (כדכתיב לעיל):

I’m sorry to say that this kind of farkert-from-poshut-pshat-revisionism is very hard for me to accept. As I said, the passuk in Divrei Hayamim is hard to hear; but it does say that there was something about Dovid that made him unfit to build the Beis Hamikdash. To say that he was not unfit, but instead he was wonderfully fit, is just too much. I need to think about the reliability of the source Medrash the Yalkut brings. (There is a similar Medrash brought by the Divrei Dovid in Shemos 4:13, that Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the way back in Mitzrayim that he would most likely not be allowed into Eretz Yisroel, because if he were, there would be no pressure release valve of ahl ho’eitzim etc, and this would present an existential threat to the nation if they were to sin. This I understand. I even understand how this fits with Rashi in Devarim 33:8 that the 'sin' of Mei Meriva was a trivial and inconsequential event that was inflated into significance only as an excuse (I didn't make that up: Rashi says it was an "illah.") to keep Moshe out of Israel. But to re-read the passuk in Divrei Hayamim as if it were not a criticism, but instead a praise, does not make me happy at all.)

I said a completely speculative pshat: that if Dovid built it, it would be permanent precisely because it would have been imperfect. The imperfection would be the kiddush of charbicho heinafto, that it was built by a person who had spilled Human blood; not that doing so was a fault, just that it is an ugly and unfortunate thing. If the Bayis had been imperfect and kodosh, it would be impossible to destroy. It would have been mekadeish the gashmius to the extent that the gashmius would become indestructible. Its being subject to destruction was because it was perfect, and perfect things cannot be firmly fixed in an imperfect world. (I said this because the Luchos were destroyable, and they were kulo kodesh, so we see that kulo kodesh can be destroyed.) This advantage of this pshat is that it accepts Dovid's worthiness to build the Beis Hamikdash, while accepting as well that his military career was to some degree incompatible with building it; it fits with the Yalkut's idea that his would be indestructible, but it accepts that the words “domim rabbim shofochto” indicate a flaw.

Reb Milton Wakschlag (originally from Tulsa, Oklahoma) came to me the next day and said he had been thinking about the Yalkut, and although he agrees it’s farkert from the poshut pshat, it’s not farkert from the pashtus. In other words, the questions about the implication of unfitness on Dovid Hamelech’s part are so shver, that even though the Yalkut does not fit into the poshut pshat in the possuk in Divrei Hayomim, it is consistent with the pashtus of our perception of who and what Dovid was. (I sometimes think that his remark is an example of how an enjoyable well-turned phrase can be a trojan horse-- it makes you forget how illogical something is, like a spoonful of sugar with cod-liver oil.) He also fleshed out the idea of the Michtov Mei’eliahu: he said that if the Beis Hamikdosh were perfect, then when Klal Yisroel sinned, Hashem would say that they had a perfect source of kedusha and inspiration, and if they failed, it was without any excuse. But now that the Beis Hamikdosh lacked that degree of perfection, Hashem could say that it wasn’t 100% the fault of the Bnei Yisroel, and so He took out His anger on the imperfect tool of hashro’as hashchina and sent us into golus to start over again.

Pekudei, Shemos 38:21. Pekudei Hamishkon Mishkan Ho’eidus.

Rabbeinu Bachya here says that these three words, Hamishkon Mishkan Ho'eidus, are a remez to the time the Mishkon, the Bayis Rishon, and the Bayis Sheini stood. The gematriya of the third word, Ho’eidus (choseir) is 479; the Mishkon stood for 480 years, but the first year was only half the year. The gematria of the second word, Mishkan, is 410, which is exactly the number of years the first Beis Hamikdosh in Yerushalayim stood. And the gematria of the first word, Hamishkon, is 415; the Bayis Sheini stood 420 years, so he adds the kollel— the number of letters in the word. In sum:
Hamishkon = 415, the years the Bayis Sheini stood (w/kollel).
Mishkan = 410, the years the Bayis Rishon stood.
Ho'eidus = 479, the years the Mishkon stood.

(in the Midbar for 39 years, at Gilgal for 14 years, Shilo for 369 years, 13 in Nov and Givon 44.)

(This gematria is amazingly on point, except for the need to resort to the kollel. Perhaps the Bayis Sheini lost its kedushah five years before it was destroyed, and was no more than a dead, soul-less edifice under the control of the various splinter cults that arose at that time. As the Gemora in Megilla regarding the parties made by Belshatzar and Achashveirosh indicates, nevu'ah calendars are not printed in advance, and numbers and dates can be interpretated in various ways.)

The Satmarer Rov in Vayo’el Moshe asks, why are they in reverse order? Why does the last word refer to the first of the three, the Mishkon, and the first word refer to the last, the Bayis Sheini? Although I bring the Satmarer Rov's teretz below, I would be happy to hear a more straightforward explanation for the order reversal. Write a comment or send me mail at Eliezere@aol.com

Back to the Satmarer Rov's teretz: After asking why the Botei Mikdosh are referred to in reverse order, he also asks the following questions: Why does this remez belong specifically here? Also, why is there no description of the specific use of the gold in the Mishkon, while the silver and copper’s uses are described in minute detail? He answers that the gold was a kappora on the Eigel. The Gemora says that although Beis Din is authorized to attach a person’s property to ensure that he fulfil his korbon obligations, we do not do so for korbonos that are for kapporo– ein memashk’nin al hachato’os. This is because a person that stands to gain kapporoh from a serious sin gives be’ayin yofeh, he is happy to take advantage of this opportunity, and he will give as soon and as much as he can. Here, the nation felt the same way about the gold they gave for a kapporo on the eigel, and they didn’t demand itemization. But the other nedovos were given as a favor to the mishkon, and because the people gave it not for a kappora, but as a donation, they gave it with some degree of reservation. When people give without complete love and enthusiasm, underlying character flaws assert themselves, and thus began their distrust of Moshe. This distrust is an example of sinas chinom, which ultimately caused the churbon Bayis Sheini. So it is proper that immediately after the word ‘pekudei’, which refers to the audit that was made necessary because of the spirit of distrustfulness and suspicion, the possuk alludes to the Bayis Sheini, the third of the mishkonos.


I wonder what predictive value Rabbeinu Bachya’s vort has. Can we find a remez to the third and eternal Beis Hamikdosh, sheyiboneh bimheiro b'yomeinu? Or perhaps it would be impossible to find a numerical reference to the Bayis Shlishi because it will stand forever? But maybe it will only stand until the end of the sixth millenium, so it is limited in time? But if we could find a remez to its years, we could simply subtract that number from six thousand nine hundred ninety nine to find the date it will be built.