CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS TRUMOH 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 25, v. 8: "V'ossu li Mikdosh v'shochanti b'sochOM" - Why the verse doesn't say "v'shochanti b'sochO," in it, in the Mikdosh? "B'sochOM" means in THEM.

3) Ch. 26, v. 9: "V'chofalto" - And you should fold - How was this doubling done?

4) Ch. 26, v. 24: "V'yachdov" - The word "yachdov" is spelled without a Yud after the Dalet. We often find it with the letter Yud. What is the difference?

5) Ch. 26, v. 29: "V'es hakroshim t'tza'peh zohov" - How were the beams covered with gold?

ANSWERS:

#1v The Tosefta M'nochos 9:6 says that only pigment taken from the "chilozone" is acceptable for dying the Kohein's garments which the Torah says should be "t'chei'les." However, the Rambam in hilchos klei Mikdosh 8:13 does not mention the "chilozone" requirement, only that the colour be that of "t'chei'les." It is only in hilchos tzitzis that he mentions the "chilozone" requirement. The Avnei Neizer O.Ch. #15 writes that the Rambam posits that dye extracted from the "chilozone" should specifically not be used for the priestly garments because the "chilozone" is a non-kosher creature, and the Mishkon/Mikdosh building and the priestly garments have the status of "m'leches shomayim," for which only kosher items may be used. Tzitzis, however, only have the status of "tashmi'shei mitzvoh," a lower level, and therefore a non-kosher item may be used. No doubt, according to the Avnei Neizer the Rambam must have had an earlier source for his position, as the words of the Tosefta contradict him.

There is a gemara that seems to be contrary to both the Rambam and the Avnei Neizer. The gemara Shabbos 74b says that we find the activity of knotting in the preparation of the Mishkon by the trapping of the "chilozone." Nets were created by knotting threads together. (Rashi explains that the "chilozone" was used to dye items that had to have the "t'chei'les" colour.)

The Chasam Sofer in his responsa O.Ch. #39 writes that the non-kosher "chilozone" supplying the pigment for "t'chei'les" does not run afoul of the "m'leches Mishkon" requirement of "ore b'heimoh t'horoh bilvad" ruling (gemara Shabbos 28b). This is because the pigment, once extracted from the "chilozone" is not considered "yotzei min hato'mei." It is considered "ponim chadoshos," a new creation, not retaining any of the previous properties.

However, Rabbeinu Bachyei writes, "We do not find silk used as a Mishkon material because it is an extract of a non-kosher creature, a worm. The gemara (Shabbos 28a) says that the "tachash" must have been a kosher animal, since its hides were used as roof-coverings in the Mishkon. The pigment "tolaas shoni" is not an extract from a worm, but rather from seeds that have these worms in them."

We see from his words that not only the actual material of the Mishkon components, but even the pigments, which end up being only colouring, also require a kosher source. Tosfos on the gemara Kidushin 56b d.h. "mina'yon" deals with this issue. Rabbeinu Bachyei might posit like the Avnei Neizer's understanding of the Rambam, that "t'chei'les" for "m'leches shomayim" is not from a "chilozone."

Another possibility is that the "chilozone" itself is kosher. Even though sea creatures are clearly not kosher, as per the verse in Vayikra 11:10, the Rava"d in his preface to Sefer Ha'y'tziroh, nsivos 32 nsiv 8 writes that he does not know if the "chilozone" is a sea creature or a sea plant, since it is alive and moves, but always remains in the same place, implanted in the base of the sea. It seems that he posits that the "chilozone" is a sea anemone. This is clearly not the position of those who prohibit the use of the "chilozone" for the priestly garments, but is a possible explanation for Rabbeinu Bachyei's excluding pigment from a non-kosher source, and not mentioning that the "chilozone" is a problem.

#2

A well-known answer is that upon creating the Sanctuary, Hashem will rest in the hearts of all the bnei Yisroel, hence the plural form.

This answer is understood in depth with a mathematical insight given by Rabbi Yehoshua Heller in Ohel Yehoshua drush #1, section 12, preface #7. He finds 613 components that make up the Mishkon. He explains the word "b'sochom" by saying that just as there are 613 mitzvos that correspond to the 613 organs and sinews of a persons body, and with the fulfillment of all the 613 mitzvos sanctity is brought into all parts of one's body, as is written in Bmidbar 15:40, "vaasi'sem es kol mitzvosoy vi'h'yi'sem k'doshim lEilokeichem" (see Shaar Hakdushoh by Rabbi Chaim Vi'tal), so too, upon building the Mishkon, which is made up of 613 components, Hashem's Sanctity will enter the bnei Yisroel's 613 organs and sinews.

Rabbi Heller's list of Mishkon components:

- 48 wall beams, 20 for the south wall, 20 for the north wall, 8 for the west wall
- 100 foundation blocks, 2 each for the 48 wall beams, 4 for the poles that held up the curtain that stood before the Holy of Holies
- 10 sheets of linen, "t'chei'les" wool, "argomon," and scarlet, that made up the lowest roof covering
- 100 "t'chei'les" loops, 50 on the lip of each of the two sections of roof covering
- 50 gold hooks for attaching the two sections of roof covering
- 11 sheets of goat hide that made up the roof covering above the cloth covering
- 100 loops, as above
- 50 copper hooks, as above
- 15 cross beam supports, 5 for each side
- 96 rings attached to the 48 wall beams, 2 per beam, through which the cross beam supports run
- 1 curtain that divides between the Holy and the holy of Holies
- 4 gold clad wooden poles from which the curtain hangs
- 4 gold curtain hangers, hooks which hold the curtain in place
- 1 covering for the entry to the Mishkon
- 5 poles from which this covering hangs
- 5 copper foundation blocks for the 5 poles
- 5 gold curtain hangers, hooks which hold the covering in place
- 1 Holy Ark
- 1 Holy Ark lid. This is considered a separate item as there is an extra command "v'ossiso" (25:17) for its creation.
- 1 pair of cherubim. This is again considered "one" separate item as there is yet another command "v'ossiso" (25:18) for its creation.
- 1 show-bread table
- 1 candelabrum
- 1 incense altar, "mizbach hazohov"
- 1 sacrificial altar, "mizbach hanchoshes"
- 1 laver and its base

Please note that not everyone agrees with this calculation. For example, the gemara Shabbos 98b says that the central cross beam support was one continuous pole, and not three poles, one for each wall. Rashi says that there was a horizontal curtain rod, "klonos," attached to the top of the 4 poles to which the "poroches" was attached (26:32). Perhaps this is not to be counted because this horizontal pole is not mentioned in the Torah. Rashbam says that there were 5 cross beam supports on the outside of each of the three walls, besides the middle support beam, and that in turn there were 5 rings for these beams attached to each of the 48 wall beams (26:26).

It also seems that Rabbi Heller left out 47 square or rectangular support rings that attached the wall beams one to the next on top (26:24). As well, it seems that coverings of rams' hide and "tachash" hide (26:14) are left out. Any help with these last omissions would be greatly appreciated.

#3

Rashi says that the front roofing panel is folded downwards as a valance. According to Rashi 1 "amoh" was a Mishkon covering, 1 "amoh" covered the poles in front of the building, and 2 "amos" were a valance. According to Rabbi Avrohom ben hoRambam half the panel, 2 "amos" were a Mishkon covering, 1 "amoh" covered the poles in front of the building, and only 1 "amoh" served as a valance. The Breisa of M'leches haMishkon takes this verse literally, and says that the panel was doubled and sewn down like a hem, and all 4 "amos" of its width served as a valance. Perhaps "v'chofalto" would be translated as "and you should double" according to this opinion.

#4

The Rokei'ach points this out, and he differentiates between this word appearing with a Yud and without. With a Yud it means that two or more things are "united," the same, in some aspect. In our case it would have meant that the wall beams are replicas of each other. However, since the word "yachdov" lacks a Yud after the Dalet, "yachdov" means that it is the same as itself, singular. He explains that this is an indication for the opinion in the gemara Shabbos 98b that the beams had the same width dimensions from bottom to top, and did not narrow down to a finger breadth's thickness at the top, the opposing opinion in the gemara.

The Baal Haturim says the exact opposite. He finds the word "yachdov" here and in Yeshayohu 31:3, "V'yachdov kulom yichloyun." He says that this teaches us that just as there the verse says that they will come to an end, so too, the beams narrow from a one cubit thickness to a one finger breadth's thickness.

#5

The Rokei'ach writes that he heard from his teacher that the gold cladding was not form fitting over the wall beams. Although the cladding hugged the beam on almost all sides, on the side that the cross beam poles' rings went, the gold cladding was distanced from the wooden beams, allowing for space for the rings that held the cross beams in place. This would make the cross beams and rings hidden from view, allowing for a clean smooth look for the wall beams even on the outside. It would seem that there were 2 holes in each gold covering for each cross beam pole, a total of ten holes per beam if we combine this Rokei'ach with the Rashbam who posits that there were 5 parallel rows of exterior crossbeams. Rashi on our verse d.h. "v'tzipiso" clearly states that the cross beam rings were attached to the outside and both the cross beams and the rings were visible. There seems to be no real esthetic problem with the beams and rings showing, as when assembly was complete the goatskin covers of the Mishkon covered them.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights