CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS T'TZAVEH 5770 - BS"D
1) Ch. 28, v. 1: "Nodov v'Avihu Elozor v'Isomor" - Why bother mentioning them by name since the verse has already told us that Aharon's sons are to likewise be inducted into the priesthood?
2) Ch. 28, v. 3: "El kol chachmei leiv" - To all wise of heart - We do not find this expression by the command to create the Mishkon components.
3) Ch. 28, v. 4: "V'ei'leh habgodim" - And these are the garments - The verse lists six of the eight garments, leaving out the pants and the forehead plate. Why?
4) Ch. 28, v. 10: "Shishoh mishmosom al ho'evven ho'echos" - Shouldn't the verse have said, "Shmos shishoh?" What is the meaning of the prefix letter Mem?
5) Ch. 28, v. 30: "Es ho'urim v'es hatumim" - What sort of questions may be posed to the "urim v'tumim," and what type not?
ANSWERS:
#1
1) To exclude Pinchos (whom we might have thought was included in the word "bonov" by virtue of the dictum "bnei vonim k'vonim) (Tur)
2) To teach us that they did not become Kohanim by lineage only (Abarbanel)
3) We might have thought that not all 4 of his sons were included, only the most worthy. These words teach us that they were all equally worthy. (Imrei Noam)
4) To exclude Moshe's sons (even though Moshe had the status of Kohein at the time of the dedication) (Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel)
5) To indicate that they were very prominent as Kohanim - Indeed, they executed the majority of the services in the Mishkon. (Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel)
6) We find no connecting letter Vov between Nodov/Avihu and Elozor/Isomor. This alludes to Nodov and Avihu's very short-lived K'hunoh. (Nirreh li)
#2
This is because Moshe was shown a prophetic vision of the Sanctuary building, "U'r'ei vaa'sei b'tavnisom asher atoh mo'reh bohor" (25:40). The picture of the priestly vestments, which were not shown to them, required special wisdom. (Rabbi Yehudoh Chosid)
#3
This is because verse 2 predicates this list as items that are for honour and glory. The pants were made for basic modesty, and the forehead plate is left out because it was solid gold and not cloth. (Ro'kei'ach)
Alternatively, because these two items do not require craftsmen who are "chachmei leiv." (Tur)
Another answer: The verse only lists items that are required as a statute, a decree from Hashem, but the pants were required to cover shameful areas of the body (28:42) and the forehead plate to bring atonement for sins in the Mikdosh service (28:38). (Tosfos Hasho'leim)
Although the gemara Z'vochim 88b says that each garment brought atonement for one sin or another, this is not mentioned in the Torah overtly.
#4
The gemara Yerushalmi Sotoh 7:4 says that Biyomin's name appeared on the "eifode" stones with the first two letters Beis-Nun on one stone and the last letters of his name on the other stone. This seems to be alluded in the word MIshmosom, a section of their names, indicating that a name is not complete on one stone. Indeed on the words "Shishoh mishmosom" the Targum Yonoson ben Uziel also says "Shiso min k'tzas shmos'hone," six of part of their names.
Why was Binyomin's name chosen to be the one to be split between the two stones? The Meshech Chochmoh answers that this is indicated in Dvorim 33:12, "U'vein kseifov shochein," regarding Binyomin the verse says, "and between his shoulders (the Kohein Godol's) it rests."
#5
The Mechilta parshas Mishpotim #15 says that we do not ask the "urim v'tumim" to give us an halachic decision. Rashi on the gemara Eiruvin 45a d.h. "ha'rei" says the same. This is clearly indicated in the gemara T'muroh 16a, which says that 3,000 halochos were forgotten during the mourning period after the death of Moshe. The gemara says that to recover them through heavenly communication is not allowed, "lo bashomayim hee." It seems that this is not an impenetrable rule. The R'shash points out that Rashi himself on the gemara Eiruvin 63a d.h. "dich'siv" writes that Yehoshua asked Elozor a halachic question. This is understood by the Rshash as a question to be answered by the "urim v'tumim" as otherwise Yehoshua would not have gone specifically to Elozor. The Rosh on our verse writes that the "urim v'tumim" would not answer something that could be answered by a person. Tosfos on the gemara Gitin 68a d.h. "iko" says the same as the Rosh. Perhaps Yehoshua had no other option. (Medrash Halacha)
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 |
