פרשת תרומה תשכ"ו - הארון
א. "העדות" = התורה - שאלות ברש"י
"וְנָתַתָּ אֶל הָאָרֹן אֵת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ"
And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.
ד"ה העדות: התורה שהיא לעדות ביני וביניכם שצויתי אתכם מצוות הכתובות בה.
העדות THE TESTIMONY — the Torah (the Tablets; cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:20) which is a testimony between Me and you that I have ordained the commandments written in it (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 4).
השוה לדבריו
"וַיִּקַּח וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֶל הָאָרֹן וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַבַּדִּים"
And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the ark-cover above upon the ark.
רש"י:
ד"ה את העדות: הלוחות.
הרא"ם, (ר' אליהו מזרחי) מקשה:
כן מצאתיו בכל הספרים שלפנינו ולא שמעתי פירושו, כי הנה הכתוב פה הוא הכתוב בסיפור הקמת המשכן (מ' כ') "ויקח ויתן את העדות אל הארן" ושם פירש "את העדות" – הלוחות, ולא התורה, כמו שכתב פה! ועוד: איך יתכן שיהיה זה על התורה, והלא ספר התורה לא נכתב עד סוף הארבעים, כי כתוב (דברים ל"א כ"ב) "ויכתוב משה את השירה הזאת ביום ההוא", שהוא ביום מותו, וכתיב בתריה (דברים ל"א כ"ד) "ויהיה בכלות משה לכתוב את דברי התורה הזאת על ספר עד תומם ויצו משה את הלויים... לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם אותו מצד ארון הברית ה'"...
הרב כשר, בתורה שלמה (שמות כ"ה בהערות קכ"ג) מתרץ קושייתו:
ויש מפרשים שמלשון רש"י אינו הכרח שכוונתו לספר התורה, כי גם הלוחות נקראים תורה, ראה שבת פ"ז והובאו ברש"י שמות ל"ב י"ט ד"ה וישלך מידו את הלוחות: אמר: מה פסח שהוא אחד מן המצוות אמרה תורה (שמות י"ב מ"ג) "כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו", התורה כולה כאן וכל ישראל מומרים ואתננה להם?!"
1. הסבר מהן שתי קושיותיו של הרא"ם על רש"י?
**
2. מדוע אין הדברים המובאים בתורה שלמה אלא תשובה חלקית?
**
3. התוכל ליישב את קושיות הרא"ם?
ב. הארון - מדברי האגדה
"וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ"
And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.
אבא חנן משום ר' אלעזר: כתוב אחד אומר (דברים י') "ועשית לך ארון עץ" וכתוב אחד אומר "ועשו ארון עצי שטים", הא כיצד? כאן בזמן שישראל עושים רצונו של מקום, כאן בזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום.
Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says: “And make you an ark of wood” (Deuteronomy 10:1), indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject: “And they shall make an ark of acacia wood” (Exodus 25:10), meaning from the Jewish people. How can this contradiction be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant. There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone. According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.
א. מה הסתירה בין שני הפסוקים, ואיך אפשר לישבה לפי פשוטו של מקרא?
*
ב. הסבר את ישובו של ר' אלעזר!
2. מדרש (מובא בתורה שלמה להרב כשר תרומה ק"ה):
...מכאן (מן הפסוק דלעיל) לתלמיד חכם שצריך שיהיה שפל וענו ולבו נשבר בקרבו.
מהיכן הרמז ללימוד זה בפסוקנו?
"וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב"
And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.
אמר ר' יוחנן שלושה זרים הם: של מזבח, של שולחן ושל ארון. של מזבח
spun of sky-blue” (Exodus 28:31). And derive a verbal analogy from the term “sky-blue” used here and the same term “sky-blue” from the verse about the curtain: Just as there, with regard to the curtain, there are six strands, so too here, there are six strands. Then, since the Torah also says the threads are spun, i.e., each strand is made of two thinner strands spun together, each thread must contain twelve strands. The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the number of strands in the robe from its hem and pomegranates: Just as there, each thread is spun from eight strands, so too here, the threads should be spun from eight strands. The Gemara rejects this: It is preferable to derive the halakhot of a utensil, i.e., the robe, from the halakhot of another utensil, i.e., the curtain, and one should not derive the halakhot of a utensil from the halakhot of something that is merely an ornament of a utensil, i.e., the pomegranates of the robe. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, it is preferable to derive the halakhot of an object from that object itself, i.e., to assume that the halakhot of the robe and its pomegranates are similar; and one should not derive the halakhot of an object from elsewhere. The Gemara explains: This is precisely what we said in the baraita: One of the five mentions of shesh in the verse is to teach that the requirement that threads be made from six strands applies also to other garments about which shesh is not explicitly stated, such as the robe. The baraita further states: Each thread of the curtain was made of twenty-four strands. The Gemara explains: With regard to each thread being composed of four colored threads: White, purple, scarlet, and sky-blue, and each one of them being composed of six strands, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., it is absolutely clear that this is how the threads of the curtain are produced. The baraita further states: Each thread of the breastplate and ephod was made of twenty-eight strands. From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment, the work of the skilled craftsman; like the work of the ephod you shall make it: Of gold, sky-blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen” (Exodus 28:15). There are four colored threads, each composed of six strands, which makes twenty-four. In addition, gold is spun together with each of the four colors, giving the total of twenty-eight. But couldn’t one say the gold should be made as a thread of six strands, like the other colors? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that the verse states: “And they beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into cords, to work it into the sky-blue, and into the purple, and into the scarlet, and into the fine linen, the work of a skilled craftsman” (Exodus 39:3). “Cord” implies a strand that is doubled over and can be twisted into a cord; “cords” is in the plural, meaning at least two of these. Accordingly, there are four strands here. Rav Ashi said: This can be seen from that fact that the verse states with regard to the gold strands: “To work it into the sky-blue, and into the purple” (Exodus 39:3), indicating that the gold strands should be combined with the other colors. What should we do? If we make four gold threads of two strands each and combine each one with each of the colors, then there would be eight. If we make two gold threads of two strands each, and two gold threads of one strand each, it says: “And you shall make,” indicating that all its makings should be the same. Perforce, one strand of gold should be combined with each of the colors, producing a total of twenty-eight strands. § The Gemara discusses various halakhot concerning the priestly vestments and other sacred vessels: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: One who intentionally tears any of the priestly vestments transgresses a prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated concerning the robe: “It shall have a hem of woven work around the opening of it, like the opening of a coat of mail, and it shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32). Just as it is prohibited to tear the opening of the robe, so too, it is prohibited to tear any of the priestly vestments. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: An opening should be made in order that it not tear. In other words, the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not be torn? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition. Rabbi Elazar said: One who detaches the breastplate from upon the ephod or one who removes the staves of the Ark from their rings transgresses a Torah prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated: “And the breastplate shall not be detached from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28),and it is also stated: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps when the Merciful One said this in the Torah, the intention was to strengthen them and make them fast so that the breastplate not become detached from the ephod and the staves not be removed. He suggests that the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not become detached, and: In order that they not be removed? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), implying the staves should remain there permanently. But in another verse it is written: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7), implying that when the Ark is used the staves are inserted, which suggests that they do not remain there permanently. How is this contradiction resolved? The staves could be removed from their position, i.e., they were loosened, but did not come out. The staves were wider at their ends and thinner in the middle. Therefore, once they had been forced into the rings, although they could be shifted, they would not be removed entirely. That was also taught in a baraita. The verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). One might have thought that they should not move from their place at all; therefore; the verse states: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7). If it had stated: And its staves shall be put, one might have thought that they are inserted and removed entirely; therefore, the verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). How is this? They could be removed from their position, but did not come out. The Gemara cites other statements concerning the ark. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall make the boards for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing” (Exodus 26:15)? This verse teaches that the boards of wood used for the Tabernacle should stand in the same direction in which they grew from the ground as a tree. Alternatively, “standing” means that they supported their gold plating and prevented it from falling. Alternatively, “standing” is written to hint at the following: Perhaps you will say that now that the Tabernacle is no longer in use, their hope is lost and their chance is abandoned, and after being stored away the boards will no longer return to use. Therefore, the verse states “standing” to indicate that they stand forever and ever. § The Gemara returns to its discussion of the priestly vestments: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The plaited [serad] garments, for serving in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 35:19)? Why does the verse refer to the priestly vestments as “serad garments”?
סימן לכתר כהונה)
זר זהב A BORDER OF GOLD — a crown-like ornament encompassed it (the ark) round about above its rim, for he (Bezalel) made the outer ark which was of gold higher than the inner ones so that it stood up over against the thickness of the cover which was made for it and even somewhat beyond it (Yoma 72b). Now when the cover lay upon the thickness of the sides of the two smaller arks the crown-like ledge rose a little above the entire thickness of the cover. It was a symbol of the “crown of the Torah” which was placed within that ark (Exodus Rabbah 34b).
– זכה אהרן ונטלו. של שולחן
סימן לכתר מלכות, שהשולחן הוא עושר, שולחן מלכים)
זר זהב A BORDER OF GOLD — a crown-like ornament encompassed it (the ark) round about above its rim, for he (Bezalel) made the outer ark which was of gold higher than the inner ones so that it stood up over against the thickness of the cover which was made for it and even somewhat beyond it (Yoma 72b). Now when the cover lay upon the thickness of the sides of the two smaller arks the crown-like ledge rose a little above the entire thickness of the cover. It was a symbol of the “crown of the Torah” which was placed within that ark (Exodus Rabbah 34b).

– זכה דוד ונטלו. של ארון

סימן לכתר תורה)
זר זהב A BORDER OF GOLD — a crown-like ornament encompassed it (the ark) round about above its rim, for he (Bezalel) made the outer ark which was of gold higher than the inner ones so that it stood up over against the thickness of the cover which was made for it and even somewhat beyond it (Yoma 72b). Now when the cover lay upon the thickness of the sides of the two smaller arks the crown-like ledge rose a little above the entire thickness of the cover. It was a symbol of the “crown of the Torah” which was placed within that ark (Exodus Rabbah 34b).

עדיין הוא מונח, כל הרוצה ליטול יבוא ויטול.
שמא תאמר: פחות שבהן הוא? תלמוד לומר: (משלי ח') "בי מלכים ימלוכו וגו'".

א. מהי הראיה המובאת ממשלי ח' - במה היא מוכיחה מעלתה של התורה?
ב. יש מדרשים המביאים ראיה לכך מפסוקי פרקנו עצמו, מן הפסוקים העוסקים באותם שלושה כלים. מצא היכן הרמז.
**
מלכות וכהונה הם לאדם ירושה, שאין מלכות בישראל אלא למי שהוא מזרע דוד ולא הכהונה אלא למי שהוא מזרע אהרן, אבל התורה אינה ירושה לאדם.
**
ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב, “you are to construct on it a golden crown all around it.” When the Torah issues similar instructions concerning the table and the altar, the wording is not עליו, ”on it,” but לו “for it.” The reason is that the table itself was a symbol of the “crown” of Royalty, whereas the altar was a symbol of the “crown” of priesthood (compare Avot 4,13). The “crown” of priest-hood as well as the “crown” of Royalty is acquired by its wearer at birth, through inheritance. The “crown” of Torah is not acquired by birth. The word לו implies that this crown is an integral part of the table or altar respectively, i.e. “it belongs.” Seeing that the crown of Torah has first to be earned by the eventual wearer, the word עליו, “upon him” indicates that it will be placed on the Torah scholar at the appropriate time, at his ordination. Hereditary Royalty in Israel was the exclusive right of Kings descended from David, whereas hereditary priesthood was reserved for the descendants of Aaron. The word לו in a similar sense is used by the Torah in connection with the duty of the King to write two Torah scrolls for himself. We read in Deut. 17,18 וכתב לו את משנה התורה וגו', “he is to write for himself two copies of the Torah, etc.” The Torah immediately (verse 20) continues to supply the reason for this by writing למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו, “in order that the days of his dynasty be long ones, etc.” We find something similar in connection with the priesthood where the Torah writes in Numbers 25,13 after Pinchas had been elevated to the priesthood: והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “and it shall be his and for his offspring after him a covenant of an eternal priesthood, etc.” Seeing that the crown on the Ark represents a different kind of concept, one based on יחוס עצמו, “personal achievement,” the preposition the Torah chose to use in connection with it is עליו instead of לו.
היכן הרמז בפסוקים להבדל זה שבין מלוכה וכהונה ובין תורה?
"וְאֶל הָאָרֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ"
ואל הארן תתן את העדות AND IN THE ARK THOU SHALT PUT THE TESTIMONY — I do not know why this is repeated for it has already been commanded, (v. 16) “and thou shalt put the Testimony in the ark”. One may say that it intends to tell us that whilst the ark is still by itself — i. e. without the cover — he should first put the Testimony into it, and only afterwards should he put the cover on it for the first time. Thus indeed do we find: that when he (Moses) erected the Tabernacle it is stated, (Exodus 40:20) “and he [took and] put the Testimony into the ark”, and afterwards it says, “and he put the cover upon the ark above it” (cf. Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1).
לקח טוב:
להביא שברי לוחות שהיו מונחים בארון.
**
א. כיצד נלמד דבר זה מפסוקנו?
*
ב. מה המסומל במאמר זה, ששברי לוחות מונחים בארון?
ג. מקראות שאין להם הכרע
"שְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד כַּפְתֹּר וָפֶרַח וּשְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד כַּפְתֹּר וָפָרַח..."
three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick.
"וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ"
And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof.
ד"ה משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה: זה אחד מחמישה מקראות שאין להם הכרע, אין ידוע אם "גבעים משקדים" או "משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה".
משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה GOBLETS MODELLED, WITH THEIR KNOBS AND THEIR FLOWERS (or it may be translated also: GOBLETS, MODELLED WITH THEIR KNOBS AND FLOWERS — The word משקדים being separated from the preceding by an אתנחתא seems to belong to the next words, to כפתוריה ופרחיה, but the fact that in the preceding verse it had been used of the goblets only suggests the reading גביעים משקדים. This is one of the five verses in Scripture the syntactical construction of which is undecided: it is not clear whether one should read גביעים משקדים or משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה (Yoma 52b).
איסי בן יהודה אומר חמש מקראות בתורה אין להם הכרע: שאת, משקדים, מחר, ארור וקם.
The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: And was Yosef of Hutzal really uncertain how to punctuate this verse? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.
תוספות:
ד"ה שאת:... ואם תאמר, אמאי לא דרשינהו להו לפניהם ולאחריהם כמו בנשך ובמרבית (ויקרא כ"ח) ...יש לומר, גבי שאת... וכן ארור... וכן מחר... וכן וקם, לפי שאין פירושם שווה, על כן אין להם הכרע. אבל אמשקדים קשה. ויש לומר, משום דאיכא אתנחתא בגבעים (ל"ד)... ומשמעו: משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה. וקרא אמרינא מוכחא דמשקדים לא קאי אלא אגבעים דכתיב "שלשה גבעים משקדים". ולהכי אין לו הכרע...
טעה המדפיס במקרא גדולה שכתב על פסוק ל"ג: ה' מלין דלית להון הכרע, כי אין שם מקומו רק על פסוק זה.
הלכה א': המנורה מפורשת צורתה בתורה. וארבעה גביעים ושני כפתורים ושני פרחים היו בקני המנורה, שנאמר: ובמנורה ארבעה גבעים משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה...
The Menorah's shape is described explicitly in the Torah, and there were four cups, two knobs, and two flowers on the stem as it says "and on the Menorah there were four cups, decorated with its knobs and its flowers." There was a third flower near the leg as it says "from its leg to its flower."
הלכה ב'... ובכל קנה וקנה מהן שלושה גביעים וכפתור ופרח והכל משוקדים כמו שקדים בעשייתן.
It also had three legs and three more knobs on the stem where the six branches came out, three on each side. There were three cups, a flower, and a knob on each branch and all of them were made like almonds.
(ועיין דברי ר"י קורקוס בכסף משנה וכן הערת משנה למלך).
... וצריך לומר, דבאמת מפרש הרמב"ם דכוונת הגמרא לפסוק ל"ג, והיינו דאפשר לומר: "שלשה גבעים משקדים בקנה האחד" או "משקדים בקנה האחד כפתר ופרח" ואף יש ראיה שכן מפרש הוא, שכן בהלכה א'... ובגופה של מנורה העתיק כלשון הפסוק ולא כתב "והכל משוקדים" כמו בהלכה ב'... מבואר מזה, דמפרש דכוונת הגמרא "דמשקדים אין לו הכרע" הוא לפסוק ל"ג ובזה מתורץ קושיית התוספות למה לא דרשה הגמרא למשקדים לפניה ולאחריה כמו בנשך ובמרבית. משום דלמש"כ ודעת הרמב"ם דקאי על פסוק ל"ג באמת נדרשת המלה משקדים לפניה ולאחריה ולכן כתב "והכל משוקדים".
1. הסבר את הביטוי "אין להן הכרע"!
2. במה לדעת התוספות נבדל פסוקנו מיתר ארבעה הפסוקים?
3. מהי הסתירה לדעת בעלי התוספות בפיסוק הטעמים בין פסוק ל"ג ובין פסוק ל"ד?
4. איך מתייחס בעל תורה תמימה להערת בעל מנחת שי?
5. איך הוא מוכיח מדברי הרמב"ם, שהערת המסורה מקומה לפסוק ל"ג?
6. איך לדעת בעלי התוספות ואיך לדעת הרמב"ם לפי בעל תורה תמימה, מתייחסים הטעמים המפסיקים תלישא גדולה-גרש, כמאשר הם באים בסדר זה?
7. האם יש סיוע להכרע מן הצלעית השנייה ("ושלשה...") של ל"ד למילה "משקדים", נמק את תשובתך.