HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
                      Edited by Shlomo Katz

                        Parashat Tetzaveh
                    Volume V, Number 19 (205)
                 9 Adar 5751 / February 23, 1991
                         Parashat Zachor

                        Parasha Overview

   Parashat Tetzaveh continues from last week's Parasha the
description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and its utensils and
appurtenances.  Much of Tetzaveh is devoted to the "Bigdei Kehunah"
- the garments of the Kohen Gadol and of the other Kohanim.  The
commentary Tziyoni (quoted in Midrash Talpiot) notes that there was
not one stitch in the Bigdei Kehunah which did not symbolize or
allude to mountains upon mountains of laws and mystical secrets. 
For this reason, those who wove these garments were required to
work with intense concentration and devotion.  This is why Moshe
was commanded (Sh'mot 28:3), "Now speak to all who are wise of
heart, those whom I have filled with wisdom, and they shall make
garments for Aharon and he will be a 'Kohen' before Me."
   
              ************************************

   "And those who were close to him were Karshina, Sheitar, Admata,
Tarshish, Merres, Marsina, Memuchan..." (Esther 1:14)
   The Midrash writes that corresponding to King Achashveirosh's
seven advisors whose names are listed in the above verse were seven
angels who stood before G-d and defended Bnei Yisrael against the
plots of Achashveirosh.  Each angel pleaded with Hashem using words
related to the name of one of the seven advisors. 
   One said, "If Achashveirosh defeats Bnei Yisrael, who will
sacrifice before You one year-old calves?"  ("Par ben shanah" /
"Karshina")
   The second said, "Who will sacrifice before You two doves?" 
(Shtei Torim" / "Sheitar")
   The third said, "Who will build for You an earthen altar?" 
(Mizbach Adama" / "Admata")
   The fourth said, "Who will wear the Bigdei Kehuna which contain
the gem called 'Tarshish'?"
   The fifth said, "Who will stir the blood of the sacrifices?" 
("Memarres" / "Meres")
   The sixth said, "Who will stir the flour offerings?" 
("Memarres" / "Marsina")
   The seventh said, "Who will prepare the altar before You?" 
("Maicheen" / "Memuchan")
   When the angels concluded their pleas, Hashem answered, "Bnei
Yisrael are My sons.  They are My friends.  They are My beloved..." 
   Why, of all of the Mitzvot, did the angels single out these
seven?  What didn't they ask, "Why didn't they ask, "Who will put
on Tefilin?  Who will lift the Lulav?"
   Chazal teach that the day on which the Mishkan was completed was
as happy in G-d's "eyes" as the day on which He created the world. 
When Adam was created, G-d had great expectations for his future. 
Using his G-d given free will, Adam unfortunately "frustrated"
those plans, but mankind was given a second chance when Bnei
Yisrael received the Torah and built the Mishkan.  The day on which
the Tabernacle was dedicated was therefore as auspicious as the
very day on which the world was created.  
   Achashveirosh knew that.  As the Gemara notes, the purpose of
the party described at the beginning of the Megilah was to
celebrate the fact that, according to Achashveirosh's calculations,
the appointed time for the end of the exile had come and gone
without the Bet HaMikdash - successor to the Mishkan - being
rebuilt.  He therefore donned the garments of the Kohen Gadol
(which had been captured in Nevuchadnezar's war on Yerushalayim)
and defiantly celebrated the apparent victory of evil over good. 
[The Talmud explains how he miscalculated the date of Bnei
Yisrael's redemption.]
   The angels said to G-d, "Achashveirosh is celebrating the demise
of the Mishkan and its service.  Haman says You are sleeping.  Tell
us:  Whose plan for the Mishkan will stand - Achashveirosh's or
Yours?"
                      (R' Eliyahu HaKohen, Sefer Midrash Talpiot)

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

   "And you [Moshe] shall command Bnei Yisrael, and they shall
bring to you pure olive oil, [specially] pressed for the [Menorah
of the Mishkan]..."  (Sh'mot 27:20)
   The Talmud (Shabbat 21a) states:  "Those wicks and oils [e.g.
seaweed, cottonseed oil, and others] which the sages said may not
be used for the Shabbat candles, may also not be used in the Bet
HaMikdash."  In his notes to the Talmud, R' Akiva Eiger asks,
"Could these prohibited oils have been used if not for the law
quoted above?  Does not the Torah require 'pure olive oil'?"
   R' Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook answers as follows:  In the
third chapter of Tractate Menachot, the Talmud debates whether or
not the Temple Menorah may be made out of materials other than
gold.  [This was discussed in this year's HaMaayan for Parashat
Miketz.]  The Sages maintain that only gold is permitted, while R'
Yose bar Yehuda ("R.Y.B.Y.") maintains that gold is preferable, but
not required.  The basis of the dispute is the Sinaitic tradition
that any law applying to the Temple that is meant to be mandatory
is written twice in the Torah, but those laws regarding the Bet
HaMikdash that are meant to be followed only "L'Chatchilah"
(ideally), but not "B'di'avad" (after-the-fact) are written only
once.  The sages maintain that since the gold of the Menorah is, in
fact, mentioned twice in the Torah, the Menorah must be made of
gold.  R.Y.B.Y., on the other hand, while agreeing to the rule that
any Temple law mentioned twice in the Torah is mandatory, argues
that the law of the Menorah is an exception.  This is because,
according to R.Y.B.Y., the verses which mention the gold of the
Menorah are needed for another purpose, namely to teach us that "If
the Menorah is made of gold, then it should have all of the
decorative details mentioned in the Torah.  However, if it is not
made of gold, then it need not have all of the details mentioned." 
   The same may be true of the oil of the Menorah, writes R' Kook. 
Based on the principles enunciated above, we may interpret the
above verse to mean that "Only if the oil is from olives need it be
specially crushed for the Menorah.  However, if it is from other
fruits, even less pure oil may be used." 
  (quoted in Tov Ro'ee, p.26; see also Igrot HaRa'ayah, III p.75)
   Note:  The above discussion is necessarily superficial.  Readers
are encouraged to examine the sources cited for a fuller discussion
of the topic.

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

   Last week we presented descriptions of the "Kallah" and
"Metivta", the Talmudic equivalents of the modern Yeshiva.  This
week we examine several other forms of organized Torah study which
could be found in 3rd-11th century Bavel (Iraq).
   The "Pirka" (pl. "Pirkei") was roughly analogous to our "Shabbat
Shuvah" or "Shabbat HaGadol" D'rasha except that it was delivered
every Shabbat and Yom Tov before Mussaf (see the first Rashi on
Berachot 28b).  These sermons were directed towards the masses,
teaching them laws and ethics relevant to the particular occasion. 
   The "Sidra" was, like the "Metivta", a Yeshiva, but one that did
not have a "Rosh Yeshiva" who wielded authority in the same way as
did the head of the Kallah.  (The head of the latter, it will be
recalled, was recognized as the leader of the Sanhedrin and of the
generation, and received Halachic queries from all parts of the
Jewish world.)  It has also been suggested that the Sidra
originated as a gathering to study the weekly Parasha on Shabbat,
and only later expanded to fill a wider educational role.
   "Bnei Tarbitza" was the name given to scholars who studied
informally on their own.  Because they lacked both teachers and
study-partners, their teachings were considered extremely
inaccurate.  According to R' Yitzchak HaLevi (Dorot HaRishonim),
when one Talmudic sage tells another, "Go, repeat that teaching
outside," he means, "The teaching that you have just taught is
incorrect and could only have originated with those who study
outside of the formal Yeshiva structure."  This statement is meant
to emphasize that although all Jews are required to study Torah at
every opportunity, one should ideally have a "Rebbe" (teacher) who
can teach him the Torah as he received it from his own teachers,
rather than relying on his own intellect and logic to fill all of
the gaps in his studies.  This is important because the
authenticity of the Oral Law is guaranteed only if it is carefully
transmitted from teacher to student as it has been since it was
given on Har Sinai.
                     ********************

Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who 
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.

Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet