HaMaayan/The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei Volume V, Number 21 (207) 23 Adar 5751/March 9, 1991 Parashat Parah Parasha Overview The commentators note that there are many differences between G-d's commands regarding the construction of the Mishkan (as described in Parashat Terumah) and the way the construction was actually carried out (as described in this week's combined Parashot, Vayakhel and Pekudei). Most notable among these differences is the fact that despite Hashem's original command that the utensils of the Mishkan - such as the "Aron" (Ark), "Shulchan" (Table), and "Menorah" - be built before the Mishkan itself, Bnei Yisrael in fact did the opposite. Commentators also note that despite the implication found in Parashat Terumah that Moshe himself was to build the Mishkan, in Parashat Ki Tisah we read, "Behold, I [G-d] have called upon Bezalel [to build the Mishkan]." Why did all of these changes occur? R' Yehoshua Heller (Rabbi of Telz and Vilna in mid-19th century) writes that the changes that occurred in the construction of the Mishkan reflect a change that occurred in Bnei Yisrael themselves between the time that the building of the Mishkan was commanded and the time that the construction took place. This change was the making of the Golden Calf and the resulting decline in Bnei Yisrael's spiritual level. R' Heller explains as follows: There are two difference levels in the service of Hashem, one of which is analogous to the period of a couple's engagement, and the other, to their marriage. The period of engagement is a time when love between the couple is first developing. During this period, the future bride and groom perform actions whose purpose is to further the growth of their love for each other. The period of marriage is different, for while the couple's love continues to grow, the husband and wife are already united by their earlier love for each other, and they now serve each other because of that love. So it is in the service of Hashem. On a "beginner's" level, a person does Mitzvot in order to increase his love for G-d, while a at a more advanced level, a person serves Hashem because he already loves Him. When Bnei Yisrael stood at Har Sinai, they achieved the highest level of service of Hashem, corresponding to the higher of the two levels described above. This is known as "The level of Adam before his sin," and is the level we will again attain in the days of Mashiach. Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, and remained on this level, Moshe would have entered Eretz Yisrael with them and he would have built the first - and only - Bet HaMikdash, one which would never have been destroyed. Unfortunately, Bnei Yisrael did sin, and they immediately fell to a lower level of service of G-d. They now had to work their way back up the ladder of service, always hoping to reach, but never quite reaching the level of Adam before his sin. They had to experience again the engagement period, to be "married" again with the future arrival of Mashiach. We continue this service, and its tools are the performance of Mitzvot, the gifts that we - the bride - send to Hashem - the groom - during our engagement period. The Mitzvah to build the Mishkan was originally commanded before the sin of the Golden Calf, and Moshe was to build it, for he could invest it with the "spiritual power" to stand forever, just as Bnei Yisrael were to remain forever on the lofty level that they had achieved. When Bnei Yisrael sinned, however, the fate of the Mishkan (and later the Bet HaMikdash) was sealed for eventual destruction. Now Moshe could not build it, and he was commanded to appoint Bezalel as overseer of the Mishkan's construction. The order of the Mishkan's construction changed as well. The utensils inside the Mishkan - the Aron, the Menorah, and all the others - represent man's innermost desire to serve Hashem, whereas the outer covering (the "Ohel" or "tent") represents the outer distractions which prevent man's innermost feelings from showing. Before the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem commanded that the Mishkan's internal utensils be built first, for on Bnei Yisrael's lofty level, their innermost feelings of love for G-d shone through brightly. After Bnei Yisrael sinned, however, G-d altered the plans, for just as Bnei Yisrael now had to toil to peel away the distractions which separated them from their loved one - Hashem - so Bnei Yisrael had to be separated from the internal utensils of the Mishkan by the walls and roof of the "Ohel Mo'ed". (Ohel Yehoshua: D'rush 1) ************************************ Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi Torah Study in Bavel and Eretz Yisrael The Gemara (Baba Metzia 85a) relates that when R' Zera moved >from Bavel (Babylon) to Eretz Yisrael, he fasted for 100 days, praying that he should forget the Babylonian "Gemara". He did not wish to lose the knowledge that he had amassed, but, says the Gemara, he was afraid that his earlier learning would hamper his studies in the yeshiva of R' Yochanan in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi explains that the study methods employed in Bavel and Eretz Yisrael were very different. Students in Bavel engaged in frequent debates, while in Eretz Yisrael this was not so. Rather, all contributed cooperatively towards the common goal of understanding the subject at hand. Maharsha elaborates on Rashi's comments, noting that the Talmud records many instances of arguments and debates between the sages of Eretz Yisrael. However, their debates were different from the debates of their Babylonian counterparts. The debate of the sages of Eretz Yisrael was directed solely towards clarifying the Halacha under discussion. In Bavel, however, the sages and students engaged in "Pilpul", clever "hair-splitting" whose purpose was not always the ascertain the truth, but rather, to hone the dialectical skills of the debate's participants. While this study method may have value, it does not allow its practitioners to arrive at practical Halachic decisions, and would therefore have prevented R' Zera from participating in the Halacha oriented discussions of the yeshivot of Eretz Yisrael. These differences between the scholars of the two countries are evident in the format and content of their two major works, the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) and the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud). Whereas the former fills 20 volumes of often densely printed pages, the latter occupies only seven volumes whose pages are usually more sparsely printed. [Although there have been suggestions throughout history that part of the Talmud Yerushalmi has been lost, this would not account for the great difference in size between the two Talmuds.] Additionally, the discussion in the Talmud Bavli is often not decisive, but rather consists of sages suggesting possible proofs and others countering with refutations that do not disprove the first point but only show that it is not necessarily true. R' Zvi Yehuda Berlin ("Netziv") writes that the sages of Bavel themselves recognized the inherent shortcomings of their system of learning, and they abandoned it when they needed to decide a practical Halachic question. This explains why we so often find in the Talmud Bavli that the sages of Bavel addressed questions to the sages of Eretz Yisrael. In fact, the former deferred to the latter in nearly all Halachic matters. This explains too the Gemara's statement (Menachot 42) that one who studies in Eretz Yisrael and then moves to Bavel is worth twice the "value" of his Babylonian counterpart. After amassing such knowledge in the yeshivot of Eretz Yisrael, a scholar has more material to support his views in his debates with the scholars of Bavel. (Kidmat HaEmek, ch.1, section 11) Why then do we always follow the view of the Talmud Bavli when it argues with the Talmud Yerushalmi? R' Yehonatan explains that this is because the former, which was completed later, incorporates the views of many of the sages of the latter. (Shitah Mekubetzet, Baba Batra 45) (The Talmud Yerushalmi was completed around the year 350, and the Talmud Bavli around the year 500.) Next week, we begin to examine the work of the "Savoraim" the first generation of post-Talmudic scholars. ******************** 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