(For the riddles, please see back page)
- The Yerushalmi in Berachos (4:3) gives an alternative name to this week’s parsha and calls it פרשת משכן שני, the Parsha of the second Mishkan. The Pnei Moshe explains that the reason for this is because the opening pasuk in this week’s parsha mentions the word Mishkan twice, one after the other when it says:אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות. Since the pasuk mentions the word משכן twice, the parsha is called פרשת משכן שני. The Ridbaz and the Mekor Boruch offer a different explanation. They learn that since in this week’s parsha we learn all about the building and making of the Mishkan a second time, even though we learnt everything already in Parsha Terumah, therefore, it is called פרשת משכן שני, as it is the second parsha which details everything about the Mishkan.
- The Gemara in Sanhedrin (69b) asks this question and says:וכי עבד בצלאל משכן בר כמה הוי בר תליסר דכתיב איש איש ממלאכתו אשר המה עושים – “When Betzalel made the Mishkan how old was he? Thirteen, as it says, ‘each man, from the job that he did’.
The Rema MiFano in his sefer Me’ah Keshita (siman 70) adds, that on the day Betzalel started to build the Mishkan he turned thirteen.
The Alshich HaKadosh (Vayakhel 36:31) offers a different opinion. He learns that Betzalel was eight years old when he built the Mishkan.
From the Alshich it seems that even a young child under bar mitzvah can fulfil the mitzvah and is suitable for building the Mishkan. This is clear from the Gemara in Shabbos (119b) which teaches: אין מבטלין תינוקת של בית רבן אפילו לבנין בית המקדש – “We don’t interrupt teaching Torah to young children, even at a time when they would potentially go and build the Beis HaMikdosh.” We see that young children have a mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdosh, it’s just that there learning comes first.
[However, we could refute this proof and learn that the rebbeim shouldn’t interrupt teaching young children Torah in order to go and build the Beis HaMikdosh, however, for the children themselves there is no mitzvah.]
- R’ Izele of Volozhin (in the sefer Peh Kadosh) brings that he heard from the Gaon of Volozhin, that in regard to all the other keilim, if they became impure, they could be immersed in a large mikveh outside the Mishkan, therefore, there is no proof to say they weren’t made of one part. However, when it came to the shulchan, the only time it could be immersed was on Shabbos between the taking off the old lechem hapanim, and the replacement of the new ones. Since the only time it could be immersed was on Shabbos, there would have been an issur of hotza’ah to carry it out of the Mishkan, therefore, it must that it was immersed inside the Mishkan. However, the mikveh in the Mishkan was only one amah deep, therefore, we have proof that the shulchan was made of parts.
- R’ Dovid Soloveitchik zt”l explains based on the Rambam (Hilchos Kli HaMikdosh 8:12). The Rambam’s opinion is, that by a regular Kohen it is forbidden to wear the bigdei kehunah except when doing the avodah, however, as soon as he finishes the avodah the bigdei kehunah must be removed. By the Kohen Gadol, however, he may wear his special garments both during and after the avodah. With this we can understand the pasuk: When talking about Aharon’s sons who were regular Kohanim the pasuk adds, לכהן, as they were only allowed to wear their bigdei kehunah when acting as Kohanim, i.e. when doing avodah. However, Aharon who was the Kohen Gadol was allowed to wear the special clothes constantly, both during and after the avodah, therefore, it doesn’t mention לכהן. As he wasn’t limited to only wearing the special clothes during the avodah.
- R’ Chaim Kanievsky (Tama Dekra) writes: It is true that Moshe never washed himself from it, however, the pasuk is coming to teach us the amount of water that needs to be in the kiyor, like we learn in Zevochim (21b) that the kiyor had to contain enough water for four Kohanim. The pasuk is coming to say that there needs to be enough water to wash Moshe, Aharon and his two sons. However, in reality Moshe never washed himself from it.