Vol 36.22 - Terumah 2 Spanish French Audio Video
Note: There were four sets of Yeriot that covered the Mishkan.
The two sets of joined tapestries will thus be 28 cubits wide and 40 cubits long. The Tabernacle itself is 12 cubits wide, 32 cubits long, and 10 cubits high. Thus, when you spread this cover over the Tabernacle, leaving the front entrance uncovered, its width will cover the 12 cubits of the Tabernacle's width and the top eight cubits of the outside of each side wall. Its length will cover the 32 cubits of the Tabernacle's length and the top eight cubits of the outside of the back wall.
As stated, the Tabernacle itself is 12 cubits wide, 32 cubits long, and 10 cubits high.
Of the 44-cubit length, 32 will cover the Tabernacle's length, two will hang over the front entrance and 10 will cover the back wall completely.
Thus, with regard to the overlapping remainder of the sheets of the goat hair Tent in excess of the tapestries, one extra half sheet shall overhang the entrance of the Tabernacle and the other extra half sheet shall overhang beyond the tapestries covering over the back of the Tabernacle. As for the extra two cubits in the width of this cover, beyond the width of the tapestries, the extra cubit at either end of the length of the sheets of the goat hair Tent shall hang down over the two sides of the lower cover of the Tabernacle, to cover it. Thus, the back of the Tabernacle will be completely covered, while a cubit at the bottom of the sidewalls will remain exposed
1. Regarding the manner of placing the Yeriot on the Mishkan, Rashi, in our Parsha (Ex. 26:5) cites two opinions:
“The (bottom) Yeriot were forty Amot wide when they were joined . . Thirty of them were for the roof of the Mishkan’s interior space lengthwise; one cubit corresponded to the thickness of the tops of the Kerashim/planks on western side and one cubit was needed to cover the thickness of the pillars on the eastern side (Note: The four pillars upon whose hooks the screen was hung, like a curtain)
There remained eight Amot that hung in the back of the Mishkan on the western side, with the bottom two Amot uncovered. I found this in the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot.
However, in Tractate Shabbat (98b) it states: The Yeriot did not cover the eastern pillars, and nine Amot hung in the back of the Mishkan. What is written in this section supports us, (for it states): “Place the Parochet under the Kerasim/Clasps”, and if, in fact, it were as is stated in the Beraita, it would result in the Parochet being drawn back one cubit to the west of the clasps.”
In other words:
The Parochet was at the end of ten Amot of the Kodesh Kedoshim (which is on the west side of the Mishkan).
According to the Beraita, that only eight Amot
(Of the twenty Amot of the width of the first-set of the Yeriot)
covered (the eight Amot of) the Kerashim on the west side,
and another Amah – for the width of the tops of the Kerashim on the west side,
we find that the end of the set of the Yeriot (where the Kerasim/Clasps are) are at the end of the eleventh Amah (from the west side) of the roof of the Mishkan (8, 1, 11 = 20 Amot) and the Parochet (at the end of the tenth Amah) is not under the Kerasim/Clasps.
Whereas according to the view of the Talmud (in Tractate Shabbat), that the nine Amot of the walls of the west side were covered, the Parochet is exactly under the Kerasim/Clasps (9, 1 (the thickness of the top of the Kerashim), 10 = 20)
One must examine this:
It has been explained many times that Rashi, in his commentary on Torah, does not deem to bring, in his commentary, all the opinions of the Sages, for a specific matter. Rather just those that explanation the simple understanding of the verse. In Rashi‘s words: “But, I have come only to give the plain meaning of Scripture and the Aggadah which serves to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits those words”
We find this specifically in our case:
In tractate Shabbat there, it brings a debate regarding the width of the Kerashim/planks.
There is a great ramification between these views, regarding the manner of placing the Yeriot of top of the Mishkan, both in their length as well as their width (as is explained, in detail in the section of the Talmud there)
However, this view is not mentioned, at all, in Rashi. For it does not follow Pshat at all.
According to this, one must examine the matter:
For Rashi expressly writes that the verse in our Parsha supports the view of the Talmud. Therefore, why does he cite the view of the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot, at all?
(And even though the commentators answer that the verse states, “Place the Parochet under the Kerasim/Clasps”, even according to the view of the Beraita. Nevertheless, Rashi words are seemingly clear, that the verse supports the view of the Talmud. One must therefore say that the answers that the commentators offer, are forced. If so, why does he need to cite the view of the Beraita, at all?)
2. Moreover, one must examine:
Further on, regarding the Yeriot of goat-hair, which were longer than the lower Yeriot, by one tapestry-sheet which equals four Amot, it states:
“And the overlapping remainder in the Yeriot of the tent, half of the extra curtain shall hang over the rear of the Mishkan.”
“And the overlapping remainder . . in the Yeriot of the tent: They exceeded the bottom ones (Yeriot) by half a sheet on the western side, since half of the extra eleventh sheet was folded opposite the front of the tent. (In other words, towards the entrance of the Mishkan on the eastern side). Hence, there remained two Amot, - half its width - in excess of the width of the bottom (Yeriot). To cover the (bottom) two Amot of the exposed Kerashim (that were not covered by the bottom Yeriot).
Here, Rashi writes plainly like the view of the Beraita, that the two Amot were exposed. For according to the view of the Talmud (in Tractate Shabbat) it states, “Nine Amot (of the bottom Yeriot) hung over the Mishkan”. Therefore, just one Amah of the Kerashim was exposed.
(Even in Rashi’s comment in the beginning of the matter, on the verse,
"And you shall fold the sixth curtain before the front of the tent.”
Rashi writes plainly like the view of the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot:
(That the two Amot were hanging over the screen on the eastern side)
Seemingly, refers just to the view of the Beraita.
For according to the view of the Talmud that, “The bottom (Yeriot) did not cover the eastern pillars”,
the “half-width” (of the sixth sheet) did not hang over “the screen on the eastern side of the Mishkan, before the entrance”.
For one Amah of it (the sixth sheet) covered the tops of the eastern pillars (that were not covered by the bottom Yeriot). Therefore, there only remained one Amah that hung on the screen.
One must greatly examine this:
After Rashi expressly writes that the verse supports the view of the Talmud, how can he plainly maintain afterward like the view of the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot?!
The R”om (R’ Eliyahu Mizrachi) writes,
“Rashi, z”l, maintains that the Beraita is paramount and he continues his explanation of the verses based on the Beraita, even where the verse stands against it”.
Seemingly, his words are puzzling. For how can one possibly say that Rashi, who is only coming to explain the simple understanding of the verse, should maintain that the Beraita is paramount “even where the verse stands against it”?
3. Therefore, it appears - in accordance with the general rules of Rashi (כללי רש"י) that have been explained many times – that the reason that Rashi cites the view of the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot, and even before that of the view of the Talmud, is because this is the primary explanation according to the simple understanding of the verse. On the contrary, the simple reasoning (הסברא הפשוטה) obligates just this explanation (for many reasons, as will be explained in Par. 4).
Moreover, the reason that forces Rashi to also cite the explanation of the Talmud is just due to the support from the verse, “Place the Parochet under the Kerasim/Clasps”
This itself, the reason that Rashi cites the support to the explanation of the Talmud, even though in most of the places, his manner is to explain Scripture without proofs and validations to his comment (or the difficulty that he is coming to resolve). For in our case, seemingly, there is no place for this explanation. Therefore, he needs to explain why he cites it.
One could say that this is also the reason for Rashi’s precise wording:
“What is written in this section supports us” (מסייענו)
and does not state “proves it” (מוכיח) (and so forth) like his wording (in many places) when his intent is to bring a (complete) proof to his comment . For the reasons for the first explanation are much stronger than this support
(And especially since one could say, that the Tanna of the Beraita maintains that it is fitting to say that the Parochet is “under the Kerasim/Clasps” even if they are distanced from them (משוכה מהם) by one Amah. For compared to the length of thirty Amot (of the Mishkan), even if they would be under the Kerasim/Clasps, at a distance of one Amah, is still called “underneath them”).
But this is just Rashi’s reasoning who cites it as a second explanation
4. The explanation of the matter is:
Regarding the manner of placing the Yeriot on top of the width of the Mishkan, Rashi writes here:
“The Yeriot were twenty-eight (Amot) long . . The (interior) width of the Mishkan from north to south was ten Amot. . The curtains were placed so that their length was across the width of the Mishkan, ten of their middle Amot (served) as the roof of the space of the (interior) width of the Mishkan. Another Amah, on each side, covered the thickness of the tops of the Kerashim/planks, whose width was an Amah thick. This left sixteen Amot: eight on the northern side and eight on the southern side, covering the height of the Kerashim, which were ten Amot high. Consequently, the bottom two Amot (of the Kerashim) were exposed”.
According to this, it is understood why Rashi brings (in continuation to this) the view of the Beraita of Forty-Nine Middot. For even the width of the Yeriot was placed on the Mishkan in a manner that it covered eight Amot of the Kerashim on the west side (as he states), “the bottom two Amot were exposed“.
According to this, we find that the bottom edge of the Yeriot were equal, on all three sides.
(Note: In other words, on all three sides, the Yeriot hung down only eight Amot, leaving the bottom two Amot exposed).
Whereas according to the view of the Talmud:
(And although the goat-hair Yeriot did not cover the Kerashim on all sides equally,
Therefore, it just covered one Amah (“of the two Amot (of the Kerashim) that remained exposed”)
For, “The bottom Amah of the Kerash/plank, which the curtain did not cover, was the Amah that was inserted into the opening of the socket, for the sockets/Adonim were a cubit deep“
One could differentiate, that since the Kodesh HaKadoshim was on the west side, therefore it was necessary to cover the entire wall on this side, due to honor of the Shechinah.
(However, this is not a reason to change the measurement of the bottom Yeriot, that on the west side it should cover nine Amot, since in any event it would not cover the entire ten Amot of the (height of the) Kerashim. Moreover, they were not visible. – Therefore, why would they not be equal to the Yeriot of the two sides?))
5. According to this, that Rashi accepts the explanation of the Beraita as the first explanation and paramount, one could also explain why, in his comment on the verse (regarding the goat-hair Yeriot),
“And the overlapping remainder . . half of the extra curtain shall hang over the rear of the Mishkan.”
Rashi just comments like the explanation of the Beraita (as aforementioned Par 2). For from these verses, there is another strong proof to the explanation of the Beraita:
According to the Talmud, that the bottom Yeriot covered nine Amot of the Kerashim on the west side, we find that the “half sheet that overhangs”
(which are two Amot)
that must be “on the rear of the Mishkan”
(to cover what remained exposed from the bottom Yeriot)
contained one Amah from it that covered the tenth Amot of the Kerashim -and the second Amah – laid on the ground!
(This is as is explained in tractate Shabbat there that this sheet “dragged on the ground” (נגררת בארץ). As it cites there, “the school of R’ Yishmael taught: To what is the Mishkan similar? It is similar to a woman walking in the marketplace with her skirts following after her.”
However, according to Pshat, it is difficult to say that the Yeriot of the Mishkan were dragging on the ground. For this is the opposite of honor.
This is especially so, since Rashi brings the reason for the overlap of the goat-hair Yeriot (on the north and south side) in the verse, “It shall hang over the sides of the Mishkan on each side to cover it.”:
“The Torah thereby teaches a lesson in propriety: that a person should be protective of that which is beautiful”.
—For although this (plainly) refers to the bottom Yeriot, that since they were beautiful, they protected them to cover them (with the goat-hair Yeriot). Nevertheless, it is understood that that same conduct of “Derech Eretz/ propriety” also obligates us to be careful with the goat-hair Yeriot (which were also dear) and not to degrade them by having them drag on the ground.
Therefore, Rashi explains the verse just according to the explanation of the Beraita, that “half of the excess Yeriot” covered “two Amot that of the exposed Kerashim”. For according to this they did not drag on the ground, at all
6. One could say that the reasoning of the Talmud – that the goat-hair Yeriot dragged on the ground, according to Pnimiyut, is:
The inner difference between the ten lower Yeriot and the eleven goat-hair Yeriot is:
Holiness is divided into ten levels (the Ten Sefirot). Whereas, in the opposing forces (בלעו"ז) there are “eleven crowns of impurity” (י"א כתרין דמסאבותא - the faculties of Klippah, called “crowns” in Kabbalistic terminology)
דבקדושה המספר הוא עשר דוקא ולא תשע ולא י"א מפני שבקדושה האור דע"ס מתייחד ביחוד גמור עם הכלים כו', משא"כ בסט"א אין הקדש מתערב עם החול רק עומד בבחי' מקיף ונחשב בפ"ע ע"כ הן מספר י"א כו'. (http://www.chabadlibrary.org/books/maharshab/terav/1/53/index.htm)
The bottom Yeriot allude to the Transcendental Light (Or Makif) that surrounds all the ten levels of holiness. Therefore, their number is ten.
Whereas, the upper Yeriot allude to a higher level of Or Makif, which has the power to refine even the opposing forces, “Klippah”. As it states in Torah Or: “So that its peel (Kelipah) guards the fruit and it does not oppose the fruit”. Therefore, their number is eleven.
This is also the allusion to that which the goat-hair Yeriot dragged on the ground, which fits with their inner aspect, to refine even the worldly coarseness (הארציות) so that, even it, is imbued with the holy light.
MSichas Shabbat Parshat Terumah 5741
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|