Vayakhel - The Merit of the Women

In Parshas Vayakhel we read of the contributions that were brought by the Jewish people for the building of the Mishkan (the Tabernacle). The Torah (Exodus 35:22) writes:

ויבאו האנשים על הנשים כל  נדיב לב הביאו חח ונזם וטבעת וכומז כל כלי זהב וכו'

And the men came with the women, every generous person; they brought bracelets, nose-rings, rings, and and body ornaments, every kind of golden item....

Many commentaries note the phrasing, "על הנשים" - literally, "upon the women" - rather than the more conventional "עם הנשים" - "with the women." Although, from a pshat (basic) perspective, this usage is justifiable (as pointed out by the ibn Ezra), a number of commentaries see deeper meaning in the use of this phrasing. The Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachya see this phrasing as indicating that the women came first with their donations, and the men came later and found the women already there. Rabbeinu Bachya sees in this an indication of the great merit of the Jewish women, who had refused to donate their jewelry for the making of the golden calf, but were eager to donate their jewelry for the mishkan.

Rabbeinu Bachya goes on to say in the name of the Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer that the women were rewarded with the privilege of celebrating the roshei chadashim (the new months) more than the men, for they donated to the mishkan which was erected on a rosh chodesh. (A number of authorities make the same statement.)

There is a problem, however, in that when the Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer discusses the reward of the women, it never mentions the fact that they donated to the mishkan. The Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer says only that they were rewarded for their refusal to donate to the golden calf. So what is Rabbeinu Bachya's justification in connecting the reward of celebrating the roshei chadashim to the women's donations to the mishkan? On the other hand, if we don't accept this connection, the we have no explanation for why the celebration of rosh chodesh would be the appropriate reward for the women refusing to donate to the golden calf.

The answer, it would seem, is that, although the primary reason for the reward for the women was their refusal to donate to the golden calf, this alone was not sufficient. After all, maybe the reason the women refused to donate their jewelry was simply because they didn't want to give up their jewelry! However, the fact that the women gladly donated their jewelry for the construction of the mishkan, so much so that they were there even before the men, clearly demonstrated that they were perfectly willing to give up their jewlery for a higher purpose, and that their refusal to donate to the golden calf was motivated by their recognition that the making of the golden calf was not a meritorious deed.

It was only after they demonstrated their enthusiasm to donate for a good cause that their refusal to donate for a bad cause became truly meritorious. Thus, the final act of donating to the mishkan was what actually brought them the reward of celebration of the rashei chadashim.

This idea can be relevant in many areas. For all of us, certain aspects of religious observance come more easily than others. When we demonstrate our commitment to serving God in those areas that we find less appealing and less comfortable, this gives greater meaning to those aspects of observance that come more easily.

The Chida

An example of this can be found with regard to the requirement to eat three meals every Shabbos. The Chida (R' Chaim Yosef Dovid Azulai, d.1806) writes (מחזיק ברכה או"ח רצ"א ס"א) that it is very important to eat the third meal, for "it is through this meal that the honor of Shabbos is recognized", for people regularly eat one meal at night and one by day, and it is only by eating this third meal that it is clear that the first two meals were also eaten for the honor of Shabbos. (Some argue that this is the reason the third meal is colloquially known as shalosh seudos - literally, "three meals" (rather than the more accurate seudah shlishis - "third meal") for it is by eating the third meal that we give meaning to all three of the Shabbos meals.

---

Teruma - You Only Have What You Give

With Parshas Teruma, the Torah begins to discuss the the construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). This is the main topic of the remainder of the book of Exodus. The parsha opens with God telling Moses to instruct the people to donate materials for the Mishkan (Exodus 25:1-2):

וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר: דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי:

And God spoke to Moses, saying: "Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall take to Me a portion; from every man whose heart is willing you shall take My portion."

Many commentaries note the rather odd phrasing of "ויקחו לי" - literally, "and they shall take to Me" - rather than the more conventional, "ויתנו לי" - "and they shall give to Me" - and they provide a variety of explanations. Many see in this phrasing an allusion to the idea that, ultimately, the only true acquisitions that we possess are the good deeds that we perform in our lives.

Thus, when the Torah speaks of the Jewish people donating their material wealth to God's service, does not say,  "ויתנו" - "and they shall give to Me," for we cannot truly give anything to God, for both we and our possessions are already in His possession, as the verse states, "The earth and that which fills it is God's; the world, and they who dwell in it." (Psalms 24:1) Instead the Torah uses the phrase,  "ויקחו" - "and they shall take" - alluding to the idea that it is only by giving to God that we truly "acquire" for ourselves.

The Chasam Sofer

The Chasam Sofer (R' Moshe Sofer, d.1839) expands further on this idea, noting that if everything already belongs to God, so that we are not truly donating anything to Him in the first place, then there is no merit inherent in the donation in of itself. Rather, the merit of the donation is rooted in our attitude towards the donation. When we give of our possessions to God, the only actual share we have in the donation is the joy and good-will that we feel in the donation. This is why the verse states, "from every man whose heart is willing you shall take My portion" - for it is the willing heart that is the true gift to God.

As should be self-evident, this principle applies to far more than the donation of material wealth. In reality, everything we have, including our very lives and strength, belongs to God. In every mitzva, the true merit is in the attitude with which we perform the mitzva. In his commentary on Psalms (חומת אנ"ך, תהלים ק:ב), the Chida (R' Chaim Yosef David Azulay, d.1807) makes an analogy to the relationship between a slave and his master. While a good and kind master will certainly reward his slaves for obedient service, strictly speaking he is under no obligation to do so. As such, any such reward is fundamentally an unearned gift. Similarly, we cannot truly speak of earning reward for simple obedience to God, because everything we do, we do with that which He has given us. The only truly earned reward is the reward for serving God with joy and love.

The Chida writes that this is the meaning of the verse, "Serve God with happiness; come before Him with singing." (Psalms 100:2) Only by serving God with joy can we merit to ultimately come before Him, not as beggars asking for a handout or slaves asking for a gift, but as self-respecting beings that have an actual claim to their earned reward.

---

"Jerusalem has Sinned a Sin..." (Eicha 1:8)

In Megilas Eicha (the Book of Lamentations) we read (1:8):

חטא חטאה ירושלים על כן לנידה היתה וכו'

"Jerusalem has sinned a sin, therefore she has become a wanderer..."

(The translation of נידה as "wanderer" follows Rashi and Targum. Homiletically, it can also be understood as referring to a "niddah" - a menstruant woman, who is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes ritual purification.)

Many commentaries note the repetitious language of the opening words in the verse, "חטא חטאה ירושלים" - "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" - and a wide range of homiletic interpretations are given for this language.

The Chida

The Chida (Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai, d.1806), in his commentary Nachal Eshkol, gives nine interesting and illuminating explanations for the repetitious language of the verse. In most of these commentaries (the exceptions being the last two), the Chida interprets the double language either as indicating a "double sin", or as indicating that, despite some argument to minimize their guilt, nevertheless, their act was indeed a sin. It should be noted that some of explanations rely on rather obscure Kabbalistic concepts:

1. While, with regard to most sins, one is only held liable for the actual sinful act, with regard to the sin of idolatry one is held liable even for the thought of sin. Thus, when the Jewish people committed the sin of idolatry, they were held liable for a "double sin" - a sin of thought and a sin of deed.
2. The guilt of one who commits a crime in the palace of the king is far greater than that of one who commits a crime outside the immediate presence of the king. Jerusalem is the "palace of the king", and a sin committed within Jerusalem carries a double burden of guilt.
3. The Shechina (Divine Presence) rests in Jerusalem, and the land itself is holy. These factors should have a powerful influence on us to help us avoid sin and to serve God properly. To sin in such a environment therefore carries a double portion of guilt.
4. Rav Chaim Vital (d.1620) taught that saying that one does not wish to give tzedaka (charity) is considered a sinful act. Thus, the Jewish people indeed sinned by saying that they did not want to give tzedaka. (The Chida's intent here seems to be as follows. One of the sins that led to the churban (destruction) was the failure to give charity (Targum on Eicha 1:3). However, in of itself, the failure to give tzedaka is simply a failure to fulfill a positive obligation and should not be sufficient to bring about such a punishment. However, from Rav Chaim Vital we learn that if one explicitly states that he does not wish to give charity, this is considered a sinful act akin to idolatry. Thus, they indeed actively "sinned a sin.")
5. The Sages comment on this verse (Eicha Rabba 1:35):

   חטא חטאה ירושלים - אומות העולם אינן חוטאים? אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו 

   "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" - [And] the [other] nations of the word don't sin? Rather, even though they sin, it is insignificant, whereas [when the people of] Israel sin, they are punished.

   What is the justice in this? Why are the sins of the Jewish people considered so much worse than the sins of the nations? The answer is because God took us out of Egypt, gave us His Torah, performed great signs and wonders for us, and gave us the land of Israel, all for the purpose that we should obey His laws. Thus, the Jewish people are held to a higher standard and their sins, even those that would be of no significance with regard to the other nations, are indeed sins.
6. Alternatively, we can understand this medrash based upon a concept found in the work Chesed L'Avraham (a major Kabbalistic work written by the Chida's ancestor, Rav Avraham Azulai, d.1643) that, from the generation of the dispersal (resulting from the Tower of Babel), the sins of the non-Jewish nations only damage the "prince" (i.e. angel) assigned to that nation, whereas the sins of the Jewish people cause damage to the highest "attributes." Thus, the sins of Jewish people bear of double portion of guilt. At the same time, however, the fact that the sins of the Jewish people cause damage on such a high level also means that they can be rectified (the Chida does not explain exactly why this is so). Thus, "Jerusalem has sinned a sin" (i.e. the sins of the Jewish people are considered significant) "therefore she has become a niddah" - a menstruant woman - whose separation from her husband is temporary.
7. If a person sins unintentionally twice, it is no longer considered an unintentional sin. (The Chida states that we learn this from the second perek of Beitza, presumably referring to Beitza 16b, where we learn that one who twice forgets to make an eruv tavshilin is considered a poshea (negligent) and cannot rely on the eruv of the local rabbi.) Thus, the verse says that even if Jerusalem sinned unintentionally, because of repetition the unintentional sin bore the full weight of guilt of an intentional sin; it was indeed a sin.
8. The prophet Micah (4:6) said about the time of redemption:

   ביום ההוא נאום ה' אספה הצלעה והנדחה אקבצה ואשר הרעותי. 

   "On that day, says God, I will bring in the lame one, and the one who was driven away I shall gather, and the one I have harmed.

   On this verse the Sages comment (Shemos Rabba 46:4), מהו 'אשר הרעותי'? זה יצר הרע - "What is the meaning of, 'the one I have harmed'? [What harm does this refer to?] This refers to the yetzer hara - the evil inclination." God placed the yetzer hara within every human being to tempt him to sin. Thus, so to speak, on a certain level, God acknowledges that the sin of Jerusalem is His "fault". Thus, we can read the verse, "חטא" - "Sin," i.e. the yetzer hara (the term חטא can be understood to refer to the yetzer hara, as we see in Genesis 4:7), "חטאה ירושלים" - "caused Jerusalem to sin." This reduces their guilt,  "therefore she has become a niddah" and will be purified and return to her Husband.
9. The intentional sins of a צבור - community - are considered as unintentional. (כמ"ש הרב כתנות אור פרשת נצבים) Thus, the sins of Jerusalem are to be considered unintentional sins. (While the term  "חטא" is a generic term for sin, in some contexts - such as when used in combination with other terms for sin - it can have the specific connotation of unintentional sin. In this commentary, the Chida apparently interprets the double language to indicate an emphasis on the specific language of  "חטא" with its connotation of unintentional sin.) Thus the verse says, "Jerusalem has sinned an unintentional sin, therefore she has become a niddah" and will be purified and return to her Husband.

---