Bible studies

“Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moshe’s father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moshe,
and for Yisrael His people, how God brought Yisrael out of Egypt.”

‘Before delving into our passage’s narrative, it is important to determine where it fits into the broader
chronology scheme. When did Yitro arrive on the scene and advise Moshe to set up a multi-tiered
court system? Textual sequence indicates that Yitro arrived before the Jews received the Torah. Still,
some posit that it was afterward which might better explain the need for relieving the overtaxed
Judge Moshe of some of his dockets. Talmudic sages are split on this issue.

Medieval-era Torah commentators vie to provide evidence for one view or the other.

Shemot vol. I: Sinai Rules page 349

“And God spoke to Moshe saying. When you take the sum of the
Children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every
man a ransom for his soul unto God, when you number them, that there
be no plague among them, when you number them.”

Our section speaks about a census for soldiers. The count is associated with a “ransom”, in efforts to
ward off pestilence. The means to tally the warriors features a silver coin collection, called machtzit
ha’shekel. After all the coins were counted, then the men’s number was duly ascertained.

Abarbanel asks: Why does the Torah demand this roundabout method? A more straightforward way would have been to simply count heads and thereby short circuit the coin count.

Answering that question, actually, pits Abarbanel against all other classic Bible commentators, including
Rashi and the Ramban. According to the commentators, head counts are prohibited by the Torah, as the
act invites the wrath of the evil eye. They are incorrect. While the Bible does record the disastrous
effects of the evil eye in King David’s time, that discussion is for a different time.

Was the machtzit ha’shekel brought here as subterfuge, a tricky way to forestall pestilence? Hardly. Here
is why.

One has to do with God’s command at present. He did not call for a census by coin collection, or for that
matter, by any other object. When God finds something desirable – He lets people know by issuing a
command. The Maker does not mince His words.

Two, if counting by object represents the preferred methodology for successive times and generations
and if it is considered a positive commandment, incumbent upon the Jews (to use coins or other means),
as well as a negative precept (not to perform headcounts), we need to answer why the sages who list
the Torah’s six hundred thirteen mitzvot do not include them in their count?

Three, how can anyone assert that the Jews were not counted, when the Torah writes explicitly: “This
they shall give, every one who passes among them are numbered.” The words speak for themselves –
this is the Biblical way to describe body counting.

More reasons could be supplied, but these suffice. Let us share Abarbanel’s interpretation, in shorthand,
of our section’s lead verses to count Hebrews.

In the Torah, context matters. Six successive paragraphs pertain to the building and funding of the
Tabernacle. Apropos, the Creator foresaw that the Jews would donate small quantities of silver to the
holy enterprise. For a simple reason. International currency during those years centered on silver, the
machtzit ha’shekel being the common currency.

We add some backstory to the forty-year desert march. The encampment regularly enjoyed visits from
traveling Gentile merchants hawking, well, just about everything. When it came to funding the
Tabernacle, Jews were quite generous. Generous with their gold. Generous with their copper. Generous
with their valuables. Nearly all their valuables.

Silver proved the exception. Jews did not part with silver, because it enabled them to buy things from
traveling salesmen. Those merchants only accepted silver as payment for goods. Now we can better
understand our section.

After the Torah dedicated paragraph after paragraph to the building and funding of the Tabernacle, it
segued into our section, beginning with taking a census of the men. “When you take the sum of the
Children of Israel…” The Tabernacle included many silver vessels, but silver donations were scant, for the
reason stated above.

God came with a fix. He had Moshe take a census whereby each counted man would donate a machtzit
ha’shekel. This would provide the Hebrew leader with vital information about his available fighting
forces, a requirement every military leader finds indispensable. After all, Moshe believed the Jewish
incursion into Canaan was imminent. Knowing his troops numbers made perfect sense, something every
general ascertains prior to war.

In closing, let us demonstrate how God aligned disparate goals. “And God spoke to Moshe saying. When
you take the sum of the Children of Israel”, in the main, had little to do with warding off the evil eye.
Mustering up troops is fully justified, as suggested. God observed that the Mishkan was in sore need of
silver, to manufacture certain, sacred vessels. Alignment occurred when the Creator offered sound
counsel to Moshe, bidding him to collect much silver.

Separately, Moshe sought to count the troops as a means of preparing an offensive to take Canaan.
Headcounts court danger, in the form of the evil eye (Read: a count or sum reaches large proportions).
The Maker provided an antidote. He directed Moshe to order the fighting corps to bring “a ransom for
his soul unto God.”

Abarbanel proposes that the silver was tzedakah (charity). He further holds that a direct headcount took place. As
for the threat posed by a direct tally, charity served as a life preserver. Each man safeguarded his life
from the evil eye on the merit of the machtzit ha’shekel he donated to the Mishkan.

“And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.”

Don Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) asks on this Torah section of Terumah: Why did God command the
Hebrews to build a sanctuary? As it says: “That I may dwell among them?” One might deduce that the
Maker has physical properties and that a sanctuary can fully contain Him.

Preposterous. Hashem is non-corporeal. Thus, no chamber – no matter how high and spacious – can
accommodate Him. Yeshayahu pegged it: “The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the place that may be My resting place?”
Wise Shlomoh, the builder of the First Jewish Temple, props the prophet’s proclamation: “Behold,
heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this house that I have built!”
Does our verse in the first aliyah of Parashat Terumuah challenge the words of the prophet and wise
king?

It should be plain. The Almighty’s command to build the Tabernacle or Mishkan and its vessels had to do
with His desire to tightly interweave His holiness and holy presence or Shechinah with the Chosen
People. Of no consequence was the fact that this intimate relationship commenced between man and
God in a desert wasteland (and not lusher or more picturesque environs).

What mattered most was the goal it accomplished. Providence coddled God’s nation, in exchange of
their keeping the divine Torah. A marriage made in heaven. Never would His people contemplate the
fundamentally false, but near-ubiquitous, premise that the Creator abandoned earth. Nor would they
adopt the attitudes of the Gentiles, one based on the assumption that God retired to the heavens
above, remote from man. Moreover, the Jews would repel heresy built upon a denial of divine
providence interfacing with man. Such skewed philosophy leads to bitter consequences, namely, a
mindset that precludes the Maker from paying man back according to his evil deeds and ways.

On this topic of erroneous, theological assumptions, let us elaborate. Gentile thinkers posit that it is not
possible to attain in-depth understanding of the world, other than by sense perception or other physical
stimuli. Since God is non-corporeal, these theologians surmise, He does not tune into man’s daily doings.
Nor does He apply providence to people. Incorrectly, they believe that the Creator sits upon high, aloof
from man.

The Maker does not abide such false teachings. For a moment. In efforts to redress such misinformation
from among the Jewish ranks, God commands: “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell
among them.” The verse conveys that the Almighty Himself takes up residence amongst the Jews. This is
a religious tenet and imperative. The Creator resides in their midst. Divine providence is the vehicle or
manifestation of faith.

We return to an earlier reference to a verse in Yeshayahu, making better sense of it: “The heaven is My
throne and the earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the
place that may be My resting place?”

Unequivocally, the Creator has zero need for a Temple or Tabernacle. In the very next verse in
Yeshayahu, we read: “For all these things has My hand made.” Why, then, did God command the Jews
to build the Mishkan? The answer resounds unmistakably: to etch within the Jews’ psyche the principle
of divine providence, as per Yeshayahu: “But on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a
contrite spirit, and trembles at My word.” This is precisely what wise Shlomoh meant in his prayer, on
the solemn occasion at the dedication of the Holy Temple.

“And you shall command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto you
pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. In
the Tent of Meeting…Aharon and his sons shall set it in order, to burn
from evening to morning before God…”

Isaac Abravanel contends that it is curious for our section to start with a divine command regarding the
priests arranging the lights of the Tabernacle’s menorah. Yet, at present, such a commandment is out of
place. Better would have been to insert this mitzvah after we read about building the Tabernacle and
heard about the placement of the menorah (plus the other holy vessels). Granted, the menorah
directive relates to the priests, still and all, at this point in the Torah, they had not even been duly
designated (It occurs in the next verse.). If so, Abravanel wonders why verse two of our section already
tells Kohanim how to handle the menorah. In short, the instruction appears premature.

Abravanel poses another question, this time not about the content of the first verse, but rather about its
style. Phrasing seems off: “And you shall command” or ve’ata tetzaveh. The object of Moshe’s request
is the Jewish people. But, preferable would have been the imperative: “Command Aharon” or tzav et
Aharon or even “Command the Children of Israel” or tzav et bnei Yisrael. After all, and on this very
commandment, the imperative is used in Sefer Vayikra, where it reads: “Command the Children of
Israel.”

The Ramban, another classic Bible commentator, attempts to provide an answer to our first question.
He learns that the particular phrasing conveys that Moshe should not delegate this commandment to
others; it is incumbent upon him to do. For the Ramban’s approach to hold water, really, the Torah
should have written: “And you command” or veatah tzaveh, similar to an upcoming verse that does use
that grammatical construct: “And you bring forth” or ve’atah hakrev and not what we have above:
ve’ata tetzaveh.

Indeed, Biblical grammar matters. From our section’s lead verses, it does not appear that the Torah here
is issuing a divine imperative about the lighting oil. Nor do they represent a pressing message to light the
menorah.

Here is Abravanel’s answer to both questions. Consider the big picture of this section, with the first two
verses setting the scene for what ensues: priestly garb. That is, the Torah intends to launch a broader
discussion into the subject of holy garments that priests must don when officiating in the Mishkan. Thus,
the Maker tells Moshe: “And you shall command…” When? Sometime in the future you shall command
your brethren to take pure olive oil. Moreover, in the Tent of Assembly, outside of the partition covering
the Testimony, Aharon and his sons shall arrange the lamp in the evening until the next morning, before
the Creator – an everlasting edict. Exclusively, only priests or Kohanim may attend to this service. It
devolves upon Moshe to summon Aharon his brother, as well as Aharon’s sons to officiate before the
One Above.

Notice how our section pivots from its preface (menorah) to the main thrust (priestly garb). It would be
patently gauche for Kohanim to perform sacred service while wearing ordinary clothing. Given this
solemn requirement to “dress the part”, it befits Moshe to occupy himself with proper, priestly attire, as
per the balance of this section.

Precisely because sacred garments are of paramount importance, the Torah, at present, is not coming to
request the lighting of the menorah. Rather, the chief thing here is to put together respectable garments
for the Kohanim. So, when they enter the sanctuary to attend to the menorah (and other Tabernacle
activities), they dress respectfully.

Now, since Aharon and his sons will be entering the Sanctuary night and day before the Almighty to light
the menorah, they shall not make spectacles of themselves by violating the holy compound’s dress
code. Hence, our section alludes to one of the priests’ Mishkan tasks. In effect, the Torah establishes a
timeline (sometime down the road…) through a grammatical nuance before beginning in earnest, “And
you shall command”, but not the more time critical tone of “Command the Children of Israel” – which
implies posthaste.

Parashat Tzav, First Aliyah, based on Abravanel’s World of Torahby Zev Bar Eitan

Bible Studies with Don Isaac Abarbanel and the Ramban. Sacrifices in the Tabernacle: Sin offerings, guilt
offerings, and peace offerings. Abarbanel asks: Does God even want sacrifices? What does the Torah’s
sequence of the offerings teach about God?

“And God spoke to Moses saying. Command Aaron and his sons saying,
this is the law of the burnt offering…”

Don Isaac Abarbanel asks what appears to be a question of style, better of an inconsistency of style.
Regarding the sequence of the Tabernacle’s sacrifices, he makes a simple observation. Earlier in
Leviticus, where the subject of offerings is broached, the section pertaining to peace offerings is
followed by sin offerings, and then guilt offerings. Yet, here in our section, verses begin with sin and guilt
offerings prior to moving on to peace offerings. Why?

Here is Abarbanel’s answer. Early in Leviticus, God says to Moshe: “Speak to the Children of Israel.” That
section discusses the divine commandment to bring sacrifices. And the Hebrews complied, bringing their
offerings. But here something else is going on. “Command Aaron and his sons saying…”

Here the verses focus on practice, meaning the emphasis rests on the men who will actually do or carry
out Tabernacle service. Performers or agents of execution were the priests. Some sacrifices had been
the domain of the high priest, while other types fell to rank-and-file priests. Hence, “Command Aaron
and his sons saying…”

At the lead were verses concerning burnt offerings, owing to its most lofty status. Of all the varied types
of offerings, these are the Creator’s most beloved. That explains why Leviticus begins with verses
discussing burnt offerings. Top of the top. We may view it as if the Maker extends a wish or a hope. How
wonderful it would be if Hebrews only brought this altruistic type! Indeed, it is God’s prayer that Jews
would not sin and thus not need to bring either sin or guilt offerings, as they imply misdoing.

In contrast, we find the earlier section that discusses peace offering before sin and guilt sacrifices, as
opposed to our section, whose order is flipped (first sin and guilt and then peace offerings). The
Ramban, a classic Bible commentator responds as follows. In the Temple times, all sacrifices fell into one
of two broad categories: most holy and ordinary holy offerings. In the sacrifice pyramid, per se, the most
holy were the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. Underneath them were peace offerings.

But there is more to the various offering types than what meets the eye. Abravanel explains. In the
beginning of Leviticus, we find this sequence: burnt offerings, gift offerings, peace offerings, with sin
(and guilt) offerings trailing last. This order bespeaks God’s traits, always putting the right foot forward,
in a manner of speaking. Except for sin/guilt sacrifices, all other offerings highlight the positive. This
reflects the Maker’s preference; He desires idealistic folks who bring gifts to the Temple out of love and
for good occasions, good cheer.

Put differently, whenever God is faced with two options – positive and negative – He naturally favors the
positive and good. Consequently, the order of sacrifices begins with altruistic and favorable ones. They
are the goodwill offerings (burnt, gift, and peace). They exude love and idealism. Next is the sin offering,
an obligatory sacrifice suggesting remedying a wrong. Fear of God as a motivator places a distant second
place to those ushered in with affection.

“And Moshe assembled all the congregation of the Children of Israel and he said to them: These are
the words that God has commanded to do them.”

Abarbanel asks : When did Moshe make the appeal to fund the Tabernacle?

‘After Moshe descended the mountain, he addressed the entire nation. His call, naturally, reached out
to men and women. A gathering took place in the prophet’s personal Tent of Meeting, located beyond
the Hebrews’ encampment. It was crucial to assemble everyone so that they could all hear God’s
words spoken via Moshe.

In essence, the gathering was a rally for people to generously come forward and shoulder the financial
costs of building the Mishkan. According to the Ramban, this appeal, for lack of a better word, took
place the day after Moshe had come down from Sinai….

Page 320 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

For Yaakov (Jacob), a bitter famine coupled with his sons’ insistence comprised formidable tailwinds propelling him to Egypt. Still, he might have braved hunger and stayed put in beloved Canaan. Perhaps he could have resisted their incessant appeals had it not been for one irresistible magnet. Its force tugged and jerked mercilessly. Uppermost in the mind and heart of the aged patriarch was an image that he hadn’t been able to shake for two decades: Yosef’s (Joseph's) face.

Abravanel’s World of Torah Shemot Vol 1 pages 13-14

Splitting the Red Sea

“And God went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar
of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night. The pillar of cloud by day and the
pillar of fire by night departed not from before the people.”

‘The Almighty also provided these travelers with a pillar of fire. This flaming entity, too, was ethereal,
stretching from the sky to the ground. The Jews in the desert had not taken along lanterns or oil from
Egypt. God did not want the Jews stumbling in darkness, and He knew that an illumination source
would put a spring in their step and a smile on their faces. A burning, torch-like fire column lit up the
night. Knowing all too well that His children were in for a long haul with many zigzagging pit stops in
the wilderness, God rolled out the fire and cloud implements in advance.

Page 256 Shemot vol. I: Sinai Rules

“Now these are the statutes which you shall set before them.”

This section pertains to Jewish law, a cornerstone of Judaism. Let us provide a brief introduction to this
all-important subject. The Torah has three distinct categories of commandments or mitzvot. At present,
we are only interested in statutes or mishpatim, divine laws which comprise Jewish jurisprudence. At
root is what is commonly referred to as civil law, rules that govern the relations between a man and his
friend.

Does Jewish law or mishpatim hold advantages over other systems of civil justice? Some say no. They
contend that Jewish jurisprudence is typical in the sense that it resembles all other people’s legal
systems. This position flies in the face of Scripture: “He declares His word to Yaakov, His statutes and His
ordinances unto Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His statutes, they have not known
them.” Of course, from time immemorial societies have promulgated laws and conferred upon courts
the authority to adjudicate.

How do mishpatim stand apart? The Midrash quotes from Psalms: “The strength also of the king who
loves statutes” (read: justice). Moshe addresses, the Midrash continues, the Jewish people, explaining
that the Almighty has transmitted the Torah to them. If, however, the nation rejects mishpatim, their
negligence will result in the entire Torah being taken away from them.

Why should this be so? The Midrash concludes that the transmission of the Torah was predicated upon
the observance of the statutes, as supported by a verse: “The strength of the king who loves statutes” –
justice.

The message conveyed by the Midrash begs another question: Is praise of mishpatim excessive,
exaggerated? After all, the corpus of mishpatim discusses the mundane. How ho-hum to legislate the
consequences of a fellow’s ox goring another guy’s mule! How underwhelming are court cases
presented by someone who claims his garment had been damaged by another? On topic, the psalmist
pens: “Surely for vanity they are in turmoil. He heaps up riches, and knows not who shall gather them.”

King David calls out the superficiality of material pursuit and possessions. Given the transitory nature of
man’s tangible holdings or other commercial interests and dealings, why does the Midrash place such
sky-high value on the observance of mishpatim, stating that failure to heed them results in forfeiting
Holy Writ?

Furthermore, given that this area of the Torah deals with the ordinary, how should we understand
Judaism’s position that mishpatim rank superior to other systems (like the Noachide Code or any other
one), when on the face of it, we do not find glaring distinctions between how a Jewish versus non-Jewish
court would adjudicate torts?

And yet, the assertion is a serious one. Really, what was lacking with the code of law devised by the sons
of Noach, or Hammurabi? In short, how should we understand our section’s lead verse: “Now these are
the statutes which you shall set before them?” Assuredly, the Maker vested divine wisdom solely in
mishpatim. To paraphrase the Talumudic sages on our verse: “Before them” – the Hebrews – and not
before the Gentiles. Furthermore, the sages stressed “Before them” – and not before the illiterates.

Understand this. Divine mishpatim stand unmistakably distinct from all other legal codes, such as the
one created by Noach or successive civilizations. Here are two major differences that show Jewish
jurisprudence’s decisive edge over the rest.

One has to do with the intrinsic nature of mishpatim: They are abundantly rich, encompassing much.
That is, statutes sub-divide and pullulate, giving rise to more and more legal refinement or categories.
Some of these divine laws relate to individuals, others communal. Together, they endure far beyond
societal conventions that people devise for purposes of maintaining civil order.

We must especially consider the vast body of Jewish law which stems from the Ten Commandments.
Not surprisingly, Gentiles hold a vastly different and narrower view of the interpretation of them (“You
shall not murder” or “You shall not steal” etc.).

Two deals with the consequence of compliance. For mishpatim, God rewards handsomely. In contrast,
governments do not compensate the law abiding. To be sure, compliance for the Gentiles does ensure a
smooth, orderly community. The Creator, too, does not pay the nations for good conduct. But, as stated,
compliance does promote neighborliness.

God broadcasted the Ten Commandments on Sinai to the Hebrews. They were delivered in fantastic
shorthand (“You shall not…”). The game-changing, mountain-desert event staggered huddled masses. In
unison, the people told Moshe that they had had enough direct communication with God. From here on
out, Moshe would be their go-between. Subsequently, the exceedingly fine details of the Ten
Commandments, including Heaven’s renumeration for observance, came to the Jews via Moshe.

This preface provides proper context for our lead verse: “Now these are the statutes which you shall set
before them.”

The Biblical narrative in Samuel records one of the most controversial encounters
in the entire Bible—the story of King David and Bat Sheva. This is precisely the
question I put to my Bible study group, which has taken several sessions to work
out, or rather, to work through.

Samuel in fantastic shorthand, essentially a summary or overview of the topic.

Storyline: King David had intimate relations with Bat Sheva, a woman
married to a warrior in the king’s service. From the relationship, Bat Sheva conceived. King David recalled the woman’s husband, Uriah Hachiti, from the
front and urged him to spend time with his wife. Uriah refused to go home,
insisting that the offer offended a noble soldier’s sensitivities. His commanding
officer and fellow soldiers were in the field “roughing it.” After the king’s second
attempt to send Uriah to visit his wife failed, he resolved that Uriah should return
to the front and there be ambushed by the enemy. This resolution came in the
form of a royal directive to Yoav, the commander. Uriah was, in fact, killed by
enemy fire upon his return to duty.

Abravanel lists five compelling reasons that point to a straightforward
indictment of David. 4 Conclusion: the king was guilty of heinous crimes; he
perpetrated a mighty wrong. Heaven meted out punishment to the culprit. For his
part, the king exhibited remorse and indeed heartrending contrition.

Abravanel then turns to the Talmud’s interpretation of the very same facts.
The rabbis or Chazal take a totally different tack, infusing Jewish tradition and
insight. Not only do they hold the king blameless, but they go a step further:
“Whoever says that David sinned [with Bat Sheva] errs.” 5

Where does this leave us? Did King David sin with Bat Sheva?

According to Abravanel, Chazal’s innocent verdict speaks to a legitimate,
alternate dimension of Biblical text or drush (דרוש). This stands in marked contrast
to Abravanel, who is intent on discovering the verses’ plain reading or pshat (פשט).
Abravanel is always reverential of Chazal, while acknowledging the pshat/drush
divergence. The story of David and Bat Sheva eloquently highlights their distinct
respective outlooks.

We now better appreciate the divine wisdom that sequenced the order of Bereshit’s and Shemot’s parshiyot. As for the author, all had been transcribed by Moshe, at the word of God. Moreover, the prophet received commentary on all that the Creator communicated to him. After we have laid out these four introductory rationales, we proceed to Shemot’s commentary, with God’s help.

“And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the people go, that God led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near, for God said: Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war,
and they return to Egypt.”

On our verse, readers readily note a difficulty with our verse. The Torah appears to disclose God’s
motive for taking the escaped Jews via a desert, rather through the Coastal Route, that would have been
a breeze. And it would have gotten the Jews to Canaan much faster.

But what is written is not the underlying reason for God’s “peculiar” itinerary for His flock, as we shall
soon discuss. Why does the Torah provide a feeble rationale (“Lest perhaps the people repent when
they see war…”), when more meaty ones present themselves? Indeed, opting for a tenuous reason and
omitting the real ones represents a glaring problem with the text.

From the outset of the ten plagues, God was itching, you might say, to part the Red Sea, sending the
Egyptians to Davy Jones’s locker. Below we bring three reasons to explain Heaven’s motive for leading
the Hebrews away from the Coastal Road, instead, directing them via the divine cloud column and pillar
of fire headlong into an arid wasteland.

One has to do with the Hebrews leaving Egypt courtesy of and by permission of Pharoah. It was
understood that the monarch authorized them to serve God in the desert per Moshe’s request: “Let my
people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness.” From the first meeting at the palace,
the wilderness was the professed destination. For that reason, the Creator did not bring them out to the
Coastal Route. It would have given Pharoah license to slander the prophet, calling him a liar. Further,
Pharoah would have deduced that their destination was the land of the Philistines, with no intention to
serve God in the desert. This is expressed by our verse: “And it came to pass, when Pharoah had let the
people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines…”

The Torah stresses that Pharoah permitted the Jews to leave. It was understood that they would
celebrate in a serene, albeit barren setting. For that reason, Hashem could not guide them to Canaan via
the land of the Philistines, adjacent to Egypt. Such a plan would have brought the monarch to conclude
that in the land of Philistines were where the encampment sought refuge.

Two concerned another wrinkle God may have anticipated. Had the Hebrews traveled along the
Philistine Road, there stood a strong likelihood that the Philistines would have girded for war. Jewish
preparedness, let us say, was nil. The masses would not have mustered up the courage to fight. And
given that Egypt was nigh, they would have returned to it, opting for enslavement. We have concluded
the second reason. Before we continue to the third one, we interject a midrash, based on our verse.

“Although that was near” allows for multiple interpretations. In Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, it is hinted that
“although that was near” cloaks one of the very first Hebrew wars, one that ended in abject disaster. We
speak about a misguided attempt by the Children of Efraim to hasten the liberation of Canaan. The
impetuous tribe of Efraim marched headstrong out of Egypt and into the land of the Philistines, where
they were soundly smashed. Two hundred thousand soldiers met death in their inglorious rush for
redemption: “The Children of Efraim were as archers handling the bow, that turned back in the day of
battle.” Our verse states, “Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” It alludes to the annihilation of the tribe of Efraim. When the encampment witnesses Efraim’s carnage,
their brothers’ bones strewn about on the Philistine Road, they will chant in unity: Let us return to
Egypt.

To summarize the second point, we put forth that God did not guide them along the Coastal Highway,
rather He opted for the desert. A vital lapse of time (forty years!) would grant the Hebrews precious
opportunity to thoroughly train for war. After decades in the wilderness, they would encounter Sichon’s,
Og’s, and the Canaanites’ formidable forces, emerging victorious. Further, these enemies are based far,
far away from Egypt. Geographical considerations would have given pause to the Hebrews about a
return to their former slaveowners.

Three is the most powerful and compelling. The Philistine Route offered no body of water. The Creator
hungered to split the sea for the Jews, and to drown Egyptians in it (revenge for Egyptians drowning
Hebrew babies). That necessitated the nation to be led into the desert. The Red Sea served as the plan’s
centerpiece. Our section’s second verse says: “But God led the people about, by the way of the
wilderness by the Red Sea…”

We can prove our point by interjecting a Hebrew grammar rule. Specifically, it concerns the usage of the
Hebrew letter vav, generally a conjunction meaning “and.” However, in Scripture a vav may also signal a
root cause. For our purposes here, we will show how it works, and reframe the section’s second verse
accordingly. “And God, in order to lead the people about by the way of the wilderness – because of the
Red Sea…”

Rendering the verse as we have provides the proper accent or tone. Consequently, we better
understand God’s main rationale for doing what He did. That is, he led them into a desert, and not into
Canaan via the Coastal Road, because of a highly-anticipated confrontation and divine rendezvous at the
Red Sea with their heartless, quondam taskmasters and baby-killers.

“And you shall command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the
light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. In the Tent of Meeting…Aharon and his sons shall set it in
order, to burn from evening to morning before God…”

‘This section’s opening paragraphs seem disjointed because they switch theme tracks. Note that the
lead verse talks about lighting the menorah before taking on the main subject – that of the priest’s
special clothing. How should readers relate to this zigzag?

Really, God’s command to Moshe regarding lighting the menorah was not intended as a divine order
whose time had arrived, but rather as a prophetic heads-up…’

Page 88 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

to undergo circumcision or brit milah. Both verses are explicit.

Hebrews sojourning in a foreign land would emerge to liberate, and take possession of, Israel.

One last clarification for the classic Biblical commentators. They argued that God had not performedmiracles for the patriarchs along the lines that He had done for Moshe. For their proof, they bring the example of turning Moshe’s staff into a snake. Or another example of something supernatural that the Creator did for Moshe was the wonder of the prophet’s hand becoming leprous, and then hale again.

We now turn and suggest what amounts to a truer read of our verse. Backdrop is essential. At the time when God reached out to Moshe, both he and nation had grown disillusioned over the prospect of evergaining freedom from Egyptian taskmasters. Centuries of exile stripped slaves of their faith, relegatingredemption or geulah to no more than a quixotic pipe dream of yesteryear. “For since I came to Pharoah to speak in Your name…”

brevity, we bring only the first rationale.

know Him. God’s messages had come via an intermediary, and not directly or panim el panim.

name [Hashem], I made Me not known to them.”

had never been granted to the patriarchs.

must.

“And Moses assembled all the congregation of the Children of Israel,
and said unto them: These are the words which God has commanded,
that you should do them.”

Abarbanel notes that the lead verse requires explanation. If Moshe gathered the Hebrews for the
purpose of issuing a command to build the Tabernacle, as it says, “These are the words which God has
commanded, that you should do them”, why does he first start with the mitzvah to observe Shabbat:
“Six days shall work be done?”

The question looms larger, Abarbanel asks, because the obligation to keep Shabbat had been broached
in an earlier section, the one discussing manna. Further, the Jews heard a repeat of the Shabbat
mitzvah, later on Sinai. Moreover, four chapters earlier, yet another reference to Shabbat observance
was mentioned. Hence, Abarbanel’s glaring question here: Why bring up Shabbat again?

One final point. In last week’s section, Ki Tisa, we find the Torah issued a warning to heed Shabbat after
wrapping up a broad discussion on the Mishkan. Yet, here we find the order reversed. Shabbat gets
mentioned prior to verses speaking about the Mishkan.

Abarbanel supplies a timeline. After Moshe descended from Sinai, he commanded the entire nation,
men and women, to gather outside of the camp, specifically in his lecture hall, or the Tent of Assembly.
The prophet intended to inform the masses what God had commanded. That is, each person should
donate to the Tabernacle enterprise. This follows the opinion of the classic Biblical scholar, the Ramban.

Likely, this assembly took place the day after Moshe had descended from Sinai. He conveyed to his
brethren that the Maker had forgiven and pardoned them for their iniquity. Moreover, the Shechinah
would rest in their midst. Wonders, stupendous wonders, would He do for them, beyond the likes of
which had ever been performed – anywhere or anytime.

Of course, the Hebrews delighted in the news. Ecstatic. That is when Moshe saw fit to teach them about
the Mishkan. To be clear, the prophet had learned of this divine commandment as he sat upon Sinai,
before his co-religionists had built a Molten Calf. When the Creator reconciled with His nation,
evidenced by the giving of the second set of Tablets, God entered into a covenant: the Shechinah would
dwell among the Hebrews.

The loving and intimate relationship between the Jews and God had been repaired, restored. Reclaimed
affection expression may be summed up in an earlier verse: “Build Me a Tabernacle that I may dwell in
your midst.” Thus, after divine anger subsided, a time of renewed intimacy had been ushered in.

That is precisely when Moshe bid his brethren to build the Tabernacle: “These are the words which God
has commanded, that you should do them.” At this juncture, the prophet cautioned the Hebrews to
observe Shabbat. This signaled that Mishkan’s and its vessels’ activities would take place during the six
work days of the week, Shabbat excluded, for it is a holy time for God. Put differently, Mishkan work
does not trump Shabbat sanctity, with its concomitant dos and don’ts.

This section’s third verse reads: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath
day.” Prohibiting fire on Shabbat taught the Jews that the sanctity of the seventh day exceeded that of
the Jewish festivals, where fire is permitted (in certain cases of food preparation or ochel nefesh).

With this important element in place, Abarbanel answers his original question regarding the seeming
peculiar insertion of the Shabbat verse in a section otherwise dedicated to the building of the
Tabernacle. It conveys the sanctity of the Sabbath, one which ranked higher even than the other major
festivals, celebratory occasions where fire may be permitted under proper circumstances (ochel nefesh).

As for the words “throughout your habitations”, they teach another Shabbat rule. Namely, the Hebrews
are obliged to keep Shabbat wherever they reside, in the Holy Land or elsewhere. Major Biblical writers
learn something else about this prepositional phrase: “throughout your habitations.” The prohibition
does not apply to the priests engaged in Mishkan activities (at least some of the holy activities, but
that’s for another blog).

"In sum, tight linkage between the Utterances (10 Commandments) and accompanying laws convincingly persuades readers that Parashat Mishpatim conveys divine directives unlike any manmade moral code."

Shemot: Sinai Rules, page 464

“And God said to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and collect a separated portion. From
those who are generous you shall take a separated portion for Me.”

‘In a general Torah sense and here in this section in particular, Heaven’s modus operandi comes out in
full splendor. That is, Hashem desired to increase both the Hebrew people’s merit and Moshe’s
prominence. In our context, it means that Heaven did away with celestial intermediaries. In their
place, the Almighty instituted His direct divine guidance to the Jews and to Moshe, their faithful
shepherd.’

Page 9 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

“And God called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of the Meeting. Speak unto the
Children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you brings an offering unto God, you shall
bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or the flock.”

‘Heaven acknowledged how priests deserved the Jews’ financial support. Through a system of tithes
and gifts, their needs were taken care of. This not only freed them from having to make a living, but it
also provided repose and sufficient peace of mind to allow them to do their jobs maximally. An
equitable arrangement assured steady income for the Kohanim and their families.

Clearly the Torah foresaw how priests, a branch of the tribe of Levi, would accede to special status
within the national fabric and rise to predominance. Their admirable erudition, refinement, and
character were also marked by outward appearances. In this, particular vestments played a pivotal
role…'

Page 10 Vayikra vol. I: The Meat of the Matter

Almighty, but by My name [Hashem] I made Me not known to them.”  Parashat Va’era, First Aliyah

must.