Exodus

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abravanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus 38 examines another aspect of the Tabernacle – through the lens of an
accountant or auditor, sort of. “These are the accounts of the Tabernacle…”

“These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, even the Tabernacle of
Testimony, as they were rendered according to the commandment of
Moses, through the service of the Levites, by the hand of Ithamar, the
son of Aaron the priest. And Bezalel the son of Uri…made all that God
commanded Moses.”

Abravanel discusses the nature of this accounting or ledger of the raw material that went into building
the Tabernacle and its vessels. But first, he teaches what the ledger WAS NOT.

Abravanel understands that the Torah did not need to record the amount of gold, silver, or any other
valuable gift brought by the good-hearted Hebrew donors earmarked for the Tabernacle enterprise.
Neither, according to Abravanel, was it necessary to document how much raw material went into each
vessel (ark, table, lampstand etc.) in order to determine if there were ample resources to cover the costs
of the end product. That is because the artisans had not entered, to use a bookkeeping term, the influx
of the resources. Similarly, donors gave freely, without weighing or measuring their gifts.

In a word, people brought their gifts in a spirit of altruism. For his part, Moses never questioned the
craftsmen’s or the donors’ integrity. Oftentimes, the craftsmen themselves contributed to the vessels
they were assembling. Given this pervasive atmosphere of goodwill and honesty, why order an audit?
Who would even remotely consider stealing or embezzling from the Tabernacle fund?

Here is what Abravanel learns to be the rationale behind our lead verse: “These are the accounts of the
Tabernacle…”Even though a public announcement requested the Jews to refrain from bringing more
contributions, and even though the men and women complied with the request, still and all, there were
adequate funds to comfortably complete the Tabernacle and its holy accoutrements. “For the stuff they
had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.”

In summary, after earlier chapters described the Tabernacle and its fixtures, delineating the type of raw
material needed to produce everything, our chapter tallies the valuables that had been collected (29
talents of gold, 100 talents of silver etc.). Why? To illustrate that everything worked out wonderfully,
despite the fact that no one adhered to accepted bookkeeping and accounting principles.

Generous Hebrews rose to the occasion, as the Bible makes explicit. Furthermore, the verse underscores
the trustworthiness of the artisans. “These are the accounts of the Tabernacle…”The previous Torah
section (Vayakhel) spelled out what Moses commanded the Hebrews to perform. Our section verifies
the fulfillment of the prophet’s instructions without cutting corners or scrimping.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 4, God bids Moses to return to Egypt. There, he was to address his
fellow countrymen, who had been enslaved by Pharaoh. God assured His prophet success, courtesy of
divine miracle after miracle. Though initially reticent about being up to the task ahead, the Maker chided
the prophet. Ultimately, Moses acquiesced. 

A technical issue arose: Would Moses’ employer, Jethro, grant a leave of absence? Abravanel puts Moses’ request and Jethro’s response into focus.

“And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him: Let me go, I pray you, and return unto my brethren that are in Egypt, and see whether or not they are still alive.”

Abravanel finds Moses’ request to Jethro ambiguous, if not self-contradictory. “Let me go, I pray you,
and return unto my brethren”implies a long sojourn in Egypt. Moses desired to relocate and dwell
among his fellow Jews. However, “And see whether or not they are still alive” suggests a quick visit.

Abravanel takes Bible students behind the scenes, per se. After Moses accepted his role in God’s plan,
he left Mount Sinai and returned to Midian, where he would visit his father-in-law, Jethro, and seek
permission to go. Without a doubt, Abravanel teaches, Moses had not breathed a word about the
prophecy he had experienced at Sinai. Instead, he asked: “Let me go, I pray you, and return unto my
brethren that are in Egypt.”Moses insinuated a temporary leave of absence.

Bolstering the impression of a visit of short duration, Moses continued: “And see whether or not they
are still alive.” The prophet sorely missed his family and brethren, Moses told Jethro. As for tending
Jethro’s flocks, the prophet professed interest in keeping his job.

Jethro, however, was very astute, a brilliant thinker. He was also kind. Notwithstanding Jethro’s
benevolence, he had put two and two together, suspecting that Moses’s trip was about more than a
family reunion; it was about saving Jews. Jethro further figured that the Jews would not believe Moses,
nor would they heed his speeches.

“And Jethro said to Moses: Go in peace.” For Abravanel, these were not words of permission to leave.
They were, instead, a forewarning.

Egypt, for Moses, was a perilous place. Jethro recalled that the first time Moses went to see his
brethren, it ended with him killing an Egyptian. The second time Moses interfered with the Hebrews,
they snitched on him to local police, who promptly put a bounty on Moses’ head.

“And Jethro said to Moses: Go in peace” is now clearer. For Moses, Egypt was fraught with mortal
danger. His fellow Jews seemed to have a penchant for twisting Moses’ good intentions. Jethro worried
that the treacherous precedent would raise its ugly head, putting Moses’ life at risk. Who knows, the
sage from Midian imagined, perhaps the old charges against Moses would resurface.

“Go in peace”, Jethro cautioned his so-in-law. Though he advised Moses to stay under the radar while in
Egypt and keep a low profile, the perceptive father-in-law understood that would not be the case.

See www.abravanelsworldoftorah.com for all blogs and to purchase Abravanel’s World of Torah.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 5, Moses and Aaron petition Pharaoh in the name of God: Let My
People Go. The king was unmoved, let alone impressed. “And Pharaoh said: Who is God that I should
harken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not God…”

“And afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said unto Pharaoh: Thus
says God, the God of Israel: Let My people go, that they may hold a
feast unto Me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said: Who is God that I
should harken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not God, and
moreover I will not let Israel go.”

Abravanel asks about Moses and Aaron’s follow up, after Pharaoh categorically refused them. “And they
said: The God of the Hebrews has spoken to us. Let us go, we pray you, three days’ journey into the
wilderness…”

What in the world, Abravanel questions, were Moses and Aaron thinking? Pharaoh had just stated: “I
know not God, and moreover I will not let Israel go.” Further, what did the two brothers hope to
accomplish with the threat: “Lest He fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword?” Pharaoh couldn’t
care less about such chatter.

Really, Aaron and Moses knew exactly what they were doing. After they heard Pharaoh profess
ignorance of God, and a refusal to let the Jews celebrate in the desert, the two men doubled down: “The
God of the Hebrews has spoken to us.”It amounted to giving Pharaoh a primer in Jewish history, and
the decisive role God played in it.

Abravanel elaborates on the lecture Moses and Aaron gave to the Egyptian monarch. Pharaoh, they
fired away. Have you heard of the God of Shem and Eiver? Have you heard of the God of Abraham, the
Hebrew, Who rescued the patriarch from a fiery furnace? What about that God Who brought military
victories to Abraham over enemy forces far greater than his?

Aaron and Moshe continued, Abravanel learns. Have you heard about the God of Isaac, Who brought
King Abimelech, the king of the Philistines, to his knees? What about that same God of Jacob, Who
humbled Esau?

The two brothers again addressed Pharaoh, now in present tense. You don’t stand a chance against the
God of the Hebrews. He watches over the Jewish people. That same Almighty spoke to us in a
prophecy, and commanded that we serve Him in the wilderness. A modest request – for you the king
to accept. We’re asking for three days in the desert, to sacrifice to the Almighty.

Moshe and Aaron concluded their remarks with a simple cost/benefit analysis. Besides, Pharaoh, the
celebration will benefit you. Should you turn us down, divine wrath will be brought to bear, in the
form of pestilence and the sword. Consequently, your slaves will be decimated, causing you great loss.
And all because you will not let the Hebrews celebrate for three days!

In sum, Abravanel explains the cogent argument put forth by Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh. The Bible
points out the king’s hubris and obstinacy. Though obnoxious, those traits did not cause Egypt’s utter
ruin. His ignorance of the all-powerful God of Israel did.

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

“And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: I am God…And
moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel. Wherefore
say unto the children of Israel: I am God, and I will bring you out from
under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their
bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great
judgments.”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus chapter 6, God again promises to rescue the Jewish nation from bondage. For
Abravanel, the question here is what appears to be superfluous verbiage. That is, why does the Bible
need to use three synonymous verbs in the verse cited above: “I will bring you out under the burdens”, I
will deliver you from their bondage”,and “I will redeem you?”Surely, Abravanel notes, if God brings out
the Hebrews from their taskmaster’s burdens, perforce He delivers and redeems them.

Also, in the following verse, we read: “And I will take you to Me for a people…and you shall know that I
am God your Almighty, Who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.”Abravanel asks
why is that particular verb chosen (“brought you out”), but not “deliver” or “redeem?”

Following are the answers. Abravanel provides the mood in Egypt, at this early juncture of Moses’
mission. Both Moses and the Hebrews had grown skeptical about any redemption from slavery, per an
earlier verse: “For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has dealt ill with this people.
Neither have You delivered Your people at all.”

God responded to the prophet’s and nation’s disbelief, by explaining the three reasons or better, moral
imperatives to prove that redemption was a foregone conclusion. For the fuller discussion, see
Abravanel’s World. Here, however, we will briefly touch on the reasons Abravanel brings to answer the
questions brought above.

First, God had, if you will, a vested interest in freeing His people. Until now, all divine promises regarding
the Hebrews had been delivered to the patriarchs, via angelic messengers. That was about to change.
The Maker was intent to speak directly to Moses and to the Hebrew, each person according to their
spiritual level. Thus, the Creator gave His word, per se, to redeem the Jews. “I will bring you out under
the burdens of the Egyptians.”

Second, the land of Israel has been designated for the Jews, as conveyed to the patriarchs in Genesis.
And though the patriarchs had dwelled in the land of Canaan, they did so as sojourners, not owners or
titleholders. Hence, the Almighty needed to take the Hebrews out of Egypt in order to fulfill His pledge
to the patriarchs. “I will deliver you from their bondage.”

The third reason that God needed to bring out the Jews from Egypt had to do with Him being the Judge
of the universe. His people were suffering at the hands of the evil Egyptians, resulting in a travesty of
justice. The Creator could not sit idly or ignore the injustice. Indeed, the covenant between God and the
patriarchs had been predicated on punishing the nation that wronged the Jews: “And also that nation,
whom they shall serve, will I judge.” “And I will redeem you with an outstretched arm.”

Thus, for Abravanel, our verses inform Moses and the Hebrews, in no uncertain terms: freedom awaits.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus chapter 7, Bible students encounter the most fundamental theological
assumption of all: free choice. Indeed, no topic is more central to Judaism. Predictably, every major
commentator has weighed in on free choice, featured front and center in the verse:

“And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart unto you, and multiply My signs and
My wonders in the land of Egypt.”

Abravanel asks: Did God violate Pharaoh’s volition? And if the Creator did remove the king’s ability to
act independently, how can any wrongdoing be imputed to him? Yet clearly, our verse does ascribe
transgression to Pharaoh: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart…and multiply My signs and My wonders in
the land of Egypt.”

To be sure, Judaism posits the inviolability of free choice. Humans decide their destiny, without any
interference from Above. See Abravanel’s Worldfor the full discussion of the centrality of free choice in
general, and our chapter in particular. For our purposes, we summarize Abravanel’s main thrust.

God did not bias Pharaoh’s behavior and played no part the king’s refusal to heed Moses’ words.
Although, “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” certainly sounds like a divine set-up, it wasn’t.

Abravanel reframes the verse to show that Pharaoh’s mule headedness was the king’s own doing. Here’s
how.

All tallied, ten plagues would devastate Egypt. From the onset of the first plague (bloodying the Nile) to
the last one (killing of Egypt’s firstborn), nearly a year elapsed. A pattern emerged whereby Moses
would: 1) warn Pharaoh, 2) record the monarch’s obstinacy, 3) execute the given plague, and 4) wait
before ushering the upcoming plague.

This methodology gave Pharaoh time to reevaluate matters. He miserably misread the pause in the
action, attributing the plagues to happenstance or bad karma. Perilously, the king mischaracterized the
true Source of Egypt’s troubles, cutting God from the script.

This is key to understanding our verse and the role of Pharaoh’s conduct. When he saw a cessation of a
plague, he concluded that it occurred randomly. Heaven had not, he believed, orchestrated it. Stuff
happens, so Pharaoh thought. The king’s skewered mind brought him to double down.

If this was Pharaoh’s own doing, why does the Bible say: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart?” Abravanel
responds that when God slow-walked the procession of the plagues, it gave rise to the king hardening
his heart.

In sum, Pharaoh misinterpreted the drawn-out tempo of the divinely-wrought plagues and brought his
demise. In the next chapter, this is explicit: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened
his heart…”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus Chapter 9, the Bible details additional plagues to hit Egypt, including boils. On
this particular plague, Abravanel notes an anomaly, giving way to a question: Of all ten plagues, why
does God speak to both Moses and Aaron in the case of boils? In all other instances, the Creator solely
addressed Moses.

“And God said to Moses and to Aaron: Take handfuls of soot of the
furnace, and let Moses throw it heavenward in the sight of Pharaoh. And
it shall become small dust [particles] over all the land of Egypt. And it
shall become rashes that form boils upon man and beast, throughout the
land of Egypt.”

Before delving into the answer, Abravanel adds a second part to his question. It is, why does God
request both Moses and Aaron to “take handfuls of soot of the furnace”, yet only Moses performs the
action with the soot – “And let Moses throw it heavenward?” It begs the question, Abravanel continues,
what role did Aaron play in the plague of boils?

Abravanel learns that the Maker desired Moses to sow the soot in all four directions on the
weathervane: north, south, east, and west. This attests to the four directions that wind blows. God
wanted oozing pus formed from rashes to spread to all corners of Egypt, per the verse cited above: “And
it shall become small dust [particles} over all the land of Egypt.”

Moses, of course, had only two hands. This necessitated Aaron’s assistance. Four hands scooped and
carried four handfuls. Yet, when it came to flinging the soot, the Bible is explicit: “And let Moses throw it
heavenward”– Moses tossed four handfuls to the four winds. Bible students are apprised that Aaron’s
role in this plague had been limited to transporting soot.

In closing, Abravanel shares the following insight. Regarding the plagues, Heaven’s plan took into the
equation the true, inner nature of Moses and Aaron. For our purposes here, Moses was the more
spiritual of the two brothers. Hence, Moses played the active part in the plague of boils, seeing that the
dermatological disorder derived from air or wind.

See Abravanel’s Worldfor more keen observations about the ten plagues.

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.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. We read about the priestly garments in Exodus 39. Specifically, we refer to the
manufacturing of the ephod, onyx stones, breastplate, robe etc.

“And of the blue and purple and scarlet, they made plaited garments.
And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple. They made shoulder
pieces for it. And they wrought the onyx stones. And he put them on the
shoulder pieces of the ephod…”

Even the casual Bible student can’t miss the recurring and glaring grammatical inconsistencies here. For
example:

“They made” – when discussing the ephod.

“He made” – regarding the onyx stones.

“They made” – referring to the breastplate.

“They wrought” – is used for the robe.

“And he put” – for the two wreathen chains of gold.

See Abravanel’s Worldfor the remainder of the priestly garments discussed in this chapter, as well as
the continued singular/plural zigzag associated with them.

What is behind the grammatical anomalies, Abravanel asks? He believes that Bezalel worked side by side
with the other artisans who produced the priestly vestments. Why? It is because Bezalel wanted to
bestow honor and prestige upon Aaron, the high priest. Furthermore, the Tabernacle superintendent
did not want to demean the Hebrews who manufactured those garments. Had Bezalel not taken a
“hands-on” approach the clothing, it might have sent the wrong message. Artisans may have felt
slighted in their work, falsely downplaying their work compared to the work that other craftsmen were
doing, such as making the ark, table, lampstand, and altars.

The Tabernacle’s chief’s presence and input silenced those specious sentiments. Indeed, Bezalel’s touch,
literally and figuratively, sent a strong message. It also explains why the verbs in our chapter utilize,
intermittently, the singular and plural conjugation.

“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.

“So that I might place these signs of Mine in his midst.”

‘Pharoah was a lost cause but God aimed to instill lessons of eternal faith within His people. When
they looked around them and saw God’s hand everywhere, it would be a boon. Belief would spring
eternal. A better approach to these verses is that Moshe was taken in by Pharoah’s post-hail promise
to liberate the Jews. The Almighty’s messenger mistakenly thought further plagues unnecessary.

God knew differently…’

 Page 172 Sinai Rules by Zev Bar Eitan

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In the book of Exodus, parashat Mishpatim, it delves into divine, judicial statutes that comprise large swathes of
Jewish law or jurisprudence. This subject matter continues into the upcoming chapters, as well.

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

For the full discussion of Jewish jurisprudence, see Abravanel’s World. However, for our purposes here,
we touch upon Abravanel’s introduction. He emphasizes one of his guiding principles that he applies
throughout his commentary on the Bible. We speak about the integrity of Holy Writ. Not only must the
words and verses be carefully analyzed and understood, but also their order, sequence, or juxtaposition
illuminate the text.

Let us elaborate. Abravanel writes in his preface to this chapter that he perused his predecessors’
approaches regarding the sequence of the divine commandments pertaining to Jewish law. Does it
matter which statute proceeds another?

To his dismay, Abravanel found that a majority of commentators write that order is inconsequential.
Since they assumed that the organization of the laws were random or haphazard, these commentators
felt no pressing need, for example, to derive clarification or meaning from our chapter’s first
commandment (“If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve…”) to the second one (“And if a
man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant…”), or to the third topic (“He who smites a man, so that he
dies…”). For those writers who posit that all of our chapter’s statutes act as independent units, they
failed to grasp minutiae which emerge from a proper appreciation of any given rule’s placement. Put
differently, because they did not connect the dots, they missed the bigger picture.

Indeed, Abravanel leveled sharp remarks regarding such a lackadaisical approach to the Bible’s organic
integrity, let us call it. He had, perhaps, less patience for those commentators who did attempt to derive
meaning from the statute’s sequence, but offered only gibberish. “Accept or reject them at your
discretion,” Abravanel advises.

Abravanel launches into an insightful discourse showing just how crucial juxtaposition is to a precise
understanding of our chapter in particular, and of the Bible in general. How does Abravanel come to this
conclusion, that sequence matters?

It’s plain logic, Abravanel’s advances. Since God Himself is the judge of the universe, will He Himself not
mete out justice? Did He not array His laws according to purposeful sequence? It’s as basic as that: God
did not dictate the Pentateuch in a whimsical fashion to Moses. His design and method run throughout.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. The subject of the three major Jewish festivals is broached in Exodus chapter 23.
Attendance in Jerusalem’s Holy Temple during those holidays is compulsory: “Three times in the year all
your males shall appear before God Almighty.”

“Three times you shall keep a feast unto Me in the year.”

Abravanel writes, as we have ascertained in an earlier blog, that the Ten Commandments are really a
start place for many more divine commandments. In that vein, when the Bible obligates Hebrews to
observe Sabbath, it also alludes to the observance of the three major Jewish festivals.

Passover comes first: “The feast of unleavened bread shall you keep. Seven days you shall eat
unleavened bread…”Abravanel explains that, in fact, the eating of unleavened bread is only compulsory
on the first day of Passover. The verse just cited means that should a Hebrew desire to eat bread during
the seven-day holiday, that bread must be unleavened.

Another detail about Passover emerges: timing. “At the time appointed in the month of Aviv, for in it
you came out from Egypt.”Aviv, in Hebrew, means springtime. The genius of the Jewish calendar
combines the lunar and solar months in order to safeguard that Passover will always be celebrated in
the spring. When the Hebrews ascended Jerusalem’s holy mountain, they did not arrive empty-handed.
Each visitor brought animal sacrifices to the Temple.

The feast of harvest came next, followed by the third and last holiday – the feast of ingathering. “And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labor, which you sow in the field, and the feast of ingathering,at the end of the year, when you gather in your labors out of the field.”

Abravanel teaches that the second festival coincides with the wheat harvest. Hence, Jews must offer the
first fruits of grain to the attending priestly class in Jerusalem.

As for the third major festival, it refers to the feast of ingathering. At that time, Hebrews brought wine,
oil, plus a vast array of produce to the Temple. Lest readers get the wrong idea, Abravanel warns, and
assume that the major festivals were celebrated in people’s hometowns, an explicit verse disabuses that
false notion: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before God Almighty.”

“Before God Almighty” requires clarification. What does the phrase impart? It stresses the main point of
visiting the Holy Temple. That is, the major festivals are not for the purpose of gorging on food and
delighting in other mundane activities. Rather, visitors to Jerusalem were meant to foster an intimate
relationship with the Maker, cleaving to Him. Proper demeanor toward God resembles a servant before
his master.

How appropriate, then, to celebrate each festival in otherworldly repose and devotion to the One
Above! Priests and Levites residing in Jerusalem assisted their brethren to better understand holy
teachings, further enhancing the Holy City’s spiritual experience for all visitors.

See Abravanel’s World for a full discussion of the Jewish festivals, including one of Abravanel’s most
resourceful efforts to find a connection between the third festival (“the feast of the ingathering”) and a
seeming unrelated commandment pertaining to dietary laws – “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s
milk.”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus chapter 19 sets the backdrop for mankind’s defining moment: The transmission of
the Torah on Mount Sinai.

“In the third month after the Children of Israel were gone forth out of the
land of Egypt, the same day came into the wilderness of Sinai.”

Abravanel asks about the timing of the watershed event: Why did God wait so long? Consider, the
Hebrews left Egypt three months earlier. Why now? Abravanel probes further, asking why the Creator
hadn’t transmitted the Pentateuch to Adam, the first man? Or perhaps, Abravanel writes, the Torah
should have been given to Noah, when the Maker entered into a covenant with mankind. As for
exemplary individuals, certainly the patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – ranked as worthy
recipients. Hence, why didn’t God communicate the Torah to them, as He does now with Moses?

At length, Abravanel answers this intriguing question. See Abravanel’s World for the full treatment.
Here, we will touch on the three main points of the essay. But here is the starting premise. The Torah
should not be mischaracterized as a religious text concerning conduct, a guidebook of dos and don’ts.
Rather it is a divinely-crafted and heavenly-honed system for mastering true faith, divine belief. Now let
us return to the question: Why was God’s Torah transmitted at this particular juncture in history?

One, it wouldn’t befit the Pentateuch to be given to a special individual or even a cadre of holy people.
Torah demands throngs or myriads of gathered, quality folk. Only in the midst of the Chosen Nation can
Torah be transmitted.

Two, the intermediary or transferor of the Torah needed to be a unique soul, a noble personage. With
all due respect to the phenomenal patriarchs and their illustrious ancestors (including Adam and Noah),
Moses was cut from a different cloth. Of course, we are speaking about highly unusual traits. Abravanel
lists ten. To give a sampling, first on the list is moderation of physical or spousal comforts, like sexual
intimacy. In a word – detachment. Second is disinterest in eating and drinking, illustrated by Moses’
forty-day periods without food or drink.

Three, context and orchestration are key. Thunder and lightning and shofar blasts contributed to Sinai’s
ambience and mood, promoting the proper prelude. The lead-up miracles wrought in Egypt and the
splitting of the Red Sea, too, were all indispensable.

In sum, Abravanel teaches that God’s Torah needed a specific combination or conflation of diverse
elements to perfectly fall into place, before it could be wrested from heaven and brought down to earth.

A critical mass of huddled Hebrews, under the tutelage of the greatest of all prophets – Moses, on the
heels of the wonders the Creator performed in Egypt and in the desert proved to be the requisite and
rich ensemble.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Midway through Exodus chapter 30, we read about another consecrated fixture of the
Tabernacle: the copper wash basin.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying, you shall also make a wash basin
of brass…to wash, and you shall place it between the Tent of Meeting
and the altar, and you shall put water therein. And Aaron and his sons
shall wash their hands and their feet therewith…”

Abravanel analyzes the verses pertaining to the Tabernacle’s wash basin: “And Aaron and his sons shall
wash their hands and feet therewith.”First, Abravanel focuses on Aaron, the High Priest. He and his
successor high priests need to wash their hands and feet “when they go into the Tent of Meeting.” Place
the accent on the Tent of Meeting. Feet walk them there. Showing up there without the requisite bodily
washing carries the death penalty: “They shall wash with water, that they die not.”

However, a very different emphasis relates to assistant priests. “Or when they come near to the altar to
minister, to cause an offering made by fire to smoke unto God, so they shall wash their hands and their
feet.”All priests took part in offering sacrifices on the altar. From that perspective, washing hands
highlights the priestly role of occupying themselves with animal sacrifices. Of course, this function
resulted in hands bloodied by their interaction with animals.

Given the different emphases between high priests (rinsing feet before entering the Tent of Assembly)
versus assistant priests (dealing with animals and the altar), the Bible reiterates: “So they shall wash
their hands and feet, that they die not…” Even though high priests and assistant priests did different
Tabernacle activities, this much they had in common: laxity in rinsing hands and feet proved fatal.

Abravanel continues his analysis. Washing did not reflect the need to remove dirt associated with
working the altar. That is because when people set aside livestock for the altar, those animals attain
holiness; they are pure. Thus, when priests handle sacrifices, they do not become spiritually impure.
Bloodied yes, ritually defiled no.

In sum, the reason why high priests cleansed their hands and feet upon entering the Tent of Assembly,
and the reason why assistant priests washed their hands and feet upon officiating at the altar had to do
with a general concern about personal hygiene. Perhaps priests needed rinsing due to outside causes of
defilement.

In closing, Abravanel likens priests who minister in the Tabernacle to a king’s servants, who wait on him
and serve him food at the royal dining table. Obviously, these waiters scrub their hands before
entering the king’s dining room, seeing that they handle his food and pour his wine.

As for the divine commandment to wash feet, this conveys the manner in which priests officiated in the
holy compound – barefoot. As an expedient, and in acknowledgement that, invariably, men’s feet get
dirty and smelly, washing them just makes good sense.

See Abravanel’s World for more analysis of the topic of the Tabernacle’s wash basin.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel, (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus chapter 31 introduces Bible students to the chief and assistant superintendents,
two men of renown to whom the Tabernacle’s construction was entrusted. Bezalel assumed the top
honors, Oholiab his most able assistant: “And I, behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of
Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan…”

“And God spoke unto Moses saying, See, I have called by name Bezalel
the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him
with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding…and in all
manner of workmanship, to devise skillful works, to work in gold and in
silver…and in cutting stones of setting and in carving wood…”

In putting together the Tabernacle dream team, Moses faced a daunting dilemma. Indeed, Abravanel
lays out the prophet’s predicament, regarding which men had the right stuff to take on the divine
mission, and construct the hallowed chambers that the Creator would call home.

Scores of men offered their services to Moses, each one yearning to be part of the Tabernacle project.
To be sure, altruism motivated them.

Moses, however, had been well aware of Bezalel’s genius and unimaginable capabilities. Herein was the
prophet’s quandary; Bezalel was his sister Miriam’s grandson. Moses feared a backlash, accusations of
nepotism coming from different quarters. One faction would charge: “Moses, you took kingship. You
appointed your brother and nephews to minister in the Tabernacle. And now, you choose Bezalel as
the Tabernacle’s chief superintendent?”

Another group of disgruntled folks would balk at Moses, saying: “How is it that a Hebrew who spent
years at the grindstone, working in Egyptian servitude picked up skills “in all manner of
workmanship…to work in gold and in silver and in cutting stones…?” Finally, a third gang of gripers had
this say: “Bezalel doesn’t hold a candle to Oholiab. Oholiab should be in charge!”

God forestalled a boisterous protest, leveled against Moses. “And God spoke unto Moses saying, See, I
have called by name Bezalel…”In so many words, the Creator assuaged the prophet and quieted all
potential troublemakers when He singled out Bezalel, and chronicled his lineage. I, the Maker said,
“called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah.” By so doing, God diffused a
delicate matter: Heaven designated Bezalel to build a house to God.

God, according to Abravanel, imparted another fact of life. That is, man perceives only that which lies on
the surface and is skin deep. The Almighty, in contrast, penetrates man’s heart. He attested: “And I have
filled him with the spirit of God.”

See Abravanel’s World for an in-depth description of Bezalel’s brilliance and versatility.

"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

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Exodus chapter 25, parshat Terumah, we read about the divine commandment to build for God a
sanctuary in the tabernacle. We also learn how this sacred structure was to be financed.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying: Speak to the Children of Israel, that
they take for Me an offering. Of every man whose heart makes him
willing, you shall take My offering….And let them make Me a sanctuary,
that I may dwell among them.”

Abravanel gets right to the point: Why did God command the Jews to build a sanctuary for Him? Is the
Creator a physical being, in need of shelter? Of course, any physicality attributed to the Maker ranks
preposterous, let alone despicable and untruthful. Wise Solomon, who built Jerusalem’s Holy Temple,
stated the thorny problem: “But will God in very truth dwell on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven
of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this house that I have built?”

Here is a synopsis of Abravanel’s approach. “God forbid,” Abravanel categorically states, “that the
Creator is needful of a house with all its appurtenances.” Bible students, instead, should understand
this commandment as follows. The Tabernacle is an object lesson, a concrete reminder that God dwells
amidst the Hebrew encampment.

Each Jew must process and internalize that lofty message, so it becomes etched in his soul and fiber.
Song of songs alluded to God’s proximity this way: “He stands behind our wall. He looks through the
windows. He peers through the lattice.”The Creator watches every move, hears every thought.

The prophet Isaiah confirms this theological paradox of God’s infinitude and nearness. “Thus says God:
The heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool. Where is the house that you may build unto Me?
And where is the place that may be My resting place? For all these things has My hand made…”

Abravanel puts his finger on the significance inherent in the Tabernacle. The divine edifice is designed in
order for Jews to know in their heart of hearts that the Creator’s providence cuddles the Chosen People.
Abravanel returns to Isaiah: “But on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a contrite spirit,
and trembles at My word.”

“And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” See Abravanel’s World for the full
impact of this divine directive.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Exodus 35 enshrines the greatness of the Jewish nation, recording their can-do spirit and
generosity. Bible students will learn of the outpouring of volunteerism that inspired them in a most holy task:
building the Tabernacle.

“And Moses assembled all the congregation of the Children of
Israel…And Moses spoke…take you from among you an offering unto
God, whosoever is of a willing heart. Let him bring…gold and silver and
copper…”

In this chapter, Abravanel explains how the nation gallantly rose to the occasion, driven by a single
purpose – to serve God and sedulously craft for Him a sacred structure in which to house His divine
presence.

When it came to financing and assembling the Tabernacle, Moses understood that a sacred enterprise
of this nature, could not come about through coercion. Accordingly, the prophet nixed the notion of
sending fundraisers door to door, tent to tent. Instead, Moses appealed to “whosoever is of a willing
heart.”

Abravanel explains that there were two types of donors. One group brought to Moses’s tent “gold and
silver and copper” not to mention an array of other valuables (fine linen, goat’s hair, ram’s skins, acacia
timber, oils, spices, and precious stones).

A second category of Hebrews brought their minds and imagination, pledging to do “the work of the
Tent of Meeting, and for all the service thereof… And all the women who were wise-hearted did spin
with their hands…the fine linen.”Abravanel notes that some of the artisans also donated raw material
for the Maker’s earthly abode.

Regarding the craftsmen who assembled the Tabernacle, Abravanel makes another point. We are not
speaking about master plumbers or carpenters. To state the obvious, Egyptian taskmasters had not
offered training courses and career advancement to their Hebrew servants. Thus, the newly-freed men
and women lacked for skills, emerging from Egypt wholly untrained.

But what the Hebrew men and women lacked in skill set they made up for in grit. “Whosoever is of a
willing heart” alluded to an indomitable spirit. The Jews promised Moses they would get the job done,
precisely as God commanded. A promise kept.

See Abravanel’s World for the fuller discussion of the behind-the-scenes making of the Tabernacle.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. We read in Exodus chapter 20, parshat Yitro, that the Ten Commandments were transmitted to the
Hebrews on Mount Sinai.

“And God spoke all these words saying: I am God, Who brought you out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no
other gods before Me…”

Abravanel discusses exactly what makes the Ten Commandments stand out from the rest of the Bible. It
is, not surprisingly, an elaborate discourse. See Abravanel’s World for the entirety of it. Here, we will
share with Bible students Abravanel’s three, salient observations.

One has to do with the Speaker – God. In contrast to all of the other divine commandments, only the
Decalogue was from Heaven, sans an intermediary. That is, when it came to the other commandments,
Moses delivered them to the Hebrews, at God’s behest. Not so with the Ten Commandments. Neither
angel or seraph or prophet uttered them; they came directly from Above. On that historic day, the
Creator of heaven and earth descended, as it were, and addressed His nation. Understand, therefore,
the Decalogues’ intrinsic prominence.

Two stresses the audience, the Chosen People. With the other commandments, God transmitted them
to a single person, Moses, albeit His specially-designated messenger who had shown himself worthy.
Moses’ brethren were not privy to hear what Moses heard, nor see what he had seen. How different
were the Ten Commandments! Every person, young and old, heard and understood God’s words. The
myriads of Jews were an integral part of the conversation with the Divine. The fire at Sinai they beheld;
the audible voice they heard.

Three emphasizes the material upon which the Ten Commandments were written – all etched in stone.
No other verse in the Torah, no other commandment had been so indelibly engraved. Rather, they were
transcribed from God to Moses, who wrote them on parchment. As for the Ten Commandments,
moreover, no engraver’s tool had been utilized. It was the Maker’s handiwork, His imprint upon rock.
Moses hadn’t participated an iota in it.

In brief, Bible students are hereby apprised of the Ten Commandment’s uniqueness, their
otherworldliness. The Almighty alone put His imprimatur on them, in a manner of speaking, as
evidenced by the three reasons stated above.

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

must.