Pekudei
Pekudei
“These are the accountings of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony, which were counted at the word of Moshe, the work of the Levites in the hand of Ithamar, son of Aharon the Cohen (38;21).
In this week’s parsha Moshe makes an accounting of all the donations of the Mishkan.
The question arises: What was the whole need for the Torah to include a whole parsha regarding the accounting of all the donations? The Torah (36;5-6) relates that the nation donated more than was needed for the Mishkan and so Moshe commanded them to stop donating. The accounting of all the donations of the Mishkan therefore doesn’t even tell us the full extent of the nation’s willingness to give! What therefore is the great importance behind having a whole parsha in the Torah regarding the accounting of all the donations for the Mishkan?
Additionally, Rashi (38;21) explains that the words “the work of the Levites” refers to the accountings of the Mishkan and its implements which the Levites were assigned in the wilderness-to carry, to take down, and to erect the Mishkan. However, at this point in time the Mishkan has yet to even be built (we are simply making an accounting of all the donations)! Therefore, why is the Torah discussing something that has yet to even happen?!?
Furthermore, the Medresh (Tanchuma, Pekudei 3) describes Moshe as a man with unequaled integrity-in contrast to Korach who was “pushing” to become wealthy as he wasn’t satisfied with simply being a Levite-he wanted to be a Cohen and therefore started a rebellion against Moshe and Aharon. However, Korach was already fabulously wealthy (Pesachim, 119a-he was so wealthy that it took 300 mules just to carry the keys to all his treasure houses in the world)-therefore, how could he have been driven by money? Why does the Medresh say that he was “pushing” to become wealthy? He didn’t need more money!?!
Further, Rashi (38;21) states that the words “Mishkan of Testimony” served as a Testimony for the nation of Israel that Hashem overlooked the incident of the Golden Calf for them for He rested His Presence among them in the Mishkan. However, how do we learn that Hashem forgave the nation for the sin of the Golden Calf from the Mishkan? Wasn’t that the purpose of the second pair of Tablets to serve as a sign that we had been forgiven? Similarly, Rashi (34;1) gives the following analogy for Hashem’s command to carve a second pair of Tablets: A king went oversees and left his wife with the maidservants. As a result of the scandalous conduct of the maidservants she unjustly gained a bad reputation. Her good friend arose and tore up her “kesubah” (marriage document). He said “If the king will say that she should be killed because he thinks that she committed adultery, I will say to him: “She is not yet your wife.” The king investigated the matter and found that the scandalous conduct was only among the slavewomen. He became reconciled with his wife. Her good friend said to him, “Write another “kesubah” for her because the first one was torn up.”…In the analogy, the king is Hashem, the maidservants are the great conglomeration the good friend is Moshe and the wife of the king (Hashem) is the nation of Israel. It seems clear from that analogy that the Tablets (“kesubah”) served as a sign that Hashem had forgiven the nation for the sin of the Golden Calf (just like the king forgave his wife for reputed scandalous behavior). Therefore, what was the purpose of the “Mishkan of Testimony” if we could have already learned out from the second pair of Tablets that Hashem forgave the nation of Israel for the sin of the Golden Calf?
Lastly, Rashi (38;21) explains that the word “Mishkan” is stated twice in the pasuk as an allusion to the Beis Hamikdash which was taken as collateral in its two destructions for the sins of Israel. What exactly is the need for Rashi to mention that incident at this specific point in time?
Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that when a person goes around collecting money they usually give an accounting to the person that sent them to collect the money (in this case, Hashem sent Moshe to collect from the nation) not the people who give them money. By giving the nation an accounting for all the donations of the Mishkan Moshe was in effect telling them that in building the Mishkan he was working for them-not Hashem (as the normal way of the world is to only give an accounting to the people you work for).
Rabbi Zweig explains that the Levites served Hashem as agents for the nation of Israel. We could see this, for example, from the fact that before the Levites were given their position it was the firstborns (who were clearly the representatives of the people) who performed the services. In contrast, the Cohanim functioned as Hashem’s agents when they performed service in the Mishkan (Hashem appointed them their role). We could therefore understand that the Torah is mentioning here the future role of the Levites (who worked as representatives for the people) in order to teach us that the Mishkan was ours (which could be seen from the fact that the Levites worked for the people) and not just Hashem (who had the Cohanim work for Him).
Interestingly, Rabbi Zweig explains that the whole reason why the nation reached the level that they came to sin and have the Beis Hamikdash be destroyed was because they sensed the world was their place. Rashi is therefore explaining to us by mentioning the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash that the Torah is teaching us that the Mishkan wasn’t just Hashem’s place but that it was ours as well (and we therefore shouldn’t feel too comfortable inside of it to the point that we’ll gain the feeling that the world belongs to us and then begin sinning again).
Further, Rabbi Zweig explains that the accounting of all the donations for the Mishkan served as a sign that Hashem forgave us for the Golden Calf. And how is that? When Hashem gave us the Tablets He simply “remarried us.” However, even when a couple remarries it naturally takes a while for them to resume working together at the same level which they did prior to breaking up. The Tablets therefore simply showed that Hashem was willing to give us “another try.” By the Mishkan however Hashem not only showed that He was willing to give us another try-but He showed us that He wanted to move forward as well. And how did He show that? He made the Mishkan our place, not just His, and in effect gave us a sense of ownership over the world. He allowed to us become partners with Him in running the world. The whole parsha of Pekudei is therefore needed in order to teach us that Hashem gave the nation complete atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf (as He was willing to move forward and improve their relationship) not that He was simply willing to give the nation another try (as He showed by giving us a second pair of Tablets). The numbers of the Mishkan (how much the nation donated) were needed to be counted in order so that we could know how big our share is in this world. Thus, even though the nation was willing to give a lot more towards the Mishkan, the Torah nevertheless gives a full accounting of all the donations (as it wasn’t as means of showing us how generous the nation was-but in order so show us that He had fully forgiven us and was willing to move forward with our relationship).
Lastly, Rabbi Zweig explains that there are 2 reasons why people are driven for money: either because they want to experience the pleasure of money (all the things money could buy) or because they want to gain power. Korach already had all the pleasures money could give a person-what he wanted was power (the exact opposite of Moshe who didn’t even use the nation’s money when he was permitted to-for example, to cover the travelling expenses to Egypt). The Medresh states that Korach “utz” (meaning, “push” or “compulsive”). Korach was compulsive about becoming a Cohen as he felt he couldn’t live without that level of status. A person who is obsessive compulsive about something gets no pleasure even out of the things they already have. This was Korach, as he completely lost the ability to even get pleasure out of the tremendous amount of wealth and the great status of a Levite in which he already had. The Medresh therefore says that he was driven by “wealth”-in reference to his great drive for power.
Jason Behar 