Parshas Vayakhel
1. On the verse "ויאמר משה גו׳ זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר" ("And Moshe said… This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded, saying")1, Rashi says: "זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ לי לאמר לכם" ("This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded me to say to you").
The commentators2 explain that what concerns Rashi here is the following: The plain wording of the verse implies that "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded" refers to the word "saying", meaning that G‑d instructed Moshe to tell the Jewish people (the wording) "קחו מאתכם תרומה גו׳" ("Take from among you an offering…"). This results in a difficulty: G‑d's command was "ויקחו לי תרומה" ("that they take for Me an offering")3 (in the third person), and not "Take from among you an offering" (in the second person). How, then, can he say about it "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded", implying that these are precisely G‑d's words?
Therefore Rashi says "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded me to say to you"4: the continuation of "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded" is "to me" (and it does not relate to the word "saying"), and this indeed means the command "that they take for Me an offering…" (in the third person). The word "saying" is a new matter: "to say to you" — what I must tell you is (indeed the same content, but in different wording:) "Take from among you an offering…".
This interpretation, however, is not smooth:
a) Even if one were to learn that "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded" does refer to the word "saying", it would still not be compelling that G‑d instructed Moshe to say the wording "Take from among you…", because the plain meaning of "This is the thing…" is (not necessarily that this is the speech and wording5 of G‑d, but rather) that this is the thing (the matter) that G‑d commanded.
b) Rashi wrote his commentary in a plain style, so that even a "בן חמש (למקרא)" ("a five-year-old [beginning Scripture]") should understand his intent. Since the above interpretation does not lie in the plain wording of Rashi, Rashi should accordingly have added and written "to say to you the command of the donation for the Mishkan"6 (that is, the subject of the donation for the Mishkan), or some other (clear) wording of this kind.
2. The explanation of this is as follows:
The opening of this subject, "ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל" ("And Moshe assembled the entire congregation of the children of Israel"), was (in its plain sense) in order to convey to the Jewish people the command regarding the work of the Mishkan. Before this, however, he prefaced — in the manner of a parenthetical remark — the warning about Shabbos, in order to instruct them that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to say that with the continuation, "אלה הדברים אשר צוה ה׳ לעשות אותם" ("These are the things which the L‑rd commanded, to do them"), Moshe meant (not only the warning about Shabbos, but) also the command regarding the work of the Mishkan. [On the contrary: seemingly it refers mainly to the work of the Mishkan7, since that was the very purpose of "And Moshe assembled".]
But if so, a difficulty arises: Why did Moshe tell them once again "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded"8, when he had already told them earlier "These are the things which the L‑rd commanded"?
Even if one were to explain (in a strained way) that "These are the things" refers only to the warning about Shabbos, it is still not understood: Since earlier, too, he said to the Jewish people "the things which the L‑rd commanded", it is not fitting to say (about the work of the Mishkan) "This is the thing which the L‑rd commanded", which implies that only "this" [the work of the Mishkan] is "the thing which the L‑rd commanded", when the earlier words too are "the things which the L‑rd commanded".
It is also not understood: Why does the word "saying" appear specifically in our verse and not in "These are the things which the L‑rd commanded"? The warning about Shabbos, too, is something G‑d told Moshe to convey to the Jewish people.
3. On this Rashi explains that Moshe set apart "This is the thing" (which refers only to the work of the Mishkan) from "These are the things…" (which also includes the warning about Shabbos) because with "This is the thing" the command was "saying", and its meaning is "to me, to say to you". The command about Shabbos was directed to Moshe himself as well, whereas the command regarding the work of the Mishkan was only "to me, to say to you": Moshe was to tell the Jewish people that they should make the Mishkan, but he himself was not commanded in this.
With this we can understand what Rashi says later10: "שלא עשה משה שום מלאכה במשכן" ("that Moshe did no work at all in the Mishkan"). Seemingly this is astonishing: How could it be that Moshe did not fulfill the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Take from among you an offering…"9? According to the above, however, it is understood: Since the command was "to say to you" (that the Jewish people should make the Mishkan), Moshe was not permitted to do it.
4. But this itself demands explanation: Why indeed was the command regarding the work of the Mishkan only "to say to you", unlike all other mitzvos, in which Moshe too was commanded?
We must also understand: Why was Moshe not distressed11 over the fact that "לא עשה שום מלאכה בהקמת המשכן" ("he did no work at all in erecting the Mishkan"), unlike what we find12 with Aharon, that "חלשה דעתו" ("he was distressed") because he had no part in the dedication offerings of the Nesi'im?
The explanation of this (in the inner dimension of the matter13) is:
Moshe's matter is Torah14; he was therefore not permitted to occupy himself with the work of the Mishkan15, similar to (and all the more so than) the law16 that "אין מבטלין תשב״ר לבנין ביהמ״ק" ("we do not interrupt the Torah study of schoolchildren even for the building of the Beis HaMikdash").
And since Moshe did not need to do the work of the Mishkan because he is higher than the Mishkan, there is automatically no place for him to be distressed over it.
5. Nevertheless, although Moshe did not need to do the work of the Mishkan, he did have the command "to say to you": to convey to the Jewish people the portions of Torah that speak about the work of the Mishkan17. Furthermore: the entire purpose of "אשר צוה ה׳ לי" ("which the L‑rd commanded me") — that G‑d told these portions (this part of Torah) to Moshe — was for the sake of "to say to you". Were it not for this, the portions would not have been told even to Moshe.
The directive from this is:
There are Jews who, because of their situation, are able to (and therefore must) be in the category of "תורתו אומנתו" ("his Torah is his occupation"). They must know the following. Although their matter is Torah, on account of which they should not18 occupy themselves19 with avodas habirurim (the service of refining the physical world) — making out of physical things (gold, silver, copper, etc.) a Sanctuary for G‑d20 — because Torah is higher than this, they may think that they are also exempt from spreading Torah.
To this comes the directive that in "to say to you", in telling Jews portions of Torah, they too are obligated. On the contrary: specifically through the service of "to say to you", devoting themselves to studying Torah with other Jews, they will have Heavenly assistance (also) in their own learning. They will gain (in quantity) further parts of Torah, and they will gain (in quality) in the parts of Torah they already have: they will arrive at the truth of these matters, to the point that they will grasp the matters also as they are in their root21.
— Similar to what took place with Moshe: because of "to say to you" there was (not only "the L‑rd commanded me", but also) "אשר הראית בהר" ("which you were shown on the mountain")22: he was shown these matters as they are Above.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel and Shabbos Parshas Pekudei, 5730)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 35:4.
2) See Gur Aryeh here (and see the next note). See also Re'em here.
3) Beginning of Parshas Terumah. The Gur Aryeh here writes simply: "ולא הי׳ הקב״ה מדבר אל ישראל לנוכח" ("the Holy One, blessed be He, did not speak to Israel in the second person"). This requires further study, in light of the many verses (in which the Holy One, blessed be He, speaks to Moshe so that he will tell the Jewish people) that are stated in the second person (for example: Shemos 3:14ff.; Va'eira 6:6ff.; Yisro 19:4ff.; ibid. 20:19ff.; beginning of Mishpatim; Ki Sisa 31:13ff.; and elsewhere. In several places a passage is stated both in the second person and in the third person, such as Bo 12:3ff.; Beshalach 14:2; and elsewhere). Perhaps it can be said that the Gur Aryeh's intent (although this is not implied by the plain sense of his wording) is to this particular command, in which "ויקחו גו׳" ("that they take…") is stated explicitly, as in the text above.
4) The word "לאמר" in Rashi is a quotation of the wording of the verse (and is not his explanation), similar to the word "בחלב" in Rashi on Ki Sisa (34:26), in the comment beginning "לא" (see above, p. 201, note 2).
5) In Rashi at the beginning of Matos (in his second interpretation): "זה הדבר מיעוט הוא, לומר שהחכם בלשון התרה כו׳ כלשון הכתוב כאן" ("'This is the thing' is a limitation, to say that the sage, in the term of annulment, etc., as the wording of the verse here"). This, however, is no proof for our case, since there the wording (annulment by a sage and revocation by a husband) is part of the matter, the "thing".
6) Similar to his style in Parshas Tzav, 8:5.
7) See also Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Chizkuni here.
8) See also Tur HaAroch on the Torah here.
9) Pekudei 39:33.
10) It can be said, in a strained way, that by "work" Rashi intends "מלאכת עבודת הקדש" ("the work of the holy service"; the making of the Mishkan and its vessels), which only "בצלאל ואהליאב וכל איש חכם לב" ("Betzalel and Oholiav and every wise-hearted man") did. But from Rashi's wording, "no work at all", it is reasonable to say that he intends also the bringing (the donation for the Mishkan), which is likewise called "work" (our parsha, 36:6-7). See also Tanchuma, Pekudei 11: "לא נשתתף הוא (משה) עמהן במלאכת המשכן. כיצד הנדבה ניתנה ע״י ישראל כו׳" ("He [Moshe] did not take part with them in the work of the Mishkan. How so? The donation was given by the Jewish people, etc."). See at length the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Pekudei, 5730.
11) In Tanchuma, ibid.: that Moshe was pained at not having taken part, etc. But the fact that Rashi did not bring this idea in his commentary on the Torah implies that, according to the plain meaning, it is reasonable to say that he was not pained over this. See at length the sicha mentioned above.
12) Rashi, beginning of Behaaloscha.
13) According to the plain meaning it can be said: The command "ועשו לי מקדש" ("And they shall make Me a Sanctuary") came after the Holy One, blessed be He, was appeased toward the Jewish people and said "סלחתי כדברך" ("I have forgiven according to your word"; Rashi, Ki Sisa 33:11). That is, at first, after the sin of the Golden Calf, they were "מנודין לרב" ("banned by the Master"; Rashi, ibid., verse 7), and for this reason they were commanded after the forgiveness "ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם" ("And they shall make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among them"; see Rashi, Shemini 9:23). Therefore Moshe, who even before Yom Kippur "יקח את האהל גו׳" ("would take the tent…"), and there was the "מקום שכינה" ("place of the Divine Presence"; Ki Sisa, ibid., and Rashi there), did not need "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary".
14) See Shabbos 89a.
15) This is also similar to the fact that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos (Rashi, Ki Sisa 31:13; our parsha, 35:2). See above, p. 217 (note 47 and the sources cited there) on the connection of Shabbos to Torah.
16) Shabbos 119b. Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, ch. 1, halacha 10.
17) According to the plain meaning it can be said: His telling these portions to the Jewish people is (also) Torah study.
18) Perhaps it can be said, going further, that there is a prohibition here (see Moed Katan, end of 9a; Tosafos, s.v. "Mevatlin" [Kesubos 17a]; and elsewhere). But this requires further study in light of the wording of the Alter Rebbe in Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 4, sec. 3 (from Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 246:18, etc.): "לא יפסיק תלמודו" ("he should not interrupt his study"). Likewise from the principle that "עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה" ("one occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah"). This is not the place to elaborate.
19) In the manner of this being the main part and most of their days; unlike the lesser part of their days (Iggeres HaKodesh, end of Epistle 5), since "כל האומר אין לי אלא תורה אפילו תורה אין לו" ("whoever says, 'I have only Torah', does not have even Torah"; Yevamos 109b; and in Likutei Torah, Vayikra 5a: "only Torah and acts of kindness"; see also Iggeres HaKodesh, ibid.). See also above, p. 217.
20) See above, pp. 155-156.
21) See Biurei HaZohar, Vayishlach (p. 20, col. 2): "כל ת״ח דאשתדל באורייתא כו׳" ("every Torah scholar who toils in Torah, etc.").
22) Terumah 26:30. See also ibid. 25:9, 40; 27:8.
Key Lesson
Even those whose whole occupation is Torah, and who are rightly kept from other involvements, are not exempt from "to say to you": teaching Torah to other Jews. This is not a detraction from their own learning. Just as Moshe was shown the matters as they are Above for the sake of conveying them to the people, it is specifically by teaching others that one is granted Heavenly assistance to gain more Torah and grasp it in its truth and at its root.