Parshas Pekudei
1. Regarding the interpretation of the verses1 "אלה פקודי המשכן גו׳ אשר פוקד על פי משה עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר גו׳" ("These are the pekudei [accounts] of the Mishkan… which were reckoned at the command of Moshe, the service of the Levites, under the direction of Isamar…"), there is a dispute among the commentators2:
a) One interpretation is that "These are the pekudei of the Mishkan" refers to the making of the Mishkan that is related in the previous parsha (Parshas Vayakhel), where the making of the Mishkan and its vessels is recounted in detail. Accordingly, the meaning of "pekudei" (of "the Mishkan… the service of the Levites…") is in the sense of appointment and assignment: the Mishkan and its vessels are "פקודי עבודת הלוים שפקדם משה ביד איתמר" ("the charges of the service of the Levites, whom Moshe appointed under the direction of Isamar")3 (and as is related in the Book of Bamidbar4, that the Levites were appointed to carry the Mishkan and its vessels).
b) "These are the pekudei of the Mishkan…" means the accounting of the gold, silver, and copper of the donation for the Mishkan, which is (subsequently) enumerated in our parsha5. Accordingly, "pekudei" is from the term for counting and accounting — and the meaning of "the service of the Levites under the direction of Isamar" is that Isamar was the one appointed (and the treasurer) over the gold, silver, and copper (with the help of the Levites)6.
We find a remarkable thing in Rashi's commentary on this verse: his interpretation of the first part of the verse is seemingly in contradiction with his interpretation of the second part of the verse:
On "These are the pekudei" Rashi explains: "בפרשה זו נמנו כל משקלי נדבת המשכן כו׳" ("In this section were counted all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan, etc."), i.e., the plain meaning of "the pekudei of the Mishkan" is the accounting of the donation for the Mishkan, and consequently it refers (not to Parshas Vayakhel, but) to what comes later "in this section."
But on "the service of the Levites" Rashi explains: "פקודי המשכן וכליו היא7 עבודה המסורה ללוים במדבר לשאת ולהוריד ולהקים איש איש למשאו המופקד עליו כמו שאמור בפ׳ נשא" ("The reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels is the service entrusted to the Levites in the wilderness — to carry, to take down, and to set up, each man according to the burden assigned to him, as stated in Parshas Naso")8 — that is, "the pekudei of the Mishkan (and its vessels)" means (not the subsequent accounting of the donation for the Mishkan etc., but) the appointment over the Mishkan9, "to carry, to take down, and to set up, etc."10
2. Seemingly, one could answer this according to the conclusion of Rashi's commentary on "These are the pekudei" — "(all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan were counted, etc.) ונמנו כל כליו לכל עבודתו" ("and all its vessels were counted, for all its service"), i.e., "the pekudei of the Mishkan" means not only the accounting of the donation for the Mishkan, but also the count of "all its vessels, for all its service" (which are enumerated later in the parsha11 (after the account of the making of the priestly garments), at "ויביאו את המשכן אל משה" ("And they brought the Mishkan to Moshe")).
Accordingly, the connection between "the pekudei of the Mishkan" and "the service of the Levites" in the continuation of the verse is understood — for the matter of "the pekudei of the Mishkan" (the count of the vessels, for all its service) is connected with the service of the Levites, "to carry, to take down, and to set up"12, as it says in Parshas Naso: "ובשמות תפקדו את כלי משמרת משאם" ("And by name you shall count the vessels of the charge of their burden") (and as is simply understood, the appointment over the carrying of the Mishkan includes the task of keeping an account of all the vessels of the Mishkan and seeing to it that they are all intact, and the like13).
But it is still not understood: What compels Rashi to say that "the pekudei of the Mishkan" includes two kinds of counts, and means (not only the accounting of the donation for the Mishkan, but) also the count of "all its vessels, for all its service" (and consequently to interpret "the service of the Levites" as the matter relating to the appointment over the vessels of the Mishkan14, "to carry, to take down, and to set up, etc.")?
On the contrary: seemingly this is a forced interpretation, for the Torah interrupts between the two counts with the account of the making of the priestly garments — it is difficult to say that "These are the pekudei of the Mishkan" refers (also) to a matter in the section that comes after the next one15.
Since Rashi interprets "pekudei" as a term of counting, he should have explained in accordance with the interpretation of the commentators (mentioned above), that "the service of the Levites under the direction of Isamar" means that Moshe handed over the count of the donation for the Mishkan to the Levites, under the direction of Isamar.
3. In addition to the question on the conclusion of Rashi's wording, "and all its vessels were counted, for all its service," one must also understand the beginning of Rashi's wording: "בפרשה זו נמנו כל משקלי נדבת המשכן לכסף ולזהב ולנחושת" ("In this section were counted all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan — of the silver, the gold, and the copper").
The content of this interpretation is also found in Rashbam, but there it is stated briefly: "אלה פקודי – חשבון הכסף והזהב והנחושת" ("These are the pekudei — the accounting of the silver, the gold, and the copper"). Rashi, however, elaborates in his wording:
a) "In this section were counted, etc." — once Rashi says "the count of the weights of the donation for the Mishkan, etc.," it is already understood that "These are the pekudei" refers [not to Parshas Vayakhel — where there is no accounting of the donation for the Mishkan — but] to "this section." Why, then, the emphasis "in this section"?
Commentators16 explain that since there is an interruption of several verses until the Torah begins the accounting17, Rashi must therefore clarify that nevertheless the wording "These are the pekudei of the Mishkan" is appropriate, since the accounting appears "in this section."
But one must understand: Rashi should have said: "These are the pekudei — the count of the weights of the donation for the Mishkan, etc., stated in the section" (or the like) [i.e., first explain "These are the pekudei" ("the count of the weights, etc.") and afterwards add where this is stated ("in this section")] — similar to Rashi's comment at the beginning of Parshas Toldos: "ואלה תולדות יצחק – יעקב ועשו האמורים בפרשה" ("And these are the generations of Yitzchak — Yaakov and Esav, who are mentioned in the section"). Why does Rashi begin with "In this section were counted, etc."?
b) "All the weights of the donation for the Mishkan were counted" — what difference does this emphasis make?
Moreover: we find a difference between Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan. In Onkelos it says "אלין מניני משכנא" ("These are the counts of the Mishkan"), whereas in Targum Yonasan it says "אלין מנייני מתקלון וסכומהון דמשכנא" ("These are the counts of the weights and the totals of the Mishkan"). We see that Onkelos (which is closer to the plain meaning of the verse, as is known — that is, according to Rashi's approach) uses only the term "count," while Rashi chooses (along the lines of) the wording of Yonasan18 and adds "weights"; and on the other hand, he omits the word "and their totals"19!
4. The explanation of this may be said to be as follows:
In his commentary (on "These are the pekudei"), Rashi comes to resolve a simple question20: the word "Eileh" ("These") indicates the beginning of a matter, and moreover (as Rashi cites at the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim) — "כל מקום21 שנאמר אלה פסל את הראשונים" ("Wherever it says 'These,' it sets aside the preceding ones").
5. At first glance it appears25 that with his interpretation, "In this section were counted all the weights, etc.," Rashi means to interpret the word "pekudei" (not as a term of appointment26, but) as a term of counting and accounting.
However, Rashi himself rules this out through the continuation of his commentary, "and all its vessels were counted, etc.": if "pekudei" is a term of counting, its meaning27 is (not "countings," the act of counting, but) the overall number, the definite sum of the count — as is evident at the beginning of Parshas Tisa, "כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם" ("When you take the head-count of the children of Israel according to their pekudim"), where Rashi explains: "כשתחפוץ לקבל סכום מנינם לדעת כמה הם" ("When you wish to receive the sum of their count, to know how many they are") — and this meaning of "pekudei" does not fit the count of "all its vessels, for all its service," since regarding the vessels the Torah did not give the sum and number of the vessels; rather, the verse merely enumerates (a "count"), lists, and describes the vessels.
And since Rashi says that "These are the pekudei" relates to both "counts" — both the count of the donation for the Mishkan and the count of the vessels — he thereby makes clear: firstly, that "pekudei" is interpreted here as a term of appointment and assignment; and (secondly) that the count of "all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan" as well (just like the count of the vessels) does not mean that he gave the Jewish people an accounting of the overall sum of the donations (and how they were used) in order to guard himself against suspicion and the like22, but only that he counts them one after another, he enumerates the "weights of the donation for the Mishkan" (similar to the count of "all its vessels, for all its service").
[For this reason Rashi is precise in his wording, "all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan were counted" (and not a term of "sum" or the like): Rashi thereby wishes to make it even clearer that this is not speaking about giving a total of the "sum of the counts" ("and their totals"); rather, the Torah merely enumerates the weights28 of the donations, "of the silver, the gold, and the copper"29.]
And the purpose of this count is similar to that of the count of the vessels, for all its service — namely, that both "counts" are connected with "pekudei," with the task of the appointed official:
Just as the count of the vessels was connected with the fact that the Jewish people brought the Mishkan and all its vessels to Moshe so that he should see and determine that they had been made properly, etc. (and as the verse30 concludes there, "וירא משה את כל המלאכה והנה עשו אותה כאשר צוה ה׳" ("And Moshe saw all the work, and behold, they had done it as G‑d had commanded")) — and therefore all the vessels are enumerated in detail, as is the procedure when the appointed official must confirm that all the vessels and details are as many as are needed, and in their completeness —
so, too, the content of enumerating the weights of the donation for the Mishkan is that Moshe, being the appointed official and the "owner" of the Mishkan31, kept an "account" of the weights of the donation for the Mishkan32.
6. And this is the novelty of "this section" in relation to Parshas Vayakhel:
In Parshas Vayakhel the entire content concerns the preparations for making the Mishkan and the "making" itself — first the donation for the Mishkan, and afterwards how Betzalel and Oholiav, etc., made the Mishkan and its vessels.
In our parsha, however, it speaks about "the pekudei of the Mishkan" — about the appointments and tasks of those who are appointed over the Mishkan.
Where do we see "in this section" the matter of "appointment" over the Mishkan? Rashi says: "In this section were counted all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan, etc., and all its vessels were counted, for all its service" — and this is the task of an appointed official: to keep an account of all the details33.
And to make the novelty of "this section" even clearer — that here it speaks about the "appointments" over the Mishkan — the verse continues "(which were reckoned at the command of…) the service of the Levites under the direction of Isamar…," and as Rashi explains on this: "The reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels is the service entrusted to the Levites in the wilderness, to carry, etc." Rashi thereby explains the continuation of the verse: this matter of "the pekudei of the Mishkan" (the matter of appointment over the affairs of the Mishkan) — which at the time the Mishkan was made was "reckoned at the command of Moshe" — was (after the Mishkan was erected) handed over as a service to the Levites34, as is related at length "in Parshas Naso," that the Levites are appointed over the affairs of the Mishkan.
7. According to this explanation, further puzzling points in this section are resolved:
Regarding the accounting of the donations for the Mishkan in our parsha, there is a discussion among several commentators35, for seemingly:
a) The Torah relates only what was done with the silver and the copper, but not what was done with the gold (it says only how much gold there was)3637.
b) Even regarding the silver, the accounting was only of "the silver of those counted of the congregation," of which everyone had to give "a half-shekel" (the contribution for the sockets) — but there is no accounting of how much silver came in as a donation for the Mishkan (as is stated explicitly in Rashi, that from the general silver that was given as a donation, the service vessels in general were made).
c) Besides the donations of gold, silver, and copper, there were other items38 that were donated to the contribution for the Mishkan, as is stated explicitly in the verse — yet we do not find in the verse that Moshe gave an accounting of those donations3940?
d) In the verses it says that donations were brought for the Mishkan until there was "והותר" ("and there was extra")41 — more was brought than was needed; yet no accounting was made of the "extra"?
Regarding the last three questions, it is explained42 that Moshe gave an accounting only of the things that were of very great importance, but not of those that were not so precious and important43 (and similarly, the sum of the silver of the donation for the Mishkan was not a large one; and the "extra" was not a "thing of importance").
But this is not a sufficient answer: if the reason for "all the weights were counted, etc." is that a charity treasurer must give an accounting of the charity funds in order to guard against suspicion, etc.22 — this should apply whether it concerns a large sum or not a large sum: because of "והייתם נקיים מה׳ ומישראל" ("And you shall be clean before G‑d and before Israel"), one must give a full and detailed accounting, at least — down to a single shekel44.
And since this is so, it is difficult: how is it that Rashi does not answer the above questions? The questions concern the plain meaning of the verse, and indeed we see that several commentators answer them, and with several answers (each according to his approach).
But according to the above explanation of Rashi's commentary, the question does not arise in the first place45: with the counts that appear in this section, the Torah does not intend to say that Moshe gave a detailed accounting of all the donations for the Mishkan, but that these are counts that Moshe, as the official appointed over the Mishkan, carried out in order to keep an account of the donations; and to convey this matter one example suffices — the count of the principal donations, "of the silver, the gold, and the copper"46.
And therefore it is also no difficulty that he did not give a detailed accounting of what was done with the gold — for the intention here is not the accounting of what was done with the donations and how they were used, in order to clear himself of suspicion (the fact that the Torah details what the donations were used for comes only incidentally) — but rather, as Rashi is precise in his wording, "all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan were counted": the count of the weights is stated in this section ("These are the pekudei") because in this consists the task of the appointed official —
and therefore there is no necessity, and consequently one avoids, enumerating "the multitude of details"47 of what was done with the gold — not even incidentally, as with the other donations.
8. From the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:
As mentioned earlier, Rashi's precise wording is "all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan were counted" — that Moshe here counted the "weight." Here the value, etc., of the gold, silver, and copper is not relevant, but only the weight.
The difference between weight and value is: weight is only the substance of a thing and its quantity, whereas the value of a thing is connected with its importance, its quality, its form.
Their parallel in man's service of G‑d — whereby a Jew makes a Mishkan for Him, may He be blessed, through fulfilling mitzvos and doing matters of Yiddishkeit in general — there are these two aspects48: the act itself — the "weight"; and the intention of the mitzvah — the "value" of the act, its content and form.
One might think: when a Jew "gives" the A-lmighty only a physical act without any intentions — how is it fitting to say that with this one can build a Mishkan for Him, may He be blessed?
To this it is made clear that the weights of the donation for the Mishkan are "reckoned at the command of Moshe": Moshe Rabbeinu "involves himself" and "reckons"49 also the "weights" that Jews give — and this itself makes them worthy of becoming (part of) a Mishkan for Him, may He be blessed.
To the point that the coin that Jews give for this becomes50 a "מטבע של אש" ("coin of fire")51 — permeated with "the fire of the soul" — through which one builds the (individual) Mishkan in its completeness,
and through this one hastens and merits the building of the general Beis HaMikdash — the Third — speedily in our days, literally.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Pekudei, 5725)
Notes
1) The beginning of our parsha.
2) Both opinions are cited in Ramban, Kli Yakar, and many others.
3) The wording of Ramban here. And see Ibn Ezra here. And further on in the text, from Rashi's commentary.
4) Bamidbar 1:50–51; 3:25–26; 4:26–27; 4:4 (and Rashi's commentary); ibid., 15ff.; Naso 4:24ff.; ibid., 31ff.
5) See Tanchuma on our parsha, 5; Shemos Rabbah 51:1–2; the commentators cited in the following note*; and elsewhere.
*) But Ramban explains that "Moshe gave everything by number and by weight into the hand of Isamar." That is, because from the silver of those counted of the congregation and the copper of the wave-offering were made the parts and vessels of the Mishkan that pertained to the charge of Isamar (as opposed to the charge of Elazar, which was made of gold — "since they did not know, regarding the overlay of each vessel, how much gold was in it, [Scripture] did not relate that Moshe gave it to them by number and by weight, and therefore it did not mention here the charge of Elazar"). And see note 9. This is not the place to elaborate.
6) See Ralbag and Abarbanel here, and elsewhere. And note Ezra 8:29ff.
7) In some widespread printings it is printed "הוא" (the masculine form), and seemingly this is a printing error.
8) And not Parshas Bamidbar — for only in Parshas Naso is "the service of the Levites under the direction of Isamar" related (for the service of the Kehasites at the end of Parshas Bamidbar is under the direction of Elazar — ibid. 4:16, and Rashi there, s.v. "Pekudas"). As for Ramban's question here, "Why does it mention the charge of Isamar and not mention the charge of Elazar, which is the more honored?" — it may be said that Rashi holds like the answer of Ibn Ezra here in his short commentary (and so is the answer in Tosafos (Hadar Zekeinim) here): "under the direction of Isamar, who was appointed over most of the holy vessels" (and note that according to Ramban, too, it must be said that "it mentioned the charge of Isamar on account of the majority" — [OCR unclear] the long commentary here. And see the wording of Ramban).
*) And this requires investigation in the book Hoil Moshe (Be'er Heitev) — by the author of Mateh Moshe — on Rashi's commentary here.
9) [OCR unclear]: "Since it was difficult for him that the plain meaning of the verse implies that the service of the Levites is the pekudei of the Mishkan, that is, the count of the vessels of the Mishkan, he therefore explained 'to carry and to take down.'" But this requires investigation, for it is explicit in Rashi: "The reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels is the service entrusted to the Levites," that is, the service of the Levites is "the reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels." [Whereas according to Ramban — even though according to his interpretation, too, "the service of the Levites under the direction of Isamar" relates to the appointment of Parshas Naso (see the starred note to note 5 above) — he did not write (as [OCR unclear]) that "the reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels is the service entrusted to the Levites… to carry, etc."; rather, he explains "the pekudei of the Mishkan" as the "number and weight" of the silver of those counted of the congregation and the copper of the wave-offering (see there).]
10) And see Abarbanel here, the second question, and elsewhere.
11) 39:33ff.
12) [OCR unclear] Rashi's wording — in the comment beginning "These are the pekudei" he says "(all its vessels) for all its service," and in the comment beginning "the service of the Levites" he adds "(to carry) and to take down and to set up." The phrase "all its vessels for all its service" is based on the wording of the verse earlier (end of Parshas Terumah), "לכל כלי המשכן בכל עבודתו" ("for all the vessels of the Mishkan, in all its service"), and Rashi's commentary there: "For all the vessels of the Mishkan that were needed for its erection and its taking down, such as mallets, etc." Therefore Rashi alludes that "the reckoning of the Mishkan and its vessels" includes these vessels as well, to emphasize the connection to the service of the Levites, which is (not only to carry, but also) "to take down and to set up."
13) 4:32 — cited in Ibn Ezra and Sforno here.
14) And one cannot say that it is because "pekudei" is in the plural — for within the donation for the Mishkan itself three counts were counted here, "of the silver, the gold, and the copper" (Rashi's wording here. And see below, note 28).
15) Especially since it is seemingly forced to interpret that "the service of the Levites" refers only to one part (and matter) of "the pekudei of the Mishkan" (the count of the vessels, and not the count of the weights of the donation for the Mishkan).
16) See Bartenura; Sefer Zikaron; Devek Tov; and others [OCR unclear].
17) Especially according to the continuation of Rashi's commentary, that included in "These are the pekudei" is also that "all its vessels were counted, for all its service" — in the section after the next, as stated above in the text.
18) The question of whether Rashi saw Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on the Torah is well known. This is not the place to elaborate.
19) Note that in the Jerusalem Targum from manuscript (cited in Torah Sheleimah on our parsha here, item 12) it reads "אלין סכומי משכנה" ("These are the totals of the Mishkan").
20) See also Sifsei Chachamim and Maskil LeDavid here.
21) Except when it is the conclusion and summary of the preceding matter (see Rashi on Bereishis 2:4 and the commentators there; Chizkuni and others at the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim; and elsewhere; Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 42, note 34, at its end). In our case, Rashi did not explain that "These are the pekudei of the Mishkan" is the summary of the making of the Mishkan at the end of Parshas Vayakhel — for (in addition to the main point, that it is most forced to say that the summary of Parshas Vayakhel comes at (the beginning of) Parshas Pekudei ("this section")). And see [OCR unclear]
*) In Maskil LeDavid here: "An addition is not relevant here, for this itself is what was stated above; rather, here it comes to give an accounting of everything" — implying that he interprets "These" as the summary of what precedes it. But his words require investigation, for here comes not only the summary of what precedes; it adds the details of the accounting, "of the silver, the gold, and the copper." And why is "And these are the pekudei of the Mishkan" not relevant here?
22) [OCR unclear]
23) [OCR unclear]
24) [OCR unclear]
25) And so they explained (Rashi's intent) in Sefer Zikaron and Meleches HaKodesh on Rashi here.
26) Similar to [OCR unclear] — Mikeitz 41:34, and in many places. And see Rashi on Bamidbar 1:3.
27) See Malbim here.
28) Accordingly, the addition in the verse regarding "the silver of those counted of the congregation" — "בקע לגלגולת (מחצית השקל)" ("a beka per head (half a shekel)") (verse 26) — which was not mentioned earlier at the beginning of Parshas Tisa (30:13), is also better understood: to emphasize that the giving by the Jewish people, too, was connected (not only with a sum, but also) with weight*. And as Rashi explains: "Beka is the name of a weight of half a shekel" (and see earlier, Chayei Sarah 24:22: "a beka in weight," and Rashi there)**. Accordingly, one can also explain the order in Rashi's words, "the donation for the Mishkan, of the silver, the gold, and the copper" — silver before gold — contrary to their order in the continuation of the parsha (and similarly earlier, in the command — Terumah 25:3; Vayakhel 35:5 — and also in the bringing — ibid., 22–24. And see also Tisa 31:4; Vayakhel 35:32), and contrary to the level of their importance (as is simply understood. And see Rashi on Bo 12:35) — for "the weights of the donation for the Mishkan" (that is, that in the donation and giving, too, the matter of weight was emphasized) is emphasized regarding silver: "a beka per head."
*) And see regarding the halachah — Tzafnas Pa'neach on Rambam, Laws of Shekalim, ch. 1, halachos 3 and 5.
**) [OCR unclear] "מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש" ("half a shekel by the holy shekel") is (as Rashi explains, Tisa 30:13) a "weight" (and see Rashi there, s.v. "Gerah" and s.v. "Twenty gerah"; Tzafnas Pa'neach cited above) — but in order to emphasize even more the matter of "weight" in this giving, it adds "beka," which "is the name of a weight of half a shekel."
29) And this itself is the reason that only these items were counted (and not the other things in the donation for the Mishkan) — for gold, silver, and copper are counted by weight, whereas the other things are reckoned according to their value, importance, usefulness, etc. With this, Rashi's wording "all the weights of the donation for the Mishkan" is understood: all the things that are counted by weight were counted here. And see below, section 7.
30) 39:43. — And Rashi's comment (ibid., 33) is an explanation of the manner in which it was brought (Re'em and others there. And see the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Pekudei 5730). This is not the place to elaborate.
31) And see also below, p. 281ff. (regarding the halachah), that in the matter of "the pekudei of the Mishkan… at the command of Moshe" Moshe's ownership of all the affairs of the Mishkan was expressed. See there.
32) And indeed, the donations for the Mishkan, too, were brought specifically to Moshe (see Vayakhel 36:3).
33) Therefore Rashi did not write "the pekudei of the Mishkan — the count of the weights of the donation for the Mishkan, etc." — for then it would have implied that the meaning of the word "pekudei" is "count" — but rather (in the manner of style) "In this section were counted, etc., and were counted, etc."
34) Accordingly, the continuation of the subsequent verses (22–23), "And Betzalel… and with him Oholiav…," is also resolved — for (ultimately) they, too, are included in "the pekudei of the Mishkan" (at the time the Mishkan was made).
35) See above, note 8.
36) See Ibn Ezra on our parsha, 38:24, and in his short commentary there; Ramban and our masters the Ba'alei HaTosafos at the beginning of our parsha; Pane'ach Raza; Abarbanel; Toldos Yitzchak; Alshich; Kli Yakar; Levush on Rashi's commentary (38:24); and elsewhere. And see [OCR unclear] 280ff.
37) Kli Yakar answers that he did not give the accounting of the gold because the making of the priestly garments, which contained gold, had not yet been related. But it is still difficult (as he writes there): why did Moshe not give an accounting after the making of the priestly garments? And his answer, based on the Midrash that a heavenly voice went forth, etc., is not at all along the lines of the plain meaning.
38) Terumah 25:3. And as cited in Abarbanel here. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 429, note 27.
39) As Rashi explains at the beginning of Terumah: "שלשה עשר דברים האמורים בענין" ("thirteen items mentioned in the passage"). And see the commentators on Rashi there.
40) But regarding "the shoham stones and the stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastplate" there is no difficulty, for regarding them giving an accounting is not relevant, since from the outset the Nesi'im donated (Vayakhel 35:27) a specific number of stones, only as many as were needed for the ephod and the breastplate.
41) Vayakhel 36:7.
42) See also Abarbanel here.
43) Ramban on Vayakhel 36:3.
44) See our parsha, 38:28.
45) And see a further explanation (along the lines of the plain meaning) in the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Pekudei 5744.
46) See note 29.
47) See Levush cited in note 36. And see also Ibn Ezra and others cited in that note.
48) Note that "בכל כחו" ("with all his strength") is interpreted in two ways: 1) regarding the mitzvah of lashes — the physical strength in his hand (Makkos 22b); 2) regarding answering "Amen, yehei shmei rabba" — the power of intention in his soul (Shabbos 119, beginning of side a).
49) As in the opening "כי תשא (משה) את ראש בני" ("When you (Moshe) take the head-count of the children [of Israel]").
50) Rashi on Tisa 30:13 (from the Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim 1:4, and several Midrashim) — and he continues (after "a coin of fire"), "and its weight was half a shekel," a combination of "fire" and "weight." And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, end of p. 388ff.; above, p. 230ff.
51) [OCR unclear] (and [OCR unclear] 113a; Zohar III (Ra'aya Mehemna) 29, beginning of side b; Naso 123b; and elsewhere) — like the coin of the half-shekel (Jerusalem Talmud, ibid., and several Midrashim).
Key Lesson
Rashi's precise wording shows that the Torah's count of the Mishkan's donations is the reckoning of Moshe as its appointed overseer, who counted their "weight" rather than their value. So too, even a Jew's plain act of a mitzvah, its "weight," is reckoned by Moshe and becomes a "coin of fire," building the personal Mishkan and hastening the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash.