Ramps in the Mishkan

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Notes here

Rav Yehudah said: Two small ramps branched off from the main ramp, by which one (on the west side) turned to the base and one (on the east side) to the ledge, and these were also separated from the altar by a hairsbreadth, because it is written: around.

HaRav Dovid Meyers, author of the fabulous sefer on the construction of the Mishkan, Meleches HaMishkan V’Kailav, notes: This is referring to the altar in the Beis HaMikdash. It is logical to assume that there would also be one to the ledge in the Mishkan if the ledge in the Mishkan was for the Kohanim to walk upon. According to Rashi in Chumash there was no ledge for the Kohanim to walk on in the Mishkan, so there was no need for a small ramp to the ledge. There are commentators that maintain that there was a ledge for the Kohanim to walk on in the Mishkan (page 234), so according to them there was a need for a small ramp to the ledge.

Regarding if in the Mishkan there was a small ramp to the base, according to what Shitah Mekubetzes (letter 12) that the purpose of the small ramp to the base was because if the Kohen would have to go down the ramp and then go to the base, the blood might coagulate and become unfit for sprinkling, it would seem that there should also be one in the Mishkan. Even though it would seem that the ramp in the Mishkan was a little shorter than the ramp in the Beis HaMikdash, it is not logical to say that since the ramp in the Mishkan was a few amos shorter than the ramp in the Beis HaMikdash, there would be no concern that the blood would coagulate. According to what we have written, it seems that there was only one small ramp in the Mishkan,

Read more!

Traveling with the Fire on the Altar

The Gemora says that the fire that came down from the heavens during the time of Moshe did not depart from the copper Altar until the time of Shlomo. The fire that came down from the heavens during the time of Shlomo did not depart until Menashe and removed it.

Kollel Iyun HaDaf http://www.dafyomi.co.il/zevachim/insites/zv-dt-061.htm poses the following question: Rashi in his commentary on Chumash (Shemos 30:3) cites the Mechilta which contrasts the Mizbe’ach ha’Ketores to the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes. The verse says that the Mizbe’ach ha’Ketores had a solid top, while, says the Mechilta, the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes did not have such a top. The Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes was transported merely as a frame, and at each stop in the desert its hollow interior was filled with dirt. The Netziv (Shemos 27:2) therefore questions Rashi’s words from the Gemora here, which states that the fire descended and stayed on the Mizbe’ach. If the earth inside of the hollow of the Mizbe’ach was removed and the Mizbe’ach dismantled each time the Jewish people embarked on a new journey, then where was the fire?

HaRav Dovid Meyers, author of the fabulous sefer on the construction of the Mishkan, Meleches HaMishkan V'Kailav, answers as follows: Firstly, according to the Malbim (Shemos 20, posuk 21) there is an argument in Mechilta whether the Mizbe’ach was carried with the dirt or not. The Malbim also brings another dispute if the fire was on the Mizbe’ach when they traveled or not. The Malbim explains that if the fire remained, then the Mizbe’ach was filled with dirt when they carried it. If it did not remain, then it was carried without dirt.

According to the Shitah Mekubetzes on our Daf (letter 6), in the time they traveled, the fire rested on the edge of the Mizbe’ach.

According to Raaviah (chelek sheini Maseches Chagigah siman 808), the fire rested on a clump of dirt carried with the Mizbe’ach.

According to Anaf Yosef on Tanchuma (Terumah 11) they put a tablet on the Mizbe’ach and it rested on it.

According to Tosafos HaSaleim (Shemos 38, 6-7, letter 1), even according to Rashi, the Mizbe’ach HaNechshes had a top.

The Kollel cites the following answers: The Netziv explains that the Gemora argues with the Mechilta and maintains that the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes did have a top on which the fire rested even during the journeys. He finds support for this assertion in the Midrash Tanchuma. He explains that the way the Mizbe’ach was filled with earth was through the bottom of the Mizbe’ach, which had no floor. Upon their arrival at a new location, the Jewish people would make a mound of earth and place the Mizbe’ach over it, effectively filling the Mizbe’ach with earth. When they would leave, they would lift the Mizbe’ach, leaving the earth in its place.

This also seems to be the opinion of the Kereisi u’Pleisi (43:5). The Gemora in Chagigah (27a) derives through a kal va’chomer from the Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav that the fire of Gehinom does not affect the transgressors among the Jewish people. Even though the gold covering the top of the Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav was only the thickness of a dinar coin, it was not diminished at all throughout the years that it had a fire burning on it. Certainly, then, the transgressors among the Jewish people -- who are full of mitzvos like a pomegranate -- will not be affected by the fire of Gehinom (see Insights to Chagigah 27a).

Tosfos in Chagigah there (DH she’Ein) is bothered by a question, as the Kereisi u’Pleisi explains his words. Why does the Gemora learn this kal va’chomer from the Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav, and not from the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes? The only thing offered on the Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav was the incense offering, which was burned there once at the beginning of the day and once at the end of the day. There was much more activity on the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes, which had a fire on it at all times, and it too had a coating of gold that did not diminish!

Since the Kereisi u’Pleisi says that the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes had a coating of gold on its top, it is clear that he maintains that the Mizbe’ach had a top, like its counterpart, the Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav.

The Gemora here may be understood even according to Rashi’s assertion that the Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes had no top, based on the words of the Shitah Mekubetzes (#6). Rashi here (DH Lo Nistalkah) comments that while the Jewish people traveled in the desert, they used to turn a certain type of vessel over the fire on the Mizbe’ach to preserve the fire. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Toras Kohanim (Tzav 2:10; see Rash mi’Shantz), and not the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says that the fire was removed from the Mizbe’ach. This is also the way Rashi explains in Bamidbar (4:13), where he says that the cover of the Mizbe’ach was not burned by the fire underneath it while traveling, due to the vessel which was placed over the fire. If there was no actual top to the Mizbe’ach, though (but rather its frame was filled to the top with earth), and the earth inside of it was removed when the people traveled, where could they place the vessel to contain the fire? The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that they placed the vessel “over the edge” of the Mizbe’ach. This means that the fire on the Mizbe’ach remained on top of the frame of the Mizbe’ach, covered by this vessel.

Read more!

Story on the Daf

The Gemora states that the terms Mishkan and Mikdash are interchangeable. One must wonder if the terms are interchangeable, why Scripture would not just employ one term, either always using the term Mishkan or always using the term Mikdash. An answer to this puzzle can be found with a story that occurred many years ago.

Rabbi Stein, an executive director of a well-known Yeshiva, rand the doorbell one evening at the Miller’s home. Mr. Miller invited Rabbi Stein inside to partake of supper with Mr. Miller’s family. Rabbi Stein began apologizing for interrupting the family, when Mr. Miller said, “Please, I am certain you are here for an important reason. How can I be of help to you?”

Rabbi Stein explained that the yeshiva was in desperate need of funds, so Mr. Miller sent his son to bring his checkbook. After writing out a very generous check to the Yeshiva and handing it to Rabbi Stein, Rabbi Stein thanked Mr. Miller and rose to leave. “I would like to apologize again for coming at such an inconvenient time,” Rabbi Stein said. “The opposite is true,” declared Mr. Miller. “Let me share with you something.

Reb Yitzchak Hutner of Yeshivas Chaim Berlin calls me from time to time asking for financial assistance for his Yeshiva. When Rav Hutner once called me while I was eating supper, I told Rav Hutner the following: I am very organized in my method of giving tzedakah. I set aside ten percent of my income and I distribute the funds systematically. I would probably give the Rosh HaYeshiva a donation even without the Rosh HaYeshiva calling me, but I actually appreciate the call. I would never interrupt my supper to pay a utility bill, but I will interrupt my supper to give tzedakah, because I feel that this is something that is every important for my children to witness. Rabi Stein, I must thank you too for ringing my doorbell as we were about to commence our supper. You could not have arrived at a better time.”

This story teaches us that there is a Mikdash, a shul, a yeshiva, or any worthy Jewish organization, but there is also a Mishkan, from the generosity and beauty of performing the mitzvah of tzedakah, that allows the Divine Presence to reside in the homes of those who support the Torah.

Sent out of a Walled City

The Gemora mentions that there is a special sanctity regarding cities in Eretz Yisroel that were surrounded by a wall in the times of Yehoshua. Rashi writes some of these halachos: One who sells a house inside a walled city has one year to redeem the house, but if he chooses not to redeem the house, it becomes the property of the buyer permanently; sending a metzora outside the city; and that the open space (1,000 cubits) surrounding the city should be left uncultivated.

Why does a Metzora need to leave a city that is surrounded by a wall, but may otherwise remain in all other cities--as long as they are unwalled? The Be'er Yosef provides a fascinating p'shat based on the Chazal in Erachin (15b) which states that Hashem provided for the tongue two protections -- two walls: one of flesh--the lips, and one of bone--the teeth. A metzora breached his very own walls of protection by speaking lashon hora; he cannot therefore remain in a city protected by a wall!

Hakhel Note: An average city has only one wall--yet Hashem in his benevolence gives us a truly enhanced fortification--a dual safeguard! How can a person be so imprudent, so unwise, so as to take down not only one wall made for his own protection--but two! We will add one other point, as well. One of the most famous Metzora scenes in Tanach is that of Gechazi and his sons outside the city of Shomron (the Haftorah for Parshas Metzora)--perhaps a lesson to us that the sin of Lashon Hora is easily spread within or among a family(Miriam and Aharon speaking regarding Moshe Rabbeinu provides a similar lesson)--and this may be why it is easier to succeed at taking down the 'double wall'--it is an unfortunate and misguided team effort, and one family member encourages the next in what to the casual observer may otherwise be described as a self-defeating struggle. If one sees a weakness in his family--or in a particular family member (even if that family member is himself) -- he should bolster the fortifications--so that the security of the entire family is not breached--and the lips and tongue can take their noble places in protecting home, life and family!

Read more!

Space for the Holy Ark

The Gemora states that neither the body of the keruvim, nor the ark itself took up any space in the inner sanctum.

The Maharsha says that this miracle was done to indicate that Hashem has no physical aspect, and therefore the ark and keruvim which were designated as the ultimate resting place of Hashem's presence did not use up any physical space.

The Ben Yehoyada says that the ark took up no space to hint that any expenditures that one makes for Torah do not come off his general budget set by Hashem for a year (as per Beitza 16a). The keruvim, which symbolize the Jewish nation, took up no space to hint that all sustenance provided to the Jewish nation is done miraculously by Hashem, and is not part of the general account made for the world's sustenance. He quotes his son, Yaakov, as explaining that this miracle was done to teach us that when one is involved in Torah (symbolized by the ark) and mitzvos (symbolized by the keruvim), he should do so without any earthly intentions, just as these items were not related to the physical space where they were situated.
Shabbos in the Daf
The Gemora states that the Aron, the Holy Ark, did not take up any room in space in the Mishkan and in the Bais HaMikdash. This was truly a miracle. Similarly, we can suggest that Shabbos, despite the prohibition from refraining to work, does not take up any space either.

The Zohar states that one’s sustenance is blessed from Shabbos. Although one refrains from work on Shabbos and it would seem that this would be detrimental to ones livelihood, one should not be concerned, because by observing Shabbos, his efforts during the week will be blessed.

Read more!

The Mishkan, An Edifice of Kindness - Yevamos 77 - Daf Yomi

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (93b) presents a Scriptural exposition of Bar Kappara that relates, among other things, to Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah:

Rabbi Tanchum said: Bar Kappara expounded in Tzipori: What is the meaning g of that which is written: [Rus] said: These six barleys did he give me? Now, what is meant by six barleys? If you say it means literally “six barleys”, i.e. six kernels of barley-but was it the practice of the wealthy Boaz to give a present as trifling as six barleycorns? Certainly not! And if you say, rather, that it means he gave her six se’ahs of barley, which is a sizeable gift-but is nit the practice of a woman to carry a burden as heavy as six se’ahs of grain? How did Boaz expect Rus to carry that much barley back to her home? Rather, it indeed means that he gave her six barleycorns-not as an ordinary gift but for a symbolic purpose. For he was indicating to her that six sons [i.e. descendants] were destined to descend from her who would each be blessed with six blessings. And these six descendants were: Dovid, and the Moshiach, Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah.

The Gemara shows how the six blessings of these six descendants are indicated in Scripture:

The six blessings are indicated in that which is written: And one of the retainers spoke up and said: “Behold I have seen a son of Yishai, the Bethlehemite, one who knows how to play [the harp], and one mighty in courage, and a warrior, and understanding in [all] matters, and a man of appealing looks; and Hashem is with him (etc.). Thus, Dovid is described here as being blessed with six qualities. And Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: All the praises of Dovid mentioned in this verse were said by Doeg only with an evil tongue. Rav explains what Doeg meant to intimate with each of his praises: Dovid is one who knows how to play-he is one who knows how to ask incisive Torah inquiries. Mighty-he is one who knows how to answer difficult Torah questions. A warrior-he is one who knows how to engage in the give and take of Torah debate. A man of appealing looks- he is one who displays the appealing face of his opinions in halachah, i.e. his arguments are convincing. And understanding in [all] matters-he is one who understands one matter from his knowledge of another, i.e. he possesses keen deductive abilities. And Hashem is with him-this means that the halachah accords with his opinion in every instance. In response to each successive praise of Dovid, Shaul said to them: My son Yonasan is also like him in that regard. Once, however, [Doeg] said to him and Hashem is with him, i.e. the halachah always accords with his opinion- a quality that he [Shaul], too, did not have-Shaul became disheartened and jealous of Dovid. And how do we know that Shaul did not posses this quality but Dovid did? For concerning Shaul it is written: Wherever he would turn, he would condemn, whereas concerning Dovid it is written: Wherever he would turn, he would succeed.

The Gemara proves its earlier assertion that “one of the retainers” was Doeg:

From where is it known to us that it was Doeg who praised Dovid to Shaul? It is written here in the verse cited above: And “one” of the retainers spoke up, indicating “the outstanding one” among the retainers, and it is written there in another verse: And there [in Nov] was a man-one of Shaul’s servants-on that day, detained before Hashem, and his name was Doeg the Edomite; the chief of Shaul’s shepherds.

The Gemara now shows how the six blessings of the second descendant of Ruth are indicated in Scripture:

The six blessings of the Moshiach are indicated in that which is written: And the spirit of Hashem shall rest upon him-a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and strength, a spirit of understanding and fear of Hashem.

My brother, Reb Binyomin,in his sefer on Sanhedrin explains: The Gemara presents a very subtle but profound lesson. Rus had gone to Boaz at her mother-in-law Naomi’s behest. Boaz gave Rus this present so that she not return empty-handed to her mother-in-law. From this apparently trivial episode, the Gemara derives that Rus merited having Moshiach descend from her. This theme is reflected in the building of the Mishkan. It is said: Moshe said to the Children of Israel, “See, Hashem has proclaimed by name, Betzalel son of Uri son of Chur, of the tribe of Yehudah. He filled him with G-dly spirit, with wisdom, insight, and knowledge, and with every craft. The Medrash elaborates on the praise that was bestowed upon Betzalel and remarks, “And all this praise, from where does it come? From the tribe of Yehudah. And from where did Betzalel merit to attain all this wisdom? In the merit of Miriam, as is said, [And it was because the midwives feared Hashem that] He made them houses. What were these houses? The house of priesthood and the house of kingship. Yocheved took priesthood and kingship. Aharon was the High Priest, and Moshe was the king, as it is said, He became king over Yeshurun… Miriam received wisdom, because from her descendants was Betzalel, and Dovid, who was a king, descended from her, as is said, [When Azuvah died, Calev married Efras ] who bore him Chur. It is said, Dovid was the son of a certain Ephrathite… this means that Dovid was a descendant of Miriam who was called Efras.

What did Miriam do to merit these great rewards? She performed acts of kindness for her people, by defying Pharaoh’s orders and allowing the Jewish male newborns to live. This “small” feat earned her the highest honor in Jewish history, to be the forerunner of the messianic destiny. Betzalel was blessed with wisdom due to Miriam’s selfless acts on behalf of her people. Boaz demonstrated to Rus that because she forsook her father and mother and the land of her birth, and went to a people whom she had not known yesterday or earlier, she would merit six descendants who would be blessed with six blessings. The most significant of these descendants is Moshiach, whose wisdom will light up the world.

Bearing this thesis in mind, we can explain a statement in the Medrash regarding the episode of Eliezer seeking a wife for Yitzchak. The Medrash writes, “Rabbi Acha said, the speech of servants in the Patriarchs house is more cherished than the Torah of their (the patriarchs) descendants (the Jewish People). The portion recording the incident of Eliezer finding a wife for Yitzchak is repeated in the Torah, and a teeming creature (sheretz) which is considered a fundamental of Torah, the law that states that its blood renders impurity like its skin is only derived from a verse.

I always wondered why the Medrash did not reference the Parshiyos of Vayakhel and Pekudei, which are essentially a repetition of Parshiyos Terumah and Tetzaveh. Now it is clear why it does not have to be mentioned. The Mishkan was built through the kindness that Miriam showed to her people. The Gemara states that Betzalel knew the letters by which heaven and earth were created. It is said, for I said, “Forever will [Your] kindness be built, which the Gemara interprets to read: Hashem created a world based on kindness. Betzalel was merely mirroring the world that Hashem created. This was a world of kindness. May we merit the reward mentioned in the Medrash. It is said, May Hashem reward your deed, and may your payment be full from Hashem, the G-d of Israel, under Whose wings you have come to seek refuge. Rabbi Chasa said: under Whose wings you have come to seek refuge. Rabbi Abun said: We know that there are wings of the land, wings of the sun, wings of the Chayos, wings of the Keruvim, and wings of the Seraphim. See how great are the strength of the righteous, and the strength of charity, and the strength of those who perform acts of kindness. They do not take refuge under the morning shade, nor under the wings of the land, nor under the wings of the sun, nor under the wings of the Chayos, the Keruvim, or the wings of the Seraphim. Rather, they take refuge in the shadow of the One who created the world, as is said, How precious is Your kindness, O G-d! Mankind takes refuge in the shelter of Your wings.

[END]

Read more!

Yoma 37 Changing the כיור

The vessels in the Mishkan had an exact measurement explicitly delineated in the Torah such as the Mizbeach, Shulchan and Menorah. These keilim could not be changed ever. What about the other ones such as the kiyor? Did they have to be made in the same way they were made in the times of Moshe? Rashi in Chumash says that they must and the Ramban there disagrees and holds that they could be made in any way they wanted and he prooves it from the Mizbeach Hanechoshes that was built to a much larger size in the times of Shlomo Hamelech. Look in the Mikdash Dovid (2) where this issue is discussed.

Our Mishna states that Ben Katin changed the amount of spouts that were on the כיור. Originally there were just two and he instituted that there should be twelve. How would Rashi explain the permissibility of this? Is that not considered a change?

Read more!