Exodus 25

Sugya Map

• Issue: The nature and purpose of the terumah (offering) for the Mishkan, specifically focusing on the precise wording of the command to collect these materials.
• Nafka Mina: Understanding the obligation of the terumah – whether it was a mandatory contribution or voluntary, and its implications for the donors and the collection process. This impacts the spiritual meaning of the Mishkan's construction and the relationship between Israel and Hashem.
• Primary Sources:
  • Exodus 25:1-7 (command for terumah)
  • Mishnah Shekalim 1:1-4 (discussion of shekalim as a communal offering)
  • Bamidbar Rabbah 14:22 (source for Divine voice from above the Ark-cover)
  • Tanchuma, Terumah 3 (on the voluntary nature of the terumah)

Text Snapshot

Exodus 25:1-2: וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ־לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִי׃

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and let them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "וְיִקְחוּ־לִי תְּרוּמָה" (and let them take for Me an offering) followed by "תִּקְחוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִי" (you shall take My offering) presents a subtle shift. The first is a general instruction for the people to bring, the second is a direct command to the collectors (Moses and Aharon, implicitly). The crucial term is "אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ" (whose heart inspires him to generosity). The verb "יִדְּבֶנּוּ" (yidbenenu) itself is subject to interpretation regarding its root and meaning, as we shall see.

Readings

Ramban on Exodus 25:1:1

Ramban opens by framing the command for the Mishkan as a consequence of Israel's acceptance of the Torah and Hashem's commitment to dwell among them. He emphasizes that this dwelling of the Shekhinah (Divine Presence) is a direct continuation of the revelation at Sinai. The Mishkan, and specifically the Ark, serves as the terrestrial locus for this divine presence, mirroring the heavenly manifestation. He notes a discrepancy between the Torah's order of construction (Ark first) and Bezalel's actual building process (Mishkan structure first), explaining it as a practical necessity versus a conceptual priority. For Ramban, the Ark and its cover are paramount because they are the site of direct divine communication ("וּפָגַשְׁתִּי אִתְּךָ וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת"). The Cherubim, made of hammered gold, are explicitly linked to the "fire" seen at Sinai, thus representing the fiery manifestation of God's glory. The entire structure is a mechanism for the Shekhinah to remain with Israel in a "concealed manner" after its open revelation on the mountain.

Kli Yakar on Exodus 25:1:1-3

Kli Yakar zeroes in on the perplexing repetition and phrasing of the terumah collection. He identifies three instances of terumah being mentioned:

1. "וְיִקְחוּ־לִי תְּרוּמָה" (let them take for Me an offering)
2. "תִּקְחוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִי" (you shall take My offering)
3. "וְזֹאת הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאֹתָם" (And this is the offering that you shall take from them)

He questions why the first two are attributed to God ("לי" / "תרומתי") while the third is associated with the donors ("מאותם"). Kli Yakar proposes a sophisticated interpretation of the verb "יִדְּבֶנּוּ" (yidbenenu). While seemingly meaning "inspires him," he suggests it could also be related to "ידונו בו" (they will judge it), implying a heart that is pained ("דוה וכואב") by the act of giving. This hinges on the interchangeability of the letters ב and ו.

• The first two offerings, which Kli Yakar posits were considered obligatory (perhaps a chiyuv or a kopher nefesh as mentioned in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa), had the potential for coercion by the collectors. Thus, the phrasing "לי" and "תרומתי" reflects God's ownership of these mandatory contributions. The act of taking by the collectors precedes the donor's full commitment.
• The third offering, however, is explicitly described as voluntary ("נדבה"). Here, the initial act is the donor's generous offering ("תרם מן ממונו כפי רצונו"). Only after this voluntary act can the collectors compel the donor to fulfill their commitment, hence "תקחו מאתם" – you shall take from them what they have already pledged. This also explains why the third offering is not attributed directly to God ("מאותם" not "לי").

Furthermore, Kli Yakar connects the phrasing to the social dynamics of giving. When collectors approach someone with a "pained heart" about giving, the intervention of esteemed individuals (Moses, Aharon, or the Nesi'im) can encourage them. This is why he believes the text emphasizes "אתם" (you, the leaders) taking the offering from those whose hearts are reluctant, whereas a truly generous person brings it themselves.

Friction

The core friction lies in reconciling the seemingly voluntary nature of the terumah as stated ("אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ") with the potential for compulsion or obligation suggested by the commentators. If the primary motivation is voluntary generosity, why the detailed instructions for collection and the nuances in attribution to God versus the people?

• Kushya: If the terumah for the Mishkan was entirely voluntary, as the phrase "אשר ידבנו ליבו" suggests, then the command "תקחו את תרומתי" (you shall take My offering) becomes problematic. How can one "take" something that is purely voluntary, especially if the donor might later regret their pledge? Furthermore, the distinction made by Kli Yakar between the first two and the third offering implies that the first two might have had an element of obligation, contradicting the initial simple reading of "נדבה".

• Terutz (Kli Yakar): Kli Yakar's nuanced interpretation of "ידבנו ליבו" as potentially referring to a heart that is pained ("דוה וכואב") by the giving, rather than just pure, unadulterated generosity, provides a sophisticated resolution. This allows for a spectrum of giving:

  • For those with a truly generous heart, the offering is brought willingly and without coercion.
  • For those whose hearts are pained or reluctant, the collectors (Moses, Aharon, Nesi'im) would approach them. While the initial command is to take from those whose hearts are "moved," the collectors' intervention could facilitate the giving, even if it involved overcoming reluctance. The distinction between "לי" and "תרומתי" versus "מאותם" addresses this: the offerings directly attributed to God are those where His Name is inherently involved, possibly due to a communal obligation or a deeper spiritual purpose (like kopher nefesh). The third offering, "מאותם," emphasizes the human agency and the voluntary aspect more strongly. The ability to "take" then refers to the enforcement of a pledge made under the influence of the initial divine inspiration, even if that inspiration was met with some internal resistance.

Intertext

• Mishnah Shekalim 1:1: "הַשְּׁקָלִים אֵימָתַי נִידָּנִין. מִשְּׁעַת הַמַּרְאֶה. הַכֹּל חַיָּבִין בַּשְּׁקָלִים, אֲפִלּוּ מִצְרִי וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב." (When are the shekalim given? From the time of the vision [of the census]. All are obligated in the shekalim, even an Egyptian and a resident alien.)

  • This Mishnah establishes a precedent for a communal, obligatory offering (shekalim) related to the census, which, while distinct from the Mishkan's terumah, highlights the concept of mandatory national contributions for sacred purposes. This contrasts with the initial impression of pure voluntary giving for the Mishkan materials. The shekalim were a fixed amount for every individual, irrespective of their wealth, intended for the upkeep of the Temple and communal sacrifices.

• Tanchuma, Terumah 3: "ולמה נקרא שמו תרומה, שהיה מתרומם מלבו, וכן הוא אומר ‘אשר ידבנו ליבו’. אמרת: הרי כל תרומות שיש במקרא, הכל נדבה? אלא תרומת המזבח, תרומת המשכן, תרומת הבגדים, הכל נדבה. וכן הוא אומר ‘כל נדיב לב’. אבל שקלים, הרי אלו חובה." (And why is its name called terumah? Because it was lifted from his heart. And so it says, 'whose heart inspires him'. You might say: Are all terumot in the Torah voluntary? No, the terumah of the altar, the terumah of the Mishkan, the terumah of the garments, all are voluntary. And so it says, 'every generous of heart.' But shekalim, behold these are obligatory.)

  • This midrash explicitly states that the terumah for the Mishkan (materials and garments) was voluntary ("נדבה"), contrasting it directly with the obligatory nature of shekalim. This strengthens the argument for the nadiv lev interpretation, while still leaving room for the complexities raised by Kli Yakar regarding the process of collection.

Psak/Practice

While the terumah for the Mishkan was fundamentally a voluntary contribution based on "נדבת לב" (generosity of heart), the halachic framework and the commentaries reveal important heuristics for communal giving:

1. The Principle of Nadiv Lev: The ideal is voluntary giving, driven by a sincere desire to support sacred endeavors. This is the foundational principle for communal projects and charity.
2. Communal Responsibility: Even if the initial impulse is voluntary, there exists a communal responsibility to ensure the project is completed. This is why the leaders were tasked with collecting the offerings.
3. The Role of Leadership: Leaders play a crucial role in inspiring generosity and facilitating contributions, especially from those who might be hesitant. Their presence and involvement can encourage giving.
4. Distinction between Voluntary and Obligatory: It's vital to distinguish between truly voluntary acts of charity and communal obligations like ma'aser or shekalim. While the spirit of voluntary giving is aspirational, certain contributions are mandated.
5. No Coercion for Pure Nadva: As Kli Yakar implies, for a purely voluntary offering, forcing the donor after they have pledged is problematic, hence the subtle shift in wording for the third offering. However, the initial act of "taking" can involve encouraging or facilitating giving, even from someone initially hesitant.

In essence, the Mishkan terumah serves as a model for communal fundraising where inspiration and voluntary commitment are paramount, yet the practicalities of collection and leadership involvement are indispensable.

Takeaway

The construction of the Mishkan was an act of divine intimacy, initiated by Israel's willing hearts, yet guided by precise commands for collection. True nadvanut encompasses both the joyful impulse to give and the structured process that ensures sacred needs are met.