Rashi on Parshas Pekudei – Commentary

Introduction to Rashi on Parshas Pekudei

In Parshas Pekudei, Rashi frames the completion of the Mishkan as both an act of accountability and a moment of restored intimacy between Hashem and Yisrael. The detailed reckoning of materials becomes more than financial transparency; it is a spiritual audit following the sin of the Eigel. Throughout these chapters, Rashi highlights textual nuances, midrashic layers, halachic precision, and structural clarity. The Mishkan emerges not merely as architecture, but as עדות — testimony — that the Shechinah has returned. Rashi’s lens reveals a delicate balance: human obedience and craftsmanship on one side, Divine presence and miraculous assistance on the other.

Chapter 38

38:21 — “אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת”

אלה פקודי

“In this section are enumerated all the weights of the metals given as a contribution for the Tabernacle — silver, gold, and copper — and all its vessels for every service.”

Rashi explains that this parsha contains a full reckoning of the donated materials. The Torah lists both:

• The weights of the metals (silver, gold, copper)
• The vessels used for every type of avodah

This establishes transparency and precision in the construction of the Mishkan.

המשכן משכן

The word משכן appears twice — “המשכן משכן” — which Rashi interprets as an allusion (רמז) to the Beis HaMikdash that would be “taken in pledge” (נתמשכן) twice — destroyed twice — because of the sins of Yisrael (תנחומא פקודי ה).

The repetition thus hints to:

• The First Churban
• The Second Churban

The Mishkan stands as both presence and potential loss — holiness contingent upon conduct.

משכן העדת

“The Tabernacle of the Testimony.”

Rashi explains that the Mishkan served as testimony (עדות) to Yisrael that Hashem had forgiven them for the sin of the Golden Calf. The proof was that He caused His Shechinah to dwell among them (תנחומא פקודי ו).

The Mishkan is therefore:

• A sign of restored relationship
• Evidence of Divine indulgence after failure

עבודת הלוים

“The service of the Levites.”

The counting of the Mishkan and its vessels relates to the avodah entrusted to the Levi’im in the Midbar:

• To carry
• To dismantle
• To erect

Each Levi was assigned his specific burden, as detailed in Parshas Naso (במדבר ד). The accounting reflects their structured responsibility.

ביד איתמר

“By the hand of Ithamar.”

Ithamar served as the appointed overseer who assigned to each בית אב the avodah designated for it. He functioned as administrative supervisor over the Levi’im.

38:22 — “וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי… עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה”

ובצלאל בן אורי וגו' עשה את כל אשר צוה ה' את משה

The Torah does not say “אשר צוה משה” (“that Moshe commanded”), but rather “אשר צוה ה׳ את משה” (“that Hashem commanded Moshe”).

Rashi explains that even matters which Moshe did not explicitly instruct Betzalel, Betzalel’s דעת aligned with what was told to Moshe at Sinai (ירושלמי פאה א:א; בראשית רבה א:יד).

Moshe had instructed Betzalel to build the vessels first and the Mishkan afterward. Betzalel responded:

• The normal order is first to build a house
• Then to place the vessels inside it

Moshe replied that this indeed was what he had heard from Hashem. He said to Betzalel:

“בצל א-ל היית” — You must have been in the shadow of G-d — for certainly this is what He commanded me (ברכות נה ע״א).

Accordingly:

• Betzalel constructed the Mishkan first
• Then he fashioned the vessels

Rashi highlights Betzalel’s spiritual intuition and alignment with Divine intent.

38:24 — “כִּכָּר”

ככר

A kikkar consists of sixty maneh. However, the maneh used for sacred purposes was double the ordinary maneh.

Therefore:

• One sacred kikkar = 120 common maneh
• One maneh = 25 sela’im (shekels)
• One sacred kikkar = 3,000 shekels

Because of this, Scripture itemizes separately any number of shekels fewer than 3,000 — since they do not amount to a full kikkar (בכורות ה ע״א).

Rashi explains the Torah’s arithmetic precision in the accounting.

38:26 — “בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת…”

בקע

The word בקע refers to a weight equal to half a shekel. The term derives from בָּקַע — to split — indicating half of a whole.

לשש מאות אלף וגו'

The number of Yisrael at that time was 600,000, consistent with their census in Sefer Bamidbar (cf. רש״י שמות ל:טז).

The half-shekels of 600,000 people equal:

• 600,000 half-shekels
• Which equal 300,000 whole shekels
• Which equal 100 kikkar (since each kikkar = 3,000 shekels)

Additionally:

• 3,550 half-shekels equal 1,775 whole shekels

Rashi explains the full mathematical breakdown of the totals recorded in the pesukim.

38:27 — “לָצֶקֶת אֵת אַדְנֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ”

לצקת

Rashi explains that לצקת means “to cast,” as rendered in the Targum: לאתכא.

את אדני הקדש

This refers to the sockets of the boards of the Mishkan.

There were:

• 48 boards
• 96 sockets for those boards
• 4 sockets for the Paroches

Total: 100 sockets.

Other sockets (for the courtyard enclosure and entrance curtain) are not counted here, since those were made of copper — and the Torah here is discussing silver sockets only.

38:28 — “וַיְצַפֶּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם”

וצפה ראשיהם

The remaining 1,775 shekels of silver were used to overlay the tops of the pillars.

Rashi clarifies:

• The overlaying was of the tops of the pillars
• Not of the hooks

For Scripture states (38:19): “וְצִפּוּי רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם כָּסֶף” — “the overlaying of their tops and their fillets were of silver.”

Chapter 38 Summary

In Chapter 38, Rashi centers on the theme of פקודי — reckoning and responsibility. The double expression “המשכן משכן” alludes to the two future Churbanos, while “משכן העדות” testifies that Hashem forgave Yisrael for the Eigel by causing His Shechinah to dwell among them. Rashi carefully explains the role of the Levi’im under Ithamar’s supervision and clarifies the precise accounting of gold and silver, including the halachic breakdown of kikkar, maneh, and shekel. Even the remaining 1,775 shekels are accounted for in the overlaying of the pillars. The chapter thus becomes a portrait of exactitude — numerical, structural, and moral — underscoring that holiness rests upon integrity and clarity.

Chapter 39

39:1 — “וּמִן הַתְּכֵלֶת וְהָאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי…”

ומן התכלת והארגמן וגו׳

Rashi notes that the word שש (linen) is not mentioned here. From this omission he derives that the בגדי שרד referenced in this pasuk are not the garments of the Kohanim, because the priestly garments did contain linen.

Rather, these בגדי שרד were:

• The cloth coverings used to cover the holy vessels
• During dismantling and travel in the Midbar
• And they did not contain linen

This aligns with what Rashi explained earlier (cf. שמות ל״א:י׳). The absence of שש is thus decisive textual evidence.

39:3 — “וַיְרַקְּעוּ אֶת פַּחֵי הַזָּהָב…”

וירקעו

Rashi explains that וירקעו is related to לרקע הארץ (תהילים קל״ו:ו׳), meaning “to stretch out.” The Targum renders it ורדידו — they beat out or extended.

They would:

• Beat the gold into thin plates (טסין דקין)
• Then cut threads from those plates lengthwise

These gold threads were woven together with the colored wool threads in the Ephod and Choshen, where gold is mentioned.

The structure was:

• One thread of gold
• Twisted together with six threads of תכלת
• And similarly with each type of wool

Each material’s threads were six-fold, and the gold formed the seventh thread in each mixture (cf. יומא ע״ב ע״א). Rashi thus explains the technical weaving process.

39:28 — “וְאֶת פַּאֲרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעֹת…”

ואת פארי המגבעות

Rashi explains that this phrase means:

• The beauty (תפארת) of the high caps
• That is, the beautiful high caps

The term “פארי” refers to their splendor and adornment.

39:31 — “לָתֵת עַל הַמִּצְנֶפֶת מִלְמָעְלָה…”

לתת על המצנפת מלמעלה

Rashi clarifies that the Tzitz was placed upon the mitznefes by means of threads, like a crown resting upon it.

However, it cannot mean that the Tzitz was literally positioned on top of the mitznefes. The Gemara teaches (זבחים י״ט ע״א) that the Kohen Gadol’s hair was visible between the Tzitz and the mitznefes — in the place where he wore tefillin. Since:

• The Tzitz rested on the forehead (שמות כ״ח:ל״ח)
• The mitznefes sat higher on the head

The Tzitz was below the mitznefes, not on top of it.

Rashi raises a second difficulty:

Here it states “וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלָיו פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת” — they placed upon it a thread of blue.
In the command section (שמות כ״ח:ל״ז) it says “וְשַׂמְתָּ אוֹתוֹ עַל פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת” — place it upon a blue thread.

Rashi resolves both issues:

The פתיל תכלת was not decorative but consisted of threads used to tie the Tzitz to the mitznefes. Since the Tzitz extended only from ear to ear, it required threads to secure it to the forehead.

Therefore:

• Blue threads were attached at both ends
• And also at the middle

At each end there were two threads:

• One above
• One below (near the forehead)

Similarly at the middle. Since tying requires at least two threads, the singular “פתיל” is appropriate — just as with the Choshen and Ephod (שמות כ״ח:כ״ח), where it also says “בפתיל תכלת” though multiple threads were required.

The Kohen Gadol would:

• Tie all thread-ends together behind his neck
• Positioning the Tzitz properly

Rashi emphasizes that even though multiple threads were involved, the Torah may refer to them in the singular.

39:32 — “וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל…”

ויעשו בני ישראל

“And the children of Israel made…”

Rashi explains that they performed the work exactly “ככל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה” — precisely as Hashem commanded Moshe. Their execution matched the Divine directive.

39:33 — “וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן…”

ויביאו את המשכן וגו׳

They brought the Mishkan to Moshe because they were unable to erect it themselves.

Since Moshe had not participated in the physical labor of constructing the Mishkan, Hashem reserved for him the merit of erecting it.

The boards were extremely heavy:

• No human strength could raise them

Moshe asked Hashem how a human being could possibly erect it. Hashem told him:

“You occupy yourself with it using your hand, and it will appear as though you are erecting it.”

In truth, it stood up by itself.

Therefore the Torah states (שמות מ׳:י״ז):

“הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן” — the Mishkan was erected — implying it erected itself.

This is brought from Midrash Rabbi Tanchuma.

39:43 — “וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה”

ויברך אתם משה

Moshe blessed them, saying:

“יהי רצון שתשרה שכינה במעשה ידיכם” — May it be Hashem’s will that the Shechinah rest upon the work of your hands.

He continued:

“ויהי נעם ה׳ אֱלֹקינו עלינו ומעשה ידינו כוננה עלינו…” (תהילים צ׳:י״ז)

This verse is part of one of the eleven Tehillim (90–100) in the section beginning תפלה למשה (ספרי; במדבר רבה י״ב:ט).

Moshe’s blessing was that:

• The Divine Presence dwell upon their craftsmanship
• Their labor become a dwelling place for the Shechinah

Chapter 39 Summary

In Chapter 39, Rashi moves from accounting to craftsmanship. He distinguishes the בגדי שרד from the priestly garments based on the omission of שש, and explains in detail the technical process of beating gold into threads for weaving into the Ephod and Choshen. He clarifies the adornment of the migba’os and offers an extended halachic analysis of how the Tzitz was tied to the mitznefes, reconciling textual variations and Gemara in Zevachim. The completion of the Mishkan’s components culminates in Moshe’s blessing: “ויהי נעם ה׳ אֱלֹקינו עלינו.” The work was executed exactly as commanded, and the prayer is that the Shechinah rest upon it. Chapter 39 thus highlights fidelity to command and the aspiration for Divine indwelling.

Chapter 40

40:3 — “וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרֹן…”

וסכת על הארן

Rashi explains that וסכת denotes screening or protection (לשון הגנה). The Paroches functioned as a partition — a protective separation between the Aron and the rest of the Mishkan (cf. רש״י שמות ל״ה:י״ב). The term is therefore exact: it refers to shielding.

40:4 — “וְעָרַכְתָּ אֶת עֶרְכּוֹ…”

וערכת את ערכו

This refers to arranging the two rows (שתי מערכות) of the Lechem HaPanim upon the Shulchan. The “setting” described is specifically the placement of the two orderly piles.

40:19 — “וַיִּפְרֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל…”

ויפרש את האהל

The אהל refers to the curtains of goats’ hair. Rashi identifies the term specifically as the יריעות העזים — the goat-skin coverings that formed the outer layer.

40:20 — “וַיִּקַּח וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת…”

את העדת

This refers to the Luchos — the Tablets of the Covenant. The “testimony” placed inside the Aron is the physical testimony of the covenant itself.

40:22 — “עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁכָּן צָפֹנָה…”

על ירך המשכן צפנה

Rashi explains that this means the northern half of the width of the Mishkan — not directly against the northern wall, but in the northern half-space (יומא ל״ג ע״ב).

ירך

Although ירך literally means “thigh,” the Targum renders it צדא — “side.” Just as a thigh is at the side of a person, so the side of a structure is described by this term.

40:27 — “וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת…”

ויקטר עליו קטרת

Moshe caused the incense to ascend upon the Mizbeach:

• In the morning
• And in the evening

As stated in Shemos 30:7–8: “בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות… ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים…” The avodah followed the established daily pattern.

40:29 — “וַיַּעַל עָלָיו…”

ויעל עליו וגו׳

Rashi clarifies that Moshe officiated not only during the seven days of the Milu’im, when he erected and dismantled the Mishkan daily, but also on the eighth day — the day of the permanent erection.

On that day Moshe:

• Served in the avodah
• Offered communal korbanos

Except for those korbanos that were commanded specifically for that day, as stated in Vayikra 9:7 (“קרב אל המזבח…”).

את העלה

This refers to the Korban Tamid — the daily burnt offering.

ואת המנחה

This refers to the Minchas Nesachim of the Tamid, as described in Shemos 29:40: “ועשרון סלת בלול בשמן…” — the flour mingled with oil and accompanied by wine libations.

40:31 — “וְרָחֲצוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן…”

ורחצו ממנו משה ואהרן

On the eighth day of the Milu’im, all present — including Moshe — were equal in priestly function. The Targum renders ורחצו as ומקדשין — they sanctified (their hands and feet).

On that day:

• Moshe washed along with Aharon and his sons
• Participating in the sanctifying process

40:32 — “וּבְקָרְבָתָם…”

ובקרבתם

Rashi explains that this is equivalent to ובקרבם — meaning “when they approached.” It carries an imperfect sense: whenever they approached.

40:35 — “וְלֹא יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבוֹא…”

ולא יכל משה לבוא אל אהל מועד

Rashi notes an apparent contradiction:

• Here it says Moshe was not able to enter.
• But in Bamidbar 7:89 it says: “ובבא משה אל אהל מועד…” — when Moshe came into the Tent of Meeting.

The third verse resolves the contradiction: “כי שכן עליו הענן” — for the cloud rested upon it.

Thus:

• As long as the cloud rested upon the Mishkan, Moshe could not enter.
• When the cloud departed, he entered and spoke with Hashem.

This reconciliation is brought from Sifra (ברייתא דרבי ישמעאל י״ח).

40:38 — “לְעֵינֵי כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מַסְעֵיהֶם”

לעיני כל בית ישראל בכל מסעיהם

Rashi explains that at every מסע — meaning at every encampment — the cloud rested upon the Mishkan at the place where they encamped.

A place of encampment is also called מסע. Examples:

• “וילך למסעיו” (בראשית י״ג:ג׳)
• “אלה מסעי” (במדבר ל״ג:א׳)

Since from each encampment they would journey onward, all stages — including resting places — are called מסעות.

Chapter 40 Summary

Chapter 40 focuses on erection, inauguration, and Divine manifestation. Rashi explains the Paroches as protective screening, the orderly placement of the Lechem HaPanim, and the identification of the Luchos as “העדות.” He clarifies the spatial arrangement of the Mishkan and the daily avodah of ketores and Tamid. Moshe serves even on the eighth day of the Milu’im, washing together with Aharon and his sons, participating in the sanctification. The Mishkan stands miraculously — Moshe appears to erect it, yet it rises on its own. Finally, Rashi resolves the tension between Moshe’s inability to enter and his later entry by explaining that entry depended upon the presence of the cloud. The Anan becomes the visible guide of all their מסעות, even their encampments. The chapter closes with the Shechinah revealed and Yisrael journeying under its watchful presence.

Summary of Rashi on Parshas Pekudei

Rashi’s commentary on Pekudei presents the Mishkan as testimony, structure, and covenantal renewal. Every weight is counted, every thread explained, every spatial detail clarified. Betzalel’s insight reflects alignment with Divine will; Moshe’s role in erecting the Mishkan demonstrates partnership with Heaven. The cloud governs access, and the Shechinah rests only upon exact obedience. Pekudei, through Rashi’s lens, teaches that sacred space is built through precision, humility, and faithful adherence to command — and that when Yisrael act “ככל אשר צוה ה׳,” the Divine Presence returns to dwell among them.

📖 Source

• Rashi on Pekudei: 38:21-40:38

Ramban on Parshas Pekudei – Commentary

Introduction to Ramban on Parshas Pekudei

Ramban approaches Parshas Pekudei as the completion of the Mishkan’s construction and the theological fulfillment of redemption. In this final parsha of Sefer Shemos, he moves meticulously through matters of accounting, structure, vestments, sanctification, and chronology, clarifying linguistic nuances and resolving apparent contradictions. He distinguishes between Mishkan and Mishkan Ha’Eidus, between Isamar’s and Elazar’s charges, between measurable materials and those beyond calculation, and between Moshe’s inaugural service and Aharon’s enduring priesthood. For Ramban, the details are not technical digressions but expressions of Divine order. Pekudei reveals that redemption reaches its apex not in departure from bondage, nor even in revelation at Sinai, but in the resting of the Shechinah within a precisely constructed dwelling. This section therefore serves as the gateway to the Book of Redemption’s culmination: the transformation of human craftsmanship into a מקום השראת השכינה.

Chapter 38

38:21 — אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת

“These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony…”

Ramban explains that the Torah uses two expressions intentionally. The word מִשְׁכָּן by itself refers specifically to the curtains of fine-twined linen, as it is called both in the command (שמות כ"ו:א׳) and in the actual construction (שמות ל"ו:ח׳).

However, מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת includes the entire structure—the full building that houses the Luchos Ha’Eidus. It is the Mishkan as the dwelling place of the Testimony.

Ramban then addresses the view of “many” (Rashi and Ibn Ezra), who understand the phrase אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן as referring back to all the items mentioned previously. According to them:

• “Mishkan” includes the house, the courtyard, and everything made for them.
• These were entrusted to the Levi’im under Moshe’s command, through the hand of Isamar.
• The sacred vessels—the Aron, Shulchan, Menorah, and the altars—were not included under “Mishkan,” because they were in the charge of Elazar.

Ramban rejects this interpretation. If so, why would Scripture mention the entrusting of Isamar but not mention that of Elazar, whose charge was more honored?

Rather, Ramban explains that אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי refers forward, not backward. It alludes to the materials that will be detailed below:

• The silver of those numbered of the congregation—one hundred talents—from which were made:
  
  • The sockets,
  • The hooks for the pillars,
  • The overlaying of their capitals,
  • Their fillets (שמות ל"ח:כ"ה–כ"ח).
• The brass of the wave-offering—seventy talents—from which were made:
  
  • The copper altar,
  • Its grating and vessels,
  • The sockets of the courtyard,
  • The pegs (שמות ל"ח:כ"ט–ל"א).

All of this Moshe delivered by number and by weight through the hand of Isamar.

Ramban then explains why gold is not described in the same manner. The gold was divided:

• In Isamar’s charge:
  
  • The overlaying of the boards and the bars.
• In Elazar’s charge:
  
  • The Aron,
  • The Kapores,
  • The Menorah,
  • The Shulchan,
  • The golden altar.

Because it is impossible to determine precisely how much gold was used in covering each individual vessel, Scripture does not state that Moshe delivered it by number and weight. For this reason, the Torah does not mention here the entrusting of the items under Elazar’s supervision.

Ramban clarifies the scope of the section: the Torah here is discussing the work of the Mishkan itself, not the transport arrangements for the journeyings.

One might object: the copper altar is mentioned here, yet it was under Elazar’s charge. Ramban responds that the Torah needed to state that it was made from the brass of the wave-offering, and Scripture is not concerned with excluding a single item from a general category when necessary. He notes that this is the common manner of Scripture, citing parallels (בראשית ל"ה:כ"ו; מ"ו:כ"ז).

Ramban further explains why the laver (כיור) and its base are not mentioned:

• It was not made according to a specified weight.
• It was made from all the mirrors brought by the women who gathered.
• Moshe did not know its precise weight.

It is also possible, Ramban suggests, that the laver was not under Isamar’s charge at all, but rather included under the verse (במדבר ג:ל"א):

"וּמִשְׁמַרְתָּם הָאָרֹן וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַמְּנֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחֹת וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָּהֶם"

For the priests ministered through the laver in order to serve at the altar. Therefore, it does not fall within the accounting structure of this section.

38:22 — וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳

“And Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehudah, made all that Hashem commanded Moshe.”

Ramban explains that this does not mean Bezalel personally performed all the labor. Rather:

• Everything was done under his direction.
• He instructed all the wise-hearted craftsmen.
• They performed their work before him.
• They showed him all their completed work.

This accords with the earlier verse (שמות ל"ה:ל"ד):

"וּלְהוֹרוֹת נָתַן בְּלִבּוֹ"

He was given the capacity to teach.

At the same time, Ramban emphasizes that the wise-hearted men themselves performed the work, as it states (שמות ל"ו:ח׳):

"וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָל חֲכַם לֵב בְּעֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן"

According to Chazal (ירושלמי פאה א:א), this verse praises Bezalel even further. It teaches that even matters that Moshe did not explicitly tell him, his own understanding aligned exactly with what was told to Moshe at Sinai.

Thus, the verse does not mean that Bezalel physically did everything, but that in all that was done through him, he fulfilled precisely what Hashem commanded Moshe.

Ramban explains an important textual observation. Earlier, the Torah did not repeatedly say “as Hashem spoke to Moshe.” If it had, that would imply: “as Moshe said in the name of Hashem.” But Bezalel altered the order from that which Moshe had told him. Therefore, the Torah here states in general that he did everything as Hashem commanded Moshe—emphasizing fidelity to Divine command rather than to Moshe’s transmitted sequence. Ramban refers back to his earlier explanation (ל"ו:ח׳).

38:27 — אֵת אַדְנֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵת אַדְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת

“The sockets of the Sanctuary and the sockets of the veil.”

Ramban explains that Scripture refers to the Mishkan here as הַקֹּדֶשׁ. It then mentions the veil separately because the veil divides between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKodashim.

Thus the verse effectively means:

• The sockets of the Holy Place,
• And the sockets of the Holy of Holies.

By distinguishing the paroches, the Torah emphasizes its function as the boundary between levels of sanctity.

Chapter 38 Summary

In these opening pesukim of Pekudei’s accounting, Ramban clarifies the structural language of Mishkan and Mishkan Ha’Eidus, corrects earlier interpretations regarding the scope of the accounting, and explains the selective listing of materials based on measurability and administrative structure. He distinguishes between Isamar’s and Elazar’s charges, defends the internal logic of the Torah’s listing, and highlights Bezalel’s intellectual and spiritual alignment with Sinai. Even in technical accounting, Ramban reveals a deeper order: textual precision reflects structural sanctity, and faithful execution requires alignment not merely with instruction, but with the Divine will itself.

Chapter 39

39:3 — וַיְרַקְּעוּ אֶת פַּחֵי הַזָּהָב

“And they beat the gold into thin plates…”

Ramban observes that throughout the sacred work, Scripture does not generally describe the method of craftsmanship. It simply states that an item was made, following the established formula. For example, it would have been expected to say:

• “And they made the ephod of gold, techeiles, etc., ma’aseh choshev…”
• “They made shoulder-pieces for it…”

This is the standard pattern in the description of the Mishkan’s vessels.

Yet here, uniquely, the Torah describes the technical process: the gold was beaten into thin plates and then cut into threads.

Ramban suggests that this deviation is intentional. The Torah records this detail because of the astonishing ingenuity involved. The craftsmen were commanded to spin and twine gold threads just as one spins wool or linen. Such a technique was unprecedented—no one had ever heard of gold being spun and woven in this manner until that day.

Thus, the verse highlights the chiddush in the method itself, reflecting the innovative craftsmanship required for the ephod.

39:24 — וַיַּעֲשׂוּ עַל שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל רִמּוֹנֵי תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן

“And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of blue-purple and red-purple…”

Ramban explains the sequence carefully. The pomegranates were made in order to be placed around the bottom hem of the robe. They also made bells of pure gold.

The process unfolded as follows:

• First, they fashioned the pomegranates.
• Then they made the bells.
• They inserted the bells inside the pomegranates while the pomegranates were still detached.
• Only afterward did they hang the pomegranates (with the bells already inside them) upon the hem of the robe.

Thus:

• The bells were within the pomegranates from the beginning.
• The bells were also within them at the time they were attached to the robe.

This explains why Scripture repeats the phrase “בְּתוֹךְ הָרִמֹּנִים” twice—once to describe their initial insertion, and once in the context of their attachment.

Ramban notes that this interpretation supports what he previously explained in Parshas Tetzaveh (רמב"ן שמות כ"ח:ל"א).

39:27 — וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַכָּתְנֹת שֵׁשׁ מַעֲשֵׂה אֹרֵג לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו

“And they made the tunics of fine linen of woven work for Aharon and for his sons.”

Ramban deduces from this wording that the tunics were identical for Aharon and his sons.

Although in the command regarding Aharon it says:

"וְשִׁבַּצְתָּ הַכְּתֹנֶת שֵׁשׁ" (שמות כ"ח:ל"ט),

while regarding his sons it says only:

"תַּעֲשֶׂה כֻּתֳּנֹת" (שם מ׳),

the intent is that the sons’ tunics were to be made like the one described for Aharon.

This is supported by the earlier verse (שמות כ"ח:ד׳):

"חֹשֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד וּמְעִיל וּכְתֹנֶת תַּשְׁבֵּץ מִצְנֶפֶת וְאַבְנֵט וְעָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וּלְבָנָיו לְכַהֲנוֹ לִי"

The phrase “for Aharon… and his sons” refers back to the ketones tashbetz, the mitznefes, and the avnet—indicating that these garments were alike for all of them.

Similarly, the verse here (שמות ל"ט:כ"ח) mentions:

"וְאֵת הַמִּצְנֶפֶת שֵׁשׁ וְאֶת פַּאֲרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעוֹת"

This includes both Aharon and his sons. The mitznefes (for Aharon) and the migba’os (for his sons) were made in the same fashion. The only difference was in how they were worn:

• Aharon wrapped his mitznefes in folds.
• His sons placed their head-tires firmly upon their heads.

Ramban refers to his earlier explanation (כ"ח:ל"א, ל"ז).

39:28 — וְאֶת פַּאֲרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעוֹת

“The beautiful head-tires…”

Ramban explains that the term פַּאֲרֵי denotes something that rises upon the head like a crown or turban. He connects it to:

"הַפְּאֵרִים וְהַצְּעָדוֹת" (ישעיה ג:כ׳),
"פַּאֲרֵי פִשְׁתִּים יִהְיוּ עַל רֹאשָׁם" (יחזקאל מ"ד:י"ח).

Regarding the avnet (belt), the verse specifies that it was made of:

• Fine-twined linen,
• Techeiles,
• Argaman,
• Tola’as shani.

This composition was not explicitly detailed in the original command. There it only stated:

"תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם" (שמות כ"ח:ל"ט).

From this, it is inferred that the belt was woven from the same four materials as the screen of the Tent (שמות כ"ו:ל"ו), which is explicitly described as:

"תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם".

Ramban addresses the dispute in Yoma (יומא י"ב):

• According to the view that the belt of the Kohen Gadol was identical to that of the ordinary Kohen, this multicolored avnet applied to both Aharon and his sons.
• According to the view that they differed, the Kohen Gadol’s belt was woven of the four materials, while the common Kohen’s was plain linen.

In that second opinion, Scripture explains the composition only for Aharon’s belt (ma’aseh rokem), and it was unnecessary to specify that the sons’ belts were of linen, since the verse already states (שמות כ"ח:מ׳):

"וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה כֻּתֳּנֹת וְעָשִׂיתָ לָהֶם אַבְנֵטִים וּמִגְבָּעוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם"

implying that they were made of linen like the tunics.

39:33 — וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו

“And they brought the Mishkan to Moshe, the Tent, and all its vessels…”

Ramban explains that the verse should be read as if a connective “ו” were present:

“And they brought the Mishkan to Moshe, and the Tent, and all its vessels.”

The word Mishkan refers specifically to the curtains of fine-twined linen, as stated (שמות כ"ו:א׳):

"וְאֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן תַּעֲשֶׂה עֶשֶׂר יְרִיעֹת שֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר"

and (שם ו):

"וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת הַיְרִיעֹת וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד".

The “Tent” (אֹהֶל) refers to the goat-hair curtains, as it says (שם ז):

"וְעָשִׂיתָ יְרִיעֹת עִזִּים לְאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן"

and (שם י"א):

"וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְהָיָה אֶחָד".

Similarly, earlier it states (שמות ל"ה:י"א):

"אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶת אָהֳלוֹ וְאֶת מִכְסֵהוּ".

Thus here too, the verse enumerates all components distinctly.

Ramban adds that sometimes the entire structure is called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, as in (שמות ל"א:ו׳–ז׳):

"וְעָשׂוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ אֵת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת הָאָרֹן לָעֵדֻת"

because אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד refers to the building as a whole, the place where Hashem meets with Moshe. Likewise (שמות ל"ט:מ׳):

"כָּל כְּלֵי עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"

refers to the structure in its entirety.

39:37 — אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ נֵרֹת הַמַּעֲרָכָה

“Its lamps—the lamps to be set in order…”

Ramban explains that in ordinary candelabra, lamps might be decorative or intended to increase light as needed. But this was not the case with the Menorah of the Sanctuary.

The Menorah of the Mikdash had only seven lamps—no more. Therefore the Torah specifies:

נֵרֹת הַמַּעֲרָכָה

meaning the lamps that were regularly arranged and set in order between the evenings (בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם). They were fixed, functional, and prescribed—not ornamental.

39:42 — כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל הָעֲבֹדָה

“According to all that Hashem commanded Moshe, so did the children of Israel do all the avodah.”

Ramban notes that Scripture calls the work עֲבוֹדָה to emphasize that it was done for the service of the Glorious Name, similar to:

"וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹקֵיכֶם" (שמות כ"ג:כ"ה),
"וְאוֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ" (דברים י"ג:ה׳).

It is possible that “all the avodah” refers specifically to the vessels, as in (שמות ל"ט:מ׳):

"אֵת כָּל כְּלֵי עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן".

Scripture first mentions the vessels to teach that even in the crafting of the utensils they were careful to fulfill the command precisely. Only afterward does it say:

"וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת כָּל הַמְּלָאכָה"

Thus Ramban emphasizes that not only the structure but every implement of the Mishkan was executed with scrupulous fidelity, transforming craftsmanship into avodas Hashem.

Chapter 39 Summary

In Chapter 39, Ramban shifts from structural accounting to the sacred garments, uncovering the extraordinary precision embedded in their craftsmanship. He highlights the unique technical detail of hammering gold into threads, underscoring the unprecedented ingenuity required for the ephod. He clarifies the internal structure of the me’il’s pomegranates and bells, demonstrating the Torah’s exactitude in describing their assembly. Ramban further establishes the essential equivalence between the garments of Aharon and his sons, distinguishing only in manner of wearing rather than material or sanctity. He resolves halachic implications concerning the avnet and explains terminological nuances such as פַּאֲרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעוֹת. Finally, he emphasizes that the entire construction was true עֲבוֹדָה—Divine service—executed with scrupulous fidelity to the command of Hashem. Chapter 39, in Ramban’s reading, reveals that sacred vestments are not merely attire, but embodiments of obedience, wisdom, and avodas Hashem woven into physical form.

Chapter 40

40:2 — בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד

“On the first day of the first month, you shall set up the Mishkan, the Tent of Meeting.”

Ramban, following Chazal (תורת כהנים סוף פרשת צו סימן קצא), explains that this refers to the eighth day of the milu’im—the day when the Mishkan was finally established permanently.

The meaning of תָּקִים is that on this day Moshe was to erect the Mishkan and leave it standing, not dismantle it again. When the camps would later journey, the Levi’im would dismantle and reassemble it, but not on this inaugural day.

There was no need to command Moshe explicitly regarding the erection and dismantling during the first seven days, because he had already been instructed earlier:

"וַהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר הָרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר" (שמות כ"ו:ל').

Now that it was clarified that on the first of the first month the Mishkan’s erection would be permanent, Moshe understood that during the seven preceding days he would erect and dismantle it daily.

Ramban offers possible reasons for this repeated assembly:

• To train the Levi’im in its proper procedure.
• Or to crown the eighth day with a special distinction—that it would be the first day the Mishkan would remain standing.

According to Chazal, during the seven days:

• Moshe would erect the Mishkan each morning.
• It would remain standing all day and night.
• At dawn he would dismantle it and immediately erect it again.

This is inferred from the verse:

"וּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד תֵּשְׁבוּ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה" (ויקרא ח:ל"ה),

for there can be no “door” to the Tent of Meeting except when it is erected.

Chazal further derived:

"אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" — only when it is open, not when dismantled (תורת כהנים ויקרא א:ה).

Similarly (זבחים נה:):

• Peace-offerings slaughtered before the doors were opened are invalid.
• The slaughter must occur “at the door of the Tent of Meeting” — when it is open, not closed.

Likewise in the Mishkan:

• Offerings slaughtered before the Levi’im erected it, or after they dismantled it, were invalid.

Moreover, during these seven days Moshe would offer the Tamid of the afternoon and kindle the Menorah at night.

In Vayikra Rabbah (עי' במדבר רבה י"ב:ט"ו) Ramban cites a further tradition:

• Moshe erected and dismantled the Mishkan twice daily.
• Rabbi Chanina HaGadol says three times daily, based on the triple expression:
  
  • תָּקִים
  • הוּקַם
  • וַיָּקֶם

Once for:

• The Tamid of the morning,
• The milu’im offerings,
• The Tamid of the evening.

Ramban suggests that all this repetition was for training purposes—to establish familiarity with its order and procedure. Yet it was never left dismantled for any extended time during those seven days.

The verse later states:

"וַיְכַס הֶעָנָן אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן" (שמות מ':ל"ד).

According to Chazal, this occurred on the eighth day—the first of Nisan—after Moshe completed the erection. Rashi (ויקרא ט:כ"ג) explains that throughout the seven days of milu’im, although Moshe erected, served in, and dismantled the Mishkan, the Shechinah did not rest upon it.

The people were distressed and said:

“All our effort was to merit that the Shechinah dwell among us and that we know that the sin of the Eigel has been atoned for!”

Moshe responded that Aharon, his brother, was more worthy; through Aharon’s offerings and service the Shechinah would rest among them.

In Parshas HaMilu’im (תורת כהנים שם), Chazal clarify:

One might think that the Mishkan was erected on Rosh Chodesh and that the Shechinah rested only on the eighth day of the month. Therefore the Torah states:

"וּבְיוֹם הָקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כִּסָּה הֶעָנָן" (במדבר ט:ט"ו),

teaching that on the very day it was erected, the Shechinah rested—through the service of Aharon.

Thus, the cloud’s covering occurred on the eighth day of the milu’im, which was the first of Nisan.

Accordingly, the entire chapter took place on that eighth day. The Torah presents the sequence as:

• Hashem commanded that the final erection be on the first day of the first month.
• Moshe completed all the work.
• The cloud covered the Tent.
• And thereafter this pattern continued whenever the Mishkan was re-erected during travel.

Then the Torah returns to the beginning of the Divine communication:

"וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה" (ויקרא א:א),

in proper chronological order.

Ramban offers a supporting proof from:

"וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם כַּלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה לְהָקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן" (במדבר ז:א).

If Moshe did not dismantle it daily, why say “on the day he finished erecting”? He began and finished in one day; it should have said simply “on the day he erected.”

Additionally:

"זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה'" (ויקרא ט:ו),
"וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד ה' אֶל כָּל הָעָם" (שם כ"ג),

imply that until that moment the cloud had not yet covered the Tent nor had the Glory filled it.

Nevertheless, from the first day of milu’im, Hashem communicated to Moshe from the Mishkan all the sections from the beginning of Sefer Vayikra until:

"וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי" (ויקרא ט:א).

Yet the cloud had not covered it, and the people assumed that the communication was directly from heaven, as in Egypt.

Ramban cites Midrash Chazit (קהלת א:י"ב), which states:

"וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי" should have been the opening of Sefer Vayikra, but it appears earlier because “אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה.”

According to that view:

"וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה" (ויקרא א:א)

occurred after:

"וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד ה'… וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ" (ויקרא ט:כ"ג–כ"ד),

and the command to Aharon:

"יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ" (ויקרא י:ט)

occurred the following day. For it is impossible that Hashem would speak to Aharon from the Tent before speaking to Moshe.

Ramban concludes uncertain whether this midrash represents a unanimous view or an individual opinion, since it is attributed there to Rabbi Yishmael.

תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד — Further Explanation

Ramban notes that the Torah does not specify here the precise order of erection, as it does later in the narrative:

"וַיִּתֵּן אֶת אֲדָנָיו וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת קְרָשָׁיו" (שמות מ':י"ח).

The reason is that Moshe had already been shown the full procedure visually on the mountain:

"וַהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר הָרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר" (שמות כ"ו:ל').

Similarly, the Torah abbreviates:

"וְשַׂמְתָּ שָׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת" (שמות מ':ג'),

without repeating:

"וְאֶל הָאָרֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת".

The phrase “Aron HaEidus” implies the presence of the Luchos, since it is only called that when the Tablets are inside. This had already been commanded (שמות כ"ה:כ"א).

Here, the mention serves to establish priority—the placement of the Aron with the Luchos precedes all other vessels.

Likewise, the Torah abbreviates regarding the Shulchan and Menorah, since their placement had already been specified (שמות כ"ו:ל"ה).

The Torah also shortens the description of the dressing of Aharon and his sons:

"וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אֶת אַהֲרֹן אֵת בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ" (שמות מ':י"ג),
"וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּם כֻּתֳּנוֹת" (שם י"ד).

The full order of vesting had already been detailed (שמות כ"ט:ה–ט). Here the purpose is only to establish the timing—that the dressing occurs after the complete erection of the Mishkan.

The tunics are mentioned specifically because vesting begins with them.

Ramban presents 40:2 as the culmination of the Mishkan narrative: the permanent establishment of the Divine dwelling on the eighth day of milu’im. He weaves halachic derivations, midrashic chronology, structural reasoning, and textual nuance into one integrated explanation. The repeated erection and dismantling trained the Levi’im and heightened the eighth day’s significance; the cloud’s descent marked not mere completion of construction but reconciliation after the Eigel. Even the brevity of the command here reflects that Moshe had already seen and internalized the Mishkan’s form. The verse thus stands at the hinge of Torah history—the moment when human craftsmanship became a permanent מקום השראת השכינה.

40:3 — וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרוֹן

“And you shall screen upon the Ark…”

Ramban explains that the word עַל here functions in place of אֶל (“to”). The expression וְסַכֹּתָ derives from מָסָךְ (a screen or curtain). Thus the meaning is: you shall place the screen toward (or against) the Ark.

Similarly, the verse later states:

"וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ וַיָּסֶךְ עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת" (שמות מ':כ"א),

where עַל carries the same sense—screening the Ark with the paroches.

40:10 — וְהָיָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים

“And the altar shall be most holy.”

Ramban explains that although the Mizbe’ach HaChitzon stood in the courtyard, it is described as קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים because offerings of the highest sanctity (קדשי קדשים) were brought upon it.

In contrast, regarding the Mishkan itself it states (שמות מ':ט'):

"וְהָיָה קֹדֶשׁ",

for the term קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים is generally reserved for the place where the Aron rests, as in:

"וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים" (שמות כ"ו:ל"ג).

Ramban offers an additional possibility: the Mizbe’ach is called קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים because it sanctifies whatever touches it, as stated:

"וְהָיָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקְדָּשׁ" (שמות כ"ט:ל"ז).

40:17 — וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ

“And it came to pass in the first month, on the first day of the month…”

According to Chazal, this refers to the first of Nisan—the eighth day of the milu’im—when the Mishkan was finally erected permanently, as commanded in 40:2.

The verse states:

"וַיָּקֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן" (שמות מ':י"ח),

in order to describe what Moshe did from the first day he began erecting it, which was the twenty-third of Adar.

Ramban notes that the Torah does not mention here:

• The anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels,
• The anointing of Aharon and his sons,
• The offerings of the milu’im.

This is because Moshe did not perform these until after completing the erection and receiving a second command:

"קַח אֶת אַהֲרֹן" (ויקרא ח:ב).

The Mishkan and its vessels were sanctified for service only through anointing, as stated:

"וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו" (שמות מ':ט').

Therefore, when the Torah later states:

"וַיַּעֲרֹךְ עָלָיו עֵרֶךְ לֶחֶם" (שמות מ':כ"ג),
"וַיַּעַל הַנֵּרוֹת" (שמות מ':כ"ה),

it means that these actions were performed at their proper time—after the anointing. Their mention here indicates their ultimate purpose.

Similarly, earlier:

"וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְעָרַכְתָּ אֶת עֶרְכּוֹ" (שמות מ':ד'),

means that the arrangement of the bread would occur after anointing.

Likewise:

"וְנָתַתָּ אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב לִקְטֹרֶת" (שמות מ':ה'),

and:

"וַיַּעַל עָלָיו אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה" (שמות מ':כ"ט),

all refer to their proper times.

At this stage, the courtyard had not yet been erected, and offerings cannot be brought without the hangings of the court—otherwise they would be considered שחוטי חוץ (slaughtered outside the designated place). Thus these verses refer to actions performed in their correct time, not immediately at that narrative moment.

40:20 — וַיִּקַּח וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת

“And he took and placed the Testimony…”

Ramban explains that Moshe took the Luchos from the wooden ark that had been in his tent and brought them into the Mishkan, placing them in the Aron.

40:27 — וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים

“And he burned upon it incense of sweet spices.”

Ramban explains that Moshe himself burned the incense on the golden altar throughout the seven days of milu’im.

Although the command in 40:5 does not explicitly state that he should burn incense, Moshe inferred it from the other services, since he was commanded (שמות מ':ד') to arrange the bread and light the lamps.

Similarly:

"וַיַּעַל עָלָיו אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה" (שמות מ':כ"ט),

means that Moshe himself offered them, as he had been commanded:

"וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" (שמות כ"ט:ל"ח),

which refers to Moshe beginning the daily offerings during the days of milu’im. All the commands there pertain to Moshe’s service.

Afterward, it states:

"עוֹלַת תָּמִיד לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם" (שמות מ':מ"ב),

meaning that from then onward the Kohanim would perform these services for future generations.

For this reason, in Parshas Pinchas it says:

"עֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשֻׂיָה בְּהַר סִינַי" (במדבר כ"ח:ו),

meaning that Moshe initiated this offering at Sinai.

Thus Moshe Rabbeinu served as the first Kohen in all these acts of service, including the burning of incense.

Ramban suggests that the command:

"וְנָתַתָּ אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב לִקְטֹרֶת" (שמות מ':ה'),

may implicitly include that he should immediately burn incense upon it.

However, when it says earlier:

"וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים" (שמות ל':ז'),

this refers to the period beginning when Aharon commenced his priestly service and thereafter permanently.

Likewise:

"וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם" (שם ל':ח'),

refers to the time from Aharon’s initiation onward.

Here in our parsha (שמות מ':ד') Moshe was explicitly commanded:

"וְהַעֲלֵיתָ אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ",

indicating that during the milu’im Moshe himself performed the service.

Ramban notes that in some versions of Rashi, the verse here is interpreted as referring to Aharon burning the incense morning and evening, citing:

"בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר… וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן" (שמות ל':ז–ח).

Ramban expresses uncertainty whether that reading is a scribal error, since in context Moshe was the one performing the service during the milu’im.

Ramban on 40:3–27 — In these pesukim Ramban clarifies textual nuances (such as the meaning of עַל), distinguishes levels of sanctity, and carefully reconstructs the chronology of the Mishkan’s erection and consecration. He emphasizes that sanctification required anointing; that Moshe functioned as the first Kohen during the milu’im; and that many narrative descriptions refer to actions performed at their proper halachic time rather than immediately upon placement. Through halachic reasoning and midrashic integration, Ramban presents the eighth day as the culmination of training, sanctification, and transition—from Moshe’s temporary priesthood to Aharon’s enduring service.

40:34 — וַיְכַס הֶעָנָן אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד

“And the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting…”

Ramban explains that the cloud covered the Mishkan from all sides, so that the entire structure was enveloped and concealed within it. The Tent was literally wrapped and hidden in the cloud.

וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן

“And the Glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan.”

The interior of the Mishkan was completely filled with the Divine Glory, for the Glory dwelled within the cloud inside the Mishkan.

This parallels what occurred at Har Sinai:

"אֶל הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים" (שמות כ':כ"א)

Just as at Sinai the Divine Presence rested within the thick cloud, so too here the Glory abided within the cloud inside the Mishkan.

וְלֹא יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבֹא

The Torah states (40:35) that Moshe was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting — even to its entrance — because:

• The cloud covered it.
• He was not permitted to enter into the cloud.
• The Mishkan was filled with Divine Glory.

How could one enter such a space?

The reason, Ramban explains, was that Moshe was not to enter without permission. Rather:

• Hashem would call him.
• Then he would enter into the cloud.

Just as at Sinai:

"וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִתּוֹךְ הֶעָנָן" (שמות כ"ד:ט"ז)
"וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה בְּתוֹךְ הֶעָנָן" (שם י"ח)

Entry followed invitation.

Peshat: Moshe Stood at the Entrance

On the level of plain meaning, Ramban explains that since it says:

"וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֵלָיו מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" (ויקרא א':א)

Moshe did not enter the Mishkan at that moment. Rather:

• Hashem called him from the Tent of Meeting.
• Moshe stood at its entrance.
• The Divine communication came to him there.

The Rabbinic Reconciliation

Chazal note an apparent contradiction:

• One verse says:
  "וְלֹא יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"
• Another says:
  "וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" (במדבר ז':פ"ט)

How can both be true?

They resolve the tension based on the phrase:

"כִּי שָׁכַן עָלָיו הֶעָנָן"

According to the Rabbis:

• “When Moshe went into the Tent of Meeting” refers to entering of his own initiative, without being called.
• Or, because it says there that he heard the Voice speaking from above the Kapores, they understood that Moshe stood inside before the Kapores.

However, as long as:

"וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן"

Moshe did not enter.

Therefore they explain that Moshe would only enter after the cloud withdrew from covering the entire Tent, and the Glory no longer filled the Mishkan. This complete filling of Glory occurred specifically on the eighth day of the milu’im when the Glory descended.

Regarding:

"וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה"

Chazal maintain that this calling preceded the full descent of Glory on the eighth day, as Ramban explained earlier.

Why Repeat: “And the Glory Filled the Mishkan”?

Ramban suggests that the repetition:

"וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן"

may hint to the Glory dwelling within it — emphasizing not merely the external covering of cloud, but the indwelling Presence within.

Ramban’s Closing to Sefer Shemos

Ramban concludes with a poetic summation, marking the completion of Sefer Shemos — which he calls Sefer HaGeulah, the Book of Redemption:

וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁלַם סֵפֶר הַגְּאֻלָּה אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא בוֹ
לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם קְרֹבוֹ

Thus is completed the Book of Redemption,
In which Hashem, the G-d of Israel, came to His people, who are near to Him.

הוֹשִׁיעוֹ מִיַּד שׂוֹנְאוֹ וּגְאָלוֹ מִיַּד אוֹיְבוֹ

He saved him from the hand of his enemy,
And redeemed him from the hand of his foe.

וּבָרוּךְ ה' הֶחָפֵץ שְׁלוֹם עַבְדּוֹ
אֲשֶׁר עַד הֵנָּה עֲזָרוֹ לָבֹא

Blessed is Hashem, Who delights in the peace of His servant,
Who has helped him until now.

הַמְחַדֵּשׁ נְעוּרָיו בְּשֵׂיבוֹ
הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ בְּתוֹרָתוֹ רְעָבוֹ

Who renews his youth in his old age,
Who satisfies his hunger with His Torah.

וַיֵּנִקֵהוּ דְּבַשׁ וַחֲלָבוֹ

Who nourished him with honey and richness.

כִּי הֵכִין כָּל לְבָבוֹ
וְלִשְׁמוֹ יְבָרֵךְ בָּקְרוֹ וְעַרְבּוֹ

For he prepared his whole heart,
And blesses His Name morning and evening.

בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְחָיִינוּ בְּטוּבוֹ

Blessed is He from Whose bounty we have eaten,
And by Whose goodness we live.

For Ramban, Sefer Shemos is not merely the story of departure from Egypt — it is the completion of redemption through the indwelling of the Divine Presence. Redemption culminates not at the sea, nor at Sinai, but when the cloud rests and the Glory fills the Mishkan.

The Book of Redemption ends not with travel, but with Presence.

Chapter 40 Summary

Chapter 40, according to Ramban, is the culmination of the Mishkan narrative and the theological climax of Sefer Shemos. He reconstructs the chronology of the seven days of milu’im and the eighth day—Rosh Chodesh Nisan—when the Mishkan was permanently established. Ramban explains the repeated erection and dismantling as preparatory training and as a means of elevating the final day’s sanctity. He clarifies that sanctification occurred only through anointing, that Moshe functioned as the first Kohen during the milu’im, and that many narrative descriptions refer to acts performed at their proper halachic time. Ramban reconciles the verses concerning Moshe’s entry into the Mishkan and shows that the descent of the cloud and the filling of Divine Glory marked the true completion of redemption. The cloud covering the Tent externally and the Glory filling it internally mirror the revelation at Sinai, transforming the Mishkan into a portable Sinai. Chapter 40 thus closes the Book of Redemption with Presence: the Shechinah rests among Israel.

Summary of Ramban on Parshas Pekudei

In Ramban’s reading, Parshas Pekudei is not merely an inventory of materials nor a repetition of construction details; it is the final stage of geulah. He moves carefully between peshat, halachic reasoning, and midrashic tradition to clarify terminology, chronology, and sanctity. He distinguishes between measurable and immeasurable materials, between structural components and sacred vessels, between Moshe’s temporary priesthood and Aharon’s eternal service. He emphasizes fidelity—not merely to transmitted instruction but to the Divine will itself. The parsha culminates when the cloud envelops the Mishkan and the Glory fills it, echoing Sinai and signaling that redemption is complete only when the Divine Presence dwells among Israel. Thus, for Ramban, Sefer Shemos closes not with departure from Egypt, but with arrival at intimacy: a people redeemed, a sanctuary erected, and the Shechinah resting in their midst.

📖 Source

• Ramban on Pekudei: 38:21-40:34

Sforno on Parshas Pekudei – Commentary

Introduction to Sforno on Parshas Pekudei

In Parshas Pekudei, Sforno views the completion of the Mishkan not merely as the conclusion of a construction project but as the culmination of a spiritual process through which the Jewish people made themselves worthy of the Divine Presence. His commentary repeatedly emphasizes that the true significance of the Mishkan lies not in its physical beauty or wealth but in the moral and spiritual conditions that allowed the Shechinah to dwell within it. Sforno highlights the careful accounting of every vessel, the collective participation of all Israel in the work, and the precise obedience to Hashem’s command transmitted through Moshe. Through these themes, he demonstrates that the Mishkan represents a model of sacred society: a structure built through humility, exact obedience, and devotion to Hashem’s will. The permanence of the Mishkan’s sanctity and the enduring presence of the Shechinah within it reflect the spiritual integrity of those who built it.

38:21 — אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן

These are the records of the Tabernacle.

Sforno explains that the phrase “אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן” refers to the enumeration and accounting of every individual component of the Mishkan. Each item mentioned previously was counted and recorded individually, as implied by the verse:
"וּבְשֵׁמוֹת תִּפְקְדוּ אֶת כְּלֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם בְּיַד אִיתָמָר" (במדבר ד:לב–לג).

The meaning is that every item of the Mishkan was significant enough to be known and recorded by its own specific name. It was not treated merely as a generic category of utensil, but each object possessed individual importance.

This individualized accounting gave the vessels lasting significance. Chazal state that these items would never be permanently lost. The Gemara teaches that even if someone imagined that such utensils might one day disappear, the verse
"עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים עֹמְדִים" (שמות כו:טו)
indicates that they “stand forever,” meaning their existence endures eternally (יומא עא).

Accordingly:

• The vessels of the Mishkan were not lost to history.
• They did not fall into the hands of enemies.
• Their sacred role grants them enduring significance.

This stands in contrast to what occurred with the vessels of Shlomo’s Temple. During the destruction of the First Temple by Nevuzaradan, many Temple vessels were taken by the Babylonians, yet none of the vessels of Moshe’s Mishkan are mentioned among the captured items.

מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת

The Tabernacle of the Testimony.

Sforno explains that the Torah calls the Mishkan “משכן העדות” in order to highlight the special virtues that made it worthy of permanence and protection from enemy capture.

He lists four defining qualities:

• First: It was “משכן העדות” because the Tablets of the Covenant were housed within it.
• Second: It was erected by direct command of Moshe, acting on the command of Hashem.
• Third: The service of the Levites was entrusted to Ittamar the son of Aharon, and the stewardship of the Mishkan’s components was placed under proper spiritual authority.
• Fourth: The principal architect was Betzalel ben Uri ben Chur of the tribe of Yehudah, a righteous and distinguished craftsman of exceptional lineage.

Because of these conditions:

• The Shechinah rested upon the Mishkan.
• Its sanctity remained intact.
• None of its parts fell into enemy hands.

Sforno contrasts this with later Temples.

Shlomo’s Temple, though graced by the Shechinah, was constructed largely by laborers from Tzor (Tyre). Over time its structure deteriorated and required repeated repairs (מלכים ב כב:ה), and ultimately it was destroyed and its vessels lost.

The Second Temple was even more deficient:

• It no longer housed the Tablets of the Covenant.
• It was built not by prophetic command but through the decree of Koresh (Cyrus).
• Very few Levites returned to participate in its service, as Ezra testifies:
  "וָאָבִינָה בָעָם וּבַכֹּהֲנִים וּמִבְּנֵי לֵוִי לֹא מָצָאתִי שָׁם" (עזרא ח:טו).
• Its builders included foreign laborers such as Tzidonim and Tzurim.

Because these spiritual conditions were lacking, the Second Temple did not merit the same enduring Divine presence.

38:24 — כָּל הַזָּהָב

All the gold.

Sforno explains that the Torah records the exact quantities of gold, silver, and copper used in the Mishkan to demonstrate how small these amounts were compared to the wealth invested in later Temples.

For example:

• Shlomo’s Temple contained vastly greater wealth (מלכים א ו:כ–לה; ז:מה–נ).
• The Temple rebuilt and expanded by Herod surpassed even that in material splendor (סוטה נא).

Despite this disparity, the Mishkan of Moshe enjoyed a more sustained manifestation of the Divine Presence than either of the later Temples.

Specifically:

• The Shechinah was clearly present in Moshe’s Mishkan.
• It was present only intermittently in the First Temple.
• It did not manifest in the Second Temple.

From this, Sforno derives an important theological lesson:

The presence of Hashem does not depend on wealth, size, or architectural grandeur.

Rather, the Shechinah dwells where Hashem finds favor in the conduct and character of His people:

רוצה ה׳ את יראיו ומעשיהם לשכנו בתוכם

Hashem desires those who fear Him and whose actions are worthy for Him to dwell among them.

39:1 — בִגְדֵי שְׂרָד

Garments of service.

Sforno explains that these coverings had no inherent decorative form or shape beyond the identifying designs woven into them. Their purpose was functional: they served as coverings for the sacred vessels.

The patterns on them indicated which vessel each covering was meant to protect during transport.

39:3 — וַיְרַקְּעוּ אֶת פַּחֵי הַזָּהָב

They hammered the gold sheets.

Sforno explains that the donors who contributed gold for the priestly garments first flattened the gold into thin plates. This preparation made it possible for artisans to cut the gold into fine strands that could be woven into the fabric of the garments.

וְקִצֵּץ פְּתִילִים

The artisan then cut threads from these hammered sheets in order to integrate the gold into the embroidery of the priestly garments.

39:5 — כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה

As Hashem commanded Moshe.

Sforno explains that in every aspect of the Mishkan’s construction, the artisans worked with a conscious intention to fulfill the Divine will as transmitted through Moshe.

Their craftsmanship was therefore not merely technical labor but an act of spiritual obedience directed toward fulfilling Hashem’s command.

39:32 — וַתֵּכֶל וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

All the work was completed, and the children of Israel made it.

Sforno emphasizes that the entire nation participated in the Mishkan’s construction.

Although different people contributed in different ways, the work is attributed collectively to all of Israel because:

• Some contributed materials.
• Some performed the labor.
• Some offered specialized skills.

All acted willingly in order to fulfill the will of their Creator.

כֵּן עָשׂוּ

They carried out the work exactly as commanded—neither adding nor subtracting from the instructions.

39:33 — וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן

They brought the Tabernacle.

Sforno explains the components mentioned in this verse:

• “הַמִּשְׁכָּן” refers to the beautifully woven curtains.
• “הָאֹהֶל” refers to the coverings made of goats’ hair.
• “כָּל כֵּלָיו” includes the structural elements of the Mishkan.

These furnishings included:

• hooks and clasps
• boards
• bolts
• pillars
• silver sockets

Even the massive boards forming the Mishkan’s frame are included under the term כלי המשכן, the furnishings of the Tabernacle.

39:42 — כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה

According to everything Hashem commanded Moshe.

Sforno explains that the artisans followed precisely the sequence that Hashem had commanded Moshe concerning the eventual assembly of the Mishkan.

39:43 — כֵּן עָשׂוּ

Thus they did.

The craftsmen executed their work in the same order in which the Mishkan was later presented to Moshe. Their actions corresponded perfectly to the Divine instructions transmitted through Moshe.

40:18 — וַיָּקֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן

Moshe erected the Tabernacle.

Sforno explains that the ten main curtains of artistic weaving were considered the essential core of the Mishkan’s structure.

These curtains were erected before the installation of the boards.

This may have occurred in one of two ways:

• Either people physically held the curtains in place while the structure was assembled.
• Or the process occurred through a miracle, as suggested by Chazal.

These curtains formed the primary structure of the Mishkan, while the remaining components—such as boards, sockets, bolts, pillars, and coverings—served mainly to support and protect the central structure.

40:33 — וַיְכַל מֹשֶׁה

Moshe completed the work.

Immediately after Moshe finished the work necessary for the resting of the Shechinah—namely the erection of the Mishkan and the performance of its service—the cloud covered the structure and the Divine Presence rested upon it.

מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן

The Shechinah filled every part of the Mishkan itself rather than appearing outside it.

40:35 — אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד

Into the Tent of Meeting.

Sforno clarifies that this refers specifically to the space within the curtains but outside the Paroches separating the Holy of Holies.

40:36 — וּבְהֵעָלוֹת הֶעָנָן

When the cloud lifted.

Sforno explains that the Divine Presence remained permanently within the Mishkan. The cloud did not depart except when it was time for the nation to journey.

This permanence distinguished the Mishkan from later sanctuaries:

• In Shiloh the Shechinah did not remain permanently.
• In the First Temple it did not remain continuously.
• In the Second Temple it did not manifest at all.

However, Sforno concludes with a prophetic hope that an even greater manifestation will occur in the future Temple:

"וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָּהּ נְאֻם ה׳ חוֹמַת אֵשׁ סָבִיב וּלְכָבוֹד אֶהְיֶה בְתוֹכָהּ"
(זכריה ב:ט)

The Third Temple, speedily in our days, will surpass even the Mishkan in the revealed presence of Hashem.

חסלת פרשת פקודי.

Summary of Sforno on Parshas Pekudei

Sforno’s commentary on Pekudei reveals that the Mishkan’s greatness did not derive from grandeur or material wealth but from the spiritual character of the nation that built it. Although the Tabernacle contained far less gold and silver than the later Temples, it merited a more constant manifestation of the Shechinah because it was constructed in perfect fidelity to Hashem’s command and with the wholehearted participation of the entire people. The Mishkan possessed several unique advantages: it housed the Tablets of the Covenant, it was established by Moshe through direct Divine command, its service was entrusted to the proper spiritual leadership of the Levites, and its craftsmanship was carried out by righteous and inspired artisans such as Betzalel. For this reason its vessels were never lost to enemies, and the Divine Presence rested within it immediately upon completion. Sforno contrasts this with the later Temples, whose spiritual deficiencies prevented the same enduring presence of the Shechinah. Ultimately, he concludes with a vision of the future, when the Divine Presence will again dwell among Israel with even greater clarity in the rebuilt Temple, fulfilling the promise: “וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָּהּ… חוֹמַת אֵשׁ סָבִיב וּלְכָבוֹד אֶהְיֶה בְתוֹכָהּ” (זכריה ב:ט). 

📖 Source

• Sforno on Pekudei: 38:21-40:36

Abarbanel on Parshas Pekudei – Commentary

Introduction to Abarbanel on Parshas Pekudei

In his commentary on Parshas Pekudei, Abarbanel turns his attention to the final stage of the Mishkan narrative: the accounting of its materials, the completion of its sacred vessels and garments, and the moment when the Divine Presence comes to dwell among Israel. Throughout this section he weaves together careful textual analysis, Midrashic insight, and philosophical reflection. Abarbanel first examines the detailed reckoning of the Mishkan’s construction, explaining the purpose of the public accounting and the spiritual significance of the sanctuary’s vessels and priestly garments. He then explores the process by which the completed Mishkan becomes the Tent of Meeting, the place where prophecy is received and the Divine Presence is revealed. Finally, in his extended discussion of the verse “ויכס הענן את אהל מועד וכבוד ה׳ מלא את המשכן”, Abarbanel develops a profound philosophical inquiry into the nature of the cloud and the Divine glory, explaining how the visible manifestation of Divine light within the cloud expresses the presence of the Shechinah in the world. Through these discussions he presents the Mishkan not merely as a physical sanctuary but as the earthly focal point of Divine revelation.

38:21 — שמות ל״ח:כ״א

אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות אשר פקד על פי משה עבודת הלויים ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן

“These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of testimony, which were counted at Moshe’s command, the service of the Levi’im under the hand of Itamar son of Aharon the Kohen.”

Abarbanel begins this section with a series of analytical questions designed to clarify the purpose and structure of the Torah’s accounting of the Mishkan materials.

This introduction follows his usual method: first presenting difficulties in the text, then offering a unified explanation resolving them.

The Questions

Question 1 — What does “אלה פקודי המשכן” refer to?

The verse begins:

אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן

But it is unclear what exactly these “accounts” refer to.

Several possibilities present themselves:

• Do they refer to the items mentioned earlier in Parshas Vayakhel, namely the Mishkan and courtyard?
• Do they refer to the items mentioned later in this section?
• Or do they refer to both the earlier and later materials together?

Abarbanel explains why each option appears problematic:

If the phrase refers to the items mentioned earlier, that would include the Mishkan structure and courtyard. Yet the verse immediately states:

עבודת הלויים ביד איתמר

However, the primary sacred vessels — the Aron, Shulchan, Menorah, and Mizbechos — were not under Itamar, but under Elazar (see במדבר ד:ט״ז). Why then is only Itamar’s role mentioned?

But if the verse refers to items mentioned later, that also fails, because the following section mainly describes the priestly garments, not the Mishkan structure itself.

Nor is it convincing to say that the verse refers to both earlier and later items together, because then the Torah would be placing the accounting in the middle of the construction narrative.

Logically, the accounting should appear either:

• At the end, after all work was completed, or
• At the beginning, before the craftsmen began their work.

Why does the Torah insert it here?

Thus the meaning of אלה פקודי המשכן remains unclear.

Question 2 — Why mention the Levi’im here?

The verse states:

עבודת הלויים ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן

But if this passage concerns an accounting of the donations and materials, why does the Torah mention the service of the Levi’im?

Normally, the Levi’im are associated with:

• transporting the Mishkan during travel
• carrying its vessels on journeys

Yet at this point in the narrative:

• The Torah has not yet begun discussing the journeys of the Mishkan
• Nor has it discussed who carries which vessels

Why then introduce the Levi’im here, in the context of financial accounting of the construction?

Question 3 — Why mention Betzalel again?

The verse later states:

ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה עשה את כל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה

But Betzalel was already mentioned multiple times earlier as the chief craftsman.

We were already told:

• That Betzalel performed all the work commanded by Hashem
• That Oholiav assisted him

If so, why repeat Betzalel’s role again here, especially in the context of the accounting of materials?

Question 4 — Why record the gold but not what was made from it?

The Torah records:

כל הזהב העשוי למלאכה

It specifies the amount of gold donated, yet it does not explicitly state how that gold was used.

This differs from the treatment of other materials:

• For silver, the Torah specifies what was produced from it.
• For copper, the Torah also details its use.

Why does the Torah not do the same with gold?

Abarbanel also rejects an earlier explanation offered by the Gaon, who suggested that the gold weight corresponded to the weights of the Menorah, Kapores, Keruvim, Aron, and Mizbeach HaKetores.

This explanation cannot work because:

• The Menorah was entirely gold.
• But the Aron, Shulchan, Mizbeach, and boards were wood overlaid with gold.

Their weights would therefore not match.

Question 5 — What about the donated silver?

The Torah records the silver from the census contributions:

כסף פקודי העדה

It explains how that silver was used.

But it does not record the silver that was donated voluntarily as part of the Terumah.

Yet in Parshas Vayakhel we clearly read:

כָּל מֵרִים תְּרוּמַת כֶּסֶף וּנְחֹשֶׁת (שמות ל״ה:כ״ד)

Meaning that silver was indeed donated voluntarily.

Rashi also explains that three separate donations existed (see שמות ל׳):

• The half-shekel census contribution
• Another census-related offering
• The voluntary donation for the Mishkan

If voluntary silver existed, why does the Torah not record it here?

Question 6 — Why are the Laver and its base omitted?

The Torah lists many items made from copper:

• The sockets
• The copper altar
• The altar grating
• Other implements

But it does not mention the Laver (כיור) and its base, even though the Torah earlier stated explicitly:

ועשית כיור נחשת וכנו נחשת (שמות ל׳:י״ח)

Since these were made of copper, why are they missing from this accounting?

Question 7 — Why is there no accounting of the dyed materials?

The Torah states:

ומן התכלת והארגמן ותולעת השני עשו בגדי שרד לשרת בקדש

But it does not record the quantities donated of:

• תכלת
• ארגמן
• תולעת שני

This differs from the accounting given for:

• Gold
• Silver
• Copper

Furthermore, the Torah also does not record the quantities of:

• שש (linen)
• עזים (goat hair)
• עורות אלים מאדמים
• עורות תחשים
• עצי שטים

Why are these materials omitted from the accounting?

Another difficulty arises:

The verse specifically mentions the garments of Aharon, but does not mention:

• the Mishkan curtains
• the Paroches
• the entrance screen

All of which were also made from techeiles, argaman, and tola’as shani.

Nor does it explicitly mention the garments of Aharon’s sons.

Why does the Torah highlight only Aharon’s garments?

Question 8 — Why repeat “כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה” for every priestly garment?

In the description of the priestly garments — including:

• the Ephod
• the stones of the Shoham
• the Choshen
• the Me’il
• the Kesones
• the Mitznefes
• the Migba’os
• the Michnesei Bad
• the Tzitz

After describing the making of each individual garment, the Torah repeatedly states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

This repetition appears after every item.

Yet earlier in Parshas Vayakhel the Torah did not repeat this phrase after every individual component of the Mishkan. Instead it relied on the broader statement:

וַתֵּכֶל כָּל עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ (שמות ל״ט:ל״ב)

Why, in the case of the priestly garments, does the Torah repeat the formula for every single item, instead of relying on the general statement that everything was done as commanded?

Question 9 — Why repeat the entire inventory of the Mishkan?

Later the Torah states:

וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו…

The Torah then proceeds to list again all the elements of the Mishkan that had already been described in earlier sections.

This repetition appears unnecessary.

It would seemingly have been sufficient for the Torah to write:

• “They brought all the work of the Mishkan to Moshe.”
• Moshe examined the work.
• He saw that it had been done exactly as Hashem commanded.
• Moshe then blessed the people.

Instead, the Torah once again recounts each of the Mishkan components individually, even though they had already been described several times previously.

Why does the Torah repeat this entire inventory?

Question 10 — Why repeat the details of erecting the Mishkan?

Later the Torah records that Hashem commanded Moshe:

בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
(שמות מ׳:ב׳)

The Torah then testifies that Moshe indeed fulfilled this command exactly.

However, after already stating that Moshe acted as Hashem commanded, the Torah proceeds to describe step by step how Moshe erected the Mishkan:

• וַיָּקֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן
• placing the sockets
• setting the boards
• erecting the pillars
• placing the coverings
• bringing in the Aron
• arranging the vessels

And repeatedly the Torah again states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

This results in a long sequence of repeated detail, even though the Torah already affirmed that Moshe fulfilled the command fully.

Thus the question arises:

Why does the Torah present this detailed description after already stating the general fulfillment of the command?

Transition to Abarbanel’s Explanation

After presenting these ten questions, Abarbanel writes:

והנני מפרש הפסוקים באופן יותרו השאלות האלה כלם

“I will now explain the verses in such a way that all these questions will be resolved.”

The remainder of the commentary provides a unified interpretation explaining:

• the purpose of the Mishkan accounting
• the structure of the narrative
• the selective inclusion of certain materials and items
• the literary repetition in the closing chapters of Sefer Shemos.

After presenting his ten questions, Abarbanel begins his explanation with a fundamental clarification of the purpose of the Torah’s accounting of the Mishkan materials.

The Purpose of the Accounting

Abarbanel explains that the Torah did not record this accounting in order to determine whether any of the donations remained unused after the completion of the Mishkan.

The purpose was not to investigate:

• whether surplus materials remained,
• whether the donations exceeded the needs of the construction, or
• how much material was left over.

Such an accounting would have been unnecessary.

The craftsmen who worked on the Mishkan were men of integrity and faith. The donations were not distributed to them under strict measured supervision, nor were they treated with suspicion.

The Torah therefore had no need to verify the honesty of the artisans.

As Abarbanel explains:

• The workers were trusted individuals.
• The donations had been given voluntarily by the people themselves.
• Those who labored in the Mishkan project were participants in the offering, not outsiders handling someone else’s wealth.

Because of this, it would be inconceivable that they would steal or misuse the sacred contributions dedicated to Hashem.

Moshe himself trusted them fully.

The True Goal of the Accounting

The Torah records this accounting for an entirely different reason.

Earlier in the narrative, the Torah reports that a proclamation was issued throughout the camp:

אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַל יַעֲשׂוּ עוֹד מְלָאכָה לִתְרוּמַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ
וַיִּכָּלֵא הָעָם מֵהָבִיא
(שמות ל״ו:ו׳)

A public announcement was made instructing the people to stop bringing further donations, because enough material had already been collected.

Despite the cessation of contributions, the Torah now wishes to demonstrate something remarkable:

• Even though the people stopped bringing materials,
• nothing necessary for the construction was lacking.

The materials already donated proved fully sufficient.

As the Torah had previously stated:

וְהַמְּלָאכָה הָיְתָה דַיָּם וְהוֹתֵר
(שמות ל״ו:ז׳)

The work had exactly what it needed, and even more.

Thus the accounting serves to reveal:

• the great abundance of the donations, and
• the complete sufficiency of the materials for the sacred work.

Meaning of “אלה פקודי המשכן”

With this in mind, Abarbanel explains the opening phrase:

אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן

This does not mean an investigation of leftover materials.

Rather it refers to:

• the enumeration and measurement of the materials used,
• the record of how much gold, silver, and copper entered the construction,
• demonstrating that the offerings of Israel were abundant and generous.

The verse therefore means:

“These are the accounted amounts of the Mishkan — the measured quantities of the materials used in the construction previously described in Parshas Vayakhel.”

The accounting refers specifically to the materials used in the Mishkan structure and its vessels, which had already been described earlier.

Why the Verse Says “משכן העדות”

Abarbanel further explains the phrase:

מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת

The Torah adds this phrase for clarification.

Elsewhere the term “Mishkan” can refer specifically to the tent curtains, as in:

וְאֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן תַּעֲשֶׂה עֶשֶׂר יְרִיעֹת
(שמות כ״ו:א׳)

But here the Torah intends the entire sanctuary complex, not merely the curtains.

Therefore it clarifies:

משכן העדות

The Mishkan that houses the Aron of the Testimony.

Because the Aron HaEidus stood within the Holy of Holies, the entire structure became known as “the Mishkan of Testimony.”

The Three Elements of an Accounting

Abarbanel explains that any financial accounting normally contains three essential elements:

• The authority who commands that the accounting be conducted
• The person who performs the calculation and record
• The individual who presents the report of what was received and spent

The Torah therefore identifies all three elements in this verse.

1. The authority who ordered the accounting

אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל פִּי מֹשֶׁה

Moshe Rabbeinu commanded that the accounting be made.

He is the leader who ordered the review.

2. The one responsible for performing the accounting

עֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן

The work of recording the Mishkan’s accounts belonged to the Levi’im, and it was carried out under the authority of Itamar, son of Aharon.

This explains why the verse mentions the Levi’im here.

The Levi’im were suited to such responsibilities, and the accounting was therefore entrusted to them.

Itamar oversaw the process because he possessed expertise in calculation and administration.

3. The craftsmen who delivered the accounting

Finally, the verse identifies the individuals who could provide the accounting of materials:

בְּצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה
וְאִתּוֹ אָהֳלִיאָב בֶּן אֲחִיסָמָךְ

Betzalel and Oholiav were the chief artisans responsible for constructing the Mishkan.

Because they supervised the entire project:

• they recorded the materials brought by the people,
• they knew how much gold, silver, and copper entered each component of the work,
• and they were therefore able to present the final accounting.

Thus the accounting is presented by the very craftsmen who oversaw the construction.

Resolution of the First Three Questions

Through this explanation, Abarbanel resolves the first three questions he raised:

• Question 1 — The phrase “אלה פקודי המשכן” refers to the accounting of materials used in the Mishkan described earlier.
• Question 2 — The Levi’im are mentioned because the accounting itself was part of their administrative service.
• Question 3 — Betzalel and Oholiav are mentioned again because they were the ones who provided the report of materials used in the construction.

Abarbanel now continues his explanation by clarifying the Torah’s accounting of the precious materials — gold, silver, and copper — used in the construction of the Mishkan. Through this explanation he resolves several of the remaining questions raised earlier.

The Accounting of the Gold

The Torah states:

כָּל הַזָּהָב הֶעָשׂוּי לַמְּלָאכָה בְּכֹל מְלֶאכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ

Abarbanel explains that this phrase teaches that all the gold donated by the people entered directly into the sacred work.

The Torah then records the amount of this gold:

תֵּשַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִים כִּכָּר וְשֶׁבַע מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ

The verse emphasizes that the entire quantity of donated gold was used in the construction of the Mishkan and its vessels, as described earlier in Parshas Vayakhel.

Thus the meaning of:

כָּל הַזָּהָב הֶעָשׂוּי לַמְּלָאכָה

is that all the gold offered as terumah entered into the sacred craftsmanship.

Nothing remained unused.

The Value of the Gold

Abarbanel further explains the significance of the recorded measure.

According to the accepted calculation of the shekel of the sanctuary, the weight of a single kikar corresponds to a very large monetary value.

He notes that, according to the measurements known in his time, a Torah kikar corresponds approximately to 12,300 ducats in Italian currency.

Accordingly, the total amount of gold donated for the Mishkan would have equaled approximately:

360,800 ducats.

This calculation illustrates the immense generosity of the donations brought by the people of Israel.

Thus the Torah’s accounting reveals the extraordinary scale of the contributions made for the Mishkan.

Through this explanation Abarbanel resolves the fourth question concerning the recording of the gold.

The Accounting of the Silver

The Torah next records:

כֶּסֶף פְּקוּדֵי הָעֵדָה

This refers specifically to the silver collected through the census contributions, the half-shekel given by each member of the nation.

From this silver the following items were made:

• the sockets of the Mishkan structure
• the sockets of the Paroches
• the hooks for the pillars
• the overlay of the pillar tops
• the bands connecting the pillars

Abarbanel explains that all of these elements were produced from the census silver.

This resolves the earlier difficulty concerning the absence of voluntary silver donations in this accounting.

The reason is that the silver used in the Mishkan construction came entirely from the census contributions, not from the voluntary donations.

Therefore the Torah lists only:

כסף פקודי העדה

the silver of the census.

The voluntary silver offerings were not mentioned here because none of them were used for the structural vessels of the Mishkan.

According to Abarbanel, that silver was used instead for other service vessels.

This explanation resolves the fifth question.

The Accounting of the Copper

The Torah next records the amount of copper donated:

וּנְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה

The total given was:

שִׁבְעִים כִּכָּר וְאַלְפַּיִם וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁקֶל

The Torah then specifies the items produced from this copper.

Abarbanel notes that in ancient Egypt and throughout the eastern lands, copper was considered highly valuable, which explains why its quantity is carefully recorded.

Why the Laver Is Not Listed

Abarbanel now addresses the earlier question regarding the Laver (כיור) and its base, which do not appear in the copper accounting.

The reason is simple.

The copper listed here refers specifically to:

נְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה

— the copper donated by the people as part of the Mishkan contributions.

However, the Torah earlier states that the Laver and its base were made from:

מַרְאֹת הַצֹּבְאֹת
(שמות ל״ח:ח׳)

the mirrors of the women who gathered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Because the Laver was made from these mirrors rather than from the general donated copper, it is not included in the accounting of נְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה.

Thus the omission of the Laver and its base is explained.

This resolves the sixth question.

Why Other Materials Are Not Accounted

Abarbanel next addresses the omission of other donated materials such as:

• תכלת
• ארגמן
• תולעת שני
• שש
• עזים
• עורות אלים מאדמים
• עורות תחשים
• עצי שטים

These materials are not recorded quantitatively.

The reason, he explains, is that the accounting here focuses only on the most precious materials:

• gold
• silver
• copper

These metals possessed significantly greater monetary value.

Because the purpose of the accounting was to demonstrate the magnitude of the donations, the Torah focused on the materials of greatest importance.

For the other materials, the Torah relied on the detailed descriptions already given earlier in Parshas Vayakhel, where the construction of the Mishkan components made from those materials had already been explained.

The Garments of the Kohanim

The Torah states:

וּמִן הַתְּכֵלֶת וְהָאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי עָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי שְׂרָד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן

Abarbanel explains that the term:

בִּגְדֵי שְׂרָד

includes the garments worn by the ordinary Kohanim as well.

They too serve in the sacred service.

The verse therefore encompasses all priestly garments, including those of Aharon and those of his sons.

The Overall Conclusion

The entire accounting reveals a fundamental point:

• All the donated gold, copper, and census silver were used for the vessels of the Mishkan.
• None of these materials remained unused.
• The priestly garments were made instead from the colored textiles, not from those metals.

Only the Tzitz, being made of gold, appears to have been fashioned later.

This entire explanation resolves the seventh question concerning the materials used in the priestly garments and Mishkan components.

39:1 — שמות ל״ט:א׳

וּמִן־הַתְּכֵלֶת וְהָאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי עָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי שְׂרָד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה

“And from the turquoise, purple, and scarlet they made garments of service to minister in the sanctuary, and they made the holy garments for Aharon, as Hashem commanded Moshe.”

Abarbanel examines the linguistic structure of the Torah’s description of the priestly garments and explains several literary differences in the wording of the verses. He also resolves the earlier question concerning the repeated phrase “כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.”

The Alternation Between Singular and Plural

Abarbanel begins by observing a stylistic feature in the verses describing the garments.

In some garments the Torah writes in the singular, while in others it writes in the plural.

Examples:

Singular forms:

• ויעש את האפוד
• ויעש את החשן
• ויעש את המעיל

Plural forms:

• ויעשו את אבני השהם
• ויעשו את הכתנת
• ויעשו מצנפת
• ויעשו מגבעות
• ויעשו מכנסי בד
• ויעשו את האבנט
• ויעשו את הציץ

This variation raises a question:

Why does the Torah sometimes attribute the work to one individual, and other times to multiple craftsmen?

Betzalel’s Role in the Major Garments

Abarbanel explains that Betzalel personally participated in the making of the most important priestly garments.

These include:

• the Ephod
• the Choshen
• the Me’il

Because Betzalel himself was involved, the Torah sometimes uses singular language, referring primarily to him.

For example:

ויעש את האפוד

This wording alludes specifically to Betzalel’s leadership and involvement.

However, the verses that describe the detailed craftsmanship within these garments often revert to plural language, indicating the participation of the other artisans.

For example:

• וירקעו את פחי הזהב
• כתפות עשו לו

These plural forms refer to the craftsmen who worked together with Betzalel.

Thus the Torah alternates between singular and plural to reflect the collaborative nature of the work:

• Betzalel directed and participated personally
• The artisans executed the craftsmanship alongside him.

The Stones of the Ephod

The same pattern appears in the stones of the Ephod.

The Torah states:

ויעשו את אבני השהם

This plural form refers to the artisans who fashioned the stones.

But when the verse states:

וישם אותם על כתפות האפוד

the language becomes singular, referring to Betzalel, who oversaw their placement.

The Choshen

A similar pattern appears in the Choshen.

The Torah says:

ויעש את החשן

This singular form again refers to Betzalel.

But the subsequent verses describing the detailed work of the Choshen shift to plural language:

• עשו החשן
• וימלאו בו ארבעה טורי אבן
• ויעשו על החשן שרשרות
• ויתנו שם העבותות

These plural verbs refer to the craftsmen who carried out the work under Betzalel’s direction.

The Me’il

The same structure appears in the Me’il.

The verse begins:

ויעש את מעיל האפוד

This refers to Betzalel.

But the detailed work of decorating the garment is described in plural:

• ויעשו על שולי המעיל רמוני תכלת
• ויעשו פעמוני זהב טהור
• ויתנו את הפעמונים

Again indicating the artisans who worked alongside him.

Why Some Garments Are Only Plural

When the Torah describes the following garments, it uses only plural forms:

• the Kesones (tunic)
• the Mitznefes (turban)
• the Migba’os (caps)
• the Michnesei Bad (linen trousers)
• the Avnet (belt)

In these cases the Torah does not attribute the work directly to Betzalel.

Abarbanel explains the reason:

These garments were simpler items of clothing, and therefore their construction was not attributed specifically to Betzalel in the same way as the more elaborate garments.

Thus the Torah writes only:

ויעשו

referring to the craftsmen generally.

The Special Case of the Tzitz

The Tzitz — the golden headplate engraved with the words:

קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳

is described entirely with plural verbs:

• ויעשו
• ויכתבו עליו
• ויתנו עליו פתיל תכלת

Abarbanel explains that all the artisans participated equally in the making of the Tzitz.

Two reasons explain this.

First, the Tzitz possessed extraordinary sanctity, bearing the inscription “Holy to Hashem.”

Second, it represented the final element in the entire construction process.

Just as the Torah earlier said regarding the Mishkan construction:

ויעשו כל חכם לב בעושי המלאכה את המשכן
(שמות ל״ו:ח׳)

indicating that all the artisans participated together, so too here all the craftsmen took part collectively in fashioning the Tzitz.

Why the Torah Repeats “כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה”

Abarbanel now explains the repeated phrase:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

which appears after each garment.

The reason is that in several places the description of the actual construction differs in wording from the earlier commandment given in Parshas Tetzaveh.

Without clarification, one might mistakenly think that the artisans added elements of their own initiative.

The Torah therefore repeatedly emphasizes that everything was done exactly as Hashem commanded Moshe.

Examples illustrate this point.

The Ephod

In the description here we read:

וירקעו את פחי הזהב וקצץ פתילים

These details are not mentioned explicitly in the earlier command.

Someone might therefore assume that the artisans introduced these elements themselves.

The Torah therefore concludes:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

affirming that Moshe had indeed been commanded regarding these details.

The Stones of the Ephod

The Torah describes them as:

אבני זכרון לבני ישראל

But the meaning of this “memorial” might seem unclear.

In Parshas Tetzaveh the Torah explains the purpose explicitly:

ונשא אהרן את שמותם לפני ה׳ על שתי כתפיו לזכרון
(שמות כ״ח:י״ב)

Thus the phrase “כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה” confirms that the earlier command fully explains the meaning of the memorial.

The Choshen

In the earlier command the Torah states:

ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים
(שמות כ״ח:ל׳)

However, in the description of the construction here the Urim and Tumim are not mentioned.

Because the narrative omits this detail, the Torah adds:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

to indicate that everything followed the original command.

The Me’il

In Parshas Tetzaveh the Torah explains the purpose of the bells:

ונשמע קולו בבואו אל הקדש לפני ה׳ ובצאתו ולא ימות
(שמות כ״ח:ל״ה)

Since this purpose is not repeated here in the narrative, the Torah again states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

to confirm that the full meaning appears in the earlier command.

The Kesones

In the earlier instruction the Torah says:

ושבצת הכתנת
(שמות כ״ח:ל״ט)

But in the construction narrative that detail is not repeated.

Hence the Torah adds again:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

The Avnet

Here the Torah specifies that it was made from:

שש משזר תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני

Yet in the command earlier it simply states:

אבנט תעשה מעשה רוקם
(שמות כ״ח:ל״ט)

Thus the Torah again affirms that the work followed the command exactly.

The Tzitz

Earlier the Torah explains its purpose:

ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים
והיה על מצחו תמיד לרצון
(שמות כ״ח:ל״ח)

Because that purpose is not restated here in the construction narrative, the Torah again emphasizes:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

Why This Phrase Was Not Repeated for the Mishkan Vessels

Abarbanel explains that this repeated formula appears only for the priestly garments.

In the construction of the Mishkan vessels there was no difference between the command and the description of execution.

Therefore the Torah there did not repeat the phrase for each item.

Instead it concluded with a general statement:

וַתֵּכֶל כָּל עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ
(שמות ל״ט:ל״ב)

Meaning that all Israel, both those who brought the donations and those who performed the craftsmanship, fulfilled Hashem’s command exactly.

The word:

ותכל

is used here in the sense of completion, similar to the grammatical form found in:

ותרב משאת בנימין
(בראשית מ״ג:ל״ד).

Through this explanation Abarbanel resolves Question 8 that he raised earlier.

Why the Mishkan Is Brought Again Before Moshe

Abarbanel now turns to the verse:

וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו

Ramban explains that the verse should be understood as if it read:

וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת הָאֹהֶל וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו

since the linen curtains are called Mishkan, while the goat-hair coverings are called Ohel (see שמות כ״ו).

Abarbanel accepts this interpretation as reasonable.

However, he offers an additional explanation.

The word Mishkan can function both:

• as a general term for the entire sanctuary
• as a specific term for the linen curtains.

Thus the verse first states generally:

ויביאו את המשכן אל משה

They brought the Mishkan to Moshe.

It then explains in detail how they presented it, specifying the individual components:

• the tent
• the vessels
• and all the elements of the structure.

Why the Torah Repeats the List of the Mishkan Components

Abarbanel concludes by explaining the repetition that earlier formed Question 9.

The skilled artisans constructed the Mishkan in their own working spaces, after hearing Moshe’s instructions describing all that Hashem had commanded.

During the construction process:

• Moshe did not inspect their work piece by piece,
• nor did the artisans bring each item to him while it was being made.

Instead, they completed the entire work independently.

Only after the entire Mishkan had been completed did they bring all the components before Moshe.

For this reason the Torah lists each element again:

so that Moshe could examine them one by one in their proper order.

When Moshe saw the finished work he was astonished.

None of the artisans had made a mistake.

They had not forgotten any instruction.

Everything had been executed exactly according to the Divine command.

The Torah therefore concludes:

וירא משה את כל המלאכה

Moshe saw the entire work only after its completion, and marveled at the precision and wisdom with which it had been performed.

Because of this excellence and devotion to the service of Hashem, Moshe blessed the artisans.

This explanation resolves Question 9.

40:1 — שמות מ׳:א׳

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: On the first day of the first month you shall erect the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting.”

Abarbanel now addresses the final section of the parsha, explaining the command to erect the Mishkan and the Torah’s detailed description of how Moshe carried it out. Through this discussion he resolves the final question he raised earlier concerning the apparent repetition in the narrative.

The Timing of the Mishkan’s Erection

According to the teaching of Chazal, the command described here occurred during the seventh day of the Milu’im.

During the seven days of inauguration, Moshe performed the following procedure each day:

• In the morning he erected the Mishkan.
• It remained standing throughout the day and night.
• At dawn the next day he dismantled it.
• He then immediately erected it again.

This repeated process served a practical purpose:

• It trained the Levi’im in the procedures of erecting and dismantling the Mishkan.

Only on the first day of the month of Nisan was Moshe commanded to erect the Mishkan in a permanent manner.

From that day onward:

• The Mishkan would remain standing continuously.
• It would be dismantled only when the nation journeyed, at which time the Levi’im would take it down and reassemble it during travel.

Ramban’s Explanation of the Command

Ramban explains that the Torah did not need to command Moshe explicitly to erect the Mishkan during the seven days of inauguration.

This is because the earlier instruction had already stated:

וְהֲקֵמֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ אֲשֶׁר הָרְאֵיתָ בָּהָר
(שמות כ״ו:ל׳)

“You shall erect the Mishkan according to the manner shown to you on the mountain.”

Once Hashem clarified here that the Mishkan would be permanently erected on the first day of the first month, Moshe understood that during the seven days of Milu’im he would erect and dismantle it repeatedly in order to train the Levi’im.

A Midrash cited in Vayikra Rabbah states that Moshe assembled and dismantled the Mishkan twice each day:

• once for the Tamid of the morning,
• and once for the Tamid of the afternoon.

Why the Torah Specifies the Order of Assembly

Abarbanel explains that Hashem needed to instruct Moshe carefully regarding the order of assembling the Mishkan and its vessels.

This is because the order of assembly differed from the order in which the items had been mentioned earlier in the command to build them.

In the earlier command describing the construction, the sequence appeared as follows:

• the Aron
• the Shulchan
• the Menorah
• the Mishkan curtains
• the goat-hair tent
• the coverings
• the Paroches
• the screen of the entrance
• the Mizbeach HaOlah
• the priestly garments and their anointing
• the Mizbeach HaKetores
• the Laver and its base

However, when Moshe assembled the Mishkan, the order was different.

The sequence of assembly was:

• first the Mishkan structure itself — the curtains, boards, and coverings
• then the Aron
• the Paroches placed before it
• then the Shulchan
• the Menorah
• the Mizbeach HaKetores
• the entrance screen
• the Mizbeach HaOlah
• the Laver and its base
• the courtyard
• the anointing of the vessels
• finally the priestly garments and their anointing

Because of this difference between the order of the command and the order of assembly, the Torah carefully describes the process of erection in detail.

Why the Torah Repeats the Assembly Narrative

Earlier the Torah already stated:

וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֹתוֹ כֵּן עָשָׂה

Yet the Torah proceeds to describe the entire process of assembly step by step.

Abarbanel explains the reason.

The earlier verse confirms that Moshe fulfilled the command to construct the Mishkan.

But that statement does not clarify whether Moshe followed:

• the order of construction, or
• the order of assembly.

Therefore the Torah records the assembly again in detail to demonstrate that Moshe fulfilled both commands correctly.

Thus:

• In the construction, Moshe ensured that Betzalel and the artisans produced every item according to Hashem’s instructions.
• In the assembly, Moshe himself erected the Mishkan according to the special order given for its installation.

Examples of the Assembly Order

Moshe first erected the Mishkan structure:

• the curtains of fine linen
• the sockets
• the boards
• the bars
• the pillars

Then he spread the goat-hair tent over the Mishkan and placed the outer coverings of ram skins and tachash skins.

Because this order differed from the original construction instructions, the Torah repeatedly states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה

to emphasize that Moshe followed the specific command concerning the order of assembly.

The Placement of the Aron and the Paroches

Moshe placed the Aron in its location and then positioned the Paroches before it.

Although the original construction instructions mentioned the Paroches after the Mishkan structure, in the assembly the Paroches was placed in relation to the Aron itself.

Thus the Torah again emphasizes:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

The Table, Menorah, and Incense Altar

Similarly:

• Moshe arranged the Shulchan and placed the bread upon it.
• He set the Menorah and lit its lamps.
• He placed the Mizbeach HaKetores near them.

Because this sequence did not follow the exact order of the earlier command, the Torah again states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

The Entrance Screen, Outer Altar, and Laver

Moshe then placed:

• the entrance screen
• the Mizbeach HaOlah
• the Laver and its base

The placement of the Laver next to the altar differed from the order of the earlier command.

Thus the Torah again emphasizes:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

The Courtyard

Finally Moshe erected the courtyard surrounding the Mishkan and the altar.

In the earlier command the courtyard had been mentioned before the Laver, but here it appears afterward.

Therefore the Torah again states:

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.

Moshe Serving as Kohen Gadol

The Torah states that Moshe:

• lit the lamps of the Menorah
• burned the incense upon the altar

This is because during the seven days of the Milu’im, Moshe himself served in the role of Kohen Gadol.

Why the Anointing Is Not Mentioned Here

Ramban explains why the Torah does not mention here:

• the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels
• the anointing of Aharon and his sons
• the sacrifices of the Milu’im

These actions were not performed until after the Mishkan had been fully erected.

Moshe was later commanded regarding them in Parshas Tzav:

קַח אֶת אַהֲרֹן
(ויקרא ח׳)

Resolution of the Final Question

Through this explanation Abarbanel resolves the final difficulty.

The Torah’s detailed repetition of the Mishkan’s erection is not redundant.

Rather, it demonstrates that Moshe carefully fulfilled:

• both the command to construct the Mishkan, and
• the command to assemble it in the correct order.

Thus the narrative confirms Moshe’s complete faithfulness to Hashem’s instructions.

40:34 — שמות מ׳:ל״ד

ויכס הענן את אהל מועד וכבוד ה׳ מלא את המשכן

“And the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan.”

Abarbanel explains pshat in 5 parts:

• Part I — The Narrative Question
• Part II — The Philosophical Question
• Part III — Definition of “כבוד ה׳”
• Part IV — The Deeper Metaphysics of Divine “Light”
• Part V — Application to the Mishkan

Part I — The Narrative Question

When the Mishkan was erected and all the sacred vessels were placed in their proper locations, Scripture records that the cloud immediately covered the Tent of Meeting on all sides, and the glory of Hashem, which appeared like a consuming fire, filled the Mishkan.

Thus the interior of the Mishkan became filled with this Divine glory, while the cloud surrounded it from the outside, encompassing the entire structure. Because of this, Moshe could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud covered it and he was not permitted to enter within the cloud without being called. The Mishkan was filled with the glory of Hashem, and therefore it was impossible to enter it without permission and invitation.

A similar pattern had already occurred at Har Sinai, where it is written:

ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי מתוך הענן
“And He called to Moshe on the seventh day from within the cloud.”

Only after this call did Moshe enter the cloud.

Reconciling the Scriptural Verses

The Sages observed an apparent contradiction between different verses regarding Moshe’s ability to enter the Tent of Meeting.

One verse states:

ולא יכול משה לבוא אל אהל מועד
“Moshe could not enter the Tent of Meeting.”

Yet another verse says:

ובבוא משה אל אהל מועד
“When Moshe would come into the Tent of Meeting.”

A third verse resolves the contradiction:

כי שכן עליו הענן
“For the cloud rested upon it.”

The meaning is as follows: the verse stating “when Moshe would enter the Tent of Meeting” might imply that Moshe entered there freely, without needing a special call. It also says:

וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו מעל הכפרת
“He heard the voice speaking to him from above the Ark-cover,”

which seems to indicate that Moshe stood inside the Tent before the Ark.

However, Scripture elsewhere testifies the opposite — that as long as the glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan, Moshe could not enter it.

Therefore the third verse clarifies the matter: the entry of Moshe occurred only after the cloud lifted from covering the Tent, for that covering and the filling of Divine glory occurred specifically on the eighth day, when the glory descended upon the Mishkan.

According to the Sages, the verse:

ויקרא אל משה וידבר ה׳ אליו מאהל מועד
“And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting”

refers to an earlier stage, before the cloud permanently rested upon the Mishkan.

Abarbanel’s Explanation According to the Plain Meaning

According to the straightforward meaning of the text, the matter may be understood differently.

When the master of the prophets, Moshe Rabbeinu, transferred the Ark of the Covenant and the Tablets within it from his own tent — which had previously stood outside the camp — and placed them within the Holy of Holies, the Mishkan then became the true Tent of Meeting.

From that point onward, Moshe would hear the Divine voice speaking to him from above the Ark-cover, between the two cherubim.

The verse stating:

ולא יכול משה לבוא אל אהל מועד כי שכן עליו הענן

therefore teaches the greatness and awe of the Divine presence in the Mishkan. Even Moshe Rabbeinu — the greatest of prophets, who spoke with Hashem face to face — was not permitted to enter the inner sanctum until Hashem called to him, as it is written:

ויקרא אל משה וידבר ה׳ אליו מאהל מועד.

After that initial calling, however, the Mishkan became a place where Moshe could enter whenever necessary to receive instruction from Hashem, as he himself later said:

עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה׳ לכם
“Stand, and I will hear what Hashem will command for you.”

This opening discussion clarifies the narrative tension in the verses and prepares the ground for Abarbanel’s deeper inquiry into the meaning of the cloud and the glory of Hashem described in the verse.

Part II — The Philosophical Question

Having explained the narrative meaning of the verse, Abarbanel now turns to a deeper investigation of the phenomena described in the text — the cloud and the glory of Hashem.

He writes that it is necessary to clarify the true nature of these two expressions, which appear throughout the Torah and the Prophets.

The Question: What Is “כבוד ה׳”?

The Torah frequently refers to:

• כבוד ה׳ — “the glory of Hashem”
• ענן כבוד ה׳ — “the cloud of the Divine glory”

Therefore it is necessary to investigate the meaning of these terms.

Several possibilities present themselves:

• Is כבוד ה׳ referring only to the cloud itself?
• Or is it referring to the fire that appears within the cloud?
• Or does the phrase refer to both together — the cloud and the fire as a combined phenomenon?
• Or perhaps it refers to something entirely different from either of these.

Understanding this distinction is essential in order to interpret the verses correctly.

The Nature of the Cloud

Abarbanel also raises a second line of inquiry regarding the cloud itself.

We must ask:

• Is this cloud like the natural clouds that form from vapors rising from the earth?
• Or is it a cloud of an entirely different nature?

Similarly, regarding the fire that the Torah often associates with the Divine glory — as it says at Sinai:

ומראה כבוד ה׳ כאש אוכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל
“The appearance of the glory of Hashem was like a consuming fire at the top of the mountain before the eyes of the children of Israel.”

We must ask:

• Was this ordinary elemental fire?
• Or was it some composite fire, similar to the flames we know in the natural world?
• Or was it something entirely supernatural?

Natural or Miraculous?

A further question follows from this:

Were these phenomena:

• natural occurrences, belonging to the ordinary structure of the world?

Or were they:

• miraculous creations, brought into existence specifically for particular moments?

And if they were miraculous, we must ask:

• Were they created only temporarily, for the events in which they appeared?

Or perhaps:

• Were they created from the six days of Creation, prepared from the beginning for these sacred manifestations?

Are All These Manifestations the Same?

Abarbanel then broadens the investigation even further.

Many places in the Torah describe appearances of cloud and fire associated with the Divine Presence.

We must therefore determine whether these are all the same phenomenon or different ones.

For example:

• The pillar of cloud and pillar of fire that led Israel out of Egypt
• The cloud and fire that descended upon Mount Sinai
• The cloud that filled the Mishkan on the day it was erected
• The fire that descended upon the altar on the eighth day of the inauguration
• The appearance of the Divine presence at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness
• The cloud and glory that filled the Temple built by Shlomo

Are all these manifestations:

• one and the same reality, appearing in different circumstances?

Or are they:

• many different phenomena, sharing only similar outward appearances?

Purpose of the Investigation

Abarbanel explains that by answering these questions we will understand not only:

• the nature of the cloud and fire,
  but also
• the purpose for which they appeared in each place where Scripture describes them.

However, Abarbanel notes that he did not find in earlier commentators a treatment of this subject that fully resolves the matter.

Therefore he undertakes to explain it himself.

He writes that he will attempt to clarify the issue:

• according to sound reasoning, and
• according to the principles of the Torah.

With sincerity and intellectual honesty, he says, he will explain the matter according to whatever insight Hashem grants him.

This introduction prepares the way for Abarbanel’s extended philosophical explanation of כבוד ה׳ and the Divine cloud, which he now begins.

Part III — Definition of “כבוד ה׳”

Having posed his philosophical questions regarding the cloud and the Divine glory, Abarbanel now begins to define what the Torah means when it speaks of כבוד ה׳.

The Meaning of “כבוד ה׳”

Abarbanel explains that the expression כבוד ה׳ refers to the luminous light that appeared within the cloud.

This is what the verse means when it says that the glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan. The cloud itself was not the Divine glory. Rather, the glory was a radiant light resembling fire, visible within the cloud.

This interpretation is supported by the description given at Mount Sinai, where the Torah states:

ומראה כבוד ה׳ כאש אוכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל

“The appearance of the glory of Hashem was like a consuming fire at the top of the mountain before the eyes of the children of Israel.”

From this verse it is clear that the Divine glory is not the cloud itself, but something resembling fire — a radiant and luminous presence.

The cloud therefore functioned as the surrounding enclosure, while the glory was the inner light.

The Relationship Between the Cloud and the Light

According to Abarbanel, the relationship between these two elements can be compared to natural phenomena familiar to us.

Just as:

• smoke surrounds fire, and
• lightning appears within clouds,

so too the Divine glory appeared as a brilliant light within the cloud that surrounded it.

The cloud concealed and encircled the light, while the light itself manifested the presence of the Divine.

Support from Earlier Authorities

Abarbanel notes that several great authorities understood the matter in this way.

Rambam

The Rambam writes that the phrase כבוד ה׳ can refer to a created light through which the Divine presence becomes perceptible.

Ramban

Ramban explains that the cloud covered the Mishkan from the outside, while the Divine glory filled the interior. The cloud surrounded the structure, and the luminous presence rested within it.

Ibn Ezra

Ibn Ezra also interprets the verse describing the cloud over the Mishkan and the fire by night as referring to a visible light within the cloud, rather than identifying the cloud itself as the Divine glory.

A Shared Conclusion

Thus these sages all arrive at the same fundamental understanding:

• The cloud is not itself the Divine glory.
• The Divine glory is the luminous fire-like light that appears within the cloud.

The cloud functions as the enclosing veil, while the light represents the visible manifestation of the Divine Presence.

Additional Uses of the Term “כבוד ה׳”

Abarbanel acknowledges that the phrase כבוד ה׳ is used in Scripture in several different senses.

For example, it can refer to:

• The Divine presence revealed to human perception
• The greatness of Hashem acknowledged by human praise

However, when the Torah speaks of a visible manifestation, such as at Sinai or in the Mishkan, the phrase כבוד ה׳ refers specifically to the radiant light that appears within the cloud.

This establishes the foundation of Abarbanel’s explanation: the Mishkan was filled with a created Divine light, visible within the cloud that surrounded it.

He will now proceed to explore the broader philosophical implications of Divine light, and why Scripture describes the Divine presence using the imagery of light and illumination.

Part IV — The Deeper Metaphysics of Divine “Light”

The Metaphysics of Divine Light

Having explained that כבוד ה׳ refers to the radiant light seen within the cloud, Abarbanel now turns to a deeper philosophical investigation: why Scripture describes the Divine Presence in terms of light.

The Higher Meaning of “כבוד ה׳”

Some philosophers suggested that the term כבוד ה׳ refers simply to the created light that appears within the cloud. Others offered additional interpretations in which the expression can sometimes denote:

• the Divine essence itself, or
• the praise and honor that human beings attribute to Hashem.

Abarbanel rejects these interpretations as incomplete.

He argues that the Divine essence itself cannot properly be called “glory”, because the true essence of the Creator is beyond all human conception and cannot be grasped by any created intellect.

Even Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest of prophets, could not perceive the Divine essence, as Scripture states:

כי לא יראני האדם וחי
“No human being can see Me and live.”

Therefore the expression כבוד ה׳ cannot refer directly to the Divine essence.

The First Emanation — The Shechinah

Instead, Abarbanel proposes a deeper explanation.

The highest spiritual manifestation referred to as כבוד ה׳ is the first emanation from the Creator, the earliest effect of the Divine will in creation.

This highest emanation is what the Sages refer to as the Shechinah.

It is neither:

• the Divine essence itself, nor
• the visible light perceived by human beings.

Rather, it is the first created spiritual reality, the beginning of the chain through which the Divine influence flows into the world.

Because it is the first emanation, it bears the name of its source, and Scripture refers to it metaphorically as the glory of Hashem.

The Two Meanings of “כבוד ה׳”

From this perspective, Abarbanel explains that the phrase כבוד ה׳ is used in Scripture in two distinct senses.

1. The Supreme Spiritual Glory

This refers to the first emanation, the highest spiritual reality through which the Divine presence is manifested in creation.

This is what the Sages call the Shechinah.

Moshe sought to perceive this level when he said:

הראני נא את כבודך
“Show me Your glory.”

But even Moshe was not granted the ability to perceive this level fully while alive.

2. The Visible Divine Light

The second meaning of כבוד ה׳ refers to the created luminous light that appears within the cloud and becomes visible to human beings.

This is the phenomenon described:

• at Mount Sinai
• in the Mishkan
• and in other moments when the Divine presence becomes perceptible to Israel.

This light resembles fire in its brightness and radiance, which is why Scripture describes it as:

כאש אוכלת
“like a consuming fire.”

Why the Torah Uses the Language of Light

Abarbanel explains that the Torah uses the metaphor of light because light is the most fitting physical symbol for Divine influence.

Light possesses several qualities that make it an appropriate metaphor:

• It reveals and makes things visible.
• It emanates from its source and spreads outward.
• It enables perception without diminishing its source.

For this reason, Scripture frequently describes the Divine presence in terms of light.

For example:

• “With You is the source of life; in Your light we see light.”
• “The light of Your countenance has shone upon us.”
• “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of Hashem has risen upon you.”

These verses illustrate that the language of illumination is the most appropriate way to describe the revelation of the Divine presence.

Philosophical Parallels

Abarbanel notes that even the philosophers recognized that the ultimate source of existence must be compared to pure light.

Some described the First Cause as:

• a source of illumination that gives existence to all other beings,
• a light that shines by its own nature and illuminates everything that proceeds from it.

Just as physical light enables objects to be seen, the Divine influence enables created beings to exist and to be understood.

Thus the metaphor of light expresses both:

• the creative influence of the Divine, and
• the revelation of the Divine presence within the world.

This philosophical framework prepares the way for Abarbanel’s further explanation of the relationship between the Divine light and the cloud that surrounds it, which he will now examine in greater depth.

The Structure of Divine Illumination

Having explained why the Torah describes the Divine Presence in terms of light, Abarbanel now develops the comparison further by examining the structure of illumination in the physical world and using it as an analogy for the manifestation of the Divine Presence.

The Divine as the Source of Light

Scripture itself frequently describes Hashem using imagery of light. The verses speak of:

• אור פניך — “the light of Your countenance”
• קומי אורי כי בא אורך — “Arise, shine, for your light has come”
• והארץ האירה מכבודו — “the earth shone from His glory”

These expressions are not literal descriptions of physical light, but metaphors that reflect a profound truth: the Divine is the ultimate source of illumination and existence.

Even philosophers outside the tradition recognized that the First Cause must resemble a perfect light — something that shines from itself and illuminates all that follows from it.

Just as light allows objects to become visible, so the Divine influence allows all beings to come into existence and be perceived.

The Two Forms of Light in Creation

Abarbanel now draws an analogy from the natural world.

In the physical realm we observe two principal kinds of light:

1. The light of the sun, which illuminates the world from above.
2. The light of fire, which appears below and produces warmth and illumination.

These two lights share similar properties:

• Both illuminate.
• Both generate warmth and energy.
• Both can also produce destruction, depending on the circumstances.

Just as sunlight brings growth and life to the world but can also scorch and destroy, fire can warm and sustain life but can also consume and burn.

The effects depend upon the nature of the recipient.

Parallel Lights in the Spiritual Realm

Abarbanel explains that the spiritual world reflects a similar structure.

There are two levels of Divine illumination:

The Higher Spiritual Light

The first is the supreme spiritual light, the first emanation from the Creator, which he previously identified with the Shechinah.

This level corresponds metaphorically to the sun, the highest and most powerful source of illumination.

It governs the realm of spiritual beings and higher intelligences.

The Created Divine Light

The second is the created luminous manifestation that appears to human beings.

This is the light that appeared:

• on Mount Sinai
• within the Mishkan
• before the people in the wilderness
• and in other visible revelations of the Divine presence.

This light corresponds metaphorically to fire in the natural world.

It is a visible expression of the higher spiritual influence.

For this reason, the Torah often describes the Divine glory as fire-like, even though it is not the same as ordinary physical fire.

The Function of the Cloud

Abarbanel now returns to the role of the cloud.

Just as natural light is often surrounded by atmospheric phenomena — such as smoke, vapor, or clouds — the Divine light also appears within a surrounding cloud.

This cloud functions as a veil, moderating the intensity of the light and preventing it from overwhelming human perception.

Without such a covering, the brilliance of the Divine light would be impossible for human beings to endure.

Thus the cloud serves both:

• as a concealment, and
• as a medium through which the light becomes visible.

Darkness Surrounding Light

Abarbanel also observes that in nature light is frequently accompanied by darkness.

For example:

• The sun produces both light and shadow.
• Fire generates both illumination and smoke.

Similarly, the manifestation of Divine light in the world is often accompanied by elements of concealment.

Scripture therefore describes the Divine presence as surrounded by:

ענן וערפל
“cloud and thick darkness.”

This does not mean that darkness is part of the Divine itself. Rather, it reflects the limitations of human perception when confronted with overwhelming illumination.

Returning to the Mishkan

With this philosophical framework established, Abarbanel prepares to return to the verse describing the inauguration of the Mishkan.

The Mishkan became the place where this created Divine light manifested within the cloud.

The cloud surrounded the structure externally, while the Divine glory filled the interior.

Through this arrangement the Mishkan became the earthly location where the Divine Presence was revealed among Israel.

Part V — Application to the Mishkan

After establishing the philosophical nature of the Divine light and the cloud that surrounds it, Abarbanel now returns to explain the verse describing the inauguration of the Mishkan.

When the Mishkan was erected, the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, while the glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan. The cloud surrounded the structure externally, and the Divine light — the created luminous manifestation of the Divine presence — filled its interior.

In this way the Mishkan became the earthly location where the Divine presence was revealed among Israel.

The Origin of the Divine Light

Abarbanel explains that this luminous manifestation was not something newly created at the moment the Mishkan was erected.

Rather, this light originates from the primordial light created on the first day of Creation.

This light was a pure and exalted illumination, distinct from the light of the sun or the ordinary fire known in the physical world. According to the tradition of the Sages, this original light was later hidden away, reserved for moments when the Divine presence would be revealed in a special way.

Thus the light that appeared:

• at Mount Sinai,
• within the Mishkan,
• and in other sacred moments

is connected to that original Divine illumination.

The Cloud Created for the Divine Presence

Likewise, the cloud associated with the Divine glory is not a natural cloud formed from vapors rising from the earth.

Instead, Abarbanel explains that a special cloud of Divine glory was created from the beginning for this purpose.

This cloud functions as the surrounding medium through which the Divine light appears. Just as smoke surrounds fire or clouds surround lightning, the cloud envelops the Divine illumination.

Through this cloud the Divine presence becomes visible while still remaining concealed enough for human beings to perceive it.

The Same Manifestation Throughout Sacred History

Abarbanel now identifies the same phenomenon appearing in many different places in Scripture.

The created Divine light and its surrounding cloud are the same reality that appeared in:

• the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire that guided Israel in the wilderness
• the cloud and fire on Mount Sinai
• the cloud that covered the Mishkan when it was erected
• the fire that descended upon the altar on the eighth day of the inauguration
• the visible manifestation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness

The same Divine manifestation also appeared later in the Temple built by Shlomo, when Scripture records that the cloud filled the House of Hashem so that the priests could not stand to minister.

Later Appearances of the Divine Fire

Abarbanel further explains that this Divine fire appeared in other moments of revelation.

It was the fire that descended:

• upon the altar during the inauguration of the Mishkan
• upon the offering of Eliyahu on Mount Carmel

It is even possible, he suggests, that this same Divine fire is referred to in prophetic visions, such as the description in the book of Daniel of a river of fire flowing from before the Divine throne.

The Meaning of the Verse

With this understanding, the verse describing the inauguration of the Mishkan becomes clear.

The Torah states:

ויכס הענן את אהל מועד
וכבוד ה׳ מלא את המשכן

The meaning is that:

• The cloud of Divine glory surrounded the Mishkan externally, covering it from outside.
• The luminous Divine presence filled the Mishkan internally, manifesting the presence of the Shechinah among Israel.

Through this event the Mishkan became the dwelling place of the Divine presence within the camp of Israel.

Abarbanel concludes this long philosophical discussion by noting that he has elaborated on this subject at length because of its importance and because previous commentators had not explained it sufficiently.

Having clarified the nature of the Divine cloud and the glory of Hashem, he now returns to continue the interpretation of the verses of the parsha.

40:36 — שמות מ׳:ל״ו

ובהעלות הענן מעל המשכן יסעו בני ישראל בכל מסעיהם

“And when the cloud rose from above the Mishkan, the children of Israel would journey in all their travels.”

After describing the revelation of the Divine Presence within the Mishkan, the Torah now explains the ongoing role of the cloud and the Divine glory throughout Israel’s journeys in the wilderness.

Abarbanel explains that once the Mishkan was established and the Ark of the Covenant placed within it, the cloud remained constantly over the Mishkan during the day, while the glory of Hashem — appearing as fire — was visible at night.

This difference between day and night reflects only what was visible to the human eye. In truth, both elements were always present:

• the cloud, and
• the Divine glory within it.

During the day the cloud was visible because it overshadowed the Mishkan. At night, however, the cloud could not easily be seen in the darkness, and therefore what appeared to the people was the radiant light within the cloud, resembling fire.

Thus the people saw:

• the cloud by day, and
• the fire by night,

even though both existed together continuously.

The Cloud Directing Israel’s Journeys

The journeys of the Israelites were determined entirely by the movement of this cloud.

Whenever the cloud rested upon the Mishkan, the people remained encamped. When the cloud rose and departed from the Mishkan, the people would begin their journey.

In this way the entire movement of Israel through the wilderness was governed by the visible sign of the Divine Presence.

The Midrash: The Mishkan Reflects Creation

Abarbanel then cites a Midrash explaining the profound symbolism of the Mishkan.

The verse states:

ה׳ אהבתי מעון ביתך ומקום משכן כבודך
“Hashem, I love the habitation of Your house and the place where Your glory dwells.”

The Sages teach that the Mishkan corresponds to the creation of the world itself.

The Midrash demonstrates this correspondence through a series of parallels:

• In the Mishkan it says:
  “You shall make curtains.”
  In Creation it says:
  “He stretches out the heavens like a curtain.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “The curtain shall separate.”
  In Creation it says:
  “Let there be a firmament… separating.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “You shall make a laver of copper and place water in it.”
  In Creation it says:
  “Let the waters be gathered.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “You shall make the Menorah.”
  In Creation it says:
  “Let there be lights.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “The cherubim shall spread their wings.”
  In Creation it says:
  “Let birds fly across the firmament of the heavens.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “Bring near to you Aharon your brother.”
  In Creation it says:
  “And He brought her to the man.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “All the work of the Tent of Meeting was completed.”
  In Creation it says:
  “The heavens and the earth were completed.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “Moshe blessed them.”
  In Creation it says:
  “Hashem blessed the seventh day.”
• In the Mishkan it says:
  “He sanctified it and all its vessels.”
  In Creation it says:
  “He sanctified it.”

The Mishkan as a Microcosm of Creation

The Sages intended to teach that the Mishkan and its vessels represent a symbolic structure of the entire universe.

Just as the six days of Creation prepared the world for the divine order that would unfold thereafter, so too the work of constructing the Mishkan served as preparation for the indwelling of the Divine Presence.

This is why the Torah places the commandment of Shabbat near the commandment of building the Mishkan.

Both reflect the pattern of Creation:

• six days of preparation
• followed by a sanctified state in which the Divine presence rests.

The Day the Mishkan Was Erected

The day the Mishkan was erected was especially significant.

According to the Sages, that day received ten crowns, corresponding to the ten divine utterances through which the world was created.

This further reinforces the idea that the Mishkan represents a renewal of the structure of creation.

The Divine Presence as the Life of the World

Abarbanel concludes by explaining the deeper meaning of the cloud guiding Israel’s journeys.

Just as Hashem is the soul and form of the universe, sustaining and moving it, so too the Divine presence resting upon the Mishkan functioned as the animating force guiding Israel’s camp.

The Mishkan did not move unless the cloud moved.

When the cloud rested, the people remained in place. When the cloud rose, they journeyed.

Thus the cloud served as the visible sign that the Divine Presence was directing the life and movement of the nation.

Scripture therefore states:

על פי ה׳ יחנו ועל פי ה׳ יסעו
“At the command of Hashem they encamped, and at the command of Hashem they journeyed.”

Abarbanel’s Concluding Note

Abarbanel closes his commentary on Sefer Shemos by noting that the Mishkan reflects the structure of creation and that the Divine Presence dwelling within it guided Israel throughout their journeys.

He concludes by recording that he completed this commentary in the city of Venice, on the first day of the month of MarCheshvan in the year 5266 (1505–1506).

He offers praise and thanks to Hashem for granting him the ability to complete the work.

תם ונשלם. שבח לאל עולם.
“Completed and concluded. Praise to the Eternal G-d.”

ברוך אשר עד הנה עזרנו להשלים ספר שמות.
“Blessed is He who has helped us until now to complete the Book of Shemos.”

May He continue in His kindness to strengthen us to complete further works with strength and wisdom.

Summary of Abarbanel on Parshas Pekudei

Abarbanel concludes his commentary on Parshas Pekudei by showing how the completion of the Mishkan represents the culmination of the entire narrative of Sefer Shemos. The careful accounting of the Mishkan’s materials demonstrates the integrity and holiness required in sacred service, while the completion of its vessels and priestly garments reflects the harmony and order of the sanctuary. With the erection of the Mishkan and the descent of the cloud and Divine glory, the structure becomes the place where the Shechinah dwells among Israel and where Moshe receives the Divine word. Abarbanel’s extended philosophical treatment of כבוד ה׳ clarifies that the glory filling the Mishkan is a luminous Divine manifestation appearing within the cloud, a created light through which the Divine Presence becomes perceptible. He further explains that the Mishkan itself mirrors the structure of creation, serving as a microcosm of the universe and a focal point of Divine providence. Thus the book of Shemos closes with the revelation that the same Divine power that created and governs the world now rests within the Mishkan, guiding Israel through the wilderness and establishing the foundation of their covenantal life.

📖 Source

• Abarbanel on Pekudei: 38:21-40:36

Rav Avigdor Miller on Parshas Pekudei — Commentary

Introduction to Rav Avigdor Miller on Parshas Pekudei

The Completion of the Mishkan and the Birth of the Torah Nation

Parshas Pekudei brings Sefer Shemos to its culmination. The story that began with slavery in Mitzrayim, continued through the miracles of the Exodus and the revelation at Har Sinai, now reaches its final stage with the erection of the Mishkan. On the first day of Nissan in the second year after leaving Mitzrayim, the Mishkan was finally established:

שמות מ׳:י״ז
וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן

This moment, Rav Avigdor Miller explains, represents one of the most significant turning points in the history of the world. The Mishkan became the place where the Divine Presence would dwell among the Jewish people, fulfilling the promise stated earlier in the Torah:

שמות כ״ה:ח׳
וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם
“And I will dwell among them.”

Yet the Torah immediately reveals something remarkable about the nature of that Divine dwelling. When Moshe completed the structure and prepared the holiest chamber, the Kodesh Kodoshim, one might imagine that the room meant for the presence of Hashem would contain a magnificent throne symbolizing Divine kingship. Instead, Hashem commanded that the most sacred place on earth should contain something very different:

וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֶל הָאָרֹן … וַיָּבֵא אֶת הָאָרֹן אֶל הַמִּשְׁכָּן

The Ark containing the Luchos was placed at the center of the sanctuary, and alongside them the Torah itself was deposited. The holiest place in the world was therefore not a chamber dedicated to power or spectacle; it was a chamber dedicated to the Word of Hashem.

Dovid HaMelech later expressed this idea with a striking phrase:

תהילים ס״ח:י״ח
ה׳ בָּם סִינַי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ

“Hashem is among them; Sinai is in the sanctuary.”

The Mishkan, in other words, contained within it the experience of Har Sinai itself. The revelation that took place at Sinai was not a single historical event but an enduring reality preserved within the heart of the Mishkan. The sanctuary therefore served not merely as a place of ritual service but as the living continuation of the revelation of Torah.

This insight reveals the deeper meaning of the Mishkan. Building a dwelling place for Hashem did not mean constructing a palace for the Divine Presence in the ordinary sense. Rather, it meant establishing a national center devoted entirely to Torah. The Mishkan became an altar of devotion to the Word of Hashem, demonstrating that the revelation of Hashem in this world occurs through Torah and through the people who live according to it.

From this perspective, the wilderness generation can be understood in an entirely new light. The Dor Hamidbar was not merely a nation traveling through the desert on its way to Eretz Yisroel. It was a society organized around Torah learning and spiritual growth. Sustained by manna from heaven and protected by Divine providence, the people were freed from the ordinary burdens of survival and could devote themselves to studying the Torah taught by Moshe Rabbeinu. The entire camp functioned as a vast academy of Torah, a nation whose primary occupation was the pursuit of Divine wisdom.

In this way the Mishkan became the symbolic heart of the Jewish nation. The sanctuary standing in the center of the camp proclaimed a profound truth: the Jewish people exist not merely as an ethnic or political entity but as a people whose life revolves around the service of Hashem and the study of His Torah.

The following sections synthesize Rav Avigdor Miller’s teachings on Parshas Pekudei, tracing how the completion of the Mishkan established the foundations of Jewish civilization. Through the Torah placed in its holiest chamber, through the national devotion to Torah study, through the sanctity of the Jewish home, and through the shaping of human character itself, the Mishkan reveals the enduring identity of the Jewish people as the Torah nation.

Part I — Sinai in the Sanctuary

The Torah in the Holiest Place on Earth

When the Mishkan was finally completed and Moshe Rabbeinu began arranging its sacred vessels, the Torah describes a sequence of actions that reveals the deepest meaning of the entire structure. The climax occurs when Moshe prepares the Kodesh Kodoshim, the most sacred chamber of the Mishkan:

שמות מ׳:כ׳
וַיִּקַּח וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֶל הָאָרֹן

He placed the Tablets of Testimony into the Aron and then brought the Ark into the sanctuary.

At first glance, this procedure might seem like one detail among many in the inauguration of the Mishkan. Yet Rav Avigdor Miller explains that this moment contains the central message of the entire sanctuary. The holiest room in the world was not designed to display grandeur or majesty in the way earthly palaces do. Instead of a throne, Hashem commanded that the room contain the Luchos—the stone tablets engraved with the words of the Torah—and the Torah itself placed beside them.

If a human king were building a palace, the central chamber would undoubtedly contain a magnificent throne symbolizing royal authority. Such a throne would demonstrate power and inspire awe among those who entered. But Hashem declared that His “room” would contain something entirely different. The revelation of the Divine Presence in this world would come not through displays of power but through the Torah.

The Ark therefore became the focal point of the entire Mishkan because it housed the Word of Hashem.

Har Sinai Inside the Mishkan

Dovid HaMelech later expressed this idea in a striking phrase:

תהילים ס״ח:י״ח
ה׳ בָּם סִינַי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ

“Hashem is among them; Sinai is in the sanctuary.”

Rav Miller explains that this verse teaches a profound concept. The Mishkan was not merely a structure built after the revelation at Sinai; it was the continuation of Sinai itself. The experience of Matan Torah was preserved within the Kodesh Kodoshim.

The two stone tablets placed inside the Ark represented the moment when Hashem spoke to the Jewish people and revealed His Torah to them. By placing those tablets in the heart of the sanctuary, the Torah teaches that the center of Jewish life must always remain the revelation of Sinai.

In this sense the Mishkan served as a permanent reminder that the Jewish people live under the authority of the Torah.

A Sanctuary Built for the Word of Hashem

From this perspective, the entire Mishkan can be understood as a structure built around the Torah. Every curtain, every vessel, and every detail of craftsmanship ultimately served the purpose of housing the Ark that contained the Luchos.

The sanctuary was therefore not merely a place where sacrifices were offered. Its deepest purpose was to establish a national center devoted to the Word of Hashem.

Rav Miller explains that when the Jewish people built the Mishkan they were not simply constructing a building. They were establishing a civilization centered upon Torah. The presence of the Ark in the Kodesh Kodoshim proclaimed that the guiding authority of the nation would be the Torah given at Sinai.

This idea reshapes our understanding of the Mishkan. Rather than viewing it as a structure designed primarily for ritual activity, we must see it as a symbolic declaration that Torah stands at the center of Jewish existence.

The Torah as the Heart of the Nation

The placement of the Ark within the sanctuary therefore reveals the true heart of the Jewish people. Nations throughout history have organized themselves around power, territory, or culture. The Jewish nation, however, organizes itself around something entirely different: the Torah.

The Ark in the Kodesh Kodoshim demonstrates that the essence of the Jewish people lies in their commitment to the Divine word.

The Mishkan standing in the middle of the camp made this truth visible to every member of the nation. Each tribe encamped around the sanctuary, orienting its life toward that sacred center. The message was unmistakable: the Jewish people are a nation whose life revolves around the Torah.

From Revelation to Daily Life

The presence of the Luchos within the Mishkan also teaches that the revelation of Sinai was not meant to remain a single historical moment. Instead, it was meant to shape the daily life of the Jewish people.

The sanctuary preserved the memory of Sinai so that every generation could continue living under its influence. Whenever the Jewish people looked toward the Mishkan, they were reminded that their existence was defined by the Torah that had been revealed to them.

In this way the Mishkan ensured that the experience of Sinai would remain alive within the nation.

The Foundation of a Torah Civilization

Rav Miller therefore concludes that the Mishkan established the foundation of Jewish civilization. By placing the Torah at the center of the sanctuary, the Torah itself declared that the Jewish people would become a nation whose primary occupation was the study and fulfillment of the Word of Hashem.

The sanctuary did not merely commemorate the giving of the Torah; it created a society built around it.

This insight leads naturally to the next stage of Rav Miller’s teaching. If the Mishkan placed the Torah at the center of the nation, then we must ask an important question: how did the Jewish people live during the years in the wilderness once this Torah-centered society was established?

The answer, Rav Miller explains, reveals one of the most remarkable chapters in Jewish history—the forty-year period in which the entire nation functioned as a vast academy of Torah.

Part II — The Forty-Year Yeshivah

A Nation Freed for Torah

Once the Mishkan stood at the center of the camp and the Torah occupied its holiest chamber, the structure of Jewish life in the wilderness took on a unique character. Rav Avigdor Miller explains that the forty years in the desert were not merely a period of travel between Mitzrayim and Eretz Yisroel. They constituted one of the most remarkable social experiments in history—a nation organized around the study and practice of Torah.

Unlike ordinary societies, the Jewish people in the wilderness were largely freed from the daily struggle for survival. Their food descended from heaven in the form of the manna, their clothing did not wear out, and the clouds of glory protected them from the harsh conditions of the desert. The usual burdens that occupy human life—agriculture, commerce, and economic competition—were largely removed.

This extraordinary arrangement allowed the people to devote themselves to a different pursuit: learning the Torah taught by Moshe Rabbeinu. The desert generation therefore functioned as a vast national academy devoted to understanding the Word of Hashem.

The Structure of a Torah Society

Such a society required organization. The Torah describes how Moshe established a system of leadership to guide the people in their spiritual growth. Following the advice of Yisro, judges and teachers were appointed over the nation at multiple levels:

שמות י״ח:כ״א
שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת

These leaders were responsible not only for resolving disputes but also for guiding the people in the practical application of Torah law. Through this system the teachings given at Sinai could be transmitted to every member of the nation.

Rav Miller notes that the arrangement resembles the structure of a great yeshivah. Just as students in a large academy are guided by teachers and mentors at different levels, the Jewish people were organized in a hierarchy of spiritual leadership that ensured the constant dissemination of Torah knowledge throughout the camp.

Torah as the Occupation of the Nation

The result of this system was a society whose primary occupation was Torah study. While individuals still performed necessary tasks such as maintaining the camp or preparing food, the central activity of the nation was the pursuit of Divine wisdom.

Moshe Rabbeinu himself served as the supreme teacher, transmitting the Torah directly from Hashem to the people. Around him stood the elders and judges who clarified the laws and taught them to the nation.

The Jewish camp therefore resembled a vast academy of Torah learning stretching across the desert.

This arrangement was unprecedented in human history. No other nation had ever organized itself around the study of Divine law as its central activity. The wilderness generation thus became the prototype of a society built upon Torah.

The Formation of the Torah Nation

Through this experience the Jewish people developed a unique national identity. They were not merely a group bound together by common ancestry or territory. Their defining characteristic was their relationship to the Torah.

Rav Miller emphasizes that this identity was not accidental. Hashem deliberately created circumstances that allowed the Jewish people to devote themselves entirely to Torah during those formative years. By living for decades in an environment centered on learning and spiritual growth, the nation internalized the idea that Torah would forever remain the foundation of its existence.

The Dor Hamidbar therefore served as the training ground in which the Jewish people became the Torah nation.

The Legacy of the Wilderness Generation

Although later generations would no longer live under the miraculous conditions of the desert, the model established during those forty years continued to shape Jewish civilization. Even when Jews settled in cities, worked in fields, and engaged in commerce, Torah study remained the central value around which communal life revolved.

The wilderness generation thus established a pattern that would endure throughout history: a nation whose greatest honor belongs to those who dedicate themselves to understanding the Torah.

The Secret of Jewish Continuity

This historical reality leads to a remarkable observation. Many powerful civilizations have risen and fallen over the course of history. Empires that once dominated the world eventually disappeared, leaving behind only ruins and fragments of memory.

The Jewish people, however, have endured through centuries of exile, persecution, and dispersion. Rav Miller explains that the key to this endurance lies in the identity forged during the years in the wilderness.

Because the Jewish people defined themselves through Torah rather than through political power or territorial control, their identity could survive even when external circumstances changed.

This insight leads directly to the next stage of Rav Miller’s teaching: understanding why the Torah has served as the life-force that preserves the Jewish nation across the generations.

Part III — The Secret of Jewish Survival

A Nation Unlike All Others

When we survey the history of the ancient world, we encounter a striking pattern. Many powerful civilizations once dominated the stage of history: Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Each of these empires possessed immense wealth, military strength, and cultural influence. Yet with the passage of centuries they disappeared as living civilizations. Their monuments remain, and their names appear in history books, but the nations themselves have vanished.

In contrast, the Jewish people—far smaller in number and often deprived of political power—have continued to exist throughout thousands of years of upheaval. Rav Avigdor Miller explains that this phenomenon is one of the great historical wonders of the world.

What preserved this nation when so many others disappeared?

The answer lies in the identity formed during the years in the wilderness: the Jewish people became a nation defined not by territory or political power but by the Torah.

“Our Nation Is Only Through the Torah”

This principle was expressed with striking clarity by Rav Saadia Gaon, who wrote:

אֵין אֻמָּתֵנוּ אֻמָּה אֶלָּא בַּתּוֹרָה

“Our nation is not a nation except through the Torah.”

Rav Miller explains that this statement captures the essence of Jewish history. Most nations derive their identity from land, language, or political institutions. When those foundations collapse, the nation itself dissolves.

The Jewish people, however, were built upon something different. Their identity rests upon the Torah—the Divine wisdom that binds the nation together wherever its members may live.

Because Torah can be studied anywhere and transmitted from generation to generation, it provides a foundation for national continuity that does not depend upon external circumstances.

The Role of the Talmid Chacham

Chazal expressed this idea in another striking statement:

סנהדרין צ״ב:ב
כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דֵּעָה כְּאִלּוּ נִבְנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיָמָיו

The presence of Torah knowledge within a generation is compared to the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash. Rav Miller explains that this teaching reveals the role played by the talmid chacham in Jewish civilization.

Throughout history, the scholars of Torah have served as the spiritual leaders who preserve and transmit the Divine wisdom revealed at Sinai. Even when the Jewish people were scattered across continents, these scholars maintained the chain of tradition.

They studied the Torah, taught it to their students, and ensured that its teachings remained alive within the community. In this way the Torah itself became the unifying force that sustained the Jewish nation.

The Torah as the Life-Force of the Nation

Rav Miller emphasizes that the survival of the Jewish people cannot be explained solely through sociological factors. The Jewish nation has endured circumstances that would have destroyed almost any other people: exile, persecution, dispersion across the globe, and repeated attempts to eradicate it.

Yet despite these challenges the Jewish people continued to exist. The reason, Rav Miller explains, is that Torah study constantly renews the spiritual life of the nation.

Every generation produces individuals who dedicate themselves to learning and teaching Torah. These scholars serve as the guardians of the nation’s spiritual heritage, ensuring that the teachings revealed at Sinai remain alive.

Through them the Jewish people continue to draw vitality from the Divine word.

A Civilization Built on Learning

This dynamic created a unique form of civilization. In many societies the most honored individuals are warriors, rulers, or wealthy elites. In Jewish civilization, however, the greatest honor belongs to the person who dedicates his life to Torah study.

The talmid chacham becomes the model of greatness because he embodies the central value of the nation: devotion to the Word of Hashem.

From the earliest generations after Sinai, Jewish communities organized themselves around this principle. Even in times of hardship, families and communities made sacrifices to ensure that Torah learning continued.

The result was a civilization whose defining characteristic was the constant pursuit of Divine wisdom.

The Eternal Mission of the Jewish People

This perspective transforms our understanding of Jewish history. The endurance of the Jewish people is not merely a historical curiosity; it reflects the fulfillment of the mission revealed at Sinai.

The Jewish nation exists in order to preserve and transmit the Torah.

As long as the Torah remains alive within the nation, the nation itself continues to live. When Jews study the Torah, teach it to their children, and build their communities around its teachings, they sustain the covenant that began at Sinai.

From the Nation to the Sanctuary

Yet Rav Miller reminds us that this Torah-centered identity did not arise in isolation. It was symbolized and reinforced by the Mishkan standing in the center of the camp.

The sanctuary served as a constant reminder that the Jewish people exist for the purpose of serving Hashem and living according to His Torah.

To understand this idea fully, we must return to the role played by the Mishkan itself—the structure that embodied the spiritual heart of the nation and proclaimed the purpose of Jewish existence.

Part IV — The Mishkan as the Heart of the Nation

Why the Torah Devotes So Much Space to the Mishkan

One of the most striking features of the final sections of Sefer Shemos is the extraordinary amount of space devoted to the Mishkan. The Torah describes the sanctuary’s design in great detail and then repeats those details again when the Mishkan is constructed.

To the casual reader this repetition may seem surprising. Why does the Torah devote so many chapters to the dimensions of beams, curtains, and vessels?

Rav Avigdor Miller explains that the Torah is teaching a crucial lesson: the Mishkan was not merely a building. It represented the central purpose of the Jewish nation. By describing the sanctuary with such care, the Torah emphasizes that the service of Hashem must stand at the heart of Jewish life.

The Mishkan therefore became the physical symbol of the nation’s spiritual identity.

A Nation United Around Avodas Hashem

When the Mishkan was constructed, every member of the nation participated in the project. The Torah repeatedly emphasizes how the people brought their contributions with enthusiasm:

שמות ל״ו:ה׳
מַרְבִּים הָעָם לְהָבִיא

“The people are bringing more than enough.”

Men and women alike donated precious materials, and skilled artisans devoted their talents to the sacred work. The entire nation became involved in building the sanctuary.

Rav Miller explains that this collective effort transformed the Mishkan into more than a national shrine. It became a project that unified the Jewish people around a shared purpose: creating a dwelling place for the Divine Presence.

In this way the construction of the Mishkan shaped the consciousness of the nation. The Jewish people learned that their greatest achievement lies in participating in the service of Hashem.

The Sanctuary at the Center of the Camp

The physical arrangement of the Jewish camp reinforced this message. The Mishkan stood in the center, surrounded by the camp of the Leviim, and beyond them the twelve tribes of Israel.

This arrangement meant that wherever a person lived in the camp, the sanctuary remained the focal point of national life. The Mishkan was visible to the people and constantly reminded them of the purpose of their existence.

Rav Miller explains that this arrangement symbolized the true structure of Jewish civilization. The Jewish people are organized around the service of Hashem. The sanctuary at the center of the camp proclaimed that the Divine presence is the heart of the nation.

Every aspect of life radiates outward from that sacred center.

A Living Lesson for Future Generations

Although the Mishkan existed in the wilderness, the lesson it conveyed was intended for every generation of Jews. The sanctuary demonstrated what a Jewish society should look like: a community whose central focus is avodas Hashem.

Even after the Mishkan was replaced by the Beis Hamikdash and later destroyed, the underlying principle remained unchanged. Jewish life must continue to revolve around the service of Hashem and the study of Torah.

The Mishkan therefore functioned as a model for the organization of Jewish civilization.

The Role of the Jewish Home

Rav Miller emphasizes that the ideals represented by the Mishkan cannot remain confined to a single building. For the message of the sanctuary to endure, its values must be reflected in the daily life of the Jewish people.

The most important setting in which this occurs is the Jewish home.

Within the home, parents transmit the values of Torah and avodas Hashem to their children. The atmosphere created within the household shapes the character of the next generation.

In this way the sanctity represented by the Mishkan spreads throughout the nation. Each home becomes a small extension of the sanctuary, ensuring that the presence of Hashem remains woven into the fabric of Jewish life.

The Challenge of Maintaining National Ideals

Yet Rav Miller also reminds us that ideals require constant renewal. History shows that even the most inspiring institutions can lose their influence if the people do not actively sustain them.

The Mishkan stood as a powerful symbol of devotion to Hashem, but later generations faced periods in which that ideal weakened.

Understanding this challenge leads to the next stage of Rav Miller’s teaching: examining what happens when a nation begins to lose the spiritual focus that once united it.

Part V — When Ideals Fade: The Lesson of Shiloh

From the Mishkan to Shiloh

After the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisroel, the Mishkan did not disappear immediately. Instead, it was established in the city of Shiloh, where it remained for many years. Shiloh became the spiritual center of the nation, continuing the role that the Mishkan had played in the wilderness.

The Jewish people were expected to maintain the same devotion to the sanctuary that had characterized the generation of the desert. Three times a year the nation would gather for the festivals, bringing offerings and celebrating before Hashem.

The Mishkan at Shiloh was therefore meant to preserve the spiritual unity of the nation.

A Gradual Decline

Yet the period of the Shoftim reveals that the ideals represented by the Mishkan were not always maintained with the same intensity as in earlier generations.

The Book of Shoftim describes a society in which the spiritual focus of the nation began to weaken. The famous verse summarizes the atmosphere of that era:

שופטים כ״א:כ״ה
אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה

“Each man did what was right in his own eyes.”

Rav Miller explains that this phrase reflects a gradual shift in national priorities. When the Mishkan stood in the wilderness, the entire nation revolved around a shared spiritual mission. But in later generations, other concerns began to occupy people’s attention.

The unity that once centered on the sanctuary became less powerful.

The Roads to Shiloh

One of the most revealing signs of this change appears in the words of Devorah HaNeviah. In her song she describes a time when travel to the sanctuary had become difficult:

שופטים ה׳:ו׳
חָדְלוּ אֳרָחוֹת

“The roads ceased.”

Rav Miller explains that this verse refers to the roads leading to the Mishkan in Shiloh. During that troubled period the fear of enemy attacks—particularly from the Plishtim—discouraged people from making the journey to the sanctuary.

As a result, many individuals stayed home rather than traveling to Shiloh to participate in the national service of Hashem.

This development reveals how easily spiritual ideals can weaken when external pressures arise. Even though the Mishkan still stood at Shiloh, the sense of national unity surrounding it diminished.

The Fragility of Spiritual Momentum

Rav Miller emphasizes that the decline described in Shoftim does not mean that the Jewish people abandoned their faith entirely. Rather, it demonstrates how fragile spiritual momentum can be.

The generation that built the Mishkan possessed extraordinary enthusiasm for the service of Hashem. But maintaining that enthusiasm across generations requires constant effort.

Without renewal, even powerful ideals can gradually lose their influence.

The Possibility of Renewal

Yet the story of Shiloh also contains an important lesson of hope. Although periods of decline occurred, the spiritual mission of the Jewish people was never permanently extinguished.

Prophets, leaders, and teachers continually arose to revive the nation’s devotion to Hashem. Figures such as Shmuel HaNavi later restored the spiritual vitality of the people and prepared the way for the establishment of the Beis Hamikdash in Yerushalayim.

Rav Miller explains that this pattern repeats throughout Jewish history. Even when spiritual ideals weaken, they can always be renewed by individuals who remind the nation of its true purpose.

From National Institutions to Personal Character

This insight leads to an important conclusion. The endurance of Jewish civilization cannot depend solely on national institutions such as the Mishkan or the Beis Hamikdash.

Ultimately the strength of the nation depends on the character of the individuals who compose it.

If the values represented by the sanctuary are internalized within the lives of the people themselves, then the mission of the Jewish nation can endure through every generation.

The final stage of Rav Avigdor Miller’s teaching therefore turns to a surprising but profound theme: how the outward behavior of a person—something as simple as clothing—can shape the inner character that sustains a life devoted to Hashem.

Part VI — Clothed in Dignity

The Meaning of the Priestly Garments

As the Torah concludes the account of the Mishkan in Parshas Pekudei, it again describes the preparation of the Bigdei Kehunah, the sacred garments worn by the kohanim. These garments were not ordinary clothing; they were designed specifically for service in the sanctuary and were described as:

שמות כ״ח:ב
לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת

“For honor and for splendor.”

Rav Avigdor Miller explains that the Torah’s emphasis on these garments reveals an important principle about human nature. Clothing is not merely a practical necessity. It possesses the power to influence how a person thinks, behaves, and carries himself.

The kohen who entered the Mishkan dressed in garments of dignity and beauty. Those garments helped cultivate the mindset appropriate for standing before the presence of Hashem.

The Power of External Behavior

This idea reflects a broader principle articulated by the Mesillas Yesharim:

הַחִיצוֹנִיּוּת מְעוֹרֶרֶת אֶת הַפְּנִימִיּוּת

“External actions awaken the inner character.”

Rav Miller explains that human beings are profoundly influenced by their outward conduct. The way a person dresses, speaks, and carries himself can shape his inner attitudes and values.

The priestly garments therefore served as more than ceremonial attire. By wearing clothing that symbolized dignity and holiness, the kohanim cultivated the inner awareness required for their sacred service.

This principle extends far beyond the Mishkan. External conduct can serve as a powerful tool for shaping the character of every individual.

Clothing and Civilization

Rav Miller points out that the importance of clothing appears already in the earliest chapters of the Torah. After the sin of Adam and Chava, the Torah records that Hashem provided them with garments:

בראשית ג׳:כ״א
וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹקִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר

These garments represented more than physical protection. They marked the beginning of human civilization, teaching that dignity and modesty are essential components of human life.

By clothing themselves appropriately, human beings express respect for their own spiritual identity.

“The Garment Makes the Man”

Rav Miller illustrates this principle with a phrase from Latin literature: Vestis virum reddit—“The garment makes the man.” Although originating in classical culture, the idea reflects a truth recognized by Jewish tradition long before.

When a person dresses in a dignified manner, he naturally begins to conduct himself with greater dignity. Conversely, when clothing becomes careless or degrading, behavior tends to follow the same pattern.

This observation explains why Jewish tradition has always placed importance on maintaining standards of modesty and respect in dress.

The Influence of Appearance on Character

Rav Miller emphasizes that this principle is not superficial. Clothing can influence the way a person perceives himself and how others perceive him.

When the kohen wore garments designed for sacred service, those garments helped shape the inner consciousness required for his role. The clothing itself became a constant reminder that he was standing in the service of Hashem.

In the same way, the choices people make about their appearance can reinforce values of dignity, modesty, and spiritual awareness.

From the Mishkan to Everyday Life

The message of the priestly garments therefore extends far beyond the sanctuary. The Torah is teaching that holiness is not achieved only through dramatic spiritual experiences. It is cultivated through the countless details of daily life.

Even seemingly external matters—such as the way a person dresses—can become tools for developing a life devoted to Hashem.

Through these practices, the ideals represented by the Mishkan become woven into the everyday conduct of the Jewish people.

The Formation of a Holy Nation

Rav Miller concludes that the Mishkan did more than establish a place where sacrifices were offered. It created a civilization shaped by Torah values in every aspect of life.

From the Ark that housed the Luchos, to the national devotion to Torah study, to the sanctity of the Jewish home, and even to the clothing worn by those who served in the sanctuary, the Mishkan taught the Jewish people how to live as a nation dedicated to Hashem.

These lessons continue to shape Jewish life long after the physical Mishkan disappeared.

In the final synthesis of Rav Avigdor Miller’s teachings on Parshas Pekudei, we will see how these ideas combine to reveal the enduring identity of the Jewish people as the Torah nation—a civilization whose strength lies in its devotion to the Word of Hashem.

Closing Synthesis — The Torah Nation

Parshas Pekudei concludes the long narrative of the Mishkan and brings Sefer Shemos to its majestic conclusion. What began with the suffering of slavery in Mitzrayim culminates with the establishment of a sanctuary in which the Divine Presence dwells among the Jewish people. Yet Rav Avigdor Miller explains that the Mishkan represents far more than the completion of a building. It represents the birth of a new type of civilization.

At the heart of that civilization stands the Torah.

When Moshe Rabbeinu placed the Luchos inside the Aron and brought the Ark into the Kodesh Kodoshim, the Torah revealed the deepest message of the Mishkan. The holiest chamber in the world did not contain a throne symbolizing power or dominion. Instead, it contained the Tablets of Testimony and the Torah itself. The Divine Presence in this world would be revealed through the Word of Hashem and through the people who live according to it.

In this way the Mishkan preserved the experience of Har Sinai. Dovid HaMelech later expressed this idea in the verse:

תהילים ס״ח:י״ח
ה׳ בָּם סִינַי בַּקֹּדֶשׁ

“Hashem is among them; Sinai is in the sanctuary.”

The sanctuary therefore served as the living continuation of the revelation of Torah.

From that center emerged the identity of the Jewish nation. During the forty years in the wilderness, the people were sustained by manna and protected by Divine providence so that they could devote themselves to studying the Torah taught by Moshe Rabbeinu. The desert generation became a society organized around the pursuit of Divine wisdom—a nation whose defining occupation was Torah learning.

This identity proved to be the key to Jewish survival throughout history. Powerful empires rose and disappeared, but the Jewish people endured because their national foundation was not political power or territory. Their identity rested upon the Torah.

Rav Saadia Gaon captured this truth in a famous statement:

אֵין אֻמָּתֵנוּ אֻמָּה אֶלָּא בַּתּוֹרָה
“Our nation is not a nation except through the Torah.”

Wherever Jews traveled, they carried the Torah with them. Through study, teaching, and transmission to the next generation, the chain of tradition remained unbroken.

The Mishkan itself symbolized this national mission. Standing at the center of the camp, it proclaimed that the Jewish people exist in order to serve Hashem. Every tribe oriented its life toward that sacred center, demonstrating that avodas Hashem must remain the heart of Jewish civilization.

Yet Rav Miller reminds us that institutions alone cannot preserve ideals. History shows that even when the Mishkan stood at Shiloh, the spiritual enthusiasm of the people sometimes weakened. The lesson is that the survival of the Jewish nation ultimately depends on the character and commitment of its individuals.

For that reason the Torah concludes the Mishkan narrative with a subtle but profound lesson: even external actions shape the inner life of a person. The garments of the kohanim were designed “לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת,” teaching that dignity in outward behavior can awaken inner greatness. As the Mesillas Yesharim explains, external conduct awakens the inner soul.

In this way the Mishkan shaped not only the institutions of the nation but also the character of the people themselves.

The message of Pekudei therefore extends far beyond the wilderness generation. The Mishkan established the pattern of Jewish civilization:

• The Torah stands at the center of the nation.
• The study of Torah sustains Jewish life across generations.
• The service of Hashem defines the purpose of the Jewish people.
• The conduct and character of individuals preserve that mission.

Through these elements the Jewish people became what Rav Avigdor Miller calls the Torah nation—a civilization built upon devotion to the Word of Hashem.

And when the Mishkan was finally completed, the Torah records the climactic moment:

שמות מ׳:ל״ד
וַיְכַס הֶעָנָן אֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּכְבוֹד ה׳ מָלֵא אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן

“The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan.”

This verse closes the book of Shemos with a powerful declaration: when a nation builds its life upon the Torah and dedicates itself to the service of Hashem, the Divine Presence comes to dwell among them.

📖 Sources

• Toras Avigdor — Pekudei — 6 Booklets 5780-5785