Or HaChaim on Exodus 25:2/אור החיים על שמות כ״ה:ב׳

1 דבר אל בני ישראל. "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out: "speak to the children of Israel" and did not content itself with the word לאמור at the end of verse one? It was clear that G'd meant for Moses to speak to the children of Israel! Alternatively, the Torah could have omitted the word לאמור at the end of verse one and simply have continued: "speak to the children of Israel, etc."

2I believe that in order to understand this we must refer to Yuma 4, according to which a person is forbidden to relate to another what he has been told by a third party unless he had been specifically permitted or instructed to do so. The Talmud bases this on the phrase: "G'd spoke to Moses לאמור 'to say'." According to this rule the Torah had to employ the line: "speak to the children of Israel," as otherwise Moses would have understood that whereas he was permitted to convey G'd's words to the people he was not duty bound to do so. When you apply this rule you will be able to account for many other instances in the Torah where the word לאמר is followed by דבר, "speak!" Our Rabbis in Yalkut Re-uveni explain the line "speak to the children of Israel" as meaning that Moses was not to appoint members of the mixed multitude to positions of authority over the children of Israel. They understood the word דבר in this instance as derived from דברות ושררה, expressions denoting authority.

3ויקחו לי, and they shall take for Me, etc." Why is this paragraph introduced by the conjunctive letter ו? Perhaps we can explain this by a statement attributed to our sages in Shekalim 1,3 according to which a person had to pawn some of his possessions in order to to contribute the half shekel for the building of the Tabernacle. We read in the Tanchumah on our portion that actually the Torah speaks here about three different kinds of תרומות, contributions. Two of these contributions consisted of a shekel per head whereas the size of the third contribution varied in size according to the individual's generosity and ability to contribute. One of the fixed contributions was used for the silver sockets holding up the beams of the Tabernacle, the second one was each individual's contribution for the purchase of the animals required for the public offerings, whereas the third contribution was a free-willed gift towards the materials needed for the construction of the Tabernacle. Keeping the above in mind the conjunctive letter ו before the word יקחו suggests a contrast between this donation and the one following which was determined by the individual's generosity, and which was not imposed on each Israelite. The words בני ישראל indicate that the levy was imposed only on the male Israelites, not on the women. Only the males were counted as we we know from Exodus 30,13. Accordingly, the words: מאת כל איש, "from each man," indicate that the levy was of equal size for each person from whom it was taken. Even if a person wished to contribute more than the half-shekel the Torah legislated in פרשת כי תשא, he was not allowed to do so. The extra letter ו also alludes to the fact that something else had preceded the compulsory levy, namely the spirit of generosity mentioned in our verse. When we adopt this method of interpreting the verse, the Torah speaks here of the various kinds of contributions made in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. G'd wished for each one of these three contributions to be made due to a spirit of generosity; a person should not make a contribution until he was in the proper frame of mind.

4This verse may also be explained in consonance with Baba Batra 8, according to which monies for charities may be collected by no fewer than two collectors, whereas distribution of such monies requires the presence of three people. This is in order not to allow arbitrary decisions of an a individual as to who should get part of this money and how much. The second person's presence when collecting the funds is in order that the collectors not be suspected of pocketing some of these funds for their own purposes. The Talmud derives this rule from the words: "and they shall take the gift, etc." Interestingly, both Tossaphot and the Ran claim that the presence of two collectors is mandatory when the amounts are fixed, such as a head tax levied for the poor, whereas when the amounts collected are subject to variation, i.e. each donor decides how much to contribute, three people are required to be present during the collection. Actually, according to halachah, even a single expert is empowered to collect a mandatory levy from people as we know from Sanhedrin 5 where the Talmud empowers an expert judge to pronounce judgment. Rabbi Nachman cites himself as an example of a solitary judge handing down decisions in monetary disputes. [Naturally, the litigants had first agreed to submit to the decision of the single expert judge. Ed.] Tossaphot there write that such a single judge can impose his decision on the litigant. If that is so in matters of litigation, it is obviously the case also where only a mere assertion of authority is involved such as in collecting donations, etc. If a situation normally requiring three judges may be handled by a single expert judge, how much more so can a single expert judge deal with matters which even under normal circumstances only require two laymen. This helps us to understand the words: "speak to the children of Israel" in the sense of "exercise authority." G'd empowered Moses to single-handedly exercise authority when it came to collecting funds for the building of the Tabernacle. Moses was empowered to both distribute the funds and the materials to the respective artisans without having to give an accounting and he was also empowered to collect these funds without anyone supervising what he did. This extraordinary power was restricted to Moses. Whenever anyone else engaged in a similar activity, the rule of "they shall take the contribution" applied. When you will examine the Torah's report of what actually happened (Exodus 36,3), you will find that the people took the various materials from Moses (only), seeing he alone had collected same. Moses did so both with the contributions which were of fixed amounts (the shekel "levy") as well as with the free-willed donations which varied in size and value. We now understand the letter ו which preceded the word יקחו as contrasting the extra-ordinary authority G'd had granted Moses at the outset of this portion with the normal procedures..

5מאת כל איש, "from any man, etc." Perhaps the Torah means that if a certain individual was well known to be of a giving and generous nature they would not assess him as to what could be expected of him but they would accept without question whatever such an individual chose to contribute. When such an individual described his contribution as תרומתי, "this is my contribution," they would let it go at that.

6The Torah also may wish to teach that the term "my gift," cannot be used except when the donor has donated it willingly, generously, with all his heart. This is why the Torah wrote: מאת אשר. If the donor had to be coerced into giving such a gift it does not qualify for the description תרומתי, [a gift truly meant for G'd. Ed.] but is merely referred to as תרומה, "a gift." The Torah alludes to this by writing ויקחו לי תרומה, "they will take a gift for Me."

7A careful reading of the text will reveal that we have three expressions indicating three degrees of gifts. The Torah did not need to write מאת כל איש, as it would have sufficed to write מאשר ידבנו, "from anyone willing to donate." Perhaps all these nuances describe the three levels of charitable gifts that are commonly given by Israelites. They are: 1) gifts by the orphans; 2) gifts by women, and 3) gifts by people who are extremely affluent (or extremely poor). We are told in Baba Batra 8 that one does not obligate orphans to give charity even if the money is intended to free Jewish captives. If, however, such contributions by orphans will enhance their standing in the community, it is permitted to collect from them. We are taught in Baba Kama 119 that women are assessed only a nominal amount when charity is collected. The Talmud defines "nominal amount" in accordance with the economic standing of the women in question. Ravina is reported to have accepted golden chains from women in his town as a contribution. His rationale was that the women in Mechuzza (his town) could well afford it, that such a contribution was really something minor as far as they were concerned. As far as the extremely affluent, the third category mentioned is concerned, the Talmud in Baba Batra 8 forbids that such people be assessed a contribution. We read in Taanit 24 that the charity collectors were careful to keep out of sight of destitute people so as not to embarass them into contributing something they could not afford to give away. In our פרשה the Torah alludes to these three categories of people when it uses excess verbiage in describing the donations for the building of the Tabernacle.

8According to the Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 1,5, the Tabernacle was a form of atonement for the sin of the golden calf. If so, there was a reason for the Torah to indicate that donations by the aforementioned three categories of people were not mandatory as we might have thought that unless these people also made their contributions they would not enjoy the atonement for their participation in the sin of the golden calf. The extra word את refers to the women; the extra word כל includes the orphans; the words איש אשר ידבנו לבו refer to the poor. It was permitted to accept even a substantial donation from each of these categories. We are also told in Shemot Rabbah 33,8 that Moses queried the Israelites' financial ability to build the Tabernacle. G'd said to him that even the most insignificant (poorest) Israelite was able to build the Tabernacle (donate the funds needed), and that this is why the Torah writes: "from any man who donates with his heart." This is based on the statement in the Tanchuma in connection with the manna where we are told that the descent of the manna was accompanied by a rain of precious stones and pearls. We are also told in Shir Hashirim Rabbah (Song of Songs 1,11) that the least wealthy Israelite took great amounts of loot out of Egypt and even more at the shores of the sea where the Egyptians had drowned. All this proves that the Israelites were wealthy at the time. Accordingly, the Torah wanted to make it plain that the restrictions the sages placed on raising charitable donations from the three categories of people we described earlier apply only to the norm. When people belonging to either of theses categories enjoyed affluence they were certainly expected to contribute in accordance with their means. The ruling that one does not accept (assess) charitable donations from the orphans applies only when the orphans are neither wealthy nor in need of atonement. When they are in need of atonement, such as at the time the donations for the Tabernacle were required, they certainly had to contribute. Not only that, but even if they made a nominally large donation this may have been accounted as an insufficient donation if they were truly wealthy. The donations were rated according each indiviual's financial ability. The same rule applies to the שוע, the wealthy patrician, who, even if he contributed all the materials for the building of the Tabernacle would not make a dent in his wealth. His contribution would not necessarily reflect largesse on his part. The Torah goes on to say תקחו את תרומתי, to tell us that contributions from these three categories of people are acceptable only because they are contributions to the Holy Tabernacle. Contributions for charities are not acceptable from such people.

9A moral dimension of the verse may have to do with the attachment of the soul to G'd. Such a relationship may be reinforced by means of a tangible gift towards the construction of the Tabernacle. The collective soul of Israel is termed תרומה. This is based on Jeremiah 2,3: "Israel is holy unto G'd, ראשית תבואתה, the first of His harvest." The word ראשית is often applied to תרומה. Accordingly, acceptance of a tangible gift by the Jewish people achieves that G'd's Presence will dwell in Israel. The words תקחו את תרומתי refer to the שכינה which is called תרומת השם.