by Asher Meth

Parashat Vayakhel records the gathering of the Israelite community to build the Mishkan — the Tabernacle. The people responded with extraordinary generosity, bringing more than enough. But the princes of the twelve tribes, the nesi-im, held back: they waited to see what the people would give first, intending to supply whatever was lacking. In March 1986, Asher Meth of New York University posted a D'var Torah to net.religion.jewish asking what exactly the princes did wrong — and what it teaches about the purity of intent required when fulfilling a mitzvah.

The Torah relates that the Jews brought all the necessary building materials for the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and also contributed their skills in constructing the various keilim (vessels) and tailoring the begadim (garments worn by the kohanim). Then we are told (35:27): "Vehanesi-im hayve-u" — that the nesi-im, the princes of the twelve tribes, brought the avnei shoham and the other precious stones used in the garments of the kohein gadol, the high priest. In other words, they brought those materials not yet supplied by the rest of the Jews.

The commentaries note the tardiness of the princes in the work of the Mishkan, and contrast it with their zeal at its dedication. Rashi brings from the Sifrei (Naso, 45): Rabbi Nasan asks, why were the princes the first to offer sacrifices at the dedication of the Mishkan, yet lazy in the work — bringing only the precious stones, and only at the very end of the communal collection? Their reasoning was: let the people bring whatever they can, and whatever is lacking we will complete. When the people brought all that was necessary and the call went out to stop bringing (36:6–7), the princes said: what shall we do? So they brought the precious stones. This is why they were quick to be the first to donate at the dedication. But since they were lazy — nisatzelu — the Torah deletes a letter, the yud, from the spelling of their collective name.

Rabbi Chavel explains this laziness as follows: even though the princes had good intentions — to give the people a chance to partake in the mitzvah of donating to the Mishkan — it is still called laziness. They should have realized that the Jews might bring all that was necessary. They should not have assumed that the people would fail to complete the total donation.

It seems that the sin of the princes was in falsely judging the people. Even though their intentions were honorable — to allow the others to be included in the mitzvah — their calculations were faulty. The root of their miscalculation was their laziness in the fulfillment of the mitzvah.

Another account of the scenario appears in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 12:17). When Moshe said, "Let anyone who wishes to donate to Hashem...," and did not first approach the princes for their counsel and their contributions, they were negatively inclined to the situation. Avos Derabi Nasan (11:1) says that as a result of Moshe's not taking counsel from the princes, they sat quietly and said: let us just wait until Moshe will come and need us, and have to rely on us for this matter.

Seemingly, the princes were jealous that Moshe bypassed them and appealed directly to the masses for donations for the Mishkan. Their sin was in feeling that accepted protocol required consulting with them first — that the Mishkan could be built only through them and their positions as princes.

The Beis HaLevi (in his commentary on Parshas Terumah) points out that the term nediv lev — one who donates from the heart — reflects upon the purity of kavanah (intent) in the donation, with no strings attached. The term nediv lev appears at least three times in our parsha with respect to the terumah (donations for the Mishkan). Its use suggests a deeper understanding of the sin of the princes: the terumah had to be brought with the purest of intentions. Since there was a pegam — a flaw — in the intent of the princes, they were punished with the deletion of the letter yud.

We can extract from this some practical lessons for our everyday lives. We must be stringent to keep the mitzvos as they were commanded, and with the proper kavanos (intentions) as taught to us by CHaZaL — our great rabbis of blessed memory. We have no right to deliberate the merits of any particular mitzvah at some particular time — lest this bring us to distort the character of the mitzvah, or simply not to fulfill it at all. Furthermore (Mechilta 63): Mitzvah sheba-ah leyadecha al tachmitzenah — if a mitzvah comes your way, seize the opportunity to fulfill it, for if you squander the opportunity, it is lost.

Colophon

Written by Asher Meth, New York University. Posted to net.religion.jewish, March 2, 1986. The Beis HaLevi is Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik of Brisk (1820–1892). Rabbi Chavel (Charles Ber Chavel, 1906–1982) produced annotated editions of the Ramban, Rashi, and other classical commentators incorporating Talmudic and Aggadic sources.

Preserved from the UTZOO Usenet Archive (news039f1.tgz, batch b59) for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].

🌲