Our Parsha, which in non-leap years is read in tandem with Parshat VaYakheil, at first glance seems to offer little material which we have not already seen in previous Parshiot. In fact, upon hearing that I would be writing a shiur on this week’s Parsha, one friend attempted to console me by pointing out that this week is also Parshat Shekalim, which could provide alternate material for the shiur. Curiosity piqued, I decided to see if I could nonetheless find sufficient material within the Parsha itself. You, dear reader, will be the judge. Parshat Pekudei begins by giving us an inventory of the various materials which had been gathered for the building of the Mishkan and what these objects were used for, followed by a description of the preparation of the Bigdei Kehuna. Afterwards the Parsha relates how the entire Mishkan was brought before Moshe in order for him to examine it and pronounce it fit. The final Perek in the Parsha (and in Sefer Shemot) describes the command to actually construct the Mishkan and the fulfillment of that command. As we noted above, with the exception of the actual building of the Mishkan, there does not seem to be much in the Parsha which we did not already know from previous Parshiot. Nonetheless, I believe that we can derive a central message from three different parts of the Parsha. At the beginning of the Parsha (perek 38) we find an accounting of the various metals which were donated for use in the Mishkan, and what uses these materials were put to. Amongst the metals collected was nechoshet, copper, and in passuk 38 the Torah tells us which building materials and vessels were made from this copper. Conspicuously missing from the list is the wash basin (kior) which was made from the same alloy. Abarbanel asks this question and answers by reminding us that in Parshat Vayakhel (38:8) the Torah told us that the basin was made from the polished copper that the women had used for mirrors, and which they had then donated for use in the Mishkan. Since the source of the donation for this vessel was different than the source of the donation for the other copper vessels the Torah leaves it off the list. Nechama Leibowitz (Iyunim B’Sefer Shemot pp 483-485) points to an interesting difference of opinion between Rashi and Ibn Ezra as to why Moshe Rabbenu accepted these mirrors for the kior. Rashi, basing himself on the Midrash Tanchuma, understands that Hashem forced Moshe to accept the donation of the mirrors against his will. How could it be, fumed Moshe, that the women would think to donate their mirrors for the wash basin in the Mikdash? After all, the kior was a vessel which by definition is a tool for creating purity. How could the women fail to understand how inappropriate it was offer their mirrors as material for creating the kior? Had they not used those same mirrors as a device to seduce their husbands in order to encourage them to sleep with them despite the slave conditions that wore the men out? Hashem’s response to Moshe is immediate. It was those very mirrors which had saved Am Yisrael! Without those mirrors there would have been no children, no continuity to Am Yisrael. How appropriate was this donation. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, identifies with Moshe’s dilemma as described in the Midrash. It is truly inappropriate to use an object which is designed to encourage a focus on physical beauty to be used in the Mishkan. Ibn Ezra therefore understands the gift of the mirrors as being a different statement on the part of the donors. “We don’t need this anymore,” the women are saying. “We wish to leave the physical behind and focus only on the spiritual as symbolized by the Mikdash.” When viewed from this perspective Moshe’s willingness to accept the donation becomes clear. The choice to leave the physical and material behind and strive for the spiritual is exactly what the Mishkan is about. What is interesting in this machloket between Rashi and Ibn Ezra is that while they disagree as to how Moshe reacted to the offer of the mirrors they in fact agree on a deeper point. What counts is the intent of the giver. Two people can donate the same item to the Mishkan. Depending on the individual it may be the most moving of gifts or the most galling and inappropriate of gestures. This same idea can be found in another aspect of our Parsha. Rav Yehuda Nachshoni (Hagahot B’Parshiyot HaTorah pp. 379-380) quotes an interesting Midrash which asks why the passuk (38:21) doesn’t simply say “asher pakad Moshe”, that Moshe counted. Why does the Passuk say instead that the counting was done “al pi Moshe, b’yad Itamar”? The Midrash answers that the purpose of the accounting of the materials was not to simply demonstrate that there was no corruption involved in the collection. Rather, Moshe was checking each individual who wished to donate to the building of the Mishkan. No gift from an unworthy individual or an unworthy source could be part of the Mishkan. Once again, the Parsha demonstrates that what is critical is the motive of the giver, not the gift itself. (As a side point, I could not find the Midrash which R. Nachshoni quoted but did not attribute. If any reader can help find it, please let me know!) In light of the two points raised above, the question begs to be asked. Why is the motivation of the giver so important to the enterprise? Surely one could argue that the Mishkan is the great equalizer. After all, we don’t examine the background of everyone who gives the Half Shekel (OK, an allusion to Parshat Shekalim!) either in the original collection or in the yearly drive that would begin on Rosh Chodesh Adar. Why are the donations to the Mishkan different? I would like to suggest an answer based on the Seforno (38:21-22), as explained by Rav Yehuda Cooperman in his work Kedushat Peshuto shel Mikra (pp 202-207). Seforno asks why is it that when the Torah tells us (BaMidbar 4:32-33) of the work of the Levi’im in transporting the Mishkan and its vessels that the passuk says that the vessels were counted by their name (b’shaimot). Seforno answers that each vessel is so important that it needs to be remembered by name. If something is remembered by name then it is “LeNezach”, eternal. Failure to mention something by name indicates that it is less powerful or lasting. Seforno now continues with an amazing insight. Since each vessel in the Mishkan had a “name”, says Seforno, none of these vessels, nor any other part of the Mishkan, fell into non-Jewish hands. Ever. And why not? Because they had four specific attributes: They included the Luchot (as Seforno derives from the words Mishkan HaEdut), a sign of Hashraat Sechina, that Hashem dwelled in the Mishkan; they were created “al pi Moshe”, meaning that they were eternal; they were built “b’yad Itamar”, meaning that they were under Itamar’s care; and finally they were built solely by artisans who were Tzadikim. All this needs to be contrasted to Bayit Rishon and Sheni, which had only Hashraat Shechina in the case of Bayit Rishon and none of these attributes in Bayit Sheni. Hence while the Mishkan is eternal the Temples were not. As Rav Cooperman points out, Seforno’s insight leads him inexorably to a breathtaking conclusion (24). The Mishkan is eternal while the two Batei Mikdash were temporary. What was collected for the Mishkan falls far short of what Shlomo HaMelech invested in Bayit Rishon. The amount of money that Herod spent on Bayit Sheni dwarfs what was invested in the Mishkan. Nonetheless, those structures were destroyed, their riches looted. The Mishkan is eternal. The difference between Mishkan and Mikdash lies not in their beauty or in the riches which they contain. The difference lies in those who built it. Shlomo relies on Hiram, the king of Tzur, Herod (himself not fully Jewish) on a myriad of slaves and mercenaries. In our zeal to fulfill the concept of “Zeh Kali V’anveihu”, the desire to beautify mitzvoth we often forget the most important element, the individual doing the mitzvah. Is this action bringing me closer to Hashem, or is it merely grandiose? Am I working toward kedusha, or are my motives different? Only the Mishkan is characterized by “Shaimot”. Names. Every vessel and every individual was worthy of standing on its own. In this lies the secret of the eternal nature of the Mishkan, an eternal kedusha waiting to be renewed in Bayit Shlishi. Shabbat Shalom