The immediate reaction that these two Parshiot tend to elicit is one of “been there, done that”. A casual perusal of the Parshiot leads us to the conclusion that for the most part we are merely reviewing the different steps in the building of the Mishkan and in the preparation for its operation, topics that have already been discussed at great length in the three previous Parshiot, Terumah, Tizave and Ki Tissa. Why did the Torah find it necessary to repeat what seems like monotonous detail? Surely would not a verse or two attesting to the successful completion of the work as set out in the earlier Parshiot have sufficed? This question obviously did not escape the attention of the Parshanim, both medieval and later. Ramban (36:8) notes that the command of building the Mishkan is repeated in the Torah no less than five times. Rav Chavel, in his notes to Ramban, enumerates them as follows: 1) Detailed commands of Parshat Teruma 2) General command in Parshat Ki Tissa beginning with 31:6 3) Parshat Vayakhel, the command to actually build, beginning with 35:10 4) When they were actually building, since, as Ramban points out, he must have given the artisans specific instructions in real time which are not at that point related in the Torah and 5) reviewing the work that was completed, beginning with 36:8. After explaining why it was necessary to repeat the command at each of these junctures, Ramban, at the end of his commentary to this passuk declares that the constant repetition is meant to convey the value that Hashem places on the efforts that we make to fulfill His commands, and the reward that such devotion will bring. Abarbanel, when discussing this question (question #5 in Parshat VaYakhel), opts for a different approach, one which resolves a second difficulty as well. When reading our Parshiot and comparing them to the ones that had come before, we can not help but notice that the sequence in which Bezalel builds the Mishkan does not match the order that Moshe related the commands in the earlier Parshiot. While Moshe first relays the commands to make the keilim that will be placed in the Mishkan, Bezalel first builds the Mishkan and only then crafts the kelim. Rashi comments on this question at the beginning of Parshat Pekudei (38:22) and quotes the Talmud Yerushalmi which notes that Bezalel understood that Hashem had first commanded Moshe to build the Mishkan and only afterward to make the keilim. When Moshe asks how he knew this, Bezalel replies that it is the common way to build a building to house vessels before one crafts the actual vessels. Moshe then acknowledges that this was in fact the order in which he had received the command, and comments, in a word play on Bezalel’s name, that the word Bezalel means “in the shadow of Gd” (B’zail El). Abarbanel, however, sees the change in the order of the fulfillment of the command as being the reason for the apparent redundancy in the commands to build the Mishkan. While there is no question that Bezalel’s decision to build the Mishkan prior to making the kelim was correct, the fact remains that this does not reflect the order of the initial command as passed on by Moshe Rabbenu. As a result, the Torah now comes to preempt the possible assumption that the order of construction was not the only thing that Bezalel changed. Instead, by repeating all of the details of the building of the Mishkan, the Torah demonstrates that this was the only aspect in the building of the Mishkan that was altered. In his commentary to Parashat Terumah, Abarbanel suggests that the reason that the command that Moshe originally passed on began with the kelim rather than the structure of the Mishkan was due to the symbolic nature of those vessels. The Aron teaches the primacy of Torah and Mitzvoth, elements which are essential for the world to function. Therefore, this is the first item which Moshe discusses. But that discussion focuses on the thematic elements of the Mishkan as opposed to the practical order of building the Mishkan. (For Abarbanel’s full explanation of the thematic elements, see hid commentary at the end of Parshat Terumah, beginning with the answer to question #9). What is common to both of these commentaries is that the Torah has in fact introduced redundancies into the text, however those redundancies have a purpose, be it to stress the reward of those who are involved in the building of the Mishkan (Ramban) or to reassure us that Bezalel did not stray from Hashem’s command when supervising the construction (Abarbanel). The Netziv (36:8) questions this shared approach of Ramban and Abarbanel. “Ein Davar Reik B’Torah”, there is nothing unnecessary (literally:empty) in the Torah, proclaims Rav Berlin. Instead he suggests that our Parshiot represent a basic rule of textual analysis of the Torah, expounded upon in Baba Kama and other places in the gemara, writ large. The gemara in Baba Kama (64b) says that Parshiot in the Torah are only repeated in order to teach new halachot that would not have been derived from the original passage. Thus, it is not unusual for an entire section to be repeated in order to teach a single new Halacha. The Netziv then demonstrates that from minor differences in the Parshiot new ideas and halachot can indeed be derived. The Netziv’s position not withstanding, Ramban’s approach seems to my mind to best explain the redundancies. I would like to expand on Ramban’s brief answer and share what I believe is his main thrust. If I am not mistaken, what Ramban is arguing is that there can be no comparing a command given with a command fulfilled. When we look at VaYakhel Pekudei, the seemingly dry descriptions contain a most powerful message. The most important thing that we can do is to act, and that is what uplifts us and deepens our devotion to Hashem. If this is correct, it is no surprise that the Torah seeks to reinforce this type of behavior. Many years ago I heard a remarkable idea from Rabbi Yosef Blau, the longtime Mashgiach at YU. Rabbi Blau was commenting on the juxtaposition that we find between Bezalel and his partner, Eholiav. When we look at Bezalel’s lineage, we are not surprised that he has attained such a position of importance. He is, after all, a scion of the most important family in Shevet Yehuda, itself the most important tribe. Eholiav is different. His father, Achisamach, is unremarkable. His tribe, Dan, is descended from Rachayl’s maidservant, Bilha. Even when Am Yisrael marched in the desert, Dan’s camp was the final one to march. “Maasef l’chol hamaachanot” is how the Torah describes them. And who marches in the lead? None other than Yehuda. And yet Eholiav, from such a humble background, is the peer of the princely Bezalel. Blessed with similar skills, Eholiav earns his place by doing. And just as certainly, his success tells us that Bezalel’s place was also earned through merit. He is the designer of the Mishkan not because of his family connections but because of his eminent suitability for the job. Moral of the story: it is actions which Hashem demands of us, and our actions can take us as far as we are willing to allow. Similarly, our Parsha gives us the result of Moshe’s call to Am Yisrael to contribute to the building of the Mishkan. Rising to the challenge that Moshe issued in Parshat Terumah, the people donate far more than was expected or was necessary for the building of the Mishkan, surprising the nessi’im, who smugly, and ultimately vainly, waited to make up the shortfall. Were they motivated by a desire to atone for Chet HaEgel? Perhaps. But that supposition only strengthens our thesis. By taking upon themselves to do, Am Yisrael not only atone for there sin, but move beyond their sin. Finally, we can note the most important aspect of the enterprise of doing in the service of Hashem, and that is the faithful execution of all they had been charged with. Every strata of the nation is involved, and no one marches to the beat of their own drummer. Whatever temptation the army of artisans preparing the Mishkan and it vessels may have had to stray from the blueprint, to somehow express their own creativity, is ignored. The entire Mishkan is built as Hashem commanded, for that is the essence of Avodat Hashem, sublimating oneself to Hashem’s command. It is therefore no coincidence that Parshat Pekudei, and Sefer Shemot, close with the ultimate synthesis of human action in the service of Gd, the actual building and consecration of the Mishkan. Shabbat Shalom