Why does the Torah juxtapose the Parshah of the Mekoshesh Eitzim to that of Megadef?
Rashi (in Pasuk 41, citing R. Moshe ha'Darshan): Because if someone desecrates Shabbos, it is as if he served Avodah-Zarah 1 , since, like Avodah Zarah, Shabbos is compared to the whole Torah. 2
Ba'al ha'Turim: Because the episodes of the Mekoshesh and the Megadef took place at the same time. 3
R. Moshe ha'Darshan holds that Megadef is idolatry, not as Rashi explained above. Refer to 15:30:2:1-2.
See Nechemyah, 9:13.
See Ba'al ha'Turim:
Why does the Torah insert the phrase "Vayih'yu B'nei Yisrael ba'Midbar"?
Rashi: To highlight the shame of Yisrael - that already on the second Shabbos 1 after they entered the desert, they desecrated the Shabbos. 2
Ramban and R. Bachye #1: It is referring to the first Shabbos after the episode of the Meraglim, when the decree was issued that they should remain in the desert. 3
R. Bachye #2: To highlight the shame of the Mekosheish ? Here they were in the desert, receiving the Manna every day, an open miracle that supported Chidush ha?Olam (the Creation), and along came the Mekosheish and desecrated Shabbos the ultimate proof of the Creation ? thereby refuting it.
R. Bachye #3: The Torah is teaching us that, following the decree that they would remain in the desert on account of the sin of the Spies, 4 they wold also have to remain in the desert due to other sins commited by individuals, such as that of the Mechalel Shabbos and of people who treated the Mitzvah of Tzitzis with contemp 5 6 ? which also explains the sequence of the curren Parshiyos.
R. Bachye #4: The current episode followed that of the Ma?apilim, where Hashem decreed that they must remain in the desert, and the Torah is now informing us that the sin of the Mechalel Shabbos, which occurred because they were in the desert, was a direct result of that of the Ma?apilim ? to teach us that ?Aveirah Goreres Aveirah? (?One sin leads to another?).
R. Bachye #5: With reference to the previous Parshah of Avodah Zarah ? it teahes us that Yisrael in the desert (by the sin of the Eigel ha?Zahav) were initially Shogeg ? ?Kum Aseo Lanu Elohim ? ki Zeh Moshe ha?Ish Lo Yada?nu Neh Hayah lo?, 7 and ultimately Meizid ?Vayishtachavu lo Vayizb?chu lo?, 8 just as the Torah first discussed Avodah Zarah be?Shogeg ? ?v?Chi Sishgu ? ?, 9 and then Avodah Zarah be?Meizid ? ?ve?ha?Nefesh asher Ta?aseh be?Yad Ramah? 10 . Yet, in spite of the Pasuk ?Avonah bah? which reuires Teshuvah 11 , Hashem declared ?Salachti ki?Devarecha!? 12
R. Bachye #6: To teach us that someone who is traveling in the desert and does not know which day of the week it is, is nevertheless obligated to keep Shabbos. 13
R. Bachye #7 (citing the Sifri and Shabbos 96a): To teach us via a Gezeirah Shavah "ba'Midbar" from "Avinu Meis ba'Midbar", in 27:3, in connection with the daughters of Tzlafchad, that the Mekoshesh Eitzim was Tzlafchad. 14
Oznayim la'Torah: This statement is not connected to the Mekoshesh; it is merely informing us that the people accepted upon themselves the decree to wander in the desert from place to place until they dug themselves graves each Erev Tish'ah be'Av and died.
See Sifsei Chachamim and Torah Temimah, note 97. See also Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates on the extent of the sin.
Hadar Zekenim, Riva and Rosh: Because otherwise, if not to teach us that this occurred immediately after they were commanded, the word "Bamidbar" would be superfluous.
Ramban: Which explains why the Torah presents this Parshah after the Parshah of the Meraglim.
R. Bachye: As the Torah wrote in 14:35.
It is not clear what R. Bachye means seeing as the Parshah of Tzitzis is coming to teach them the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, not to record the fact that someone sinned.
R. Bachye:Bearing in mind the principle ?Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh la?Zeh?.
Sh?mos 32:1.
Sh?mos 32:8.
Pasuk #2.
Pasuk 31.
See R. Bachye, foot of page 96.
Shabbos 69b: He counts six days and keeps the seventh. See R. Bachye on page 97.
See Torah Temimah, note 99.
Why does the Torah write "Vayimtz'u oso" rather than the more common 'va'Yimatzei Ish'?
What are the connotations of "Mekoshesh Eitzim?
R. Bachye (on Pasuk 33) and Targum Onkelos Shabbos 96b #1 (citing Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel): He was collecting 1 wood. 2
Targum Yonasan, Shabbos 96b #2 (citing a Beraisa) and Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 5:1: He was cutting wood from a tree.
Shabbos 96b #3: It means that he carried four Amos in the R'shus ha'Rabim.
Shabbos 96b #3 (citing Rav Acha be'Ribi Ya'akov): It means that he was gathering wood (Me'amer).
Who was the "Mekoshesh Eitzim"?
Rashi (in Pinchas, 27 - citing R. Akiva in Shabbos, 96b): He was Tz'lofchad. 1
The Sifri Zuta states that the episode of the Mekoshesh occurred on the twenty-first of Iyar, and the Seider Olam states that they came to Midbar Sin on the fifteenth of Iyar - on Shabbos, and the Torah writes "Vayishb'su ha'Am ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i" (they guarded the next Shabbos). If so, the Mekoshesh occurred on the twenty-ninth?
Moshav Zekenim: The Mekoshesh also took place (on the twenty-first of Iyar) just a year later. The B'nei Yisrael left Har Sinai on the twentieth of Iyar, were afflicted through three days of traveling, and they took the Mekalel with them, incarcerated. The Beraisa that states that he was sinned on the twenty-second follows the opinion that Yisrael were not commanded about Techumim (so we can say that the fifteenth, when they came to Midbar Sin, fell on Shabbos). 1 However, how could they be Mechamer (make their animals work - to carry their possessions)? They were loaded from before Shabbos, so there was no Akirah.
Refer also to Sh'mos 16:1:152:3-6.
R. Nasan (in Yevamos 6b) holds that the Torah explicitly forbade burning a fire on Shabbos, to teach us that one is liable even for one Melachah. Why do we not already know that from the Mekoshesh?
Moshav Zekenim: Because we might have thought that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah. 1
Riva (on Pasuk 36): According to R. Yehudah it must have been a Hora'as Sha'ah since he was not warned which Misah he will receive! (In any case, we need a Pasuk to teach that be'Shogeg, one is liable for each Melachah. Moshav Zekenim resolves the Pesikta (Vayakhel 3), which says that without the Pasuk, we would obligate only for doing all the Melachos - PF).
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes in Pinchas, 27:3 that the Mekoshesh was Tzlofchad. What is the source for that?
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Moshav Zekenim: The Gematriya of "Eitzim", with the Beis of "be'Yom", is equivalent to that of 'Tzlofchad'.
Shabbos, 96a: Refer to 15:32:2:3.
Rashi writes that he desecrated the second Shabbos. But the Gemara states in Shabbos (118b) that had [all of] Yisrael observed the first Shabbos, no nation could have subjugated them?
Tosfos ha'Rosh (citing Shabbos 118b): Hashem commanded Shabbos at Marah, but Moshe did not tell Yisrael until after the Manna fell. (It was the first Shabbos after Yisrael were commanded.) This is why Moshe was included in the rebuke "Ad Anah Me'antem". 1
See Beshalach Sh'mos, 16:28.
Rashi writes that the Mekoshesh desecrated the second Shabbos. But in Vayikra, 24:12, he wrote that the blasphemer was at the same time as the Mekoshesh, and that he scoffed about Lechem ha'Panim, which was not made until they built the Mishkan almost a year after Matan Torah?
Refer to Vayikra 24:12:153:1 & 2 and note.
Rashi writes that the Mekoshesh desecrated the second Shabbos. But in Vayikra 24:10 &12, he wrote that the blasphemer sinned at the same time as the Mekoshesh, and that Moshe ruled that he may not pitch his tent in the Camp of Dan. And the second Shabbos took place before Hashem commanded about the camps?
Refer to Vayikra 24:10:151:1 and note.
