Duties of the Heart
Rabbi Yaakov Bieler
Parshat Teruma, 5764
Three major “fundraising” initiatives are mentioned in the last third of the book of Shemot. Chapter 25 verse 2 cites the Divine Commandment which calls upon Jews to contribute material for the construction of the Tabernacle: “Speak to the Children of Israel and they shall take on My Behalf ‘Teruma’ (an offering, something that is raised up) from every individual whose heart prompts him, you will take My Teruma.” 30:12 records a commandment by which collected monies will serve two purposes: achieving atonement for the people, (1) and a means of indirectly conducting a census (2) of a significant portion of the encampment. (3) In contrast to these first two Divinely Authorized collections, the people initiate a third collection of a substantial amount of gold to create the antithesis of the Tabernacle, the Golden Calf. (4) (32:2-3) “And Aharon said to them: ‘Break off the earrings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, sons, and daughters, and bring them to me.’ And all of the people broke off the earrings of gold that were in their ears and they brought them to Aharon.” (5)
At least from the perspective of individual choice whether or not to contribute, the collections of Teruma for the Mishkan and gold for the Calf are more similar to one another than they are to the manner in which the Machtzit HaShekel (half Shekel) was obtained. While with respect to the Calf, the text does state that ALL of the people broke off their earrings (32:3), implying that this was an act in which everyone may have contributed an equal amount to the project, a quality that the text is careful to explicitly state with regard to the Machtzit HaShekel—(30:14-15) “EVERYONE that passes among those that are counted, from twenty and above, shall give the Teruma of HaShem. The wealthy will not increase, and the poor will not decrease from the half Shekel”—nevertheless it must be assumed that the contributions for the Calf were given willingly, and with forethought in terms of the theological implications of what was being done by all those participating. Whereas the biblical text does not indicate that the donations of the half Shekel emanated from some type of heartfelt intention, but rather that the money was collected in the impersonal manner of a tax, with individual contributors being given no choice but to participate, how could the constructors and worshippers of the Calf be ultimately punished for their wrongdoing by death, (6) if they had not intentionally and deliberately both believed in and participated in its fabrication and idolatrous rites? (7)
While the heartfelt intention of those sinning with the Golden Calf can only be inferred from the consequence that befalls them as a result of their actions, i.e., death by execution, plague, or trial by water, (see (6) above) the Tora unambiguously stresses the dimension of choice and personal devotion, when it records the commandment to contribute to the construction of the Mishkan, as well as the manner in which this Divine Ordinance was fulfilled by the people. (25:2) “…And they shall take on My Behalf Teruma from every individual WHOSE HEART PROMPTS HIM/HER…” (35:22, 29) “And they came, both men and women, as many as were WILLING OF HEART, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, all jewels of gold…” “The Children of Israel brought a willing offering to the Lord, every man and woman, WHOSE HEART MADE THEM WILLING to bring for all manner of work…”
But several difficulties appear to arise once we assume the prerequisite of “Nediv Lev” (willingness of the heart) to qualify donations for the construction of the Tabernacle as acceptable. First, there is the logistical problem of how to ascertain what a potential contributor is actually thinking at the time that s/he makes his/her contribution. How could such a state of mind on the part of the donators be determined by those collecting the precious metals, fabrics, skins, and dyes, in the absence of some sort of Divine Oracular involvement? This difficulty would appear to be articulated by the Talmudic principle, “Devarim SheBeLev Einam Devarim” (things that exclusively exist in the human ‘heart’ (the mind; the seat of human emotions), do not have Halachic relevance—since it is humanly impossible to be certain of another’s state of mind). (8) According to RaShI on Devarim 29:28, this sentiment is the essence of the biblical verse: “The secret things (matters that are beyond the scope of our ability to determine) belong to the Lord, our God (and therefore it is up to Him exclusively to determine culpability and mete out appropriate punishment in such areas); but those things that are revealed (overt actions that are readily discernable), belong to us and our children forever (and it is our responsibility to prevent and/or punish such wrongdoing), that we may do all of the words of this Tora.”
Second, unless a rationale can be found for why in particular the Bible emphasizes that donations to the Mishkan must involve not only a physical and legal action of transfer of property from an individual’s possession to the jurisdiction of the entire people, but also a deeper, more personal commitment of the heart, a potentially negative conclusion could be reached with regard to other actions mandated by the Tora. A Talmudic hermeneutic rule that could be invoked is “Michlal Hen Ata Shomeah Lav” (from the positive one can infer the negative), (9) i.e., ONLY in matters regarding the Mishkan, or even more narrowly, ONLY in matters regarding the donation of raw materials for the construction of the Tabernacle, is there an internal requirement that the individual fulfilling the commandment be emotionally and spiritually engaged; it could then be reasonably inferred from this case, that in all other religious matters, perhaps even on a LeChatchila level (appriori, considering the ideal circumstance and Mitzva fulfillment) there is no need to strive for attaining a similar level of personal involvement.
Third, the phraseology of the Tora wherein gifts specifically of the heart are being sought after for the construction of the Mishkan, can be questioned from the perspective of the converse of the second question stated above. According to a well-known verse as interpreted by RaMBaN, the heart of the worshipper must be engaged in ALL acts of Divine Service, and not only when materials are being donated to construct the Mishkan. Regarding Devarim 11:13 “And it will be if you shall surely listen to My Commandments that I Am Commanding you today, to love the Lord your God, and TO SERVE HIM WITH ALL OF YOUR HEART AND ALL OF YOUR SOUL”, RaMBaN writes, (10) “The essence of the expression ‘And to serve Him with all of your heart’ constitutes a positive commandment whereby ALL of our Divine Service (anything done in terms of fulfilling God’s Will, every Mitzva) should be performed with all of our hearts, that is to say with totally appropriate intention devoted to His Name, and without negative thoughts…” Consequently, it would appear that for the Tora to state with regard to the contributions to the Tabernacle that they must be given “from the heart” would be superfluous when heartfelt Mitzva fulfillment is the standard for the performance of all commandments.
One approach that may address these difficulties is to posit that matters associated with the Tabernacle were held to a higher standard than other types of Divine Service. Midrash HaGadol (11) interprets, “By virtue of merely a commitment made in his heart he is obligated to bring (donations for the Mishkan), even if he gave no verbal indication of such a commitment, and the same is true with regard to obligating oneself to bring sacrifices.” (12) We see the importance of not only correct action, but also precise thinking with regard to the intentions of the Priest while offering up the sacrifices brought by non-Priests. In addition to disqualifying sacrifices due to an animal’s physical deformities and blemishes —see VaYikra 22:20—the Rabbis, (13) based upon VaYikra 7:18 and 19:7, posited that a Priest who while offering a sacrifice merely has in mind incorrect parameters regarding the time and place where the animal is to be offered up and subsequently eaten, will render the sacrifice “Pigul” and hence unacceptable. The importance of the involvement of the heart in the construction as well as the worship that is to take place in the Tabernacle is explicated evocatively by R. Shmuel Laniado: (14) “The giving of the heart has to be part and parcel of the silver and gold that was contributed, for from the silver and gold would be constructed the Tabernacle, and from the giving of the heart would stem the intimate connection of HaShem to the structure. The closeness of HaShem to the Jewish people is not a function of a beautiful building, but rather from the giving of the heart that is intrinsic to it…” (paraphrase) Consequently, the means for assessing whether or not the proper intention accompanied the giving and construction of the Mishkan would be whether or not the Divine Presence ultimately resides within it, which it did—see Shemot 40:34-38. Since the Tabernacle served so much more of a spiritual purpose, i.e., providing a physical “seat” for HaShem in the midst of the Jewish people, than did other ritual objects and Mitzva fulfillments, an emphasis must be placed on this spiritual dimension over and above a precise physical carrying out of God’s Will, and this includes not only the means by which sacrifices are offered, but even contributions for the structure’s construction and upkeep. And as opposed to suggesting that such intent is unnecessary in other forms of Divine Service, all things associated with the Mishkan become paradigms for other Mitzvot, and even if such a lofty level of involvement of the heart is not deemed a prerequisite, it certainly is an ideal after which one ought to aspire—see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 60:4 and commentaries.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (15) interprets the requirement that donations to the Mishkan must come from the heart, from an intriguing Halachic angle. He suggests that the commandment to give Teruma for the purpose of constructing the Tabernacle only applied to those who wished to give from the heart, as opposed to others who did not feel this type of internal motivation, and consequently they were not technically commanded to do so. This does not mean, however, that such individuals were prohibited from contributing; they merely were not viewed as conforming to an obligation, but rather engaging in a voluntary action. Therefore the requirement of involvement of the heart does not affect the nature and spirituality of the Mishkan; it is rather a reflection of the spiritual levels and fulfillments of those donating to it. Rav Moshe then proceeds to apply this principle to the commandment to study Tora. Regarding the apparent commandment that HaShem gives Yehoshua, (Yehoshua 1:8) “This book of the Tora should not depart from your mouth, but you should meditate in it night and day”, the commentator asserts that only because Tora study was so beloved to Yehoshua, did God Issue to him this commandment. Therefore if there are those for whom Tora study is difficult and uninspiring, they are not held to this higher standard of being commanded day and night, but rather when they do study more than the absolute minimum, (16) are considered to be doing so volitionally, as opposed to fulfilling a commandment. Rav Moshe concludes his analysis by noting that since according to Jewish tradition, “Gadol HaMetzuveh VeOseh MiMi SheEino Metzuveh VeOseh” (greater is one who is commanded and carries out an action, rather than one who is not commanded and carries out an action), we should strive to love Tora and Mitzvot as much as possible in order to thereby be considered commanded in so many more areas of life and enabled to reach so much greater spiritual heights. Once again, even if there are contributions that are not made out of love, this will not render the Tabernacle unfit, and the higher standard that the Tora sets for the ideal contributions informs the manner in which we should perform other commandments, rather than suggests that they can be consigned to mechanical and unfeeling “going through the motions.”
Shabbat Shalom, and may we engage in serving HaShem with all of our hearts, with true devotion and powerful passion.
(1) Shemot 30:12.
(2) Shemot 30:12. Shmuel II 24 tells the story of how King David in a moment of weakness, directly counted the men that he had under arms, and was punished by God for doing so. This incident has become the basis of various customs allowing counting people indirectly in order to ascertain how many are present.
(3) Shemot 38:26 notes that the number 603,550 represents Jewish men above the age of 20. Consequently, Jewish women and children, as well as the entire Eiruv Rav (mixed multitude)—see 12:38—which the Mechilta proposes to have numbered 1,200,000, or 2,400,000, 3,600,000, i.e., multiples of the rounded off 600,000 numbered in the census, are not included in the total.
(4) According to the Tora’s order of verses, the command to construct the Mishkan (Shemot 25) precedes the fabrication of the Golden Calf (Chapt. 32). Based on such a view, the people adapted the idea of a physical representation of God’s Presence in their midst to an object with which they were more familiar from the many years that they spent in
(5) RaShI on 32:2 suggests that Aharon was trying to stall when he suggested that the people take the earrings from their wives and children, counting on their offering resistance to participating in this nefarious plan. What Aharon did not count on was the apparent enthusiasm that the men felt for this project, and their readiness to contribute their own jewelry to the project. This provides additional support to the contention that their contribution to the Golden Calf was also “from the heart”.
(6) See 32:20, 27-28, 35.
(7) RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva Chapt. 5 writes extensively concerning the need to assume the existence of human free will if it is posited that there is accountability and both rewards and punishments for our actions.
(8) e.g., Kiddushin 49b; Nedarim 28a.
(9) See for e.g., RaShI and Tosafot on Kiddushin 61a. This is the converse of the more commonly found rule, “Michlal Lav Ata Shomeah Hein” (from the negative one can infer the positive) as e.g., in Nedarim 11a; Sota 17a.
(10) RaMBaN’s comments to RaMBaM’s Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment #5. RaMBaM follows the lead of the Siphre and Ta’anit 2a, which maintain that the “service of the heart” referred to in the verse in question is prayer, a commandment where what one feels in one’s heart is more important than the physical action that is entailed in the performance of the Mitzva.
(11) Tora Shleima, Vol. 20, ed. R. Menachem Kasher, Beit Tora Shleima, Jerusalem, 5752, p. 6, citation #25.
(12) Ibid., quoted in footnote #25.
(13) See Zevachim 27a, 29a.
(14) Sefer Klai Chemda, Parshat Teruma, quoted in Tora Shleima, citation #24.
(15) Sefer Derash Moshe, Noble Book Press,
(16) In Menachot 99b, R. Yochanan quotes R. Shimon bar Yochai to the effect that the recitation of Kriyat Shema once in the morning and once in the evening satisfies the minimum requirement of daily Tora study.
(17) Although intuitively one thinks that performing voluntary service is more meritorious than carrying out what one is commanded, the Jewish perspective is just the opposite. When one does something because s/he wants to do it, the motivation might be to please oneself, as opposed to dedicating oneself to fulfill Divine Commandments, where the object of devotion is God alone.