(link to original page)

"And this is the contribution that you are to take from them . . ." – to the exception of one who contributes that which is not his. (Yerushalmi, Terumot 1:1)

Here is another explanation why the first two contributions (terumot) are ordered specifically in God's name, whereas the third is not. Wherever we find humility and submission among mortals, there we find the secret might of Holy One, who dwells among the oppressed and the meek; but wherever there is the slightest hint of pride, the Holy One refuses to bestow his name. Therefore, the first two contributions, which were given equally by all, for "The rich are not to pay more, and the poor are not to pay less", and no one can boast "My contribution is greater than yours", these God attributed to himself:

1. The first is preceded by "And they may take Me – to my Name. We have already explained, at the beginning of Parashat Miketz, and on the verse "Every place where I call my name to be recalled I will come to you and bless you," (Shemot 20:21) – every letter of His great name points to humility.


2. The second contribution is termed "my contribution".

Similarly, the use to which the contributions were put offers the same message. Just as all contributions were equal, forestalling any boasting, so were the boards – all of equal length. They were at the bottom of the entire edifice, a trodden threshold, foundations of the entire building . "Those who fashion them shall become like them" – just as the givers were equal in their contributions, none having excuse for pride over his fellow, so were these boards acquired by the contributions, symbolic of humility, for humility is the foundation of the building upon which the entire House of Israel is established. They are called adanim – which hint at mastery and rule [Trans. note: adan means board; adon means master], because whoever makes of himself a trodden threshold below, is appointed master above, for whoever lowers himself, the Holy One raises him us and makes him the foundation and support for the entire building, just like these boards which were foundation and support for all the edifice. And so the nasi – (highest official) is so called such because he carries the others, for they all depend on him [Trans. note: The Hebrew for "high official" and "carry" share a common root].

Chanoch Goldberg

"Charity for the poor is greater than the building of the Beit Hamikdash" – so, according to the Netziv, is the opinion of Rav Ahai Gaon, author of the She'iltot, who derives the laws of charity from "And they shall take me (li) a raised-contribution (teruma)." Even though the subject of the verse is not charity, the author of the She'iltot, following our Sages, is of the opinion that the rules of charity are analogous to the building of the Beit Hamikdash. Therefore he understood the word "li" in the sense of "on my behalf", in keeping with the Bavli (Bava Batra 10a): Said Rabbi Yochanan, How are we to understand the verse (Proverbs 19) "He who is generous to the poor makes a loan to the Lord"? Had it not appeared explicitly in Scripture, who would have dared to say it . . for 'a borrower is slave to the lender!" That is to say, that one who gives charity, lends – as it were – to the Holy One! This, according to the author of the She'iltot, is the meaning of "and they shall take for me a contribution." The Netziv, commentating on the She'iltot, goes a step further – the author of the She'iltot allows himself to explicate a verse dealing with a contribution to the Temple, constructing a kal vachomer proof [argument a fortiori) built on an a priori assumption . . . "if so with contribution to the Temple, how much more so with charity" – indicating that he opines that the mitzva of tzedaka is more important than that of building the Temple! In similar fashion the Tosafists explain the words of the Talmud (Bava Batra 9a) "And Rav Assi said: Charity is equal to all the mitzvot, for it is written: "We have laid upon ourselves obligations" (Nehemiah 19:33) — it is not written "obligation" (in the singular), but "obligations\". The Tosafists noted that the quoted verse has to no connection whatever to charity, and they write "Even though this verse is in reference to the House of God, i.e., restoration of the Temple – "kol shekayn tzedakkah" – certainly such is the case with charity."

The priority of charity over the building of the Beit Hamikdash finds expression in midrash. The subject of the Haftara for Parashat Teruma (when it does not occur on Parashat Zachor) is the construction of the Beit Hamikdash by King Shelomo. We are well acquainted with the sentence imposed on King David "You have shed much blood and fought great battles; you shall not build a house for My name" (Chronicles I, 22:8). Chronicles II relates that David devoted tremendous effort and resources to prepare a treasury to facilitate the building by his son. Thus we find him publicly boasting at his son's coronation (Chronicles I, 29:2-3): "I have spared no effort to lay up for the House of my God gold for golden objects, and silver for silver . . . Besides, out of my solicitude for the House of my God, I gave over my private hoard of gold and silver to the House of my God – in addition to all that I laid aside for the holy House." What became of his "private hoard" — the treasure and the building materials which David had prepared for his son's construction of the Temple? It is possible that King Solomon never made use of them! So is recorded (Kings I, 7:51): "When all the work that King Shelomo had done in the House of the Lord was completed, Shelomo brought in the sacred donations of his father David – the silver, the gold, and the vessels – and deposited them in the treasury of the House of the Lord." A plain reading (pshat) of the text would seem to indicate that the verse is dealing with the surplus which was brought to the treasury, but an alternative understanding might be that no use whatever was made of it. Rashi, commenting on the parallel verse in Chronicles (II, 5:1) supports the latter alternative; for Scripture records that of all of his father's spoils, Shelomo utilized only the copper (II 18:8), yet no mention is made of the copper in the Kings I narrative! From this it may be deduced that Shelomo did not utilize the gold and silver which his father David had set aside as "private hoard".

An explanation for this is offered by commentators drawing upon a drash to be found in Rashi which he credits: "I heard from my rabbis". We quote here from the Pesikta Rabbati (Ish Shalom edition, Parasha 6, beginning with "Davar acher v’tishlam):

Ralbag offers an explanation similar to the "deprecative" approach:

Halacha, however, as formulated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah, 249, 16), presents a different opinion with regard to the order of priorities "There are some who say that the mitzvah of a synagogue takes precedence over the mitzvah of charity, and that the mitzvah of charity for youths learning Torah or for sick paupers takes precedence over the mitzvah of a synagogue." The source for this ruling is a responsum of the Maharik (Article 128) which is based upon a story in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Peah 8, Shekalim 5): An Amora boasted about the great sums of money

which his fathers had contributed to the construction of a synagogue. His friend asked him: "How many lives did your fathers donate — were there no youths in need of Torah instruction, or sick people lying in rubbish?" From here Rav Shmuel derives that it is better to give charity for youngsters to learn Torah or for sick paupers than to give it to a synagogue." The Maharik derives a ruling from an exact reading: "Because the Yerushalmi talks about "sick people lying in rubbish", and Rav Shmuel refers to indigent sick – rather than referring to the poor in general, we may conclude that if they are not sick, but just poor, it is preferable to donate charity to the synagogue."

It is obvious that the proof from the Yerushalmi is not incontestable. The Gaon of Vilna remarks "not proven". The Gra understood that the midrash in the Pesikta and the above-quoted Tosafot disagree with the Maharik. He adds that the source of the disagreement may lie in variant readings of the Bavli (Bava Batra 3a). In the sugya as reported in the accepted text of the Bavli, the Amoraim rule that it is forbidden to demolish a synagogue before a new one is built. A question is raised: What if the necessary funds have already been collected? "Said Ravina to Rav Ashi: What is the law if the money has already been collected?" He answered: "Perhaps a need for ransoming prisoners will arise." In other words, even in such a case it is forbidden to demolish the older synagogue, lest the need arise for the community to ransom prisoners, and the funds will have to be diverted to that need. This leads to the conclusion that ordinary cases of charity do not take precedence over building a

synagogue. But manuscripts and some Rishonim present a different reading:

"Perhaps need for another mitzva will arise, and the funds will be spent on it." (See Dikdukei Sofrim ibid., and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 242:1) From this we see that even other mitzvot, and certainly the mitzva of charity, take precedence over expenditure for synagogue construction.

Thus far, we have related to one aspect of order of priorities, but at the fulcrum of the ideological discussion stands the question of harmony between our order of priorities and that of the Master of the World. Who can count the tears, the demonstrations, the educational and organizational resources expended for our sacred House by the religious-national community in Israel — and who can count how many tears have been shed, how many demonstrations held, how many educational and organizational resources spent by this community for the alleviation of the distress and exploitation of foreign workers or of Arab workers from Yesha, or to deal with other burning social issues, such as female slavery, family violence, social inequalities, or the evils of war? Perhaps our order of priorities reflects the exact opposite of the Master of the World's order of priorities? Perhaps the higher we place the synagogue and the Beit Hamikdash on our agenda, He deletes them from His agenda. "The Temple Mount is in our hands!" — but it seems that we have never been less deserving of the privilege of seeing its rebuilding – Zion shall be saved in the judgement; her repentant ones, in charity.

Rambam (Laws of Kings 5:5) rules that blotting out the memory of Amalek is a mitzvat asey – 'a positive commandment":

Rambam's preceding halacha, (5:4), dealing the commandment to destroy the seven nations, is concluded with the words "and their memory no longer exists", a statement based on the ruling of the Tosefta (Kiddushin 5:6) : "When Sanheriv rose and mixed all the nations." This sweeping assertion negates any operational racist understanding of the mitzva of blotting out the memory of Amalek – because we cannot ascertain with certainty who is descended from whom. Therefore Amalek becomes an abstract concept which relates to all human evil; it is a metaphor for anyone who exploits the vulnerability of another person or another nation in order to overcome him

The practical expression of this mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Hayim 785) is the reading of Parashat "Zachor" on the Shabbat preceding Purim:

The author of the Mishna Berura (785:1) elaborates on the significance of the mitzva:

Thus we are obligated – by mouth and in our hearts – to remember and not to forget that which Amalek did to us. Our memories as victims of violence and persecution are a two-edged sword. We sometimes find many of our people who have accumulated emotions of hate and vengeance against whoever belongs to a nation or group which has hurt us. We sometimes hear cries such as "Death to Arabs" or "Nation of lepers!" – expressions of anger, following murderous attacks. Feelings of rage and the desire for revenge are natural and understandable in moments of crisis, and one cannot be judged in his moment of anguish. But it seems that the mitzva has a different meaning, because the Torah does not "command" us to feel that which is naturally felt. The Torah does not enjoin us to love our children. On the other hand, it does charge us "Love the stranger." The Torah seems to command us to make every

effort not to be contaminated by Amalek and the tendency to hurt the weak and helpless. Amalek was able to do harm, as taught by the midrash and some of the commentators, because we were not God-fearing.

Especially in these difficult d, and in lieu of the painful memory of other Purim days in which the memories of our patriarchs and matriarchs in the Me'arat HaMachpela were desecrated, we must remember and not forget that which was done – and, God forbid, may still be done – to us by Amalek . . . if we allow him to hurt us.