Parshas Terumah 5786 - What do we learn from the Taachash skins

00:00 It is well known that there are two kinds of tzaddikim. Some tzaddikim conduct themselves with abstinence. Their way of serving Hashem—in their learning and in all their affairs—is like that of Rabbi Shimon, even to the point of severe self-denial and abstinence. Other tzaddikim conduct themselves in precisely the opposite way: they serve Hashem specifically amid abundance and wealth. The Rebbe told stories several times about tzaddikim who followed this path, among them the Ruzhiner. Chassidim tell various accounts and stories about the difference in this regard between the Rebbe Maharash and his father, the Tzemach Tzedek. The Tzemach Tzedek followed a path of restraint, [unclear], abstinence, and study, particularly when it came to food. With the Rebbe Maharash, it was exactly the opposite: he conducted himself amid wealth and abundance. So much so that the Rebbe related several times—or there is a version of the story from the Frierdiker Rebbe—that when chassidim brought the Tzemach Tzedek gifts of silver, gold, and the like, he would say, “That belongs to my son, Reb Shmuel.” In other words, the Tzemach Tzedek’s approach was [unclear], whereas serving Hashem specifically amid abundance and wealth was the Rebbe Maharash’s way. One story chassidim tell, which I believe the Rebbe also told several times, concerns the Rebbe’s grandfather, Rabbi Meir Shlomo HaLevi Yanovsky, the father of Rebbetzin Chana—that is, the father of the Rebbe’s mother,

01:54 who was the rabbi in Nikolayev, a great Torah scholar, and so on. In his youth, as a young chossid, he traveled to Lubavitch during the lifetime of the Rebbe Maharash and was one of the “yoshvim.” “Yoshvim” were young chassidim who would stay in Lubavitch for a period—a year, two years, or three years. There they would learn and daven, serve Hashem, and become chassidim. It was preparation for life. So Rabbi Meir Shlomo, too, traveled to the Rebbe Maharash as a young chossid and stayed there as a “yoshev.” Later, when he returned home to Nikolayev, there was a student of the city’s rabbi, Rabbi Avraham Dovid HaLevi Lavut, a well-known rabbi among the chassidim of the Tzemach Tzedek, who wrote Shaar Hakollel and several other works of halachah. When Rabbi Meir Shlomo returned to his city, there was a chossid there who was not among the chassidim of the Rebbe Maharash. As is known, after the passing of the Tzemach Tzedek, some immediately accepted the Rebbe Maharash, while others were initially drawn to other sons of the Tzemach Tzedek, and so on. One of the chassidim wanted to needle Rabbi Meir Shlomo a little. He brought up the subject and said to him, “Ah, your Rebbe”—meaning the Rebbe Maharash—“how can he conduct himself with such wealth?” After all,

03:29 it is known that the Rebbe Maharash had a gold watch, and that he had two watches—something only wealthy people had in those days. He also traveled in a gilded carriage drawn by several horses. People saw all sorts of practices like these, all reflecting wealth and abundance. That chossid thought that such conduct was supposedly unbecoming of a Rebbe, a tzaddik. Rabbi Meir Shlomo said to him, “Patach!” That is a Russian or Ukrainian word meaning “fool.” “For whom were gold and silver created, if not for a tzaddik? For whom was all this wealth, all the [unclear] and everything else, created? It was all created for the tzaddik, for the man of G-d.” As the Midrash says—and here we come to the Midrash on the weekly parsha—regarding the gold the Jewish people brought for the Beis Hamikdash and the various things in the Beis Hamikdash for which gold was used: “The world was not worthy of gold.” The world was not worthy of having gold in it. Gold is so precious and important that, in truth, it does not belong in the world. “The world was not worthy of using gold.” So why was it created? For what purpose did Hakadosh Boruch Hu create gold? “Gold was created only for the Beis Hamikdash.”

05:01 The entire reason Hakadosh Boruch Hu created gold was so that there would be gold in the Beis Hamikdash. Because gold was needed in the Beis Hamikdash, Hakadosh Boruch Hu created gold in the world. But here we see something remarkable: Hakadosh Boruch Hu created gold, and gold is found in the world and used for many things. Yes, many things: jewelry, luxury items, and all sorts of other purposes. Not only that, but as the verses relate, gold was even used for idolatry, rachmana litzlan. Yet the Torah tells us that, in truth, the world is not worthy of using gold. Gold, though found in the world, does not belong to the world, and the world has no need of it. The sole reason Hakadosh Boruch Hu created gold was for the Beis Hamikdash. Because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted there to be gold in the Beis Hamikdash, He created gold. But the Rebbe once spoke in this connection about the tzaddik in a similar way: all gold belongs to the Beis Hamikdash. And where is the Beis Hamikdash now, when we have no Beis Hamikdash? The Zohar says, “Who is the face of Hashem? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.” And as is said of the tzaddik, he takes the place of the Beis Hamikdash during exile. When the Beis Hamikdash stood, if a Jew wanted to see Hakadosh Boruch Hu, he had to go to the Beis Hamikdash: “Three times a year, all your

06:18 “males shall appear before Hashem your G-d.” The Zohar says that “the face of Hashem” in our time, when there is no Beis Hamikdash, is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. In other words, the tzaddik represents “the face of Hashem,” so it follows that all gold was created for the tzaddik. But that is the story in the Rebbe’s analogy. From this, an interesting point emerges in the weekly parsha, Parshas Terumah. When we consider the things the Torah discusses in connection with the Beis Hamikdash, we find something similar to what is said about gold—“Gold was created only for the Beis Hamikdash”—in the case of the tachash. One of the contributions for the Mishkan listed in the parsha is “tachash skins.” What are tachash skins? Rashi says that the tachash is a kind of animal. And Rashi says this species was created only for that time; it is not an animal ordinarily found in the world. It did not exist before then, and it did not exist afterward. This species was created especially for that moment so its skins could be used for the Mishkan. Rashi says that this animal had many different colors. Targum translates “tachash” as “sasgona,” meaning “it delights in and takes pride in its colors.” It had all sorts of colors and shades.

07:47 And it takes pride in its colors, in its shades. “It delights in and takes pride”—it is proud of and happy with its colors. That is why it is called “sasgona” in Aramaic and “tachash” in the language of the Torah. The tachash was created only for that time, to provide tachash skins for use in the Mishkan. This raises an interesting point. On the one hand, it resembles what is said about gold: “Gold was created only for the Beis Hamikdash.” We see that the tachash, too, was created only for that time, for the needs of the Beis Hamikdash. But here we see an interesting difference. Although “gold was created only for the Beis Hamikdash,” it is nevertheless used for many other purposes. To this day, gold is used for many things—even, as we discussed earlier, for purposes opposed to holiness—though gold truly belongs, in essence, to the Beis Hamikdash. Hakadosh Boruch Hu created it to be in the Beis Hamikdash, yet it is also used for many other things. The tachash is different: we see that it had no use outside the Beis Hamikdash. It did not exist before, and it did not exist afterward. We do not know what a tachash is; there is no tachash in the world. From the outset, it was created solely for the Beis Hamikdash. [unclear]

09:10 the existence of the Mishkan, and the tachashim were not a separate creation? That is indeed the basis of the distinction, particularly in serving Hashem. As is known, the entire purpose of the Beis Hamikdash is expressed in the verse, “They shall make Me a Sanctuary, and I shall dwell among them”—that the Shechinah should dwell in the world. As explained in Chassidus in the name of the holy Shelah, regarding the words of our Sages: “I shall dwell among them”—the verse does not say “within it,” but specifically “among them,” within each and every person. Every Jew has a Beis Hamikdash within. From this, Chassidus teaches that all these parshiyos—Terumah, Tetzaveh, Ki Sisa, Vayakhel, and Pekudei—many parshiyos containing many matters connected with the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash, explain how these things exist in every Jew’s personal Mishkan. So there are two things about which it is explicitly said, “It was created only for the Beis Hamikdash,” “It was created only to be put to its service.” We therefore want to understand the difference between them. We find the same distinction in the world at large: although “it was created only for the Beis Hamikdash,” [unclear] the tachashim no longer exist. They existed while the Mishkan was being built, and afterward they were hidden away. This expresses two approaches to serving Hashem, two ways a Jew looks at the things of this world. This is explained in Chassidus, and the Rebbe spoke about it several times, because it concerns a fundamental principle in serving Hashem.

10:39 The foundation is “I was created to serve my Maker.” As is well known, our Sages say in Tractate Kiddushin that all of creation, everything in the world, was created “to serve me.” The Rebbe says that a multitude of things were created—the inanimate, plants, animals, and human beings—and that the entire world was created for man, to serve him. And “I was created to serve my Maker”: man, too, the Jewish person, was created for no purpose other than to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Now there are two versions, two ways of phrasing this. The Gemara in Tractate Kiddushin gives one version, while Hayom Yom gives another. In the Gemara, the wording is “I was created to serve my Maker”; in Hayom Yom, it is “I was created only to serve my Maker.” These two versions seem to say the same thing. But there is a difference. The first says, “I was created to serve my Maker”—I was created in order to serve. The second says, “I was created only to serve my Maker”—my entire creation is for that purpose alone. At first glance, this is just a fine point of wording. But the Rebbe explains that it is not a linguistic difference; it is a difference in substance, in the whole essence of a person’s avodah. It stems from the depth of the concept of Hashem’s oneness. The Tanya explains that the entire foundation of a person’s avodah begins with the foundation of Hashem’s oneness.

12:10 As is well known, the Alter Rebbe placed Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah before Likkutei Amarim, indicating that the first thing a Jew needs to know is Hashem’s oneness. And from the truth and depth of Hashem’s oneness, as revealed by the Baal Shem Tov, genuine and proper service of Hashem becomes possible. Hashem’s oneness has two aspects. In the language of Chassidus, they are two aspects of Hashem’s oneness: “there is no other” and “there is none besides Him.” Broadly speaking, these are two ways of looking at the world. In one approach, you say that there is a world; the world exists. [unclear] the whole world. That is, the world in its entirety, as it is, is a creation that Hakadosh Boruch Hu created. It did not create itself. The world cannot create itself. It must have a Creator; there must be “an owner of this palace.” From this we conclude that there is a Divine power that creates the world. Yes, but this brings us only to an understanding in which there is a world, and that world is a creation of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The world’s entire existence is bound up with the Divine power that creates it. And therefore, since the world’s entire existence is created anew at every moment...

13:28 It follows that every created thing in the world must have a role in fulfilling Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s purpose. Every created thing in the world comes from Hakadosh Boruch Hu; it was created by Hakadosh Boruch Hu. From this comes the idea of “I was created to serve my Maker.” When a Jew hears that all existence is a creation of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, he reflects: Why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu create him here? Hakadosh Boruch Hu created him here so that he could “serve my Maker.” But this, too, has two aspects. There is the straightforward approach, which sees a world that exists and is meant to serve Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And there is a deeper dimension to Hashem’s oneness: to begin with, there is no world. To begin with, nothing has an existence of its own. Just the opposite: there is only “to serve my Maker.” There is Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and besides Hakadosh Boruch Hu there is no existence at all. And because Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted there to be service of Hashem and created existence, the entire way of looking at it is reversed. One approaches the world with the sense of “I was not created.” There is no world. To begin with, nothing exists independently. What is there? There is “to serve my Maker.” Because there needs to be “to serve my Maker,” we consequently speak of a world; but there is no world, only “to serve

14:41 my Maker.” In other words, the difference is very... There is no difference here, and yet there is a difference. The difference is that if you look at the world as an existence—yes, there is a world, whose purpose and role are “to serve my Maker”—you can make a subtle distinction between those two things. That is the wording of our Sages: “I was created,” and then “to serve my Maker.” There is “I was created,” my creation, and then there is the purpose of my creation. That purpose is something additional to “I was created.” And what is it? “To serve my Maker.” But when we say “I was not created,” it means that to begin with, nothing has an existence of its own. It is an approach of negation: there is nothing besides Hakadosh Boruch Hu. There is “to serve my Maker,” and for the sake of “to serve my Maker,” a person’s existence, as it were, comes into being. The Rebbe says that this is the subtle difference, in this sense, between gold and tachashim. Gold represents “I was created to serve my Maker.” It says, “Gold was created only for the Beis Hamikdash.” But in practice, gold exists in the world. “Why was it created?” In other words, the Midrash says that gold does, in fact, exist. It has existed since the six days of Creation, and it is used for many other things.

15:58 So you need to know that “the world was not worthy of using gold”; the world does not need it. And “it was created only for the Beis Hamikdash.” In truth, gold was created for the Beis Hamikdash. But in practice it exists as gold, and so it has many other uses. One needs to find [unclear] what its true use in holiness will be. Tachashim, by contrast, express “I was not created.” The true meaning of Hashem’s oneness is expressed through the tachashim. We say that there is no [unclear]. There is only Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And the approach to the world expressed by “I was not created”—which is what the tachashim teach us—is that, to begin with, existence was not there, and even afterward it was not there. [unclear] the Beis Hamikdash, and tachashim, too, are used in the Beis Hamikdash; consequently, there were tachashim. This gives a Jew a clear path in his avodah, because this is how a Jew must see even [unclear]: to begin with, the world is not an independent existence. There is only One here, and yet there is a world. This is the true meaning of “I was created only to serve my Maker” in every Jew’s avodah. On this, the Rebbe made a very beautiful point: Why specifically tachashim? What is it about tachashim that enables them to express for us the true meaning of Hashem’s oneness?

17:22 To understand what we find here in the tachash skins that we do not find in any of the other materials: Rashi says that the translation of “tachash” is “sasgona.” What does “sasgona” mean? Rashi explains that it is an animal that “rejoices in and takes pride in its colors.” At first glance, what is Rashi coming to explain here? Usually, when Rashi wants to cite the translation, he says, “as the Targum renders it.” Here he expands on the Targum’s words and explains them. Rashi wants to resolve a simple question: We are told that the tachash existed only for that time. If so, it is hard to say that this word already had a meaning in Aramaic. After all, in many places the Targum calls countries and other things by their original names; it does not have to translate them into another language. If the tachash existed only temporarily, it is hard to say that an Aramaic term for it developed. So Rashi says: No, “sasgona” is not a translation of the word “tachash.” The Targum is explaining what was special about the tachash. What was special about it? “Sasgona”—an animal that “rejoices in and takes pride in its colors.” That is not the meaning of the word “tachash,” but a description of what was special about this animal. Why was it specifically chosen, so that its skins were placed above—

18:49 above the altar, above everything, “tachash skins on top”? What was special about that? To this the Targum answers, “sasgona”: it was an animal with many colors, and it “rejoices in and takes pride in its colors.” Those colors are the central point. They had a distinctive colorfulness and beauty that added to the Mishkan’s beauty. But this raises a question: Seemingly, the matter of hues and colors is entirely incidental. One color or another. This tachash was an animal made up of different hues and colors, and it delighted in its own colors. Why is that so important to the building of the Beis Hamikdash? And here we come to the point, following what we discussed earlier about Hashem’s oneness. There is a very rich insight into Hashem’s oneness that we can learn from the tachashim, through Chassidus and the teachings the Baal Shem Tov revealed to us. Hashem’s oneness is not merely knowing that there is a world and a source of bounty, and that this source creates the world. One might say that, in a general sense, He is the source of bounty for everything, but that the details of creation have no connection to Him. One of the things the Alter Rebbe explains in Tanya, in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, when discussing the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov that he cites, is that the central new insight into Hashem’s oneness that was revealed—

20:18 Through King David and the Baal Shem Tov, we come to the idea of the letters enclothed within every created being, within all the heavens. The Baal Shem Tov revealed that the world’s unity with Hashem is not merely that He is the source of all bounty, or even that He brings the world into being at every moment. One could still picture a source of bounty that is distant: the One who brings a being into existence and the being itself are far apart, so the details of that being have no connection to its Creator. To this the Baal Shem Tov says: No. There are letters, there are expressions, and there are combinations. Every detail of a created being is connected to a particular Divine force enclothed within it. What is the significance of the many letters, numerical values, and combinations? The Alter Rebbe says it in Tanya: the word of Hashem extends so far that the multitude of letters, details, and forms relates to every detail of a created being. Not a single detail is unconnected to it—even something that seems utterly simple and external, such as one color rather than another. Take the colors of an animal with beautiful markings. In the nature of creation, that is not accidental. There is an influence at work here, and from it come those beautiful colors. One might think: What difference does it make if an animal has—

21:43 one color or another? Where does that come from, and what do such things have to do with the oneness of Hashem? This is what the Baal Shem Tov revealed about Divine providence: no detail in the animal world runs on its own. There is particular Divine providence over every detail that occurs, even in the animal world. And the same is true of oneness: every detail of creation, even the most marginal and external things, things that seem devoid of meaning—a particular color, a particular shade, a particular twist, [unclear]—even the details of its form [unclear], every detail has a special role in revealing the oneness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu in the way unique to that detail. So it is, too, with the tachash used in the Mishkan: a particular kind of fur, a particular kind of hide. It was not simply a hide with colors. The hide was of a reddish kind, with colors and patterns. Rather, this was an animal by nature. As explained, this expresses that the oneness of Hashem is revealed even in the simplest, most marginal detail of the world. There is no detail in the world that should not express the greatness of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And when we say, in the Rambam’s words, “All beings came into existence only from the truth of His existence,” the intent is not only all beings taken together—

23:08 but also each detail. Every detail of a being expresses the truth of His existence and is connected to it; that is why it must be precisely the way it is. For in this detail, this form, this shade, the depth of Hashem’s oneness is expressed. And when the Rebbe applies this to serving Hashem, to “I was created only to serve my Maker,” it leads to a wonderful approach to serving Hashem, expressed in Jewish customs. Serving Hashem is not limited to this: there are the 613 mitzvos, then the intent behind each mitzvah, and each mitzvah has its own intentions and explanations. Then there are the beautification of mitzvos and customs—things not explicitly written in the Shulchan Aruch, things connected with Jewish customs and with doing mitzvos in a more beautiful way. At that point, one might think: Well, it isn’t so terrible. A detail is missing, and not a central one. The Shulchan Aruch discusses “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him”—the idea of beautifying a mitzvah—and the idea of custom. Ah, that is how chassidim did it. But, well, it makes no difference; it isn’t so important. Yet when the Rebbe speaks about this in the sicha, it is remarkable: the Rebbes, and chassidim too, observed Jewish customs with the greatest care. For this expresses the depth of “I was created only to serve my Maker”: every detail, even the most marginal and incidental one, matters to serving Hashem in the spirit of “I was created only to serve my Maker.” What is the source for this?

24:33 The source is the tachash. The Torah wanted its hide to have several shades, even though those shades had no connection to its properties or substance. Nevertheless, through those shades, all the richness of the Mishkan is expressed. In the same way, through the details and the finest details, through ever-greater care in beautifying mitzvos and through Jewish customs, the truth and wholeness of serving Hashem are expressed here below. In this way, we prepare ourselves and the entire world to be a Mishkan for Hakadosh Boruch Hu, culminating in the building of the Beis Hamikdash very soon, in its ultimate perfection. There will be metals, gold and silver, and every form of wealth among the Jewish people, as the Rebbe spoke about in the well-known sicha of 5752: the path of the Rebbe Maharash is a path of wealth. And today this concerns each person’s actual life: there should be wealth in material matters and wealth in spiritual matters, and through this we will reach the time when “the occupation of the entire world will be solely to know Hashem, as it is said: ‘The earth will be filled with the knowledge of Hashem as the waters cover the sea.’”