Vol.

20 Issue #17

Parshas Vayakhel

Davening Towards The Aron In Shul

Rabbi Michael Taubes

(MTA 76, RIETS 82)
Rosh Yeshiva - MTA
Rabbi - Kehilas Zichron Mordechai
The very first item of the Mishkan whose construction is associated specifically with Betzalel, the chief
architect of the Mishkan, is the Aron, the Ark (Shemot 37:1).
Eventually, we are taught that Moshe placed the eidut, the
testimony, inside of the completed Aron (40:20); Rashi
there (s.v. et haeidut) explains that this is a reference to the
luchot, the tablets upon which the Aseret Hadibrot were written. Earlier, however, when commenting on the initial
commandment to place the eidut into the Aron, Rashi
writes that the reference is to the Torah, which serves to
testify that Hashem indeed gave us all the mitzvot contained
therein (25:16, s.v. haeidut), thus indicating that a copy of
the Torah was also to be found in the Aron. Abarbanel (s.v.
veasu) suggests this as well; the Ram-bam too (Introduction
to Mishneh Torah) states that a copy of the Torah was placed
inside the Aron (see also Mordechai to Pesachim, Tosafot
MeArvei Pesachim, 37a in Rif). Rashbam, however, in his
commentary to that earlier pasuk (s.v. et haeidut), understands that it is in fact referring not to the Torah but only to
the luchot. Ibn Ezra likewise (s.v. venatata) explains that the
reference is only to the luchot, as also implied by a pasuk in
Melachim Aleph (8:9); he asserts that a copy of the Torah was
placed alongside, but not inside, the Aron. This question as
to precisely what was contained in the Aron is actually the
subject of a dispute in the Gemara in Bava Batra (14a-b); it
should be noted that all agree that the luchot which Moshe
broke were indeed placed in the Aron (see also Tosafot to
Eiruvin 63b, s.v. kol and Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1, 15b in
Bavli printing).
In any case, it is clear that the Aron, because of
whatever was inside it, representative as it was of the fact
that Hashem gave the mitzvot to the Jewish people, was to
be the centerpiece of the Mishkan (and subsequently of the
Beit Hamikdash), a point articulated by, among others, the

25 Adar I 5776

Ramban, in his introductory comment to Parshat Terumah,

where the details concerning the Mishkan and its vessels are
first presented. Based upon the fact that every Sefer Torah
contains within it that which was kept in the original Aron,
the Rambam (Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:10) asserts that it is
proper to designate a special place for a Sefer Torah and to
honor and glorify it excessively, displaying only the utmost
respect in its presence. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah
282:1) rules accordingly; the Vilna Gaon there (Biur HaGra
No. 1) notes that this requirement indeed relates to the
original Aron. The so-called Aron HaKodesh found in our contemporary Shuls, then, is, to at least in some fashion, an
extension of that original Aron, a notion which relates to the
general idea expressed by the Gemara in Megillah (28a),
based upon a pasuk in Yechezkel (11:16), that our Shuls today
are miniature versions of the Beit Hamikdash.
In describing the physical construction of a Shul, the
Ram-bam (Hilchot Tefillah 11:2) writes that the Aron in
which the Sefer Torah rests should be placed along the wall
towards which the people daven so that they will be facing
the Aron when davening. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim
150:5) likewise asserts that the Aron should be positioned in
the Shul such that the people will daven in its direction. As
to which way one should face when davening, the Mishnah in
Berachot (28b; see Rashi there s.v. yachzir) teaches that one
should direct oneself, physically, if possible, but at least
mentally, towards Yerushalayim and specifically to-wards
the Kodesh HaKodashim, the holiest place in the Beit Hamikdash. The Gemara there (30a; see Tosafot there s.v. hayah
omed) elaborates on this and concludes that people to the
east of this most holy spot thus face towards the west, those
to its west face towards the east, those to its south face towards the north, and those to its north face towards its
south, such that all Jews throughout the world direct themselves to the same place when davening. The authors of Tosafot there (s.v. letalpiyot) point out that in as much as their
communities, located in western Europe, are to the west of
Eretz Yisrael, they daven towards the east.
Although this issue of which direction to face when
davening actually seems to be disputed in the Gemara in Bava


Batra (25a; see Tosafot there s.v. lechol and Binyan Shlomo
No. 9), the Rambam (Hilchot Tefillah 5:1, 3) writes that
wherever one is one should make the effort to face towards
the site of the Beit Hamikdash when davening; the Shulchan
Aruch (Orach Chaim 94:1) agrees, adding that ones mental
intent should always be on the Kodesh HaKodashim, and then
noting (No. 2) that if one can-not completely position himself in the proper direction, he should at least turn his face
that way. The Kaf HaChaim (94:1) explains that all prayers
ascend to heaven via this special place and one should therefore keep that in mind when davening; the Mishnah Berurah
(98:1) points out that one should have all these lofty
thoughts in mind prior to beginning the actual recitation of
the prayer, as during the davening one must concentrate
exclusively on the meaning of the prayer. It should be
noted, though, that according to common practice, the direction to-wards Eretz Yisrael is approximated, and not
calculated specifically (see the remarks of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as cited in Halichot Shlomo, Tefillah, 19:4).
Page 2

In light of the above, it is clear that in a Shul in

which people face towards the east, the Aron should be
placed along the eastern wall of the Shul as the Mishnah
Berurah (94:9) states explicitly; preferably, it should be in
the middle of that wall (see Shut Beit Yitzchak, Orach Chaim
No. 22) . Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Shut Shoel UMeishiv
Volume 3, 1:182) writes forcefully that it is improper for
many reasons to change the prevalent custom and place the
Aron anywhere else other than on the eastern wall, including
the fact that it lends support to those who ignore longstanding tradition in favor of modernization. Rav Shlomo
Kluger (Shut HaElef Lecha Shlomo, No. 48) emphasizes that
one may not move the Aron to another wall even if that will
enable the Shul to set up more seats; the Netziv (Shut Meishiv Davar I:10) appears to concur, stressing that the idea of
praying while facing Yerushalayim is an absolute requirement. On some occasions, however, it is simply impossible
for various reasons to build the Shul in such a way that the
Aron can be placed along the eastern wall and when that is
the case, there is room to be lenient, as discussed by the
Sdei Chemed (Asifat Dinim, Maarechet Beit HaKnesset No. 42)
and others.
The question is what direction one should turn
when davening in a Shul where the Aron is not in fact along
the wall towards which the people face. Should one face
towards the Aron, regardless of which wall it is on, even
though he will not then be davening towards Eretz Yisrael,
or should one daven towards Eretz Yisrael and simply not
face the Aron? The Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 94:3) rules
that one should always face east, that is, towards Eretz Yis-

Vo l. 20 I s su e # 17

rael, even if that is not the direction of the Aron. The

Netziv, in the aforementioned teshuvah, after suggesting
that this matter is actually disputed by the Rishonim and
then by the codifiers of the Shulchan Aruch, points out that
the common practice is not in accordance with this ruling
of the Magen Avraham, as people are accustomed to always
facing the Aron when davening in Shul, regardless of where
it is positioned. The Mishnah Berurah, in his Biur Halacha to
Orach Chaim 150:5 (s.v. shehu baruach), raises the question
and leaves it unanswered, but he writes elsewhere in the
Mishnah Berurah (94:9) that in a Shul where it was impossible to place the Aron along the proper wall and it was there
-fore put elsewhere, one should face towards Eretz Yisrael
and not towards the Aron.

The Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 94:13),

though, seems to disagree, at least to an extent, as he says
that it is not proper for one to daven facing east (towards
Eretz Yisrael) if the rest of the people davening in the Shul
are facing towards the Aron in another direction because
people will then be bowing in different directions, creating
the misimpression that there are actually different deities.
He thus concludes that the person should therefore daven in
the same direction as every-body else, facing the Aron, and
just turn himself slightly to-wards the east. The Kaf
HaChaim (No. 9) presents a dispute as to whether there is
in fact any concern if people in the same Shul are davening
in different directions; he concludes that the best thing is
to avoid the problem altogether by making sure to place
the Aron along the wall which people face when davening,
unless there is simply no way to do so.
Living Legacy

Ben Tzion Zuckier (17)

When discussing with the Bnei Yisrael who the
builder of the mishkan is going to be, Moshe refers to Betzalel as Betzalel Ben Uri Ben Chur, and continues to refer
to him this way throughout the parsha. Rav Yissachar Frand
asks the obvious question: Why does the Torah and Moshe
specifically introduce Betzalels heritage every time his
name is mentioned? What was the true purpose of repeating his lineage so many times?
The Meshach Chochma answers this question. He
says that Chur, Betzalels grandfather, was tragically killed
by a mob of the Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai after he protested
against their actions leading up to the cheit haeigel. Many
Meforshim even believe that the death of Chur caused
Aharon to soften up and construct the golden calf with
Bnei Yisrael. Superficially, it seems as though Chur died in


vain, even though he tried to do what was right, and make a
stand against the other Jews. Even though he protested, the
Israelites still sinned and worshipped the eigel. However,
we see from the constant repetition of Betzalels lineage
that Chur did not die in vain, but his sacrifice enabled his
grandson to be the main builder of the Mishkan.
Vo l. 20 I s su e # 17

Chazal also point out that Betzalel was chosen by

Hashem to build the Mishkan because he was created, as his
name signifies, betzeil Keil In the shadow of God. He was
not chosen because he had great skills as an architect or designer, but rather because of special character traits that
gave Betzalel an extra special connection with God. Where
did these special character traits come from? They came
from his lineage. Betzalel inherited the special quality of
mesirat nefesh from his grandfather Chur, a fact that is connoted by Moshes repetition of Betzalel Ben Uri Ben Churs
family line. Chur sacrificed himself for something he felt
was correct and was therefore honored with a grandson that
built the mishkan and was so special.
When these facts are contemplated, and new question comes to mind. What does Churs self-sacrifice have to
do with Betzalel erecting the Mishkan? How are these two
events connected?
A beautiful answer is presented by Rav Yissachar
Frand. He says that at the end of the day, Chur did not
achieve his goal, to stop the Bnei Yisrael from sinning with
the Golden Calf. However Chazal teach us that the Mishkan
was an atonement for the sin of the Eigel. Since Betzalel
made the mishkan, it was as if Churs action actually
brought about the atonement for the cheit haeigel. Therefore, Chur technically accomplished his initial goal of stopping the effect of the eigel on Am Yisrael even if it only happened 2 generations later.
Unbridled Enthusiasm

Rami Nordlicht (16)

When the time finally came for the Bnei
Yisrael to begin donating all of the necessary materials
needed for the construction of the Mishkan, the Torah describes the attitude of Bnei Yisrael as one of motivation
and inspiration, as the phrases and are used
to describe the emotions people were feeling as they donated to the greater cause of the building the Mishkan. The
Bnei Yisrael lived up to their descriptions offered by the
Torah, as they donated so much and so quickly that the
nesiim, who had pledged to donate any additional materials
that had not yet been donated, had nothing left to contrib-

Page 3

ute and were unable to perform the mitzvah of donating to

the Mishkan. Still, the two phrases beg the following question: why are there two descriptions of the benefactors of
the Mishkan if everyone seemed to be engaged in the
same, rightful practice?

The Ramban points out that the two phrases represent the two types of people who were involved in the
building of the Mishkan. There were those who merely donated and were motivated to give of themselves for the
great cause, as well as those who were truly involved in
the actual building of the Mishkan- those people had an elevated status of being inspired. The members of the latter
group, according to the Ramban, were inspired because
they had no previous experience with handling the materials that were used to construct the Mishkan and had somehow come to realize how they were to perform their jobs
in the construction on their own. According to the Ramban, the volunteers who were involved in the physical
building of the Mishkan were able to do so only because
their hearts had enabled them to do sowith clear understanding of the magnitude and importance of the work
they were engaged in.
The Ohr HaChayim elaborates on the dichotomy,
stating that the two descriptions parallel two types of volunteers. Some volunteers who will only give of what their
physical limitations allow of them (i.e., they will not give
excessive amounts of time or money), while others will go
above and beyond the call of duty to achieve a goalno
matter how much pain or distress it might cause them.
Interpreting the posuk slightly differently, the
Netziv in Ha'amek Davar writes that the two mentions correspond to differently motivated volunteers. There are
those who only give of themselves out of peer pressure and
fear or being ostracized or punished (and are therefore
clearly motivated), but there are also volunteers who will
give of themselves out of sheer passion and enthusiasm for
a mitzvah. This second type of volunteer merited the status
of being inspired, and therefore, people who fell under the
second category of volunteers were privileged to actually
involve themselves in the building of the Mishkan.
Regardless of the different interpretations of what
the two descriptions of people who donated to the Mishkan
actually refer to, it is clear that it is not enough to just be
motivated to perform a Mitzvah and do so out of fear or
peer pressure; ideally, one should be inspired to do a Mitzvah and know that doing a Mitzvah will better the world in
many ways and will have long-lasting positive impacts.

Page 4

Vo l. 20 I s su e # 17

Only with this foreknowledge can a Mitzvah be done in a for Moshe to say anything about the laws of Yom Kippur.
truly proper manner, as only those who were privileged to So our original question stands: How did Rashi know that
Moshe waited a day, and why would he not have given
partake in the construction of the Mishkan.
them the command immediately?
Right Away, Tomorrow?
Rashi was troubled by the following problem: the
Ari Englander (17)
pasuk says that Moshe gath- Rabbi Michael
ered Bnai Yisrael. This imLast weeks parsha ended with Moshe descending plies that he gathered them Taubes
from Har Sinai with the second set of luchos. This weeks at a time that they were not
Rosh Yeshiva
parsha opens with the words Vayakhel Moshe es kol adas bnai a l r e a d y g a t h e r e d
Yisrael. And Moshe gathered the entire assembly of Bnai otherwise, the pasuk is re- Rabbi Baruch Pesach
Yisrael. Rashi explains that Moshe gathered the people the dundant. When Moshe came
Mendelson
day after he came down from the mountain, on the 11th of down from the mountain,
Tishrei, the day after Yom Kippur. Mizrachi adds that the Bnai Yisrael were already
Rabbinic Advisor
reason for this was because of the teaching in Pesachim 4a, there to greet him, so Moshe
zrizun makdimin lmitvzah- enthusiastic people will perform a could not have actively gath- Ezra Epstein
mitzvah at the earliest opportunity.
ered them at that point in Avi Rothwachs
The obvious question is that if Moshe was so con- time. Furthermore, it is feaEditors in Chief
cerned about gathering everyone at the earliest time, why sible to say that after the
did he postpone it a day? He should have just gathered them giving of the second set of Yehuda Goldberg
very same day he came down. How did Rashi know that he luchos, Bnai Yisrael were so
immersed in their studying Ben Tzion Zuckier
waited until the next day?
that they werent ready for
Executive Editors
One plausible explanation is that Rashis conclusion practical commandments on
is based on passuk beis. Rashi there explains that the reason that day. However, because Ari Hagler
Moshe prefaced the prohibition of doing work on Shabbos of zrizin makdimin lmitzvah,
Distribution Coordinator
to the Mitzvah of building the Mishkan was because Bnai we may presume that Moshe
Yisrael might think that the building of the Mishkan was so gathered Bnai Yisrael at the
important, it could even be done on Shabbos. Similarly, if earliest opportunity, the day
Moshe had said these words on Yom Kippur, he would have after Yom Kippur.
also needed to consider the possibility that Bnai Yisrael
would assume that building the Mishkan overrides Yom
Kippur and would start bringing materials to do so immediately upon hearing the command. In this scenario, it would
be necessary for Moshe to start with the prohibition of Me!
lacha on Yom Kippur. Yet no such command is listed here,
and from this omission Rashi concludes that Moshe must
have gathered the nation on the day after Yom Kippur, because they could not have collected materials on Yom Kippur anyway.

However, this explanation appears to be flawed. At

the beginning of the 10th of Tishrei of that year, Yom Kippur did not exist. The entire concept of Yom Kippur only
began as a result of Hashem forgiving Bnai Yisrael for the
eigel hazahav later in the day. Because it does not make
sense to suggest that the laws of Yom Kippur were observed
for half a day, we can safely assume that Bnai Yisrael only
started fasting and abstaining from work the following year.
Therefore, if there was no issur melacha, there was no need