Upon careful scrutiny of the two accounts, however, the observant reader will notice that there are several discrepancies between the Mishkan that Hashem described to Moshe and the one that Betzalel actually built. Two of the most glaring examples of a seeming divergence from the original plan involve the various pillars that were used in the Mishkan. Before examining these discrepancies in further detail, let us first review the Torah's description of the various types of pillars that were used in the Mishkan.

Three distinctly decorated sets of pillars were used in the construction of the Mishkan:

(1) 48 pillars, referred to in the Torah as "beams" ("Kerashim") were joined side by side to form the three proper walls of the Mishkan building (southern, northern and western -- the open, eastern side served as the Mishkan's entranceway). These wooden beams were *overlaid with gold*, and rested upon *silver* sockets. A similar description is given for the 4 pillars which held up the curtain that divided the Mishkan into two separate rooms (26:32). These pillars, too, were overlaid with gold and had silver sockets.

(2) The second set of pillars consisted of the 5 poles that supported the woven screen ("Masach HaOhel") which covered the open, eastern side of the Mishkan. While these pillars were also *overlaid with gold*, they rested upon sockets not of silver but of *bronze* (26:37).

(3) The third set of pillars were those which encircled the Mishkan's courtyard and held up the curtains which formed the perimeter of that courtyard and the woven screen that filled the courtyard's main entranceway ("Masach HeChatzer"). These 60 poles had hooks of silver on them (from which the curtains were hung) and were *girded ("Mechushakim") with silver*. They, too, rested on *bronze* sockets (27:9-17).

This, at any rate, is the description given in Parashat Terumah. In Parashat Vayakhel, however, when Betzalel actually fashions the pillars, an inconsistency may be noted concerning the second group of pillars (that supported the woven screen at the Mishkan's entrance). While Hashem commanded Moshe to "overlay them with gold" (Shemot 26:37), Betzalel "overlaid their *heads* and *girded them* with gold" (36:38). That is, rather than overlaying pillars with gold in their entirety, Betzalel overlaid only their tops. Besides that, he added girdles of gold, which were not mentioned at all in Hashem's description! Although these discrepancies would seem to be fairly obvious, I did not find any of the commentators dealing with this issue until recent times. (See Malbim 27:10; Maharil Diskin, addendum #66 to Vayakhel; Ha'amek Davar 36:38 [all ~late 19th cent.]. Only the latter offers a solution to the problem, which is rather forced. Chizkuni [~15th cent. Germany] does actually seem to refer to these discrepancies in his commentary [to Shemot 36:38], however it doesn't seem to bother him in the least.) How can we explain Betzalel's divergence from Hashem's command regarding the construction of these pillars?

In order to answer this question, let us first examine more closely the silver girdles mentioned in connection with the second and third sets of pillars. The exact nature of these "girdles" is shrouded in mystery. Rashi attempts to describe them:

The pillars were wrapped around with strips of silver. I am uncertain, however, as to whether these silver strips encircled the entire height of the pillars, or just their tops, or just their middle sections. I do know, however, that "Chishuk" [pl. "Chashukim"] is a term that means to girdle....

(Shemot 27:10)

(1) Ibn Ezra tells us that the purpose of the girdles was to hold the hooks at the heads of the pillars in place. It seems obvious that according to Ibn Ezra, the silver girdles were placed at the *tops* of the pillars.

(2) Sforno asserts that the purpose of the girdles was purely decorative, and that they had no utilitarian function at all. According to this reasoning, it would seem most appropriate to have the girdles encircle the pillars in a long strip, reaching *from their heads to their bases*.

(3) Chizkuni suggests that the girdles were wound around the wooden pillars in order to prevent them from cracking due to their constant exposure to the blazing desert sun. He, too, would presumably portray the Chashukim as long strips of silver that were wound along the *entire* length of the pillars.

(4) Ralbag offers the opinion that the girdles were provided in order to fasten the curtains of the courtyard to the pillars, so that they would not blow in the wind. According to his opinion, it is most probable that the silver girdles were only needed in the *midsections* of the pillars, as the curtains were already fastened to the tops of the pillars -- by means of silver hooks, and to the ground -- by means of bronze tent-pegs (see Rashi, end of Parashat Terumah).

(5) Rav Avraham, son of the Rambam, maintains that the pillars were not "girded" by *strips* of silver at all. Rather, "Chashukim" refers to a silver plate that was applied to the pillars.

We must point out that Rav Avraham certainly did not mean to equate the "Chashukim" [= girds] of the courtyards pillars to the "Tzipuyim" [= overlays] of the Mishkan's beams (i.e. the first set of pillars that we mentioned above). The two are described by different words in the Torah, so presumably there must be some difference in meaning between the two expressions. We can infer the intention of Rav Avraham from the words of an earlier sage, Rav Hai Gaon, in his commentary to Shemot 27:10. Rav Hai Gaon tells us in his Arabic rendering of the text that the word Chishuk [pl. Chashukim] refers to a metal overlay that is applied by melting the metal and pouring it over the wood. Tzipuy, on the other hand, refers to metal that is hammered into a thin sheet and wrapped around the wood. (See Gemara Sukkah 45b, "The beams that made up the Mishkan structure were referred to as "Omdim" because their overlay was secured to them with pegs." The pillars and poles of the courtyard, of course, are not referred to as "Omdim" -- MK.) Rav Hai's words were undoubtedly the source for Rav Avraham's interpretation, and therefore this is probably what he means as well.

According to this opinion, the Chashukim obviously covered the entire lengths of the poles, just as the Tzipuyim did.

According to all the various theories mentioned above, it may be suggested that an overlay of metal on the top of the pillar would be needed in order for the silver strips to serve their purpose. Strands cannot be wound around a pole without being attached to the pole from the top, or they would simply slip down the pole. Therefore, perhaps we may suggest that the silver strips extended from the overlays that were affixed to the tops of the poles. Furthermore, according to Sforno's theory, that the strips were decorative in nature, it stands to reason that some sort of covering of the top would also be called for aesthetic purposes. It would not be very decorative for the pole to be decked with silver strips all along its height, while its bare wood stood completely open at the top! Similarly, if the strips were to keep the wood from cracking due to exposure to the sun, the tops of the pillars, which were more exposed to the blazing sun than any other part of the pillars, would need a particularly strong protection. And according to Rav Hai's theory, that the Chishuk was a silver plating which was melted onto the pillars, such a plating my not have been practical for the tops of the pillars. Due either to their exposure to the blazing sun or to the grain of the wood, it might have been necessary to cover the tops of the pillars with sheet silver, rather than with a silver plating.

Thus, according to all of the theories, it is easy to see why a commandment to make silver girdles along the poles could be taken to include the requisite accompanying overlay of metal on the tops of the poles. Betzalel did not innovate, when he added an overlay that Moshe did not specify to the tops of the poles. He merely was doing what any artisan would have found necessary to do in order to faithfully fulfill Hashem's original command of girdling the poles with silver. This, then, may be the answer to Rav Yaakov of Courveille's question, cited above [section II]. (This, possibly, is also the intention of Ha'amek Davar in reference to the same question, see Ha'amek Davar to Shemot 27:10,17 and 38:17.)

This explanation of the nature of the silver overlay at the tops of the poles may provide the key to understanding a very obscure Midrash:

Moshe began to draw up an accounting of all the various materials that were donated for the construction of the Mishkan and how they were put to use. During the course of his inventory, he forgot to take note of the 1775 shekels of silver from which the hooks of the poles were made, for they were not visible, being situated on the tops of the poles. [When he realized that his account was missing 1775 shekels of silver] he began to worry that the people would accuse him of stealing the missing silver. Just then, Hashem prompted Moshe to raise his eyes and look up at the tops of the pillars. Moshe finally noticed the silver hooks. Relieved, he announced (Shemot 38:28), "The 1775 shekels, Betzalel made into hooks for the pillars, [and he overlaid their heads and girdled them with silver]."

(Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei, #7)

The verse, to be sure, does not specifically say to overlay the *entire length* of the pillars with gold. It only mentions that the pillars were to be "overlaid with gold." The word "to overlay" is a very broad term. Although in its "maximalist" sense it means to *totally* cover a surface with a given metal, it may also mean, in a more limited sense, to *partially* cover a surface with the metal in question. If this is so, then Betzalel was within the parameters of following Hashem's commandment when he made girdles (i.e. a partial gold overlay) instead of a full overlay.

Nevertheless, even if the word "to overlay" *can* be understood, in a minimalist sense, to be referring to a partial covering, what might have prompted Betzalel to adopt this interpretation of the word rather than the maximalist interpretation, which would have called for a total overlay? After all, when it came to the beams ("Kerashim") that comprised the walls of the Mishkan building and the pillars that supported the curtain that divided it in two (the first set of pillars delineated above, section I), there was a command for overlaying also. In these cases, Betzalel actually implemented a complete overlay of the pillars and beams in question! Why did he treat the pillars of the entranceway to the Mishkan (the second set of pillars) differently?

Perhaps Betzalel deduced that the overlays of the first and second sets of pillars were to be different from each other by noting the difference in the sockets of these two classes of pillars. As noted above, the first set of pillars had silver sockets, while the second set of pillars rested on *bronze* sockets. The third set of pillars (those of the courtyard) also had bronze sockets. Betzalel reasoned that there were two possible explanations for the change in the material of the sockets.

The first possibility was that the sockets had to be made of a material that would match the color of the pillar in question. The golden shine of the first set of pillars was best accentuated by silver sockets, while the courtyard pillars, which were mostly exposed wood, were best highlighted by a bronze-colored base. (NOTE: This is especially so according to the Beraitta of 49 Middot (Ch. 8), an early Talmudic source, that describes the pillars of the courtyard as being "overlaid with *bronze*" [under the silver straps]. However, as the Tosafists in Moshav Zekenim (Shemot 38:29) point out, this contention would seem to be contradicted by the simple reading of a number of verses in our Parasha and in Parashat Pekudei.) If so, reasoned Betzalel, the pillars of the entranceway to the Mishkan, for which Hashem had ordained bronze sockets, must also have been mostly exposed. He therefore interpreted Hashem's instruction to "overlay" these pillars as an instruction to only *partially* cover the wood of the pillars with gold strips!

The second possible reason for the change in the material of the sockets, was in order to spare the Jewish people from paying an exorbitant sum for a part of the Mishkan that played only a secondary role. The beams of the Mishkan structure itself (the first set of pillars) were supported by silver sockets because they were part and parcel with the Mishkan building. The courtyard's pillars (the third set of pillars), however, were supported by bronze sockets, because they were only peripherally involved in the Holy Service. When Betzalel saw that bronze sockets were prescribed for the pillars of the Masach HaOhel (the second set of pillars), he inferred that the golden overlay that was prescribed for them was not an extravagant, full golden overlay, such as that prescribed for the first set of beams. The pillars supporting the Masach HaOhel needed no more than a *partial* overlay, such as that afforded by gold strips!

For these reasons, Betzalel assumed that the pillars supporting the Masach HaOhel needed a Chishuk, rather than a full overlay. And of course, he was correct in this assumption. As Chizkuni (to Shemot 36:38) points out, perhaps this is what Rashi (38:22) means when he tells us that "even in those instances that Moshe did not reveal to Betzalel the exact instructions for building a part of the Mishkan, Betzalel built it exactly as Hashem had specified!"