Parshat Pekudei details the construction of the Tabernacle. While the previous portions—Terumah, Tetzaveh, and Ki Tisa—describe each component in great detail, Pekudei focuses more broadly on the work carried out by the skilled artisan Bezalel and his team. However, it also includes a description of the gifts brought by the prince of each tribe:

And the princes brought the shoham gemstones and filling gemstones for the ephod [apron] and for the choshen [breastplate], and the spice and the oil for lighting and for the anointing oil and for the incense.1

Many commentators are puzzled by this relatively modest gift from the most distinguished members of each tribe. And specifically, why did they choose to donate the gemstones?

1. They Each Donated Their Tribe’s Stone

Now, these stones were placed on the breastplate, one for each tribe. Accordingly, Rashbam, Bechor Shor, and Chizkuni all explain that the stones were the natural choice for the tribal leaders to donate, as each leader contributed the stone that was inscribed with the name of his own tribe. Moreover, the two stones placed on the shoulders of the ephod were donated collectively, as each one bore the names of six tribes.2

2. These Were the Rarest Items

Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni explain that when the Jews left Egypt and were given various precious items from the Egyptians, each individual requested items suited to their stature. The tribal princes, being the most distinguished among the Israelites, asked for exceptionally rare and valuable items. These included the gemstones, spices, and olive oil that they would later donate to the Tabernacle.3

3. To Atone for Their Haughtiness

The Zohar offers a unique perspective. Since a leader is prone to feelings of pride and an inflated ego—as we’re cautioned about a king, “So that his heart does not become haughty over his brethren,”4—the princes donated the stones of the breastplate, which rests on the chest of the High Priest, close to his heart, to atone for the arrogance of the heart.5

4. They Were Late

Rashi cites the Midrash6 which explains the princes’ thinking, in the context of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, where they featured quite prominently:

What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the altar first [before the rest of the Israelites] while [in contrast] they did not donate first for the work of the Mishkan? This is what the princes said, “Let the community donate what they will donate, and whatever they are missing [i.e., whatever is left to be donated] we will complete.” Since the community completed everything, as it is said: “And the work was sufficient,”7 the princes said, “What are we to do?” So they brought the shoham stones, etc. Therefore, they brought [donations] first for the dedication of the altar.8

5. Selfless Leadership

The Rebbe asks a number of questions as to how and why Rashi chose to cite this Midrash. Here is a small selection of the many difficulties and textual nuances he points out:

  1. First of all, Rashi seems unnecessarily lengthy. Why does he feel the need to cite that they donated first during the dedication of the altar? Why does he feel the need to explain the context regarding the community’s donation? He could have kept it shorter and more to the point.
  2. Secondly, according to this explanation, the entire reason the verse records the donation at the end is to show that the princes were lazy. Is it reasonable to assume that the Torah, which “does not speak negatively [even] of an impure animal,”9 would insert a verse just to speak negatively of the princes?
  3. Third, there seems to be an innate contradiction in this explanation. On the one hand, Rashi writes that “the community completed everything, as it is said: ‘And the work was sufficient.’” On the other hand, the princes did indeed donate some valuable and essential items, namely the precious stones, oil, and spices. Which is accurate?

Due to these and other difficulties, the Rebbe reexamines Rashi’s explanation and offers a fresh reading. According to his approach, the central question troubling Rashi is not—contrary to what one might assume—why the princes donated late here, but rather why they donated early during the dedication of the altar. This is evident from Rashi’s opening phrase: “What prompted the princes to donate for the dedication of the altar first?”

At first glance, this question may seem counterintuitive, but it is actually the key to understanding Rashi’s commentary. The fact that the princes donated last in this instance is not problematic at all—on the contrary, this was precisely how things were meant to unfold. The real question, then, is why they deviated from this approach and donated first during the dedication of the altar.

A leader’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the community fulfills its role. This is why Rashi emphasizes that the princes first ensured that the people contributed everything within their capacity. Only after the community had given to its fullest ability did the princes step in to fill whatever was still lacking. Ideally, if leaders execute their role effectively, the people will rise to the occasion and contribute all they can—which, in this case, is exactly what happened. The only contributions left for the princes to bring were those that the people simply did not possess.

In this light, the princes’ question, “What are we to do?” is not a question of what they should donate, but rather a reflection of their success as leaders. They had so effectively guided the people that there was almost nothing left for them to contribute—an achievement that spoke to the fulfillment of their role in the most complete way.

However, the leaders’ slowness to donate, while in line with their role, still reflects something negative. Especially regarding the construction of the Tabernacle, through which G‑d dwells among the Jewish people, the leaders should have taken a more proactive role in ensuring its prompt completion. While a leader’s primary responsibility is to guide and inspire others, he cannot neglect his own personal service of G‑d. To rectify this, the leaders made sure to donate first during the dedication of the altar.

Thus all three difficulties outlined above are resolved.

  1. The context of the dedication of the altar and the donations of the community are in fact integral to the explanation.
  2. While there was a slight negative aspect, this is not the main reason the Torah lists the donations as it does. The leaders were fulfilling their designated roles.
  3. The contradiction is resolved because the community indeed donated all that they could. Items not in the possession of the populace could not be counted.10

6. The Stones Actually Came From the Heavens

The Talmud in Tractate Yoma presents somewhat of an astonishing interpretation of this verse.11 In the Talmud’s reading, the verse “And they brought to him donations every morning”12 is interpreted as the Jews bringing donations each morning that had fallen from the heavens together with the manna. According to this interpretation, the verse “And the princes [nesi’im] brought the onyx [shoham] stones”13 can be understood as actual clouds bringing these donations, as we find that the word “nesi’im”—generally translated as princes or leaders—can also refer to clouds. For example, “As clouds [nesi’im] and wind without rain.”14