[Par-lite] Parshat Trumah -= shiur
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Feb 6 08:03:48 EST 2008
********************************************************
*****
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****
PARSHAT TERUMA
Why do we need a Mishkan [Tabernacle]?
It is commonly understood that ideally, God could be
worshiped
directly, i.e. without the need of a physical symbol.
However, due to the events of chet ha-egel [the sin of
the
Golden Calf], God changed His original plans; realizing
that
without providing some physical medium, Bnei Yisrael
would
inevitably turn to idol worship instead.
This opinion is often attributed to Rashi, and the
host of
other commentators - who claim that the commandment to
build
the Mishkan [in Parshat Teruma] was first given, only
after
the sin of the golden calf [in Parshat Ki-tisa] - even
though
the Torah recorded the laws of Mishkan beforehand.
Those who argue that the Mishkan was not an
'after-thought',
but rather part of God's ideal to have a 'meeting place'
with
His nation - are championed by Ramban, who claims
(arguing
with Rashi) that the Torah has recorded these events in
their
proper chronological order. [According to this opinion,
it
was simply coincidental that Bnei Yisrael's sin with the
golden calf took place at the same time when God was
teaching
Moshe the laws of the Mishkan on Har Sinai.]
Hence it would appear that the underlying reason
behind
this 'philosophical' debate (regarding the need for a
Mishkan)
lies in an 'exegetic' controversy concerning when the
commandment to build the mishkan was first given, before
or
after the sin of the golden calf.
In this week's shiur, as we study this controversy
and
its ramifications, we will arrive at a very different
conclusion. Our study will focus on the thematic
connections
between the Mishkan and Ma'amad Har Sinai, while trying
to
make sense out of Chazal's understanding of "ein mukdam
u-
me'uchar ba-Torah" - i.e. their exegetic assumption that
the
Torah may intentionally record certain events out of
their
chronological order.
INTRODUCTION
- Four Units in the 2nd half of Sefer Shmot -
To clarify our understanding this controversy
between
Rashi and Ramban, it is helpful to divide the last half
of
Sefer Shmot into four distinct (and rather obvious)
units.
1. Chapters 19-24 - Ma'amad Har Sinai
As we discussed in our shiurim on Yitro & Mishpatim -
this
unit discusses both the covenants, and laws that were
given
to Bnei Yisrael upon their arrival at Har Sinai.
2. Chapters 25-31 - The commandment to build the
Mishkan
This section includes a complete set of laws
concerning how
to build (and operate) the Mishkan - that spans all of
Parshiot Teruma & Tetzaveh, and the first half of Ki
Tisa.
3. Chapters 32-34 - The sin of the Golden Calf
These two chapters [i.e. the 2nd half of Parshat Ki
Tisa]
form a distinct unit, as they describe the incident of
chet
ha-egel and what takes place in its aftermath (i.e.
when
Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the second luchot).
4, Chapters 35-40 - The building of the Mishkan
These six chapters [Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei] form
the
final unit in Sefer Shmot, as they describe how the
Mishkan
was built and assembled, concluding with God's
"schechina"
descending upon it.
The following table reviews these four units:
CHAPTERS TOPIC (PARSHA)
======== ===== ========
(A) 19-24 MA'AMAD HAR SINAI (YITRO/MISHPATIM)
[the FIRST LUCHOT]
(B) 25-31 COMMANDMENT TO BUILD - (TERUMAH/TEZAVEH)
THE MISHKAN
(C) 32-34 CHET HA'EGEL (2nd half of KI-TISA)
[the SECOND LUCHOT]
(D) 35-40 BUILDING THE MISHKAN (VA'YAKHEL/PEKUDEI)
By referring to the above table, it is easier to
understand more precisely the basic controversy between
Rashi
and Ramban. While Ramban keeps Chumash 'in order'
[A-B-C-D],
Rashi claims that God's commandment to build the Mishkan
[unit
'B'] was given only after the events of chet ha-egel
[unit
'C'], and hence the order would be A-C-B-D. [See Rashi
on
31:18.]
As Ramban's opinion appears to be most logical, we
begin
our study with a discussion of his approach. Afterward,
we
study Rashi's approach to show how it fundamentally may
be
more similar to Ramban's than we originally assumed.
THE FIRST FORTY DAYS - FOR WHAT?
Recall that at the conclusion of Parshat Mishpatim
[the
end of Unit A], Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the
"luchot, torah, & mitzva" (see 24:12). As we know, the
luchot
are the tablets upon which God inscribed the Ten
Commandments.
Even though it remains unclear concerning what the words
torah
& mitzva refer to (note the different opinions among the
commentators on 24:12!), it would only be logical to
assume
that these laws that Moshe receives at this time, would
relate
in some form or other to these "luchot" that he now
ascends to
receive.
In fact, the above chart illustrates the logic of
this
approach. When Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the
luchot
at the conclusion of unit A (see 24:12-18) - he receives
exactly those commandments that follow immediately
afterward
in unit B - i.e. the laws of the Mishkan (i.e. chapters
25
thru 31).
[For those of you familiar with computers, this is
similar
to the concept of 'WYSIWYG' - What You See Is What You
Get.
What the Torah records when Moshe goes up - is exactly
what
Moshe received at that time. It should be noted that
Ramban
himself explains that the words "torah" & "mitzvah" in
24:12
refer not only to the Mishkan, but to the laws that
Moshe
teaches Bnei Yisrael in Sefer Devarim as well.]
Furthermore, considering that the primary purpose
of
Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai is to receive the luchot -
which
serve as a symbol of the covenant at Har Sinai (see
19:5,
24:7); it only makes sense that he would receive at the
same
time a set of instructions to build an edifice that
would
house these 'tablets'. [Recall that these "luchot" are
to be
housed in the aron - the holy ark - which is located at
the
center of the Mishkan.]
Finally, it also appears that the Mishkan will also
serve
as the location from where God will continue to teach
Moshe
Rabeinu the remaining commandments. Simply note the
Torah's
explicit explanation for the purpose of the "kaporet":
"And you shall put the kaporet above upon the aron;
and in
the aron you shall put the LUCHOT that I will give
you.
And there I will meet with you, and I will SPEAK TO
YOU
from above the kaporet - from between the two cherubim
-
which are upon the ARON ha'EDUT, of all things which I
will
command you concerning Bnei Yisrael."
(see Shmot 25:21-22)
This pasuk provides us with a perfect explanation for
why
the laws of the Mishkan come first. Once the Mishkan is
built, the remaining mitzvot can be conveyed to Moshe
via the
kaporet!
[In fact, note that immediately after the mishkan is
assembled (see Shmot chapter 40), God transmits an
entire
set of mitzvot to Moshe from the kaporet in the ohel
mo'ed -
as described in book of Vayikra! [See Vayikra 1:1 and
our
TSC shiur on Parshat Pekudei.]
Therefore, even though Moshe Rabeinu may have
received
certain laws at this time in addition to those of the
Mishkan,
it certainly makes sense that God would have given the
laws of
the Mishkan to Moshe at this time as well.
THE MISHKAN & HAR SINAI
Not only does Ramban follow this approach, in his
commentary on the opening line of Parshat Teruma (see
25:1) he
suggests an even more profound reason for the Torah's
presentation of the laws of the Mishkan specifically at
this
time.
Based on both textual and conceptual arguments, Ramban
argues that the primary purpose of the Mishkan was to
serve as
a vehicle that would allow Bnei Yisrael to perpetuate
the
experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai; and hence it becomes
the
first mitzva that Moshe receives when he ascends Har
Sinai.
Even though Moshe Rabeinu may have received other
mitzvot at
that time (see Ramban on 24:12), Sefer Shmot focuses
specifically on the laws of the Mishkan because it will
serve
as an everlasting symbol of the covenant that Bnei
Yisrael
accepted at Har Sinai.
This provides us with yet another reason for why
the
first mtizva of this section is to build the "aron".
That
special ark will house the luchot - the symbol of their
covenant at Har Sinai.
To summarize Ramban's approach, we will quote a few
lines
from his commentary [though it is highly recommended
that you
read the entire Ramban inside]:
"After God had given the Ten Commandments directly to
Yisrael and instructed them with a sampling of the
mitzvot
(i.e. Parshat Mishpatim)... and Bnei Yisrael accepted
these
laws and entered a covenant (24:1-11)... behold they
became
His nation and He became their God, as was originally
stipulated [at brit mila and Har Sinai]... Now they
are
worthy to have a house - His dwelling - in their midst
dedicated to His Name, and there He will speak with
Moshe
and command Bnei Yisrael... Now the 'secret' ('sod')
of the
mishkan is that God's glory ('kavod') which dwelled on
Har
Sinai will now dwell [instead] on the mishkan
'be-nistar'
[in a more hidden manner, in contrast to Har
Sinai]..." (see
Ramban 25:1).
RASHI'S APPROACH
Despite the beauty and simplicity of Ramban's
approach,
Rashi claims exactly the opposite (see 31:18): that the
commandment to build the mishkan came not only after,
but
actually because of, chet ha-egel. In other words,
Rashi
posits that the parshiot are not presented according to
their
chronological order. Rashi goes even further, claiming
that
during the first forty days Moshe received all the
mitzvot of
the Torah except the laws of the mishkan!
At first glance, such an interpretation seems
untenable.
Why should the Torah record at this point specifically
the
mitzvot that Moshe did not receive at this time, while
omitting all the mitzvot which he did receive at this
time?
What could possibly have led Rashi to this conclusion?
To answer this question, we must first explain the
exegetical principle of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah'
[literally: there is no order in the sequence of
parshiot in
the Torah]. Despite a common misunderstanding, this
principle
does not imply that Chumash progresses in random
sequence.
Rather, it implies that when God instructs Moshe Rabeinu
to
write down the books of Chumash in the fortieth year,
its laws
and narratives are not necessarily recorded according to
their
chronological order. Rather, for thematic
considerations,
Chumash may often record events in a different sequence
- in
order to convey a certain thematic message.
[Most commentators, and especially many of the
Midrashim
quoted by Rashi, employ this approach. Ramban,
however,
consistently disagrees with this assumption, arguing
that
unless a certain technical detail 'forces' him to say
otherwise, he will prefer to assume that Chumash is
written
in chronological order.]
The principle of "ein mukdam u-me'uchar" implies
that
when Moshe wrote down the Torah in its final form in the
fortieth year (see Devarim 31:25-26), its parshiot were
organized based on thematic considerations, and hence
not
necessarily according to the chronological order of when
they
were first given. By doing so, the Torah conveys its
message
not only by the content of each parshia, but also by
intentionally juxtaposing certain parshiot next to one
another.
[See Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32 for an important
insight
regarding this explanation.]
Rashi, following this approach, assumes that
Chumash (at
times) may prefer a conceptual sequence over a
chronological
one. Therefore, Rashi will often explain that a certain
parshia actually took place earlier or later when the
progression of theme implies as such.
With this background, we can better understand
Rashi's
approach in our context. Employing the principle of ein
mukdam u-me'uchar, Rashi always begins with
considerations of
theme and content in mind. He therefore cannot overlook
the
glaring similarities between the construction of the
mishkan
and chet ha-egel. Could it just be by chance that:
* Bnei Yisrael must collectively donate their gold to
build
the mishkan (compare 25:1-2, 32:2-3);
* Betzalel, Chur's grandson, is chosen to build the
mishkan;
[Rashi follows the Midrash which claims that Chur
was
killed because he refused to allow Bnei Yisrael to
build
the egel. (See Chizkuni 31:2.)]
* The opening pasuk concerning the mishkan - "and they
shall
make for Me a mikdash and I will dwell in their
midst"
(25:8) - appears to rectify Bnei Yisrael's situation
in
the aftermath of chet ha-egel, when Moshe must move
his
tent (called the ohel mo'ed) far away - outside the
camp
(33:7);
* Aharon must bring a par (a bull / an egel is a baby
bull)
for a chatat offering during the mishkan's
dedication
ceremony. [The requirement of a chatat implies the
committal of a sin; see Rashi 29:1.]
Rashi therefore explains that the commandment to
build
the mishkan came after chet ha-egel (during the last
forty
days), for it served as a form of atonement for that
sin.
[Nevertheless, it remains unclear according to Rashi
why the
Torah chose to record these parshiot out of
chronological
order. We'll return to this question later in the
shiur.]
LECHATCHILA or BE-DI'AVAD?
It is very tempting to consider this dispute
between
Rashi and Ramban a fundamental argument regarding the
reason
behind the mishkan.
Clearly, according to Ramban, the mishkan is
'lechatchila' [ideal]. In other words, even had chet
ha-egel
never occurred, it still would have been God's desire
that
Bnei Yisrael build a mishkan, for it serves as a
physical
representation of God's presence in their midst and a
perpetuation of the Sinai experience.
How should we understand Rashi? Can we infer from
his
interpretation that the mishkan is 'be-di'avad' [a
compromise]? In other words, had it not been for chet
ha-
egel, would there never have been a commandment to build
a
Temple?
Was the mitzva to build the mishkan simply an 'after-
thought'? Was it only in the aftermath of Bnei
Yisrael's sin
that God realized the people's need for a physical
representation of His presence?
Despite the temptation to arrive at this
conclusion, we
posit that even according to Rashi's interpretation, one
can
(and must) agree that God had originally intended for
Bnei
Yisrael to have a Temple, or at least some form of
physical
symbol to represent Him. To do so, i.e. to reconcile
Rashi's
interpretation with Ramban's explanation of the mishkan,
we
must differentiate between two key words (and concepts):
(1) MISHKAN - the portable Temple in the desert
and
(2) MIKDASH.- a permanent Temple
Although both words describe a sanctuary dedicated to
the
worship of God, for the sake of clarity, each word (in
our
explanation that follows) will be given a more specific
meaning.
TEMPLE TERMINOLOGY
* The mishkan is a temporary sanctuary (a Tabernacle),
a
portable, tent-like structure. [Good for travel.]
* The mikdash is a permanent sanctuary (a Temple),
such as
the massive stone structure built by King Solomon in
Jerusalem.
We posit that Rashi would agree with Ramban's claim
that
the concept of a Sanctuary is "lechatchila, for it
serves as a
symbol of God's shchina (the divine presence) dwelling
with
Bnei Yisrael. As anyone who has read the Bible must
notice,
the concept of a Temple emerges as a primary theme
throughout
the entire Tanach.
To support this assumption, let's review several
related
themes that we have discussed at length in our shiurim
on
Sefer Breishit.
Recall that we first encountered the theme of a
mikdash
when Avraham Avinu built a mizbeiach [altar] in Bet-El
and
"called out in God's Name" (see 12:8 & 13:4). Later, at
that
same site, Yaakov Avinu awakes from his dream and
exclaims:
"Alas, this is the site for a Bet Elokim, for it is
the gate
to the heavens" (Br.28:17).
Yaakov then erects a 'matzeva' (monument) and vows
that
upon his return to Canaan he will establish that site as
a Bet-
Elokim - a House for God. [See Breishit 28:17-22.]
Thus, the very concept of a Bet-Elokim clearly
preceded
the golden calf.
Furthermore, even in 'shirat ha-yam', the song that
Bnei
Yisrael sung after they crossed the Red Sea, we already
find
an allusion the establishment of a mikdash immediately
upon
their arrival in the land:
"Tevieimo ve-titaeimo be-har nachalatcha, machon le-
shivtecha... - mikdash, Hashem konanu yadecha..."
["You shall bring them in, and plant them in the
mountain
of Your inheritance, the place, O LORD, which You
have
set to dwell in, the MIKDASH (sanctuary), O Lord,
which
Your hands have established"]
(See Shmot 15:17, and its context!)
Finally, in Parshat Mishpatim we find conclusive
proof
that the basic concept of a Bet-Elokim is totally
unrelated to
the events of chet ha-egel. Recall that even according
to
Rashi, the laws recorded in Parshat Mishpatim were
certainly
given before chet ha-egel. [See Rashi on 31:18, where
he
explains that those laws (in Parshat Mishpatim) were
given to
Moshe Rabeinu during his first forty days on Har Sinai.]
In that set of laws we find the mitzva of 'aliya
la-
regel' - to 'visit God' three times a year:
"Three times a year you shall celebrate for Me... Keep
chag
ha-matzot... and do not visit me empty-handed... Three
times
a year all your males shall appear before me... " (see
23:14-
17).
If we find a commandment to 'be seen by God', it
implies
that there most be some type of sanctuary that would
represent
Him - i.e. a location where we can go to visit Him!
Therefore, without some sort of a mikdash, this mitzva
of
aliya la-regel could not be fulfilled.
However, the next pasuk provides conclusive proof
that
this sanctuary corresponds to the concept of a
Bet-Elokim:
"Your first fruits must be brought to bet Hashem
Elokecha -
to the HOUSE of the Lord your God..." (23:19).
This commandment to bring the first fruits to the
Bet
Elokim clearly implies that there would have to be some
sort
of 'sanctuary' that will serve as God's House.
Hence, even Rashi must agree that there would have
been a
need for a Bet-Elokim even had Bnei Yisrael not sinned
at chet
ha-egel.
Furthermore, there is no reason for Rashi not to
agree
with Ramban's explanation that the primary function of
the
mikdash (and its vessels) was to perpetuate Bnei
Yisrael's
experience at Har Sinai. Instead, we will now show how
their
dispute over the chronological order of these events
stems
from a less fundamental issue - concerning the need to
construct a temporary sanctuary before entering the Land
of
Israel.
WHO NEEDS A TENT?
According to Rashi's interpretation, one can still
assume
that God's original intention was for Bnei Yisrael to
build a
mikdash [a Temple]. However, had they not sinned with
the
Golden Calf, there would not have been any need to build
a
temporary one in the desert. However, after they
sinned, the
conquest of the Land would now be delayed. Furthermore,
the
nation needed to do something to show their repentance.
Therefore, God ordered them to build a temporary mikdash
[what
we call a mishkan] at Har Sinai - before they would
continue
on their journey.
Ramban would argue that even had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned,
it would still have been necessary for them to build a
temporary mikdash [= mishkan] before they embarked on
that
journey.
Let's attempt to explain why.
Rashi's position may be based upon God's original
plan
that Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land through
supernatural,
divine intervention (see Shmot 23:20-28). Assisted by
God's
miracles, Bnei Yisrael would have needed only a very
short
time to complete at least the first wave of conquest.
Had
that actually occurred, there would have been no need to
build
a temporary mishkan, for within a very short time it
would
have been possible to build a permanent mikdash instead.
However, in the aftermath of chet ha-egel, the
entire
situation changes. As God had removed His Shchina,
Bnei
Yisrael must first bring the Shchina back to the camp
before
they can conquer the Land. Hence, according to Rashi,
the
actual process of building the mishkan could be
considered a
form of 'spiritual rehabilitation'. Furthermore, the
mishkan
would now provide Aharon and Bnei Yisrael with the
opportunity
to offer korbanot and thus achieve atonement for their
sin.
One could also suggest that due to chet ha-egel and
the
'lower level' of the 'mal'ach' that will lead them into
the
land (see Shmot 33:1-5 and the TSC shiur on Parshat
Ki-tisa
re: the 13 midot), it may now take much longer for Bnei
Yisrael to complete their conquest. Therefore, a
temporary
mikdash [= mishkan] is required, until a more permanent
mikdash can be built.
A CONCEPTUAL JUXTAPOSITION
According to this interpretation, we can now
suggest
(according to Rashi) a beautiful thematic reason for the
Torah
placing the commandment to build the mishkan out of
chronological order:
Even though the mitzva to build the 'temporary'
mishkan
was given after the story of chet ha-egel, the Torah
intentionally records it earlier - immediately after
Ma'amad
Har Sinai - to emphasize its thematic connection to that
event! In other words, Rashi, like Ramban, can also
understand that the primary function of the mikdash was
to
perpetuate Ma'amad Har Sinai. In fact, had Bnei
Yisrael not
sinned, the laws of the 'permanent' mikdash may have
been
recorded at this spot in Chumash. However, now that a
mishkan
was needed (due to the events of chet ha-egel), the laws
of
this temporary mikdash are recorded at this point in
Chumash,
to emphasize the very same thematic connection that
Ramban
describes in great detail!
Now that Rashi makes so much sense, why wouldn't
Ramban
agree? To answer this question, we must return to our
discussion of the differing approaches to 'mukdam
u-me'uchar'.
Ramban prefers his principle that Chumash follows
chronological order. Despite the similarities between
the
mishkan and the story of chet ha-egel (as listed above),
they
are not convincing enough to warrant, in Ramban's view,
a
distortion of the order of these parshiot. Therefore,
Ramban
maintains that even had it not been for chet ha-egel,
there
still would have been a need for a temporary mishkan.
In fact, one could suggest a very simple reason for
the
immediate need of a temporary sanctuary. As we
explained
earlier, Bnei Yisrael must still receive many more
mitzvot
from God. A mishkan - with the aron and keruvim at its
center
- is therefore necessary as the medium through which God
can
convey the remaining mitzvot to Moshe. Furthermore,
once the
Shchina descended upon Har Sinai, some sort of vehicle
is
necessary to 'carry it' with them as they travel from
Har
Sinai towards Eretz Canaan.
[Accordingly, Ramban explains that most of all the
mitzvot
recorded in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar were
actually
given from the ohel mo'ed (mishkan). See Ramban
Vayikra 1:1
& 7:38. In regard to Sefer Devarim, see Ramban on
24:1 &
24:12.]
In summary, the dispute between Rashi and Ramban
stems
from their different exegetical approaches and pertains
only
to why a temporary mishkan was necessary before leaving
Mount
Sinai. However, both would agree that a permanent
mikdash
would have been necessary even had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned at
chet ha-egel, for Bnei Yisrael, being God's special
nation,
require a symbol of His Presence in their midst.
In our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, we will analyze
the
internal structure of this unit of chapters 25->31 in
order to
uncover additional parallels between the mishkan and the
events of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Till then,
shabbat shalom
menachem
FOR FURTHER IYUN:
A. In the shiur we argue that even according to Rashi,
the
concept of a required mikdash for serving Hashem existed
even
prior to the worship of the golden calf. Along similar
lines,
Rav David Pardo, in his supra-commentary on Rashi
entitled,
"Maskil le-David", writes that even in Rashi's view, the
general command to build a mishkan was transmitted to
Moshe
during his first forty days atop the mountain. Only the
details of the construction, as presented in parshiyot
Teruma
& Tetzaveh (and the beginning of Ki Tisa), were
transmitted
later. Rav Pardo proves this from the repeated
reference in
parshat Teruma to Hashem's having shown Moshe the
appearance
of the mishkan "on the mountain" (25:40; 26:30; 27:8).
In the
final two of these three references, Hashem employs the
past
tense ("you have been shown"), suggesting that Moshe
viewed
the image the mishkan before receiving these detailed
instructions. Apparently, as Rav Pardo argues, Moshe
learned
of the mishkan - albeit only the generalities - during
his
first forty days on the mountain, even before the calf.
Thus,
Rashi clearly did not view the mishkan as necessary only
in
response to the sin of the egel ha-zahav.
B. RAMBAN / RASHI - earlier sources
The argument as to whether Hashem ordered the
construction of the mishkan before or after the sin of
the
golden calf predates Rashi and the Ramban; conflicting
views
appear already in the Midrashim. Rashi's view, that the
parshiyot appear out of order, is the position of the
Midrash
Tanchuma (Teruma 8, Pekudei 6), Yerushalmi (Shkalim 1:1)
and
Midrash Hagadol to Shmot 25:17. The Ramban's opinion is
found
in Seder Eliyahu Rabba 17, which states explicitly that
Hashem
ordered the construction of the mishkan after Bnei
Yisrael
declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma'. Ibn Ezra (25:1) adopts
the
Ramban's approach, as do the Abarbanel (31:18) and the
Netziv
(29:20). Despite his general affinity for the Ramban's
commentary, on this issue Rabbenu Bechayei adopts
Rashi's
approach (25:6)
C. Mikdash Before Chet Ha-egel: Midrashic Sources
Several Midrashic passages support our contention
that a
mikdash would have been necessary even had it not been
for the
golden calf. Bemidbar Rabba 12:12 compares the world
before
the mishkan to a chair with two legs, which cannot
stand; the
construction of the mishkan added the third leg,
so-to-speak,
which enabled the world to stand independently. However
one
understands the image of the chair, it clearly points to
the
indispensability of the mishkan - regardless of chet
ha-egel.
Similarly, Bemidbar Rabba 13:6 describes that from the
time of
creation, Hashem wished ('kivyachol') to reside on
earth.
When the mishkan was consecrated, Hashem announced that
on
that day the world was created. Once again, we see that
the
construction of the mishkan marked a critical stage in
the
history of the world and was necessary since the dawn of
creation. In the same vein, Bemidbar Rabba 13 writes
that
when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, Hashem wished to "bring
them
into His quarters", and thus instructed them to build
the
mishkan. This Midrash makes no mention of the incident
of the
golden calf as necessitating a mikdash. A similar
passage
appears in the Tanchuma Yashan - Bechukotai 65.
We suggested in the shiur that according to Rashi,
the
Torah presents Parshat Teruma immediately following
Matan
Torah - despite its having occurred later, after the
egel - to
emphasize the thematic relationship between the mishkan
and
Matan Torah. Rabbenu Bechayei (25:6), however, explains
that
the Torah rearranged the sequence in order to
demonstrate how
Hashem is "makdim trufa le-maka" (recall that, as cited
earlier, Rav Kasher reads this explanation into the
Midrash
Lekach Tov). Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim La-Torah)
mentions
this explanation without quoting Rabbenu Bechayei. A
different answer was suggested by the late Lubavitcher
Rebbe
("Be'urim Le-perush Rashi al Ha-Torah" - Shmot 31:18).
The
Torah specifically wanted to juxtapose the tzivuy
ha-mishkan
with the end of Parshat Mishpatim - the formal
establishment
of the 'brit' between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem. As the
residence of the Shchina in the mishkan marked the
complete
fulfillment of that brit, it is only fitting that the
parsha
of the mishkan immediately follows that of the covenant.
(This explanation, too, seems to point to the fact that
the
mishkan is lechatchila even according to Rashi.)
D. SEFORNO
The Seforno takes a particularly extreme approach
to the
concept of the mishkan. Already in his comments to
19:6, he
notes that as a result of the egel, Bnei Yisrael
forfeited
"all the goodness of the future" promised to them before
Matan
Torah. As we will see in his comments elsewhere, this
refers
to God's direct revelation, which was supplanted by the
mishkan. In his commentary to the final psukim of
Parshat
Yitro (20:20-22), the Seforno interprets these psukim as
informing Bnei Yisrael that they have no need to
construct a
sanctuary to God. Matan Torah demonstrated that Hashem
would
descend, as it were, and reside among them even without
any
physical mediums. Commenting on 25:9, Seforno writes
that
after the incident of the golden calf Bnei Yisrael were
required to construct a sanctuary; the direct
communication
experienced at Har Sinai could no longer be maintained.
Seforno expresses his position even clearer in 31:18,
where he
describes more fully Bnei Yisrael's spiritual descent as
a
result of the golden calf, as a result of which they did
not
achieve the divine plan initially intended at Matan
Torah. In
this passage, he alludes to an interesting
interpretation of
the promise in 19:6 that Bnei Yisrael would be a
'mamlechet
kohanim' (a kingdom of priests): that they would have no
need
for kohanim to serve as intermediaries. God had
originally
intended for all of Bnei Yisrael to serve God directly
as
kohanim. (Curiously, however, this is not how the
Seforno
explains the term in his commentary to 19:6 -
"ve-tzarich
iyun".) He develops this idea even further in Vayikra
11:2.
There he explains that in response to the golden calf,
Hashem
decreed that He would remove His Shchina entirely from
Bnei
Yisrael. Moshe's intervention succeeded in restoring a
very
limited measure of 'hashra'at ha-Shchina', by which God
would
reside among Bnei Yisrael only through the structure of
the
mishkan. (In this passage, Seforno spells out more
clearly
what he meant by "the goodness of the future" of which
he
spoke in his comments to Shmot 19:6 - the direct
presence of
the Shchina, without the need for a physical
representation.)
Later in Sefer Vayikra, in his commentary to the brachot
of
Parshat Bechukotai (26:11-12), Seforno describes the
ideal
condition of God's constant presence among Benei Yisrael
without it being confined to any specific location and
without
requiring any specific actions on Benei Yisrael's part.
In
direct contradistinction to the Ramban, Seforno there
reads
the pasuk in Truma, "Ve-asu li mikdash ve-shachanti
betocham",
as a punishment, confining the presence of the Shchina
to the
mishkan. Seforno's most elaborate development of this
notion
appears in his treatise "Ma'amar Kavanot ha-Torah"
(published
as a separate volume by Rav Yehuda Kuperman in 5754; the
relevant material for our topic is found primarily in
chapter
6 in Rav Kuperman's edition).
This position of the Seforno, of course, requires
some
explanation in light of the proofs mentioned in the
shiur to
the necessity of a mikdash even prior to the egel. In
fact,
the Seforno himself identifies Yaakov's Bet Elokim
(Breishit
28:17) and the mikdash in the Shirat Ha-yam (Shmot
15:17) as
the beit ha-mikdash. How could the concept of a mikdash
be
discussed before chet ha-egel - if it was never to have
been
necessary?
The Seforno does not address this question, but in
at
least two instances he alludes to what may be understood
as a
moderation of his approach. Commenting on the pasuk
"be-chol
ha-makom asher askir et Shmi avo eilecha" ("every place
where
I will have My Name mentioned I will come to you" -
Shmot
20:21), the Seforno explains, "[Every place] that I will
designate as a meeting place for My service". He then
adds,
"You will not need to draw My providence to you through
mediums of silver and gold and the like, for I will come
to
you and bless you". Apparently, even according to this
original plan, there would still be a place designated
as a
mikdash of sorts, only Bnei Yisrael would not need to
invest
effort in its lavish and intricate construction. In
Ma'amar
Kavanot ha-Torah, Seforno makes a somewhat similar
comment in
explaining this same pasuk: "In any place that will
truly be
called a Bet Elokim, such as batei midrash and the like
- I
will come to you and bless you." Here, too, he implies
that
there would be a special location - or perhaps several
or many
special locations - for avodat Hashem, only not what we
know
as the mishkan or mikdash. However, in his commentary
to
Parshat Bechukotai (Vayikra 26:12), the Seforno strongly
implies that in the ideal condition Hashem reveals
Himself
anywhere, without any need for an especially designated
location - 've-tzarich iyun'.
E. RAMBAM - Review Devarim chapter 12. Note the
repeated use
of the phrase "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" and its
context.
Pay special attention to 12:5-12, noting when is the
proper
time to build the mikdash. Relate this phrase to the
concept
of a permanent mikdash, as discussed in the above shiur.
Considering that Sefer Devarim contains the mitzvot that
God
originally gave Moshe at Har Sinai (before chet
ha-egel),
explain why Sefer Devarim makes no mention of the
mishkan, yet
mentions "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" numerous times.
Although the Rambam did not write a commentary on
Chumash, we can infer his understanding of certain
psukim
based on his psak halacha in Mishneh Torah.
The opening Rambam in Hilchot Beit Ha-bechira
(Sefer
Avoda) defines the source of the commandment to build a
mikdash (see 1:1). Read that Rambam (and, if you have
time,
the first five halachot). What is difficult about the
Rambam's wording in 1:1? What is the source of our
obligation
to build a mikdash? Why, according to the Rambam, is
the
phrase "ve-asu li mikdash" (25:8) insufficient as a
source for
this obligation?
Why does the Rambam include the criteria, 'ready to
offer
upon it korbanot' and 'to celebrate there three times a
year'?
Can you relate these phrases to Shmot 23:14-19 and this
week's
shiur? Why does the Rambam quote the pasuk from Devarim
12:9-
11? Read those psukim carefully!
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1260 -
Release Date: 2/5/2008 9:44 AM
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: truma1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56098 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080206/66d63512/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list