<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT TERUMA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Why do we need a Mishkan
[Tabernacle]?<BR> It is commonly understood that ideally, God
could be worshiped<BR>directly, i.e. without the need of a physical
symbol.<BR>However, due to the events of chet ha-egel [the sin of the<BR>Golden
Calf], God changed His original plans; realizing that<BR>without providing some
physical medium, Bnei Yisrael would<BR>inevitably turn to idol worship
instead.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This opinion is often attributed
to Rashi, and the host of<BR>other commentators - who claim that the commandment
to build<BR>the Mishkan [in Parshat Teruma] was first given, only after<BR>the
sin of the golden calf [in Parshat Ki-tisa] - even though<BR>the Torah recorded
the laws of Mishkan beforehand.<BR> Those who argue that the
Mishkan was not an 'after-thought',<BR>but rather part of God's ideal to have a
'meeting place' with<BR>His nation - are championed by Ramban, who claims
(arguing<BR>with Rashi) that the Torah has recorded these events in
their<BR>proper chronological order. [According to this opinion, it<BR>was
simply coincidental that Bnei Yisrael's sin with the<BR>golden calf took place
at the same time when God was teaching<BR>Moshe the laws of the Mishkan on Har
Sinai.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Hence it would appear that
the underlying reason behind<BR>this 'philosophical' debate (regarding the need
for a Mishkan)<BR>lies in an 'exegetic' controversy concerning when
the<BR>commandment to build the mishkan was first given, before or<BR>after the
sin of the golden calf.<BR> In this week's shiur, as we
study this controversy and<BR>its ramifications, we will arrive at a very
different<BR>conclusion. Our study will focus on the thematic
connections<BR>between the Mishkan and Ma'amad Har Sinai, while trying
to<BR>make sense out of Chazal's understanding of "ein mukdam u-<BR>me'uchar
ba-Torah" - i.e. their exegetic assumption that the<BR>Torah may intentionally
record certain events out of their<BR>chronological order.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> - Four Units in the 2nd half
of Sefer Shmot -<BR> To clarify our understanding this
controversy between<BR>Rashi and Ramban, it is helpful to divide the last half
of<BR>Sefer Shmot into four distinct (and rather obvious) units.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Chapters 19-24 - Ma'amad Har
Sinai<BR> As we discussed in our shiurim on Yitro & Mishpatim -
this<BR> unit discusses both the covenants, and laws that were
given<BR> to Bnei Yisrael upon their arrival at Har Sinai.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. Chapters 25-31 - The commandment to build
the Mishkan<BR> This section includes a complete set of laws concerning
how<BR> to build (and operate) the Mishkan - that spans all of<BR>
Parshiot Teruma & Tetzaveh, and the first half of Ki Tisa.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. Chapters 32-34 - The sin of the Golden
Calf<BR> These two chapters [i.e. the 2nd half of Parshat Ki
Tisa]<BR> form a distinct unit, as they describe the incident of
chet<BR> ha-egel and what takes place in its aftermath (i.e.
when<BR> Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the second
luchot).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4, Chapters 35-40 - The building of the
Mishkan<BR> These six chapters [Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei] form
the<BR> final unit in Sefer Shmot, as they describe how the
Mishkan<BR> was built and assembled, concluding with God's
"schechina"<BR> descending upon it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The following table reviews these four
units:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHAPTERS
TOPIC
(PARSHA)<BR>========
===== ========</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(A) 19-24 MA'AMAD HAR
SINAI
(YITRO/MISHPATIM)<BR>
[the FIRST LUCHOT]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(B) 25-31 COMMANDMENT TO BUILD -
(TERUMAH/TEZAVEH)<BR> THE MISHKAN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(C) 32-34 CHET
HA'EGEL (2nd half of
KI-TISA)<BR>
[the SECOND LUCHOT]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(D) 35-40 BUILDING THE MISHKAN
(VA'YAKHEL/PEKUDEI)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR> By referring to the above table, it is easier
to<BR>understand more precisely the basic controversy between Rashi<BR>and
Ramban. While Ramban keeps Chumash 'in order' [A-B-C-D],<BR>Rashi
claims that God's commandment to build the Mishkan [unit<BR>'B'] was given only
after the events of chet ha-egel [unit<BR>'C'], and hence the order would be
A-C-B-D. [See Rashi on<BR>31:18.]<BR> As Ramban's
opinion appears to be most logical, we begin<BR>our study with a discussion of
his approach. Afterward, we<BR>study Rashi's approach to show how it
fundamentally may be<BR>more similar to Ramban's than we originally
assumed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>THE FIRST FORTY DAYS - FOR WHAT?<BR> Recall that at
the conclusion of Parshat Mishpatim [the<BR>end of Unit A], Moshe ascends Har
Sinai to receive the<BR>"luchot, torah, & mitzva" (see 24:12). As we
know, the luchot<BR>are the tablets upon which God inscribed the Ten
Commandments.<BR>Even though it remains unclear concerning what the words
torah<BR>& mitzva refer to (note the different opinions among
the<BR>commentators on 24:12!), it would only be logical to assume<BR>that these
laws that Moshe receives at this time, would relate<BR>in some form or other to
these "luchot" that he now ascends to<BR>receive.<BR> In
fact, the above chart illustrates the logic of this<BR>approach. When
Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the luchot<BR>at the conclusion of unit A
(see 24:12-18) - he receives<BR>exactly those commandments that follow
immediately afterward<BR>in unit B - i.e. the laws of the Mishkan (i.e. chapters
25<BR>thru 31).<BR> [For those of you familiar with computers, this is
similar<BR> to the concept of 'WYSIWYG' - What You See Is What You
Get.<BR> What the Torah records when Moshe goes up - is exactly
what<BR> Moshe received at that time. It should be noted that
Ramban<BR> himself explains that the words "torah" & "mitzvah" in
24:12<BR> refer not only to the Mishkan, but to the laws that
Moshe<BR> teaches Bnei Yisrael in Sefer Devarim as well.]<BR>
<BR> Furthermore, considering that the primary purpose
of<BR>Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai is to receive the luchot - which<BR>serve as a
symbol of the covenant at Har Sinai (see 19:5,<BR>24:7); it only makes sense
that he would receive at the same<BR>time a set of instructions to build an
edifice that would<BR>house these 'tablets'. [Recall that these "luchot"
are to be<BR>housed in the aron - the holy ark - which is located at
the<BR>center of the Mishkan.]<BR> Finally, it also
appears that the Mishkan will also serve<BR>as the location from where God will
continue to teach Moshe<BR>Rabeinu the remaining commandments. Simply note
the Torah's<BR>explicit explanation for the purpose of the "kaporet":<BR>
"And you shall put the kaporet above upon the aron; and in<BR> the aron
you shall put the LUCHOT that I will give you.<BR> And there I
will meet with you, and I will SPEAK TO YOU<BR> from above the kaporet -
from between the two cherubim -<BR> which are upon the ARON ha'EDUT, of
all things which I will<BR> command you concerning Bnei
Yisrael."<BR> (see Shmot
25:21-22)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This pasuk provides us with a perfect explanation for why<BR>the
laws of the Mishkan come first. Once the Mishkan is<BR>built, the
remaining mitzvot can be conveyed to Moshe via the<BR>kaporet!<BR>
[In fact, note that immediately after the mishkan is<BR> assembled (see
Shmot chapter 40), God transmits an entire<BR> set of mitzvot to Moshe
from the kaporet in the ohel mo'ed -<BR> as described in book of Vayikra!
[See Vayikra 1:1 and our<BR> TSC shiur on Parshat Pekudei.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Therefore, even though Moshe Rabeinu may have
received<BR>certain laws at this time in addition to those of the Mishkan,<BR>it
certainly makes sense that God would have given the laws of<BR>the Mishkan to
Moshe at this time as well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> THE MISHKAN & HAR SINAI<BR> Not only does
Ramban follow this approach, in his<BR>commentary on the opening line of Parshat
Teruma (see 25:1) he<BR>suggests an even more profound reason for the
Torah's<BR>presentation of the laws of the Mishkan specifically at
this<BR>time.<BR> Based on both textual and conceptual arguments,
Ramban<BR>argues that the primary purpose of the Mishkan was to serve as<BR>a
vehicle that would allow Bnei Yisrael to perpetuate the<BR>experience of Ma'amad
Har Sinai; and hence it becomes the<BR>first mitzva that Moshe receives when he
ascends Har Sinai.<BR>Even though Moshe Rabeinu may have received other mitzvot
at<BR>that time (see Ramban on 24:12), Sefer Shmot focuses<BR>specifically on
the laws of the Mishkan because it will serve<BR>as an everlasting symbol of the
covenant that Bnei Yisrael<BR>accepted at Har Sinai.<BR>
This provides us with yet another reason for why the<BR>first mtizva of this
section is to build the "aron". That<BR>special ark will house the luchot
- the symbol of their<BR>covenant at Har Sinai.<BR> To
summarize Ramban's approach, we will quote a few lines<BR>from his commentary
[though it is highly recommended that you<BR>read the entire Ramban
inside]:<BR> "After God had given the Ten Commandments directly
to<BR> Yisrael and instructed them with a sampling of the
mitzvot<BR> (i.e. Parshat Mishpatim)... and Bnei Yisrael accepted
these<BR> laws and entered a covenant (24:1-11)... behold they
became<BR> His nation and He became their God, as was originally<BR>
stipulated [at brit mila and Har Sinai]... Now they are<BR> worthy to have
a house - His dwelling - in their midst<BR> dedicated to His Name, and
there He will speak with Moshe<BR> and command Bnei Yisrael... Now the
'secret' ('sod') of the<BR> mishkan is that God's glory ('kavod') which
dwelled on Har<BR> Sinai will now dwell [instead] on the mishkan
'be-nistar'<BR> [in a more hidden manner, in contrast to Har Sinai]..."
(see<BR> Ramban 25:1).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RASHI'S APPROACH<BR> Despite the beauty and
simplicity of Ramban's approach,<BR>Rashi claims exactly the opposite (see
31:18): that the<BR>commandment to build the mishkan came not only after,
but<BR>actually because of, chet ha-egel. In other words, Rashi<BR>posits
that the parshiot are not presented according to their<BR>chronological
order. Rashi goes even further, claiming that<BR>during the first forty
days Moshe received all the mitzvot of<BR>the Torah except the laws of the
mishkan!<BR> At first glance, such an interpretation
seems untenable.<BR>Why should the Torah record at this point specifically
the<BR>mitzvot that Moshe did not receive at this time, while<BR>omitting all
the mitzvot which he did receive at this time?<BR>What could possibly have led
Rashi to this conclusion?<BR> To answer this question,
we must first explain the<BR>exegetical principle of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar
ba-Torah'<BR>[literally: there is no order in the sequence of parshiot in<BR>the
Torah]. Despite a common misunderstanding, this principle<BR>does not
imply that Chumash progresses in random sequence.<BR>Rather, it implies that
when God instructs Moshe Rabeinu to<BR>write down the books of Chumash in the
fortieth year, its laws<BR>and narratives are not necessarily recorded according
to their<BR>chronological order. Rather, for thematic
considerations,<BR>Chumash may often record events in a different sequence -
in<BR>order to convey a certain thematic message.<BR> [Most commentators,
and especially many of the Midrashim<BR> quoted by Rashi, employ this
approach. Ramban, however,<BR> consistently disagrees with this
assumption, arguing that<BR> unless a certain technical detail 'forces'
him to say<BR> otherwise, he will prefer to assume that Chumash is
written<BR> in chronological order.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The principle of "ein mukdam u-me'uchar" implies
that<BR>when Moshe wrote down the Torah in its final form in the<BR>fortieth
year (see Devarim 31:25-26), its parshiot were<BR>organized based on thematic
considerations, and hence not<BR>necessarily according to the chronological
order of when they<BR>were first given. By doing so, the Torah conveys its
message<BR>not only by the content of each parshia, but also by<BR>intentionally
juxtaposing certain parshiot next to one<BR>another.<BR> [See
Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32 for an important insight<BR> regarding
this explanation.]<BR> Rashi, following this approach,
assumes that Chumash (at<BR>times) may prefer a conceptual sequence over a
chronological<BR>one. Therefore, Rashi will often explain that a
certain<BR>parshia actually took place earlier or later when the<BR>progression
of theme implies as such.<BR> With this background, we
can better understand Rashi's<BR>approach in our context. Employing the
principle of ein<BR>mukdam u-me'uchar, Rashi always begins with considerations
of<BR>theme and content in mind. He therefore cannot overlook
the<BR>glaring similarities between the construction of the mishkan<BR>and chet
ha-egel. Could it just be by chance that:<BR> * Bnei
Yisrael must collectively donate their gold to build<BR> the
mishkan (compare 25:1-2, 32:2-3);<BR> * Betzalel, Chur's grandson, is
chosen to build the mishkan;<BR> [Rashi follows the Midrash
which claims that Chur was<BR> killed because he refused to
allow Bnei Yisrael to build<BR> the egel. (See Chizkuni
31:2.)]<BR> * The opening pasuk concerning the mishkan - "and they
shall<BR> make for Me a mikdash and I will dwell in their
midst"<BR> (25:8) - appears to rectify Bnei Yisrael's
situation in<BR> the aftermath of chet ha-egel, when Moshe
must move his<BR> tent (called the ohel mo'ed) far away -
outside the camp<BR> (33:7);<BR> * Aharon must
bring a par (a bull / an egel is a baby bull)<BR> for a chatat
offering during the mishkan's dedication<BR> ceremony.
[The requirement of a chatat implies the<BR> committal of a
sin; see Rashi 29:1.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Rashi therefore explains that the commandment to
build<BR>the mishkan came after chet ha-egel (during the last forty<BR>days),
for it served as a form of atonement for that sin.<BR> [Nevertheless, it
remains unclear according to Rashi why the<BR> Torah chose to record these
parshiot out of chronological<BR> order. We'll return to this
question later in the shiur.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>LECHATCHILA or BE-DI'AVAD?<BR> It is very tempting
to consider this dispute between<BR>Rashi and Ramban a fundamental argument
regarding the reason<BR>behind the mishkan.<BR> Clearly,
according to Ramban, the mishkan is<BR>'lechatchila' [ideal]. In other
words, even had chet ha-egel<BR>never occurred, it still would have been God's
desire that<BR>Bnei Yisrael build a mishkan, for it serves as a
physical<BR>representation of God's presence in their midst and
a<BR>perpetuation of the Sinai experience.<BR> How
should we understand Rashi? Can we infer from his<BR>interpretation that
the mishkan is 'be-di'avad' [a<BR>compromise]? In other words, had it not
been for chet ha-<BR>egel, would there never have been a commandment to build
a<BR>Temple?<BR> Was the mitzva to build the mishkan simply an
'after-<BR>thought'? Was it only in the aftermath of Bnei Yisrael's
sin<BR>that God realized the people's need for a physical<BR>representation of
His presence?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Despite the temptation to arrive at this
conclusion, we<BR>posit that even according to Rashi's interpretation, one
can<BR>(and must) agree that God had originally intended for Bnei<BR>Yisrael to
have a Temple, or at least some form of physical<BR>symbol to represent
Him. To do so, i.e. to reconcile Rashi's<BR>interpretation with Ramban's
explanation of the mishkan, we<BR>must differentiate between two key words (and
concepts):<BR> (1) MISHKAN - the portable Temple in the
desert<BR>and<BR> (2) MIKDASH.- a permanent Temple</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Although both words describe a sanctuary dedicated to the<BR>worship
of God, for the sake of clarity, each word (in our<BR>explanation that follows)
will be given a more specific<BR>meaning.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TEMPLE TERMINOLOGY<BR> * The mishkan is a temporary sanctuary (a
Tabernacle), a<BR> portable, tent-like structure. [Good
for travel.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * The mikdash is a permanent sanctuary (a Temple), such
as<BR> the massive stone structure built by King Solomon
in<BR> Jerusalem.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> We posit that Rashi would agree with Ramban's
claim that<BR>the concept of a Sanctuary is "lechatchila, for it serves as
a<BR>symbol of God's shchina (the divine presence) dwelling with<BR>Bnei
Yisrael. As anyone who has read the Bible must notice,<BR>the concept of a
Temple emerges as a primary theme throughout<BR>the entire Tanach.<BR> To
support this assumption, let's review several related<BR>themes that we have
discussed at length in our shiurim on<BR>Sefer
Breishit.<BR> Recall that we first encountered the theme
of a mikdash<BR>when Avraham Avinu built a mizbeiach [altar] in Bet-El
and<BR>"called out in God's Name" (see 12:8 & 13:4). Later, at
that<BR>same site, Yaakov Avinu awakes from his dream and exclaims:<BR>
"Alas, this is the site for a Bet Elokim, for it is the gate<BR> to the
heavens" (Br.28:17).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Yaakov then erects a 'matzeva' (monument) and vows
that<BR>upon his return to Canaan he will establish that site as a
Bet-<BR>Elokim - a House for God. [See Breishit
28:17-22.]<BR> Thus, the very concept of a Bet-Elokim
clearly preceded<BR>the golden calf.<BR> Furthermore,
even in 'shirat ha-yam', the song that Bnei<BR>Yisrael sung after they crossed
the Red Sea, we already find<BR>an allusion the establishment of a mikdash
immediately upon<BR>their arrival in the land:<BR> "Tevieimo
ve-titaeimo be-har nachalatcha, machon le-<BR> shivtecha...
- mikdash, Hashem konanu yadecha..."<BR> ["You shall
bring them in, and plant them in the mountain<BR> of
Your inheritance, the place, O LORD, which You have<BR> set to
dwell in, the MIKDASH (sanctuary), O Lord, which<BR> Your
hands have
established"]<BR>
(See Shmot 15:17, and its context!)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Finally, in Parshat Mishpatim we find conclusive
proof<BR>that the basic concept of a Bet-Elokim is totally unrelated to<BR>the
events of chet ha-egel. Recall that even according to<BR>Rashi, the laws
recorded in Parshat Mishpatim were certainly<BR>given before chet ha-egel.
[See Rashi on 31:18, where he<BR>explains that those laws (in Parshat Mishpatim)
were given to<BR>Moshe Rabeinu during his first forty days on Har
Sinai.]<BR> In that set of laws we find the mitzva of
'aliya la-<BR>regel' - to 'visit God' three times a year:<BR> "Three times
a year you shall celebrate for Me... Keep chag<BR> ha-matzot... and do not
visit me empty-handed... Three times<BR> a year all your males shall
appear before me... " (see 23:14-<BR> 17).<BR>
<BR> If we find a commandment to 'be seen by God', it
implies<BR>that there most be some type of sanctuary that would represent<BR>Him
- i.e. a location where we can go to visit Him!<BR>Therefore, without some sort
of a mikdash, this mitzva of<BR>aliya la-regel could not be
fulfilled.<BR> However, the next pasuk provides
conclusive proof that<BR>this sanctuary corresponds to the concept of a
Bet-Elokim:<BR> "Your first fruits must be brought to bet Hashem Elokecha
-<BR> to the HOUSE of the Lord your God..." (23:19).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This commandment to bring the first fruits to the
Bet<BR>Elokim clearly implies that there would have to be some sort<BR>of
'sanctuary' that will serve as God's House.<BR> Hence,
even Rashi must agree that there would have been a<BR>need for a Bet-Elokim even
had Bnei Yisrael not sinned at chet<BR>ha-egel.<BR>
Furthermore, there is no reason for Rashi not to agree<BR>with Ramban's
explanation that the primary function of the<BR>mikdash (and its vessels) was to
perpetuate Bnei Yisrael's<BR>experience at Har Sinai. Instead, we will now
show how their<BR>dispute over the chronological order of these events
stems<BR>from a less fundamental issue - concerning the need to<BR>construct a
temporary sanctuary before entering the Land of<BR>Israel.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WHO NEEDS A TENT?<BR> According to Rashi's
interpretation, one can still assume<BR>that God's original intention was for
Bnei Yisrael to build a<BR>mikdash [a Temple]. However, had they not
sinned with the<BR>Golden Calf, there would not have been any need to build
a<BR>temporary one in the desert. However, after they sinned,
the<BR>conquest of the Land would now be delayed. Furthermore,
the<BR>nation needed to do something to show their repentance.<BR>Therefore, God
ordered them to build a temporary mikdash [what<BR>we call a mishkan] at Har
Sinai - before they would continue<BR>on their
journey.<BR> Ramban would argue that even had Bnei
Yisrael not sinned,<BR>it would still have been necessary for them to build
a<BR>temporary mikdash [= mishkan] before they embarked on
that<BR>journey.<BR> Let's attempt to explain why.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Rashi's position may be based upon God's original
plan<BR>that Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land through supernatural,<BR>divine
intervention (see Shmot 23:20-28). Assisted by God's<BR>miracles, Bnei
Yisrael would have needed only a very short<BR>time to complete at least the
first wave of conquest. Had<BR>that actually occurred, there would have
been no need to build<BR>a temporary mishkan, for within a very short time it
would<BR>have been possible to build a permanent mikdash
instead.<BR> However, in the aftermath of chet ha-egel,
the entire<BR>situation changes. As God had removed His Shchina,
Bnei<BR>Yisrael must first bring the Shchina back to the camp before<BR>they can
conquer the Land. Hence, according to Rashi, the<BR>actual process of
building the mishkan could be considered a<BR>form of 'spiritual
rehabilitation'. Furthermore, the mishkan<BR>would now provide Aharon and
Bnei Yisrael with the opportunity<BR>to offer korbanot and thus achieve
atonement for their sin.<BR> One could also suggest that
due to chet ha-egel and the<BR>'lower level' of the 'mal'ach' that will lead
them into the<BR>land (see Shmot 33:1-5 and the TSC shiur on Parshat
Ki-tisa<BR>re: the 13 midot), it may now take much longer for Bnei<BR>Yisrael to
complete their conquest. Therefore, a temporary<BR>mikdash [= mishkan] is
required, until a more permanent<BR>mikdash can be built.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A CONCEPTUAL JUXTAPOSITION<BR> According to this
interpretation, we can now suggest<BR>(according to Rashi) a beautiful thematic
reason for the Torah<BR>placing the commandment to build the mishkan out
of<BR>chronological order:<BR> Even though the mitzva to
build the 'temporary' mishkan<BR>was given after the story of chet ha-egel, the
Torah<BR>intentionally records it earlier - immediately after Ma'amad<BR>Har
Sinai - to emphasize its thematic connection to that<BR>event! In other
words, Rashi, like Ramban, can also<BR>understand that the primary function of
the mikdash was to<BR>perpetuate Ma'amad Har Sinai. In fact, had
Bnei Yisrael not<BR>sinned, the laws of the 'permanent' mikdash may have
been<BR>recorded at this spot in Chumash. However, now that a
mishkan<BR>was needed (due to the events of chet ha-egel), the laws of<BR>this
temporary mikdash are recorded at this point in Chumash,<BR>to emphasize the
very same thematic connection that Ramban<BR>describes in great
detail!<BR> Now that Rashi makes so much sense, why
wouldn't Ramban<BR>agree? To answer this question, we must return to
our<BR>discussion of the differing approaches to 'mukdam
u-me'uchar'.<BR> Ramban prefers his principle that
Chumash follows<BR>chronological order. Despite the similarities between
the<BR>mishkan and the story of chet ha-egel (as listed above), they<BR>are not
convincing enough to warrant, in Ramban's view, a<BR>distortion of the order of
these parshiot. Therefore, Ramban<BR>maintains that even had it not been
for chet ha-egel, there<BR>still would have been a need for a temporary
mishkan.<BR> In fact, one could suggest a very simple
reason for the<BR>immediate need of a temporary sanctuary. As we
explained<BR>earlier, Bnei Yisrael must still receive many more mitzvot<BR>from
God. A mishkan - with the aron and keruvim at its center<BR>- is therefore
necessary as the medium through which God can<BR>convey the remaining mitzvot to
Moshe. Furthermore, once the<BR>Shchina descended upon Har Sinai, some
sort of vehicle is<BR>necessary to 'carry it' with them as they travel from
Har<BR>Sinai towards Eretz Canaan.<BR> [Accordingly, Ramban explains that
most of all the mitzvot<BR> recorded in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar
were actually<BR> given from the ohel mo'ed (mishkan). See Ramban
Vayikra 1:1<BR> & 7:38. In regard to Sefer Devarim, see Ramban
on 24:1 &<BR> 24:12.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In summary, the dispute between Rashi and Ramban
stems<BR>from their different exegetical approaches and pertains only<BR>to why
a temporary mishkan was necessary before leaving Mount<BR>Sinai. However,
both would agree that a permanent mikdash<BR>would have been necessary even had
Bnei Yisrael not sinned at<BR>chet ha-egel, for Bnei Yisrael, being God's
special nation,<BR>require a symbol of His Presence in their
midst.<BR> In our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, we will
analyze the<BR>internal structure of this unit of chapters 25->31 in order
to<BR>uncover additional parallels between the mishkan and the<BR>events of
Ma'amad Har Sinai. Till then,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
shabbat
shalom<BR>
menachem</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN:<BR>A. In the shiur we argue that even according
to Rashi, the<BR>concept of a required mikdash for serving Hashem existed
even<BR>prior to the worship of the golden calf. Along similar
lines,<BR>Rav David Pardo, in his supra-commentary on Rashi entitled,<BR>"Maskil
le-David", writes that even in Rashi's view, the<BR>general command to build a
mishkan was transmitted to Moshe<BR>during his first forty days atop the
mountain. Only the<BR>details of the construction, as presented in
parshiyot Teruma<BR>& Tetzaveh (and the beginning of Ki Tisa), were
transmitted<BR>later. Rav Pardo proves this from the repeated reference
in<BR>parshat Teruma to Hashem's having shown Moshe the appearance<BR>of the
mishkan "on the mountain" (25:40; 26:30; 27:8). In the<BR>final two of
these three references, Hashem employs the past<BR>tense ("you have been
shown"), suggesting that Moshe viewed<BR>the image the mishkan before receiving
these detailed<BR>instructions. Apparently, as Rav Pardo argues, Moshe
learned<BR>of the mishkan - albeit only the generalities - during his<BR>first
forty days on the mountain, even before the calf. Thus,<BR>Rashi clearly
did not view the mishkan as necessary only in<BR>response to the sin of the egel
ha-zahav.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>B. RAMBAN / RASHI - earlier sources<BR> The
argument as to whether Hashem ordered the<BR>construction of the mishkan before
or after the sin of the<BR>golden calf predates Rashi and the Ramban;
conflicting views<BR>appear already in the Midrashim. Rashi's view, that
the<BR>parshiyot appear out of order, is the position of the Midrash<BR>Tanchuma
(Teruma 8, Pekudei 6), Yerushalmi (Shkalim 1:1) and<BR>Midrash Hagadol to Shmot
25:17. The Ramban's opinion is found<BR>in Seder Eliyahu Rabba 17, which
states explicitly that Hashem<BR>ordered the construction of the mishkan after
Bnei Yisrael<BR>declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma'. Ibn Ezra (25:1) adopts
the<BR>Ramban's approach, as do the Abarbanel (31:18) and the
Netziv<BR>(29:20). Despite his general affinity for the
Ramban's<BR>commentary, on this issue Rabbenu Bechayei adopts
Rashi's<BR>approach (25:6)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>C. Mikdash Before Chet Ha-egel: Midrashic
Sources<BR> Several Midrashic passages support our
contention that a<BR>mikdash would have been necessary even had it not been for
the<BR>golden calf. Bemidbar Rabba 12:12 compares the world before<BR>the
mishkan to a chair with two legs, which cannot stand; the<BR>construction of the
mishkan added the third leg, so-to-speak,<BR>which enabled the world to stand
independently. However one<BR>understands the image of the chair, it
clearly points to the<BR>indispensability of the mishkan - regardless of chet
ha-egel.<BR>Similarly, Bemidbar Rabba 13:6 describes that from the time
of<BR>creation, Hashem wished ('kivyachol') to reside on earth.<BR>When the
mishkan was consecrated, Hashem announced that on<BR>that day the world was
created. Once again, we see that the<BR>construction of the mishkan marked
a critical stage in the<BR>history of the world and was necessary since the dawn
of<BR>creation. In the same vein, Bemidbar Rabba 13 writes that<BR>when
Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, Hashem wished to "bring them<BR>into His quarters", and
thus instructed them to build the<BR>mishkan. This Midrash makes no
mention of the incident of the<BR>golden calf as necessitating a mikdash.
A similar passage<BR>appears in the Tanchuma Yashan - Bechukotai
65.<BR> We suggested in the shiur that according to
Rashi, the<BR>Torah presents Parshat Teruma immediately following Matan<BR>Torah
- despite its having occurred later, after the egel - to<BR>emphasize the
thematic relationship between the mishkan and<BR>Matan Torah. Rabbenu
Bechayei (25:6), however, explains that<BR>the Torah rearranged the sequence in
order to demonstrate how<BR>Hashem is "makdim trufa le-maka" (recall that, as
cited<BR>earlier, Rav Kasher reads this explanation into the Midrash<BR>Lekach
Tov). Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim La-Torah) mentions<BR>this explanation
without quoting Rabbenu Bechayei. A<BR>different answer was suggested by
the late Lubavitcher Rebbe<BR>("Be'urim Le-perush Rashi al Ha-Torah" - Shmot
31:18). The<BR>Torah specifically wanted to juxtapose the tzivuy
ha-mishkan<BR>with the end of Parshat Mishpatim - the formal establishment<BR>of
the 'brit' between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem. As the<BR>residence of the
Shchina in the mishkan marked the complete<BR>fulfillment of that brit, it is
only fitting that the parsha<BR>of the mishkan immediately follows that of the
covenant.<BR>(This explanation, too, seems to point to the fact that
the<BR>mishkan is lechatchila even according to Rashi.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>D. SEFORNO<BR> The Seforno takes a
particularly extreme approach to the<BR>concept of the mishkan. Already in
his comments to 19:6, he<BR>notes that as a result of the egel, Bnei Yisrael
forfeited<BR>"all the goodness of the future" promised to them before
Matan<BR>Torah. As we will see in his comments elsewhere, this
refers<BR>to God's direct revelation, which was supplanted by
the<BR>mishkan. In his commentary to the final psukim of Parshat<BR>Yitro
(20:20-22), the Seforno interprets these psukim as<BR>informing Bnei Yisrael
that they have no need to construct a<BR>sanctuary to God. Matan Torah
demonstrated that Hashem would<BR>descend, as it were, and reside among them
even without any<BR>physical mediums. Commenting on 25:9, Seforno writes
that<BR>after the incident of the golden calf Bnei Yisrael were<BR>required to
construct a sanctuary; the direct communication<BR>experienced at Har Sinai
could no longer be maintained.<BR>Seforno expresses his position even clearer in
31:18, where he<BR>describes more fully Bnei Yisrael's spiritual descent as
a<BR>result of the golden calf, as a result of which they did not<BR>achieve the
divine plan initially intended at Matan Torah. In<BR>this passage, he
alludes to an interesting interpretation of<BR>the promise in 19:6 that Bnei
Yisrael would be a 'mamlechet<BR>kohanim' (a kingdom of priests): that they
would have no need<BR>for kohanim to serve as intermediaries. God had
originally<BR>intended for all of Bnei Yisrael to serve God directly
as<BR>kohanim. (Curiously, however, this is not how the
Seforno<BR>explains the term in his commentary to 19:6 -
"ve-tzarich<BR>iyun".) He develops this idea even further in Vayikra
11:2.<BR>There he explains that in response to the golden calf,
Hashem<BR>decreed that He would remove His Shchina entirely from
Bnei<BR>Yisrael. Moshe's intervention succeeded in restoring a
very<BR>limited measure of 'hashra'at ha-Shchina', by which God would<BR>reside
among Bnei Yisrael only through the structure of the<BR>mishkan. (In this
passage, Seforno spells out more clearly<BR>what he meant by "the goodness of
the future" of which he<BR>spoke in his comments to Shmot 19:6 - the direct
presence of<BR>the Shchina, without the need for a physical
representation.)<BR>Later in Sefer Vayikra, in his commentary to the brachot
of<BR>Parshat Bechukotai (26:11-12), Seforno describes the ideal<BR>condition of
God's constant presence among Benei Yisrael<BR>without it being confined to any
specific location and without<BR>requiring any specific actions on Benei
Yisrael's part. In<BR>direct contradistinction to the Ramban, Seforno
there reads<BR>the pasuk in Truma, "Ve-asu li mikdash ve-shachanti
betocham",<BR>as a punishment, confining the presence of the Shchina to
the<BR>mishkan. Seforno's most elaborate development of this
notion<BR>appears in his treatise "Ma'amar Kavanot ha-Torah" (published<BR>as a
separate volume by Rav Yehuda Kuperman in 5754; the<BR>relevant material for our
topic is found primarily in chapter<BR>6 in Rav Kuperman's
edition).<BR> This position of the Seforno, of course,
requires some<BR>explanation in light of the proofs mentioned in the shiur
to<BR>the necessity of a mikdash even prior to the egel. In fact,<BR>the
Seforno himself identifies Yaakov's Bet Elokim (Breishit<BR>28:17) and the
mikdash in the Shirat Ha-yam (Shmot 15:17) as<BR>the beit ha-mikdash. How
could the concept of a mikdash be<BR>discussed before chet ha-egel - if it was
never to have been<BR>necessary?<BR> The Seforno does
not address this question, but in at<BR>least two instances he alludes to what
may be understood as a<BR>moderation of his approach. Commenting on the
pasuk "be-chol<BR>ha-makom asher askir et Shmi avo eilecha" ("every place
where<BR>I will have My Name mentioned I will come to you" - Shmot<BR>20:21),
the Seforno explains, "[Every place] that I will<BR>designate as a meeting place
for My service". He then adds,<BR>"You will not need to draw My providence
to you through<BR>mediums of silver and gold and the like, for I will come
to<BR>you and bless you". Apparently, even according to this<BR>original
plan, there would still be a place designated as a<BR>mikdash of sorts, only
Bnei Yisrael would not need to invest<BR>effort in its lavish and intricate
construction. In Ma'amar<BR>Kavanot ha-Torah, Seforno makes a somewhat
similar comment in<BR>explaining this same pasuk: "In any place that will truly
be<BR>called a Bet Elokim, such as batei midrash and the like - I<BR>will come
to you and bless you." Here, too, he implies that<BR>there would be a
special location - or perhaps several or many<BR>special locations - for avodat
Hashem, only not what we know<BR>as the mishkan or mikdash. However, in
his commentary to<BR>Parshat Bechukotai (Vayikra 26:12), the Seforno
strongly<BR>implies that in the ideal condition Hashem reveals
Himself<BR>anywhere, without any need for an especially designated<BR>location -
've-tzarich iyun'.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>E. RAMBAM - Review Devarim chapter 12. Note the repeated
use<BR>of the phrase "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" and its context.<BR>Pay
special attention to 12:5-12, noting when is the proper<BR>time to build the
mikdash. Relate this phrase to the concept<BR>of a permanent mikdash, as
discussed in the above shiur.<BR>Considering that Sefer Devarim contains the
mitzvot that God<BR>originally gave Moshe at Har Sinai (before chet
ha-egel),<BR>explain why Sefer Devarim makes no mention of the mishkan,
yet<BR>mentions "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" numerous
times.<BR> Although the Rambam did not write a
commentary on<BR>Chumash, we can infer his understanding of certain
psukim<BR>based on his psak halacha in Mishneh
Torah.<BR> The opening Rambam in Hilchot Beit Ha-bechira
(Sefer<BR>Avoda) defines the source of the commandment to build a<BR>mikdash
(see 1:1). Read that Rambam (and, if you have time,<BR>the first five
halachot). What is difficult about the<BR>Rambam's wording in 1:1?
What is the source of our obligation<BR>to build a mikdash? Why, according
to the Rambam, is the<BR>phrase "ve-asu li mikdash" (25:8) insufficient as a
source for<BR>this obligation?<BR> Why does the Rambam
include the criteria, 'ready to offer<BR>upon it korbanot' and 'to celebrate
there three times a year'?<BR>Can you relate these phrases to Shmot 23:14-19 and
this week's<BR>shiur? Why does the Rambam quote the pasuk from Devarim
12:9-<BR>11? Read those psukim carefully!</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>