[Par-reg] For Parshat Teruma
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Feb 19 06:54:05 EST 2015
*********************************************
****************
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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20150219/2ee38136/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: truma1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20150219/2ee38136/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list