Shiur #23b: The History of the Resting of the Shekhina(Part XII) - The Mishkan ֠Le-Khatchila or Be-di'eved (Part IIB)
Mikdash
Yeshivat Har
Etzion
Shiur #23b: The History
of the Resting of the Shekhina
(Part
XII)
The Mishkan
Le-Khatchila or Be-di'eved (Part IIB)
Rav Yitzchak
Levi
II. WHY
WAS THE COMMAND REGARDING THE MISHKAN WRITTEN BEFORE THE SIN OF THE
GOLDEN CALF?
According to the view that the command regarding the building of the
Mishkan was only issued after the sin of the golden calf, a question
arises: Why does the Torah record that command before the account of the
sin?
One might suggest that
the order in which events are recorded in the Torah is not chronological and
factual, but rather spiritual, conceptual and educational. This order emphasizes
what we saw earlier; even according to Rashi, God's rested His Shekhina
in the Mishkan le-khatchila, independent of the sin of the golden
calf. Moreover, through this sequence, the command regarding the Mishkan
is preceded by the revelation at Mount Sinai, the connection between it and
the Mishkan having been noted in one of the earlier lectures, and it is
followed by the sin of the golden calf, which profoundly impacted on the
Mishkan's final character.
A question remains: How
does the Seforno who maintains that the sin involving the golden calf not only
impacted on the command regarding the Mishkan but is in fact the reason
for the command explain the fact that the command regarding the Mishkan
is recorded before the sin of the golden calf? To answer this question, let
us look at the commentary of Rabbenu Bachya:
The fact that gold is
mentioned here at the beginning of [the list] of offerings is to allude that the
sin of the calf that was made of gold was already pardoned. For this reason,
Scripture mentions it before all the other offerings
And for this reason Moshe
was commanded here about the offerings for the Mishkan, this command
being given on the day after Yom Kippur, even though that sin was prior to [the
command regarding] the building of the Mishkan, for the sin was in Tamuz
and [the command regarding] the building of the Mishkan was shortly after
Yom Kippur. Nevertheless the Torah, all of whose paths are pleasantness and all
of whose ways are peace, wished to record [the command regarding] the
building of the Mishkan, which is the atonement, before it
mentions the sin. For this is an attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He, to
give the remedy before the blow. As Chazal said (Megila 13b):
The Holy One, blessed be He, first creates a remedy for Israel and then He
strikes at them. As it is stated: "When I would have healed Israel, then the
iniquity of Efrayim was uncovered" (Hoshea 7:1). In order to
allude that they had already been totally pardoned, it therefore mentions the
word "gold" at the beginning of [the list of] offerings, to teach you that
through that with which they had sinned, they became reconciled. And
similarly it says: "They make the king glad with their wickedness" (ibid. v. 3).
(Rabbenu Bachya, commentary to Shemot 25:6)
In other words, owing to His great kindness, God had already established
the Mishkan as a remedy for the sin involving the golden calf, even
though in actual fact the sin preceded the command regarding the
Mishkan.
III. THE
PARALLELS BETWEEN THE MISHKAN AND THE GOLDEN
CALF
I wish to expand a little more on one aspect of the impact of the sin of
the golden calf on the character of the Mishkan. First, however, we must
take note of another point, namely, the clear literary parallelism between the
two phenomena.
There are many parallels between the building of the Mishkan and
the incident involving the golden calf.[1]
Both are based on contributions made by Israel, Aharon plays a major role in
both, and the process is similar in both cases. The people say to Aharon, "Make
for us gods" (Shemot 32:1), and God commands, "Let them make for Me a
sanctuary" (Shemot 25:8); a contribution is collected for the sake of the
project (ibid. 32:2-3; 35:4-36:7); and in the end the project is completed the
golden calf (ibid. 32:4) and the Mishkan (ibid. vv. 37-39) and
dedicated with a great celebration (ibid. 32:5-6; Vayikra 8-9;
Bamidbar 7).
In addition to the substantive parallels, there are also many literary
parallels:
1)
The incident involving the golden calf opens with "The people gathered
themselves together to Aharon" (Shemot 32:1), and the account of the
building of the Mishkan begins with "And Moshe gathered all the
congregation of the children of Israel together" (ibid.
35:1).
2)
In both contributions we find the term "hava'a," bringing: In the
case of the golden calf "And Aharon said to them, Break off the golden
earrings
and bring them to me
and they brought them to Aharon" (32:2-3); and
in the case of the Mishkan, the term repeats itself 14 times in chapters
35-36.
3)
The contributions for the golden calf are brought by "all the
people" (32:3), and the contributions for the Mishkan are brought by
"all of a willing heart" (35:5, 22), "every man whose heart
stirred him up, and every man whose spirit made him willing" (ibid. 21),
"every man" (ibid. 22-23), "every man with whom was found" (ibid.
24), and the like.
4)
Among both contributions, mention is made of golden earrings (32:2-3;
35:22).[2]
5)
Aharon takes the gold from the people (32:4), and the artisans of
the Mishkan take the offerings from Moshe
(36:3).
6)
The term "asiya," making, is used in connection with the golden
calf "Make for us gods
And he made it a molten calf." (32:1,4). This
parallels the often repeated use of the root asa in the commands
regarding the building of the Mishkan and in its
execution.
7)
When the calf is completed, it says: "And Aharon saw" (32:5), and when
the Mishkan is completed, it says: "And Moshe saw all the work"
(39:43).
8)
Both at the dedication of the golden calf and at the dedication of the
Mishkan mention is made of sounds (32:6, 17-18; Vayikra
9:24).
9)
The people declare about the golden calf: "These are your gods, O Israel,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt (Shemot 32:4), and the purpose
of the Mishkan is: "And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who
brought them out of the land of Egypt" (29:46).
10) The calf
itself parallels the keruvim. In the chariot described by Yechezel, the
keruv is an ox (see Yechezkel 1:10; 10:14), and a calf is a young
ox: "They made a calf in Chorev, and worshipped a molten image. Thus they
exchanged their glory for an ox that eats grass!" (Tehilim
106:19-20).
Of course, even against
the background of this parallelism, the disagreement regarding the time of the
command remains in place. Those who maintain that we invoke here the principle
that "there is no chronological order to the events in the Torah" will argue
that the parallelism supports their view, according to which the command
regarding the Mishkan came after the sin of the golden calf and as a
repair of that sin. Those of the opposing opinion will say that the parallel
accounts are part of the idea that the remedy came before the blow. While the
command regarding the Mishkan was in fact issued before the sin, the
building of the Mishkan takes into account the sin involving the calf, as
is reflected in the changes discussed earlier.
The significance of this
parallelism will be discussed at the end of the next
section.
IV. THE
MISHKAN: AVOIDANCE OF ANY CONCRETE REPRESENTATION OF GOD OR A TANGIBLE
EXPRESSION OF THE PRESENCE OF THE SHEKHINA?
Rabbi Yehuda Halevi understands the sin involving the golden calf as
follows:
All nations were given
to idolatry at that time. Even had they been philosophers, discoursing on the
unity and government of God, they would have been unable to dispense with
images, and would have taught the masses that a divine influence hovered over
this image, which was distinguished by some miraculous
feature
The Israelites had been
promised that something visible would descend on them from God which they could
follow, as they followed the pillars of cloud and fire when they departed from
Egypt. This they pointed out, and turned to it, praising it, and worshipping God
in its presence
Now when the people had
heard the proclamation of the Ten Commandments, and Moses had ascended the mount
in order to receive the inscribed tables which he was to bring down to them, and
then make an ark which was to be the point towards which they should direct
their gaze during their devotions, they waited for his return
He, however,
tarried forty days
An evil spirit overpowered a portion of the people, and they
began to divide into parties and factions
Till at last some decided to do like
the other nations, and seek an object in which they could have faith, without,
however, prejudicing the supremacy of Him who had brought them out of Egypt. On
the contrary, this was to be something to which they could point when relating
the wonders of God
Their sin consisted in
the manufacture of an image of a forbidden thing, and in attributing divine
power to a creation of their own, something chosen by themselves without the
guidance of God
This sin was not on a
par with an entire lapse from all obedience to Him who had led them out of
Egypt, as only one of His commands was violated by them. God had forbidden
images, and in spite of this they made one. (Kuzari I,
97)
According to this, the sin of the golden calf was not idol worship, but
rather the violation of the prohibition to represent God in a concrete manner:
"You shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall you make for
yourselves gods of gold" (Shemot 20:19, see commentaries ad
loc.).
Furthermore, as was already alluded, it was not by chance that Israel
made a calf. An examination of the prophecies of Yechezkel mentioned above shows
that the keruvim-oxen that the prophet saw in his vision are the chariot
of the Shekhina, which carry God, as it were, from place to place. When
Moshe was late in descending from the mountain, the people of Israel who had
seen the lofty vision of the throne of the glory of God that rested on the
keruvim (see Shemot 24:10, and Ramban, ad loc.) decided to
represent God with a calf-keruv.[3]
How does the Mishkan relate to this problem? It would seem that
there are two contradictory tendencies.
On the one hand, the Mishkan represents the resting of the
Shekhina in this world in the most tangible way: God's sanctuary in this
world is built in the form of a house.[4]
Like a house, the Mishkan is surrounded by a courtyard; and like the
courtyards in ancient times, which served for the preparation of food for the
members of the household, in this courtyard there stands an altar, whose
function is the offering of "My offering, the provision of My sacrifices made by
fire" (Bamidbar 28:2). The Mishkan once again like a house has
an outer chamber and an inner chamber. In the outer chamber there is a table and
a lamp, familiar to us as common household utensils[5]
from another house the house built by the Shunamite woman for Elisha, as she
says to her husband: "Let us make a little upper chamber, I pray you, with
walls; and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a chair, and a
lamp" (II Melakhim 4:10) (see Seforno to Shemot 25:23).
Where in the Mishkan
do we find a chair, the seat of God who dwells therein? The chair is the ark
of the covenant, with the keruvim that rest upon it, which are likened to
the royal seat of "the Lord of hosts who sits on the keruvim" (I
Shmuel 4:4, and elsewhere), and which is situated in the inner chamber of
His house, the Holy of Holies.[6]
But here we come to the
other side of the coin. It is true that the Holy of Holies like pagan temples
has a royal throne; but as opposed to those temples, it contains no tangible
representation of the God that rests upon it! What this means is that the
Mishkan and its vessels symbolize God's house in the most concrete way,
but there is nothing in this house that personifies in any way His actual
presence.
The clearest expression of this tension in the Mishkan between
representing God in a concrete manner and abstention from doing so is, of
course, the keruvim themselves. Although there is no tangible
representation of God in the Mishkan, God nevertheless commands that on
top of the kapporet, which is on top of the ark, there be placed two
keruvim modeled after the keruvim of the Divine chariot. Abravanel
formulates the difficulty as follows (at the beginning of Parashat
Teruma):
Regarding the
keruvim that God commanded to make on the kapporet - it would
appear that one would violate thereby the prohibition of "You shall not make for
yourself any carved idol or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or
that is in the earth beneath" (Shemot 20:3). How, then, did He command
them to make that which is forbidden to them?
Abravanel answers that the objective of the keruvim is for the
sake of heaven - not to serve as intermediaries between us and God, but rather
to symbolize the eternal connection between Israel and their Father in heaven
and to allow for the resting of the Divine bounty. Hence, the prohibition of
"You shall not make for yourself any carved idol" does not
apply.
The Chizkuni
(Shemot 25:18) explains:
Even though it says,
"You shall not make for yourself any carved idol, or any likeness of any thing,"
here it permits the image of keruvim, for they are not made for bowing
down to, but rather for His seat, similar to the keruvim of the throne of
glory (Yeshayahu 6:1-2). We find many things like this in the Torah. As
it is written: "Whosoever does work on it shall be put to death" (Shemot
35:2), and it permits doing the daily offering, the additional offering,
[and] circumcision; the prohibition of one's brother's wife and levirate
marriage; "You shall not make a garment of diverse kinds
You shall make you
fringes" (Devarim 22:11-12).
The keruvim "are not made for bowing down to, but rather for His
seat." Furthermore, there are other instances in which the Torah forbids one
thing and permits something else similar to it, in the sense of "the mouth that
forbids is the mouth that permits." The Chizkuni's suggestion is based on the
following midrash:
"And you shall make two
keruvim" (Shemot 25:18). But surely He said to you and commanded
you at the revelation at Mount Sinai, "You shall not make for yourself any
carved idol, or any likeness"? There is no difficulty: For yourself, you shall
not make, but for Me, you shall make. Similar to this: "Everyone that profanes
it shall surely be put to death" (ibid. 31:14), and elsewhere it says: "And on
the Sabbath day two lambs" (Bamidbar 28:9). And similar to this: "The
nakedness of your brother's wife, etc." (Vayikra 18:16), and later it
says: "Her husband's brother shall go in to her" (Devarim 25:5).
(Midrash Aggada, ed. Buber, Shemot 25:18)
The midrash is based on the same principle that He who forbids
something can also permit it in a specific context but it also adds an
explanation of the allowance in the case under discussion. God commanded that
the keruvim be made for Him, and not that Israel make them for
themselves.
Rav Kasher proposes
other explanations of the difference:
In the name of Rabbi
Natan: The Torah only forbids [the likeness of anything] "that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth." And the likeness of the keruvim is not in the heaven or in the
earth, for they consisted solely of faces and wings.
But I, Rabbi Yosef, say
that the keruvim are permitted, because it is written: "You shall not
make for yourself" in a place where you can see [it], but the keruvim
were concealed from the eye, for they rested in a place where nobody enters,
except for the High Priest once a year.
I also heard that it is
only forbidden to make them in order to serve them, for if you do not say this,
how did Shlomo make the lions? (Torah Shelema, Shemot 20:4, notes
to no. 135)
I have expanded here upon the problem regarding the keruvim and
the various resolutions of the problem because it is a striking example of the
problem that exists with respect to the entire Mishkan,[7]
and it emphasizes the tension that exists between the concrete representation of
God and abstention from such representation.
One way of understanding this tension is to see in it a fusion of the two
understandings of the Mishkan: Understanding it as the ideal structure
for the resting of the Shekhina, on the one hand, and as a way of dealing
with the incident of the golden calf, on the other.[8]
This fusion combines a symbolic expression of the resting of the Shekhina
through a building and vessels thus filling Israel's need for a tangible
expression of God (as we find in the midrash cited at the beginning of
this lecture) with a distancing from any concrete representation of
God.
Before concluding, let us return to the issue of the parallelism between
the incident of the golden calf and the building of the Mishkan. It seems
to me that this parallelism follows from the relationship between the sin of the
golden calf as a sin of personifying God and the complex attitude of the
Mishkan to this sin. It emphasizes the fact that the Mishkan comes
to repair the sin of the golden calf. On the one hand, the parallelism
highlights the contrast between the golden calf and the Mishkan, while on
the other hand, it emphasizes God's acquiescence to Israel's strong desire to
express their closeness to Him through tangible means, which found expression in
the sin of the golden calf.
SUMMARY
In this lecture, I focused on the spiritual significance of the position
that the command regarding the Mishkan was issued after the incident
involving the golden calf: testimony that God dwells among Israel even after the
sin, God's desire once again to draw Israel near to Him, or God's consideration
for man's need for a tangible means of service.
The Seforno presents a far-reaching view, according to which the
Mishkan as a whole both the structure itself and the mode of service
therein involved a significant constriction of the resting of God's
Shekhina in the world, which was a direct consequence of the sin. As for
Rashi, in contrast, we saw that the chronological delaying of the command
regarding the Mishkan until after the sin does not necessitate that we
accept the view that the Mishkan itself is be-di'eved. Rather, it
means to point to the connection between the Mishkan and the revelation
at Mount Sinai that preceded it, on the one hand, and to demonstrate the impact
of the sin upon the nature of the Mishkan, on the other. I proposed
various answers to the question of why the Torah recorded the command regarding
the Mishkan before the sin according to those who maintain that in
reality the events took place in the reverse order.
In conclusion, we noted the parallelism between the building of the
Mishkan and the incident involving the golden calf and its significance
in light of the Mishkan's complex attitude toward the problem of the
concrete representation of God, which underlies this sin.
In the next lecture, I will discuss other expressions of the question of
whether the Mishkan was le-khatchila or be-di'eved, and
propose another perspective on the fundamental disagreement on this
issue.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] This was discussed by
Rav A. Hakohen in the article mentioned in the first part of this lecture, note
6; A. Horowitz, "Ha-Egel Ve-Ha-Mishkan," Shenaton Le-Mikra U-Le-Cheker
Ha-Mizrach Ha-Kadum (5643-44), pp. 51-59, gathered all the parallels brought
here.
[2] The last parallels were
noted by Chazal in Shekalim 1:1: "Rabbi Yehuda bar Pazi said in
the name of Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi:
For good, 'As many as were willing of heart,
and brought [bracelets and earrings]' (35:22); for bad, 'And all the people
broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, [and brought them to
Aharon]' (32:3)." And similarly in Midrash Aggada to Parashat
Teruma (Shemot 26:7): "This is what Scripture states: 'I am black,
but comely' (Shir Ha-shirim 1:5)
I am black because of the gold that I
gave for the calf, as it says: 'And all the people broke off the golden
earrings;' and I am comely because of the gold that I gave for the Mishkan
of testimony, as it says: 'As many as were willing of heart, and brought
bracelets and earrings.'"
[3] Owing to space
constrictions, I have merely alluded to this important manner. For an expanded
discussion of this issue, see Rav Amnon Bazak, "Yesodotav Ha-Ra'ayoniyim shel
Chet Ha-Egel," http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/9-parsha/29kitisa.rtf
[4] More precisely: A tent
which is appropriate for wandering through the wilderness.
[5] As is well known, the
command regarding the golden altar appears at the end of the main part of the
command regarding the Mishkan (Shemot 30:1-10), separate from the
commands regarding the other vessels. This altar has a special status, and it is
not part of the basic structure of the house and "its furniture." Many have
dealt with the unique status of the incense altar. See, for example, Rav
Elchanan Samet, "Mizbe'ach Ha-Ketoret Mekomo Ba-Mishkan U-Mekomo
Ba-Parasha," in his book: Iyunim Be-Parashat Ha-Shavua (Jerusalem
5762), pp. 237-251.
[6] In lecture no. 8, we
saw the words of Rav Shlomo Fisher (Bet Yishai Derashot, II, p.
327) that "just as the ark represents a chair, it also represents a
bed."
[7] The discussion is found
specifically with respect to the keruvim because they are made of gold
and because, according to Chazal in various places, they had human faces
(see, for example, Yoma 54a, Sukka 5b, Chagiga
13b).
[8] Similar to the Rambam's
understanding (Moreh Nevukhim, III, chapters 32, 46) of the world of
sacrifices as a way of dealing with idolatry.