Tetzaveh | The Mikdash and the Midrash

 

 

In this shiur, we will track the approaches of the Midrashic literature on the Book of Shemot’s final section, dealing with the construction of the Mishkan and its vessels. How is this material treated by the Mekhilta, by Midrash Tanchuma (in its various editions) and by Shemot Rabba? What may we learn from it?

 

 

The Mekhilta is a Tannaitic compilation arranged according to the order of the parashiyot of the Book of Shemot. It hails from the beit midrash of Rabbi Yishmael, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva, a few decades after the destruction of the Second Temple. For these sages, the memory of the Temple (Mikdash) was not ancient history, but a recent, palpable reality still attested to by eyewitnesses.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to Parashiyot Teruma, Tetzaveh, Vayakhel and Pekudei, the Mekhilta’s silence is striking. One who flips through its pages senses the terrible void between the end of Massekhta de-Khaspa (the unit addressing the end of Parashat Mishpatim, which deals with various topics of civil law) and Massekhta de-Shabbata on Parashat Ki Tisa and Vayakhel, where the Tannaitic work on the Book of Shemot ends. All of the commandments regarding the Mishkan and its vessels and the execution of those commandments are missing from the book. It is almost possible to feel the pain, the cry.

 

The same Massekhta de-Shabbata includes within it aggadic reflections on the Destruction of the Temple:

 

 

In two places in Massekhta de-Shabbata, the Mekhilta echoes Israel's situation in the wake of the destruction:

 

 

Do the Tannaim read this as a prophecy heralding the redemption that will arrive shortly in their generation under the leadership of Bar Kokhba, in which case the words of the Mekhilta should be read as call for repentance so that the rebellion will succeed? Or perhaps they should be read as a statement made in hindsight to explain the reason for the rebellion's failure?

 

Either way, this statement reflects the loss of Jewish sovereignty and points to the new role of Shabbat in a world without the Temple, as Israel's only day of rest. Earlier, they rested all week. Now, Shabbat constitutes a real refuge from subjugation to foreign governments in the most basic physical sense.[2]

 

 

The Mekhilta and the redaction of the Tanchuma literature are separated by about five hundred years, a period corresponding to the length of time between the European discovery of America and our own time. The historical distance between these works and the reality of the Mikdash is even greater. As mentioned, the editors of the Midrash in the 7^th-8^th centuries had no early model of a Midrashic work on the parashiyot dealing with the Mishkan. They had, however, an extensive Midrashic literature from Eretz Israel: Bereishit Rabba, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, the Midrashim on the five Megillot, Avot de-Rabbi Natan, and others. In addition, they had the aggadic material found in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. What subjects do the editors of these works address or touch upon? What derashot from the Midrashic literature of Chazal do they adopt as the basis for their own works?

 

The following table summarizes the headings of the topics and the derashot appearing in the three works of late Midrash on Parashat Tetzaveh: Midrash Tanchuma (Buber), Midrash Tanchuma (printed), and Shemot Rabba. Through it, we will point out the issues addressed in each work, showing the similarities and differences in content and structure between them:

 

 

 

The table shows that all three works share the same basic framework of the derashot. In each of them, two main verses in the parasha are expounded in different ways: "That they bring to you pure olive oil" (Shemot 27:20) and "And this is the thing that you shall do to them to sanctify them to minister to Me" (ibid. 29:1). Some of the derashot appear in each of the works (e.g., "The wise shall inherit honor"), while other are unique to a particular work. In addition, in Tanchuma (Buber) and in Shemot Rabba there are short derashot on other verses in the parasha: "And you shall make an altar to burn incense" (the former), "And bring you near to you Aharon your brother" and "And you shall set in it settings of stones" (the latter). Like the Mekhilta, the late Midrash does not relate to the main issues in the parasha, namely, the priestly garments and the command regarding the seven days of consecration.

 

The first unit of the Midrash, regarding the continual lamp (ner tamid), focuses on theoretical questions regarding the Temple. The main one addresses the very need for a house for God ("Does He need your light?"). Other issues that arise are the meaning of human actions for the sake of God ("He yearns for your handiwork") and the reason for the command to light the Candelabrum in the Temple with olive oil. The two first questions are conceptual questions connected to the very existence of the Mikdash (or the Mishkan), but not to its function.

 

It is clear from the table that there is considerable correspondence between Tanchuma (Buber) and the printed Tanchuma regarding the content of the derashot, but not the order in which they are brought. The Buber edition of the Tanchuma is generally regarded as the earlier and more original of the two,[3] and indeed it preserves the characteristic structure of the classical Midrashim of Eretz Israel (e.g., Bereishit Rabba) — opening with petichtot that are connected to a certain theme, followed by explanatory exegesis (the explanation of verses in the order in which they appear in the text) or a discussion of some central issue. Two petichtot appear in the table in the column of Tanchuma (Buber) as "Behold you are fair, my love" (Shir Ha-shirim 1:15) and "Your head upon you is like Carmel" (ibid. 7:6), and they are followed by a discussion of fundamental questions connected to the Midrash, as stated above.

 

This Midrashic unit is woven out of derashot from the Midrashic tradition of Eretz Israel across the generations. The table below presents the derashot and their sources. Thus, a picture of the formation of Midrash Tanchuma emerges and crystallizes:

 

 

 

 

A new Midrashic work arranged according to the order of the Book of Shemot was created from earlier Midrashic materials. As we see from the first table, this work serves as a model from which arise various versions and works belonging to the same Midrashic genre, the Tanchuma literature. The materials out of which this unit is composed are for the most part taken from two works from Eretz Israel: Vayikra Rabba and Shir Ha-shirim Rabba. It should further be noted that at the beginning of this Midrashic unit regarding causing a lamp to burn continually there are almost no additions to the early sources which are recombined and placed in new contexts. In contrast, in the second half of the unit there are many statements that have no earlier source. It may be argued that this is the main innovation of the book.

 

 

In the framework of this shiur, we discussed a single unit in Midrash Tanchuma (Buber) on Parashat Tetzaveh, which is a collection of derashot on the ner tamid. However, this phenomenon of drawing upon earlier midrashic sources arises also from an examination of other parts of the Midrash. The study presented here can serve as a model that may be expanded upon in the future.

 

In contrast to the silence of the Mekhilta, the late Midrash addresses the very need for the Temple and its vessels. The life of the Temple, together with all the details of the sacrificial service, is preserved in the Mishna and the two Talmuds. May the day speedily arrive when this practice will emerge from the pages of these books and once again become part of our reality.

 

 

(Translated by David Strauss)