********************************************************************** THE TANACH STUDY CENTER/ In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag [http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/tanach/] Shiurim on Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ********************************************************************** PARSHAT TRUMAH The Mishkan receives a disproportionate amount of 'press coverage' in Sefer Shmot. Four and a half Parshiot explain and repeat its laws and the details of its construction. This week's shiur explains the reason for this 'favoritism' by analyzing the overall structure of the second half of Sefer Shmot. THE CENTRALITY OF THE MISHKAN In last week's shiur we examined the overall structure of Parshiot Yitro and Mishpatim, and showed how those chapters (19-24) form a distinct unit known as "Ma'amad Har Sinai". >From the beginning of Parshat Trumah until the end of Sefer Shmot, we discern three additional units. The following table clarifies this point. PERAKIM TOPIC ------- ------ A) 19-24 YITRO / MISHPATIM MA'AMAD HAR SINAI (last week's shiur) [24:12/ Moshe ascends to receive Luchot & Mitzvot..] B) 25-31 TRUMAH / T'ZAVEH (+ first part of KiTisah) THE COMMANDMENT to build the MISHKAN [31:12-17 concludes with laws of Shabbat!] C) 32-34 KI-TISAH CHET HA'EGEL & the Second Luchot [35:1-3 Construction begins with laws of Shabbat!] D) 35-40 VA'YAKHEL / P'KUDEI THE CONSTRUCTION of the MISHKAN [concludes with the Shchina returning to Am Yisrael] This table will help us appreciate the centrality of the Mishkan in the second half of Sefer Shmot. But in order to do so, we must first review the SEQUENCE of events that takeS place. At the conclusion of the story of Ma'amad Har Sinai (A), Moshe ascends Har Sinai for forty days to receive the "Luchot, Torah, & Mitzvah" (24:12-18). One would expect that the subsequent 'parshiot' of Mitzvot (B) would contain ALL the mitzvot that Moshe received during those forty days. Instead, the Torah records ONLY the mitzvot relating to the commandment to build the Mishkan! [The only exception being a commandment regarding Shabbat in 31:12-17 / See Further Iyun.] The narrative of Sefer Shmot continues from (A) with the story of Chet Ha'egel (C) and concludes with Moshe ascending Har Sinai for an additional forty days to receive the Second Luchot. Immediately afterward, Moshe gathers the people together to relay to them the mitzvot he received on Har Sinai (D). Again, one would expect ALL the mitzvot conveyed at that time (35:1) to be recorded in the ensuing parshiot. Instead, excluding a few opening psukim regarding Shabbat (35:2-3), only the mitzvot regarding the construction of the Mishkan are recorded! This 'exclusive coverage' of the Mishkan points to its thematic importance in Sefer Shmot. Now, we must uncover its significance. A MORE LOGICAL ORDER Let's summarize: The narrative of "Ma'amad Har Sinai" (A) (chapter 24) continues with the story of "chet ha'egel" (C) in chapter 32, i.e. from (A) to (C)! [I suggest reading from the end of (A) to the beginning of (C) in a continuous manner to verify this point.] In a similar fashion, the unit that describes the commandment to build the Mishkan (B) seems to flow directly into the unit that describes its actual construction (D). Therefore, the order A->C, B->D seems more logical. Nevertheless, the Torah prefers to weave these parshiot together, i.e. A->B->C->D. Why? The reason, one could suggest, is that the 'parshiot' are recorded in the chronological order in which they occurred. Therefore, since Moshe receives the commandment to build the Mishkan when he ascends Har Sinai and receives the "Luchot, Torah, & Mitzvah" (24:12), the Torah records this unit (B) at the conclusion of the story of Ma'amad Har Sinai (A). If this is so, then the Torah should have recorded ALL the mitzvot which God gave Moshe during those forty days before continuing with the "chet ha'egel" narrative. Instead ONLY the mitzvah to build the Mishkan is recorded in this location, while all the other mitzvot are not !Therefore, we must still explain why the Torah chooses to record here ONLY the mitzvot regarding the Mishkan. THE RAMBAN'S SHITA The Ramban, following this reasoning, explains that the commandment to build the Mishkan was actually the FIRST and PRIMARY mitzvah that God gave Moshe during the forty days on Har Sinai. The Mishkan, Ramban explains (see 25:1), serves as a vehicle to PERPETUATE the Sinai experience. Therefore, it is the first mitzvah which God gives Moshe when he ascends Har Sinai. The Ramban's "shita" explains the numerous similarities between the Mishkan and Ma'amad Har Sinai. Although many more exist, we will note just a few examples: 1) Just as God had spoken to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, so too does He continue to speak to them (via Moshe) from the "Ko'desh- haKodashim", through the 'kruvim' atop the 'Aron': "v'no'adti lcha sham, v'dibarti itcha m'al ha'Kaporet m'bein shnei haKruvim asher al Aron Ha'Eidut, et kol asher a'tzaveh ot'cha el Bnei Yisrael" (25:22) 2) The "luchot Ha'eidut" which Moshe will receive (24:12) on Har Sinai, serve as a testimony to Matan Torah and thus, will be kept in the Aron, the focal point of the Mishkan (25:21): "v'el ha'aron ti'tein ha'Eidut asher e'tein ay'lecha" 3) The "anan" created by the Mizbach ha'ktoret symbolizes the "anan" that covered Har Sinai (19:9, 24:15-18). 4),The "aish" on the mizbayach symbolizes the "aish" that descended on Har Sinai (24:17). The laws of the Mizbayach reflect the 'Brit' ceremony that took place at the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:4-5). RASHI'S SHITA Despite the beauty and attraction of Ramban's shita, Rashi, together with other commentators and numerous Midrashim, claims exactly the opposite: that the Commandment to build the Mishkan was given AFTER Chet Ha'egel, i.e. the parshiot are NOT in chronological order! At first, this interpretation seems senseless. Why should the Torah record at this specific point in Chumash the mitzvot which he DID NOT receive at this time, while omitting all the mitzvot which He DID receive at this time! What leads Rashi to this absurd conclusion? Once again, we see the existence of textual and thematic similarities . Just as similarities exist between the Mishkan and "Ma'amad Har Sinai", so do very striking similarities exist between the construction of the 'egel hazahav' and the Mishkan. One example is the manner in which gold was collected from the people, melted down and formed. Because of these similarities, Rashi concludes that God's commandment to build the Mishkan must have been given AFTER, and BECAUSE OF, Chet Ha'egel! [See Rashi on Shmot 31:18, 30:16, 29:1, & Chizkuni 31:2 - highly recommended to see inside.] This dispute between Rashi and the Ramban seems to reflect a fundamental argument with regard to their understanding of the very nature of a Mishkan. Ramban obviously understands the entire concept of a Mishkan as "l'chatchila" [de jure], for it perpetuates Har Sinai. In contrast, Rashi's basic concept of a Mishkan is "b'di'eved" [de facto], i.e. ideally man should be able to relate to God WITHOUT any physical representation. We reach this conclusion by Rashi insisting that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given only after Chet Ha'egel. According to this approach, the Mishkan only becomes necessary as a result of Bnei Yisrael's weak spiritual character. We will show however, that even Rashi's shita CAN AND MUST concur with the Ramban's opinion that the concept of the Mishkan is "l'chatchila". FUNDAMENTAL OR EXEGETICAL? The Ramban's shita explaining the Mishkan as a perpetuation of Har Sinai must be correct. Practically half of chumash - the last half of sefer Shmot, most of Vayikra, and significant sections of Sefer Bamidbar and Dvarim - deal extensively with the details of the Mishkan and Korbanot. Is it thinkable that so many Mitzvot were simply an afterthought due to Chet Ha'egel? On the other hand, Rashi's shita seems quite logical. After all, the striking similarities between the Mishkan and Chet Ha'egel cannot be overlooked. First we will prove that Rashi's shita does not require viewing the concept of Mishkan as b'di'eved. Then we will show how Rashi's shita actually strengthens the Ramban's explanation of the Mishkan as l'chatchila. Afterward we will explain the reason for this "machloket" based on the different exegetical approaches employed by Rashi and Ramban. TEMPLE TERMINOLOGY Until this point we have used the words Mishkan and Mikdash interchangeably. In their general context, they both refer to a Sanctuary dedicated to the worship of God. However, in their more specific usage, the Mishkan refers to a TEMPORARY Sanctuary (Tabernacle, a tent-like structure) whereas the Mikdash (Temple, as built by Shlomo Ha'melech) refers to a more PERMANENT structure. We posit that all commentators must agree that a PERMANENT Sanctuary, THE symbol of Am Yisrael's relationship with God, (call it Mishkan or Mikdash) is "l'chatchila" and a basic theme in Chumash. The dispute between Rashi and Ramban relates only to a more 'technical' issue: the need for Am Yisrael to build a TEMPORARY Sanctuary, i.e. the Mishkan, prior to their conquest of Eretz Yisrael. EARLIER REFERENCES TO THE 'MIKDASH' Parshat Mishpatim provides proof for this assumption: All commentators concur that Parshat Mishpatim was given BEFORE Chet Ha'egel took place. That Parsha (see 23:14-19) includes the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel : "Shalosh p'amim b'shana yay'ra'eh kol zchur'cha et pnei ha'Adon Hashem" (23:17) [Three times a year, you must all come and see God...] Without a Sanctuary of some sort - this mitzvah could not be fulfilled. [See Ramban Hilchot Bet Ha'bchira I:1 !! v'duk] The final pasuk of that 'parsha' proves that a Mikdash is necessary: "Your first fruits, must be brought to the HOUSE OF YOUR GOD" ["Reishit Bikurei admat'cha ta'vi BEIT HASHEM ELOKECHA"] (23:19) "Bet Elokim" in Parshat Mishpatim must be referring to a Sanctuary! Furthermore, this concept of Beit Elokim is already mentioned by Yaakov Avinu after his dream in Bet-el: "An Yaakov woke up (at Bet El) and said: 'This must be the site of (the future) BET ELOKIM', for it is the gate to the heavens." (Br.28:17) [See also Shirat Hayam- "MIKDASH Hashem kon'nu yodechu" (Shmot 15:17)] Clearly then, even Rashi must agree that the need for a Mikdash has nothing to do with Chet Ha'egel. However, according to Rashi, had it not been for chet ha'egel, there would have been no need to build a temporary Mikdash (=the Mishkan) before conquering the land. Once the people sinned, they were not 'spiritually ready' to conquer the Land. It was necessary to first build a temporary Mishkan, for it would take many years until the would be worthy of building a permanent structure. The Ramban, on the other hand, maintains that even without Chet Ha'egel there would still have been a need to build a temporary Mishkan prior to the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN To better understand this "machloket", let us conjecture what would have happened had Bnei Yisrael not sinned at chet ha'egel. According to Shmot [23:20-33] Hashem was prepared to send a 'Malach' to help them conquer the land. The distance from Har Sinai to Kadesh Barnea was no more than an eleven-day journey (Dvarim 1:2). The first wave of conquest could have been completed in a very short time (a six-day war?). They had survived six weeks in the desert since Yetziat Mitzraim without a Mikdash -- what would be so terrible if they waited another few weeks or months until 'Har Habayit' and Yerushalayim were conquered? A proper permanent structure could have been constructed immediately, and there would have been no need for a temporary Mishkan. [Note that the Mishkan itself took six months to complete -Shmot 40:1] So it could have been according to Rashi. Enter Chet Ha'egel: the spiritual level of Bnei Yisrael plummets and the 'shchinah' leaves the camp. No longer is there a guarantee that Hashem will help fight their battles (see Shmot 33:20-24). Bnei Yisrael are no longer spiritually ready to conquer the land. The conquest could take many years, possibly generations. Therefore, a TEMPORARY Mikdash is required to help rehabilitate Am Yisrael's spiritual character. Nevertheless, the Torah INTENTIONALLY records this 'parsha' BEFORE chet ha'egel, to emphasize the thematic connection between Har Sinai and the Mikdash, in accordance with the fundamental importance of this mitzvah. Now, Rashi's shita seems to be the most logical. Why doesn't the Ramban accept this explanation? "YEISH" OR "EIN" The answer to these two questions lies in the respective exegetical approaches of these two Rishonim. Ramban's approach throughout Chumash is "YEISH mukdam u'muchar b'torah (whether or not the parshiot in the Torah are presented in chronological order)." His basic assumption is that the parshiot of the Torah are written in chronological order. The Ramban makes exceptions to this rule only on the rarest of occasions where there is no other possible explanation. In his opinion, the similarities between the Mishkan and Chet Ha'egel are not strong enough to 'override' his basic assumption that the parshiot need to be in order. Rashi, on the other hand, maintains "EIN mukdam u'muchar b'Torah." His basic assumption is that the location of parshiot of Mitzvot throughout chumash does not necessarily reflect WHEN the Mitzvot were given; rather, they are written in thematic relation to the ongoing story. Thus, according to Rashi, even though the parshiot of the Mishkan in Trumah - Tzaveh were actually given to Moshe AFTER Chet Ha'egel during the second set of forty days, the Torah places them immediately after Ma'amad Har Sinai to emphasize that the Mikdash is a perpetuation of Sinai. Therefore, Rashi and the Ramban are in total agreement as to the fundamental importance of the Mikdash as well as to the thematic connection between Har Sinai and the Mishkan. Their disagreement arises from a dispute in their exegetical approach, i.e. the degree to which Chet Ha'egel affected the construction of the temporary Mikdash - the Mishkan. Iy"h, next week we will continue our discussion and show how the internal structure of Parshiot Trumah and Tzaveh supports our explanation of the fundamental importance of the Mishkan in Chumash. -------------------------- FOR FURTHER IYUN: A. Note Chazal's understanding of the intrinsic connection between M'lechet Shabbat and M'lechet HaMishkan. See Shabbat perek shvii. 1. Explain this definition of the 39 melachot of shabbat based on the table presented in the beginning of the shiur, i.e. the short mention of Shabbat immediately after the Commandment and immediately before the Mishkan's construction: note 31:12-17 and 35:1-3 2. Relate your answer to "et shabtotei tishmoru u'mikdashei ti'rau"! Vyk.26:2]