Dynamism and
Stability
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parashat Teruma
In Nechama Leibowitz’ ZaTzaL
worksheet for Parashat Teruma 5726 (see http://www.nechama.org.il/guidance/860.html
) she notes that the Parshiot towards the end of Sefer Shemot,
i.e., Teruma, Tetzaveh, VaYakhel and Pekudei,[1]
are approached by the classical commentators in one of two ways:
a)
Commentators
like RaShI and RaShBaM confine themselves to discussing the
physical structure of the Tabernacle and the implements within it, their shape,
size, construction, materials employed.
b)
Others
such as Alshich, Abravanel, R. Yitzchak Arama R. S.R. Hirsch and MaLBIM
discuss the symbolism and the allegorical connotations that are suggested by
these various objects.
Nechama
notes that each of these orientations is flawed. On the one hand, solely
discussing physical characteristics can prove to be dry and unengaging,[2]
particularly for those who view Tora study as an opportunity for analysis and
the drawing of inferences dealing with major spiritual matters. However, the
alternative that emphasizes homiletical interpretation often entails the
commentator taking some preconceived notion and imposing it upon the text
relatively indiscriminately, also a less than satisfying option. Consequently,
according to Nechama’s point of view, it is more intellectually honest and
evocative to base insights on the words of the text itself, rather than on what
one thinks they may symbolize.
An excellent example of such a
perspective appears in the second of R. Amnon Bazak’s three essays on Parashat
Teruma in his concise volume Nekudat Peticha.[3]
He notes that there appears to be a counterpoint between two themes with regard
to the Tabernacle. Of the four coverings for the structure that the biblical
text describes, the term “Mishkan” (permanent dwelling) appears to be
contrasted with “Ohel” (lit. tent; temporary dwelling):
Shemot 26:1
And
the “Mishkan” you will make—ten curtains of fine twisted linen,
and blue and purple and scarlet. With Cherubs of artistic work you will make
them.
Ibid.,
. 7
And
you will make curtains of goat hair to be a covering for an “Ohel” over the “Mishkan,”
eleven curtains you will make.
Ibid.,
14
And
you will make a covering for the “Ohel,” of ram skins dyed red,
and a covering about the Tachash[4]
skins.
RaShI notes the differentiation between
the two words in terms of the coverings:
RaShI on Shemot 35:11
The
bottom curtains that could be seen from within are called “Mishkan.”
Ibid.,
on 26:12
…The
curtains of the “Ohel” they are the outer ones made of goat hair…
The two
terms in question become more sharply drawn when modifiers are added to each:
Shemot
38:21
These
are the accounts of the Mishkan HaEidut (the Tabernacle of
the Testimony.)
Ibid.,
27:21
In
the “Ohel Moed” (the tent of meeting) outside the veil
which is in front of the Testimony…
And
a similar duality is present in the description of features of the
Ibid., 26:33
And you shall hang up the veil under the clasps, that
you may bring there within the veil the “Aron HaEidut” (
Ibid., 25:22
“VeNo’adeti” (lit., and I will
make Myself Known (after the Sinai experience has been completed); the
same root as the word “Moed” [meeting]) to you there and I will Speak
with you from above the covering, from between the two Cherubim that are atop
the “Aron HaEidut,” all that I will Command you to convey
to the Children of Israel.
Of
course, once a pattern is established, it then requires interpretation. R.
Bazak suggests that the “Mishkan/Ohel” duality reflects the experience
of the Jews vis-à-vis the Divine Revelation of the desert, i.e., on the one
hand the experience at Sinai that resulted in both the first and second Tablets
containing the Ten Commandments is basic and constitutes the fundamental
testimony of the Giving of the Tora by God to the Jewish people. However, this
did not mean that the Revelation was completed at Sinai. Subsequent occurrences
of God’s Transmitting to Moshe various Halachot as the Jews travelled
throughout the desert, a more peripatetic form of Revelation is symbolized by
the special meetings between God and man wherever the Tabernacle happened to be
pitched. While R. Bazak specifically mentions four examples of instances when
Moshe has to receive clarifications regarding Tora law—the Mekallel (blasphemer)
(VaYikra 24:10 ff.), Pesach Sheini (an opportunity to bring the Pesach
sacrifice a month later in the event that someone was unable to do so because
of duress during Nissan) (BaMidbar 9:6 ff.), the Mekosheish
Eitzim (the wood gatherer who violated Shabbat) (BaMidbar
15:32 ff.) and Benot Tzelophchad (the situation where an individual had
only daughters and therefore their inheriting his portion in the land of Israel
was in question) (BaMidbar 27:1 ff.)—it is possible that many more Halachot
were revealed to Moshe in the Tent of Meeting during the course of the
wanderings in the desert, if one accepts R. Akiva’s view of what transpired during
the Revelations to Moshe subsequent to Sinai (see Chagiga 6b; Sota
37b.)[5]
Expanding R. Bazak’s concept, one thinks
of RaMBaN in his introductions to both VaYikra and BaMidbar
who comments upon parallels between Sinai (Mishkan) and the subsequent
encampments of the Jews in the desert (Ohel), e.g:
RaMBaN, Introduction to VaYikra:
…And He Commanded that the Kohanim
that approach (the Mishkan) need to sanctify themselves and avoid
imparting ritual impurity to the Tabernacle and its sacrifices (VaYikra
5:2) (this parallels the three days of preparation that the Jews underwent
prior to the receiving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, referred to in Shemot
19:11, 15) and also that they should not break through to rise up to HaShem,
as it is said, (Ibid. 16:2) “Speak to Aharon your brother and he cannot come at
all times to the Holy Place, within the veil to the top of the cover that is on
the Ark and he will not die, because in a cloud I will appear on the cover, like
the warning, (Shemot 19:21) “Lest they break through to HaShem to
see and many of them will die.” And afterwards he sets boundaries around
the Mishkan like the boundaries of
Another parallel to the Mishkan/Ohel
split might be the intriguing passage in the Talmud describing a visionary encounter between Moshe and R. Akiva:
Menachot 29b
Said R.Yehuda in the name of Rav: At
the time when Moshe ascended to the Heavens, he found the Holy One, Blessed Be
He, Sitting and attaching “crowns” (extra lines extending upwards from some of
the letters of the Hebrew alphabet used in the Tora) to the letters. He said
before Him: Master of the Universe, who is “forcing” Your Hand to do this? He
Said to him: There is a man who will live in the future after several
generations and Avkiva ben Yosef is his name, who in the future will derive
from every extra line bundles and bundles of laws. He said before Him: Show him
to me! He Said to him: Turn around. He went and sat at the end of the eighth
row (in R. Akiva’s Beit Midrash.) He did not understand what they were
discussing. He felt faint (due to humiliation and hopelessness—how could the
receiver of the Tora on Sinai not understand a class based upon that very Tora?)
When he (R. Akiva) reached a certain matter, his students said to him: Rabbi,
from where do you derive this? He said to them: This is a law that was handed
down to Moshe from Sinai. His (Moshe’s) mind was put to rest.
R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein in his commentary Tora
Temima on Shemot 24:12 (connected to Berachot 5a,) explains
that while Moshe was given the basic texts and materials on Sinai, over time
applications and even new insights would be developed using the hermeneutic
principles as well as logic and originality, and that was what R. Akiva was
teaching his students. In effect, R. Akiva extended by means of the “Ohel”
concept beyond the “Mishkan” that had been established by Moshe. Such a
thought contributes a new dimension to a Talmudic statement describing the
transfer of “prophecy” from one group to another:
Bava Batra 12a
Said R. Avdimi demin Chaifa:
From the day that the
Consequently, not only is Moshe the “Mishkan”
and R. Akiva the “Ohel,” but there might be something about the latter
type of Halachic development that in a certain way even surpasses the
former.
However,
R. Bazak’s interpretation of these two seminal concepts is not the only way
that we can think about what the biblical verses describing the Tabernacle are
suggesting via their distinction between Mishkan and Ohel. R.
Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook in his commentary on the Siddur, Olat
RAYA”H,[9]
discusses the issue with regard to the most well-known of Bilaam’s attempted
curses directed at the Jewish people at Balak’s bequest.
BaMidbar 24:5
How goodly are “Ohalecha” (your
tents) Yaakov, “U’Mishkenotecha” (and your Mishkan’s) Yisrael.
R. Kook suggests that the Ohel
represents man’s constant striving to grow religiously and spiritually. He does
not remain in a single place, but rather engages in a dynamic process that
draws him ever upwards. The ongoing acquisition of wisdom and knowledge allows
him to reach higher and higher in his quest to seek out God and come as close
to Him as possible, in the spirit of (Tehillim 105:4) “Seek HaShem and
His Power, look for His Face constantly.” Yet R. Kook is also quick to note
that at times one has to take a respite from the strains and exertions of the
quest, to seek a Mishkan in order to consolidate what has been achieved
and gather himself for the next series of spiritual initiatives, avoiding
thereby the possibility of slipping back and obliterating what has been
achieved after so much effort. When an individual overreaches before he is
adequately prepared or appropriately settled, not only will his efforts not be
rewarded, but he is susceptible to grave errors and even personal harm. Perhaps
this is one aspect of the notable story in Chagiga 14b, where of the
four colleagues who engaged in the study of mystical matters having to do with
the Nature of God, only R. Akiva emerged unscathed, the others suffering death,
madness and heresy. Consequently, the religious experience according to R. Kook
consists of the modalities of Mishkan and Ohel representing
periods of positive growth balanced by calm and reflection.
While
the people’s experiences with first the Tabernacle and then the Temples could
have involved the sensibilities of growth and retrenchment that R. Kook
describes, when the terminologies in Bilaam’s statement are understood by R.
Yochanan in Sanhedrin 105b as referring to synagogues[10] and houses of study, i.e,.
the renegade prophet wished to curse these structures intrinsic to Jewish life
and spirituality, but God miraculously Made him utter their praises
guaranteeing their continual service to the Jewish people,[11] an additional dimension of meaning
reveals itself. For some people what they desire to experience in schul and
school/Beit Midrash is constant change and evolution, an Ohel
mentality. They wish to be stimulated, to be exposed to new experiences, to
learn things that they have never before encountered. There are others,
however, particularly those whose personal lives are tumultuous, who crave a
steady, constant experience which can anchor the rest of their lives, a Mishkan.
Even in learning, they might prefer to engage in Chazara (review) rather
than to study matters that they never previously encountered. Furthermore, both
of these orientations towards religious ritual and study, might alternatively affect
a single individual, depending upon where s/he is in life and what is going on currently.
It is an interesting challenge to try to make our synagogues and houses of
study sufficiently variegated so that a variety of expectations and preferences
are available for the different types of Jews who populate them.
Finally,
perhaps the Ohel/Mishkan tension is reflected in the ideology of Modern
Orthodoxy. We must acknowledge our heritage, where we have come from, our Mishkan
foundation, even while being prepared for new developments and environments
wherever we may be required to pitch our respective Ohelot.
[1] Even Parashat
Ki
[2] This past Shabbat I met someone who was an art major and who stressed that visualizing the Tabernacle and its contents was her favorite part of the Tora! Another support for Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences—see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
[3] Iyunim Ketzarim BePeshuta Shel Parashat HaShavua, Mitoch Gilyanot “Shabbat BeShabbato” 5763-5, Zomet, Alon Shevut, 5766, pp. 86-7.
[4] An animal that is only mentioned in the context of using its skin for a covering of the Mishkan, leading some to contend that it was created exclusively for this purpose and then was not seen again. The identity of the animal has never been established with certainty.
[5] For a fuller discussion of this latter point, see my essay “Listening to the Mitzvot”—Mishpatim 5769, fn. 6. http://kmsynagogue.org/Mishpatim5769.htm
[6] Bava Batra 12b attributes to R. Yochanan the comment that prophecy was in fact given to children and people who are mentally challenged. This raises the interesting question about what sort of relationship is there between scholars on the one hand, and children and the mentally challenged on the other.
[7] This is typically explained in terms of whereas the prophet is essentially passive in terms of discovering God’s Message, and is faced with only the challenge to properly disseminate it, the scholar has to pro-actively discern the message in the first place.
[8] The well-known passage in Bava Metzia 59b wherein R. Yehoshua resists all sorts of supernatural demonstrations including a Divine Voice that ostensibly support R. Eliezer, and declares (Devarim 30:12) “Lo BaShamayim Hi” (lit. it is not in Heaven), i.e., a prophet has not greater influence than any other scholar once the Tora was given at Sinai, and therefore either the majority agree or disagree with R. Eliezer regardless of any other indications, still does not necessarily reflect the superiority of scholarship over prophecy, but rather an establishment of a methodology by which to reach closure about an Halachic matter. Similarly, despite the fact that Beit Shamai was outvoted virtually every time by Beit Hillel, that did not stop the Zohar from commenting that in the eschatological future the Halacha will be in accord with Beit Shamai since they were smarter and more correct.
[9] Seder
Tefilla Im Peirush Olat RAYAH, Vol. 1, Mossad HaRav Kook,
[10] Megilla 29a refers to a synagogue as a Mikdash Me’at (a mini-Temple.)
[11] In Sanhedrin 105b, R. Aba bar Kahana states that all of Bilaam’s blessings eventually turned into curses with one exception, his blessing of shuls and schools, based upon Devarim 23:6. Evidently, God Knows that without these institutions, the Jewish people would never be able to survive.