The Mishcan Communicates
that Bnai Yisrael Were Forgiven for the Sin of the Egel
And these are the
accounts of the Mishcan – the Tabernacle of the Testimony – that were
calculated by Moshe. It was the service
of the Leveyim under the authority of Itamar the son of Aharon the Kohen. (Shemot 38:21)
This pasuk
introduces Parshat Pekudey The parasha provides an account of the
materials donated for the Mishcan and
a description of the manner in which these materials were used in the
fabrication of the Mishcan, its utensils, and the garments of the kohanim.
The pasuk
refers to the Mishcan as the
Tabernacle of the Testimony. The simple
meaning of this term is that the Mishcan
housed the Luchot – the Tablets of
the Decalogue. These Luchot provided testimony. They evidenced the authenticity of the Torah
and the relationship between Hashem and His nation.
Rashi, based on Midrash Rabbah, offers another
suggestion regarding the testimony identified with the Mishcan. He explains that
the Tabernacle indicated that Hashem had forgiven Bnai Yisrael for the sin of
the Egel HaZahav – the Golden Calf.
Upon the completion of the Mishcan,
the Divine Presence descended upon the Tabernacle. This indicated that the
relationship with Hashem was re-established.
The midrash’s position regarding the testimony
provided by the Mishcan creates an interesting difficulty. The end of the pasuk explains that the service in the Mishcan was entrusted to the Leveyim
and Kohanim. This was not Hashem’s original
intention. Initially, service was
entrusted to the Firstborn. However,
the Firstborn involved themselves in the sin of the Egel. In contrast, the Leveyim and Kohanim withstood temptation and opposed the Egel. As a consequence, the
responsibility for service in the Mishcan
was transferred from the first-born to the Leveyim
and Kohanim. The end of the pasuk acknowledges this change from the original plan.
According to the midrash’s position regarding the
testimony provided by the Mishcan, the pasuk communicates a confusing message. The first part of the pasuk
indicates that the Mishcan testified
to Hashem’s forgiveness. The second
part of the pasuk seems to indicate
the opposite: the service was not restored to the Firstborn. This seems to imply that the sin of the Egel had not been completely forgiven.
Meshech Chachmah offers an interesting answer to
this question. Maimonides explains that a kohen
who practices or endorses idolatry may not serve in the Temple. This law applies even if the kohen repents fully for his sin. Why can the repentant kohen not return to service?
Presumably, Hashem has forgiven him!
The answer seems to be that once the kohen becomes associated
with idolatry, he is permanently unfit for service in the Mishcan. Repentance and
forgiveness can be achieved, but they do not remove this association with
idolatry. In other words, once a kohen
tarnishes himself through associating
with idolatry,
even repentance and forgiveness cannot restore his fitness to serve in the
Temple.
Based on this law, the Meshech Chachmah explains the
message of the pasuk: Bnai Yisrael had indeed been forgiven for
the sin of the Egel. Nonetheless, the Firstborn were no longer
qualified to serve. They were
identified with the idolatry of the Egel. Therefore,
they were permanently disqualified from service in the Mishcan.
The Manufacture of Gold Thread
And they beat the gold
into thin plates and cut them into threads, which they included in the blue,
dark red and crimson wool and fine linen as patterned brocade. (Shemot 39:3)
The garments of the Kohen Gadol contain a number of materials. The basic threads are blue wool, dark red
wool, crimson wool, and fine linen. The
vestments also contain gold threads.
However, the gold threads are interwoven with the other threads. How is this accomplished? Each thread of blue, dark red and crimson
wood and fine linen is composed of seven interwoven strands: six are made up of
the colored wool or fine linen, and the seventh, gold. For example, a thread of blue wool in
composed of seven individual strands woven together to create a single
thread. Six of these strands are blue
wool. The seventh strand is gold. In this manner, gold is included in each of
the threads of the garment.
Our pasuk
describes the process through which these gold threads are created. A quantity of gold is beaten into a thin
plate, or foil. Then, this foil is cut
into fine threads.
The Torah does not provide many details regarding
the manufacturing processes used in creating the Mishcan and the vestments of the kohanim. This lack of
detail is exemplified in the narrative of the silver sockets. The Torah does
not go beyond explaining that the boards supporting the curtains of the Mishcan were inserted into these silver
sockets. There is no discussion of the
process by which these sockets were fabricated.
The only details regarding manufacturing methods
that the Torah does provide are the
means by which these gold threads were fashioned. It is odd that these details should be mentioned. Why does this method of craftsmanship
deserve special attention?
Nachmanides
offers an answer to this question. He
explains that the reason the Torah does not generally describe the means used
to manufacture the Mishcan and its components is because the Torah did
not dictate the specific manufacturing processes. In other words, the
commandments to construct the Mishcan and the garments delineate the
objects which must be manufactured. The
commandments do not dictate the means of manufacture. This aspect of the
project was left to the craftsmen. They
were responsible to determine the best means for manufacturing the
objects. For this reason, the specific manufacturing
processes are not included in the commandment of regarding the construction and
they are not included in the account of the actual process that ensued.
This presented the craftsmen with a dilemma. They understood the description of the Kohen Gadol’s garments. They realized that the individual threads of
the garments must contain a gold strand.
However, they were not familiar with a process through which gold thread
could be manufactured. This challenge
exceeded their experience and their collective store of knowledge. They were required to invent some novel
process for manufacturing these gold strands.
The Torah is describing a manufacturing process that was invented by the
craftsmen of the Mishcan. This process is described in order to
demonstrate the wisdom of these craftsmen who invented a completely new process.[1]
The Curtain in front of the Ark
And you should place
there the Ark of Testimony. And you
should shield the Aron with the curtain.
(Shemot 40:3)
Our pasuk
discusses the Parochet. This was a curtain suspended in the Mishcan, in front of the Aron.
According to our pasuk, the
function of the Parochet was to
shield the Aron.
The Mishcan
was composed of two areas. These two areas were the Kodesh – the Holy – and the Kodesh
HaKadashim – the Holy of the
Holy. The Aron was placed in the Kodesh
HaKadashim. The Parochet separated these two areas. The Chumash, in Parshat Terumah, indicates that the purpose of the Parochet was to separate the Kodesh from the Kodesh HaKadashim.
It seems that the Chumash is offering two different
characterizations of the function of the Parochet. Our parasha indicates that the
function of the Parochet was to shield the Aron. In Parshat Terumah, the Chumash indicates
that the function of the Parochet was to separate the Kodesh from
the Kodesh HaKadashim. How can
we reconcile the two conflicting characterizations?
In reality, these two sources are not
contradictory. The Parochet was essentially a shield in front of the Aron.
The Chumash, in Parshat Terumah, does not contradict this
function. The Chumash is merely requiring
that this shield be extended beyond the dimensions of the Aron, in order to create two areas within the Mishcan. In other words,
the shielding function defines the Parochet. Once the Parochet
meets this essential qualification, it can be extended to create a separation
between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadashim.
There are various laws that support this
understanding of the Parochet. The Talmud, in Tractate Yoma, comments that
the staves of the Aron actually
protruded into the Parochet. One who observed the Parochet from the Kodesh
saw two projections pushing out the curtain.
This strange requirement can be understood based upon our knowledge of
the Parochet. The essential function of the Parochet was to shield the Aron.
In order to demonstrate this function – that the Parochet was a
shield for the Aron – the staves protruded into the Parochet.
This also explains another interesting halachah. The Parochet played a
role in the service associated with certain sacrifices. A portion of the blood of these sacrifices
was sprinkled, by the kohen, in the
direction of the Parochet. This law is expressly stated in the
Chumash. The midrash Torat Kohanim comments that the blood could not be
sprinkled toward any portion of the Parochet. The sprinkling must be directed specifically
towards the portion of the Parochet
into which the staves of the Aron protruded. Why was this portion of the Parochet
special? Based on the above discussion,
this halachah can be appreciated. The
Parochet was, in essence, a shield
for the Aron. Therefore, the essential portion of the Parochet was the portion directly in
front of the staves. The blood was to
be sprinkled on this portion of the Parochet.
This role of the Parochet
is evident in today’s synagogues. It is
customary to hang a curtain in front of the Aron. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l explained that this practice is
based upon the halachah in our pasuk.
We are duplicating the practice in the Mishcan. Our Ark represents
the Aron of the Mishcan. Therefore, our Ark
requires a curtain. It is fitting that
we call this curtain a Parochet.
Moshe’s Service in the Mishcan
And it was that in the
first month of the second year, on the first day of that month the Mishcan was
erected. (Shemot 40:17)
The Mishcan
was completed and brought to Moshe.
Moshe erected the Mishcan on
the first day of Nisan, in the second year of the sojourn in the
wilderness.
This was the eighth day of the inauguration of the Mishcan. On this day, the service in the Mishcan was performed by Moshe together with the kohanim. After this day, all service would be performed by the kohanim alone. Moshe would no
longer serve in the Mishcan.
Moshe was not a kohen. Yet, during the eight days of the
inauguration, Moshe served as a priest. Why was Moshe appointed for this task? The service was assigned to Aharon and his sons. How could Moshe serve in the place of the kohanim?
The commentaries offer various answers to this
question. One of the most interesting
solutions is provided by Gershonides.
He explains that Moshe was selected and qualified to serve on these days
because he was "the father of the priesthood and had given birth to
it".[2] What is Gershonides telling us?
Moshe was not Aharon's father!
He was Aharon's brother. He had
not given birth to the kohanim; they
were not his children!
It is clear that Gershonides' statement is not to be
understood literally. Instead,
Gershonides is explaining an important concept underlying the selection of the kohanim to serve in the Temple. The kohanim
were not chosen simply because they are the descendants of Aharon. Neither was Aharon selected purely on the
basis of his own merit. Aharon was
chosen because he was Moshe's brother.
Similarly, Aharon’s descendants are kohanim
not merely because Aharon is their ancestor.
They are descendants of Moshe's brother. This relationship is essential to their status as priests.
Gershonides is explaining that Moshe is the father
of the institution of priesthood.
Without him, Aharon would not have merited to be selected as Kohen Gadol. Neither would his children be kohanim. This explains the basis of Moshe's
qualification to serve as a kohen. He was the source of the kohanim's sanctity. If the kohanim
served by virtue of their relationship to Moshe, it follows that Moshe could
serve.
Mishcan and Ohel Moed
And Hashem spoke to
Moshe, saying: On the first day of the first month you shall
erect Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting. (Shemot 40:1-2)
In the above passage,
Moshe is commanded to assemble and erect the completed sanctuary. The passage employs two terms in referring
to this sanctuary: Mishcan –
Tabernacle – and Ohel Moed – Tent of
Meeting. What is the difference between
these two terms? Both seem to refer to the single sanctuary! Why are both terms needed?
And Moshe erected the Mishcan, and laid its sockets, and
set up its planks, and put in its bars, and reared up its pillars. And he spread the tent over
the Mishcan, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as Hashem commanded
Moshe. (Shemot 40:18-19)
This pasuk
describes Moshe’s activities in erecting the sanctuary. It is clear from this passage that the Mishcan contains three sets of
coverings, or curtains. The first
series of curtains are spread over the skeletal structure of boards, thus
creating a ceiling, or covering, over the area enclosed by the boards, and over
most of the outer surface of the boards. The result is a box-like structure of
curtains supported by the skeletal boards.
Over these curtains, a second set of curtains is spread, covering the
set of curtains. Our passage refers to
this second set of curtains as a “tent.”
Finally, a third covering is placed over the roof of the second layer,
or “tent”, of curtains. According to
the opinions of some, this covering is composed of two layers. Therefore, three layers of coverings are
suspended over the inner area of the sanctuary. The curtains of the Mishcan
are the inner surface, or ceiling.
Lying atop this ceiling are the curtains of the tent. These curtains are covered by a third
covering of a single (or double) layer.
Each of the layers has its own name. The innermost layer is the Mishcan. The middle layer is referred to as the “tent.” The outer layer is referred to as a
“covering.” What is the significance of
these three terms? All three of the
terms seem applicable to each layer.
For example: the innermost layer is part of the Mishcan. It creates a tent
over the inner area, and it covers this area. The same can be said regarding
the middle and outer layers. Yet, the
Torah never interchanges these names.
The inner layer is always refereed to a Mishcan. The middle is the
tent. The outer layer is the covering.
Rabbahynu Ovadia Sforno deals with this
question. Before we consider his explanation,
some background information is helpful.
The inner curtains are woven.
The design of the weave is intricate.
Shapes of cherubs are interwoven into the fabric. These cherubs are visible on both sides of
the curtains.
Sforno explains that the inner curtains of the
sanctuary are referred to as Mishcan
because they are designed to surround with cherubs the Aron, Shulchan and Menorah – the Ark, Table, and
Candelabra.[3] He further explains that the middle layer of curtains is
described as a tent because its purpose is to create a tent over the inner
curtains. However, the inner curtains
are not referred to as a “tent.” This
is because their purpose is not to serve as a tent. Their purpose is solely to impose the images of the cherubs above
and surrounding the Aron, Shulchan, and Menorah.[4]
In these comments, Sforno is explaining the meaning
of the term Mishcan and tent. Sforno proposes that these two terms have
very different meanings: the term
“tent” refers to a structure designed to create an inner space. It demarks the
inner space, and separates and shields it from its surroundings. The term “Mishcan” refers to walls and a ceiling that are not designed to
create a space, but are instead designed to create a specific appearance, or
environment, within a space.
An analogy will be helpful. Consider a house. A house has outer walls and a roof. Its outer walls and roof are designed to separate the space
within from the outside and to protect this space from the outside
elements. These outer walls may be made
of brick, stone, wood, or some other substance. The roof will be composed of shingles, tile or some other
substance. The substances used for
building these components of the house will be selected to correspond with
their design and function as outer walls and a roof. They will not be composed
of plaster or wood paneling as these materials are not appropriate for the
functions of outer walls or a roof.
However, plaster is
appropriate for the inner walls and ceiling of a house. The inner walls and ceiling are not designed
to protect the space from the outside.
They create the living area within.
Their appearance, form and texture should complement and suit the intended
purpose of this space. In fact, we use
different terms to refer to the overhead surface on the inside of our homes and
the surface on the outside: the outside surface is a roof and the inner surface
is a ceiling. These two terms,
“ceiling” and “roof,” communicate their different functions. Although we do not have different terms to
refer to the inside and outside walls of a house, we distinguish them by their
function and design in the same manner as we do with roofs and ceilings.
Sforno is suggesting that the inner Mishcan curtains are designed to
surround the essential components of the sanctuary with cherubs. The surrounding cherubs provide character to
the environment in which the Aron, Shulchan, and Menorah are placed. The
middle layer of curtains – the tent – is designed to separate and protect the
inner space from the outer area.
In order to fully appreciate the meaning of these
comments, it is important to visualize an outcome of the design of the
sanctuary. The cherub figures were
interwoven throughout the fabric of inner curtains – the Mishcan. However, these figures
are only visible to an observer standing inside the sanctuary and looking
up. The figures woven into the curtains
that hang down to form walls are not visible from the inside or outside of the
sanctuary. On the inside they are
obscured by the boards that hold up the curtains. On the outside they are
completely covered by the tent curtains. It seems odd that the essential
feature of the Mishcan curtains – the
cherubs – are only visible to a person inside looking up!
Sforno is suggesting that although these cherubs are
not readily visible from within or without, they nonetheless are the essential
feature of the environment of the Mishcan. They create an environment of surrounding
cherubs. Their effect – the creation of
this environment – does not depend on their visibility. Their existence as figures woven into the
fabric of the curtains creates the required environment.
Now, we can understand the term used to refer to the
outer curtains. These curtains are
placed atop the roof of the tent. They
are referred to as a covering. The term
“covering” has a very literal meaning in our context. These outer curtains are not designed to create a space or to
create an environment. They serve as a
covering to protect the surface of the middle tent curtains.
Based on Sforno’s comments, we can appreciate the
lack of interchangeability of the terms Mishcan,
“tent,” and “covering.” The inner Mishcan curtains cannot be referred to
as a tent. They are not designed to
create an inner space and separate and protect it from the outer area. Neither are these curtains a covering. The middle curtains are a tent. They do not create the inner environment. They are not a covering. The outermost covering of curtains is not a
tent. Also, they do not create an inner
space and they do not create an environment.
And you shall make the planks for the
Mishcan of acacia wood, upright.
(Shemot 26:15)
As noted above, the Mishcan curtains are supported by a skeletal structure of
planks. Our passage explains that these
planks are placed upright. Each plank is placed immediately adjacent to its
neighbor. In this manner, a continuous
surface is created. The commentaries
explain that the placement of the planks in an upright position is an absolute
requirement. They cannot be positioned
horizontally upon one another.[5] This is an interesting requirement. It would seem that whether placed upright to create a continual
surface or placed horizontally upon one another, the same outcome is achieved. Why must the planks be placed in an upright
position?
According to Sforno, we can understand this
requirement. These planks are not
intended to create an inner wall. The
inner wall of the Mishcan is the
curtains of the Mishcan. The sole function of these planks is to support
the curtains. In other words, the
planks support the curtains; the curtains do not cover and adorn the
planks. The positioning of the planks
communicates their function.
Horizontally-placed planks create the impression of an inner wall. Such an inner wall contradicts the function
of the Mishcan curtains. It is these curtains that create the inner
environment of the Mishcan. The upright position of the planks
contributes to communicating their purpose – the support of the Mishcan curtains.
Now, our original question is easily answered. The terms Mishcan and Ohel Moed
both refer to the sanctuary. However,
these terms refer to different aspects of the structure. Mishcan
is the innermost structure. The
innermost curtains create this structure.
Ohel Moed – tent of meeting –
refers to the middle curtains that create the tent within which the Mishcan is situated.
[1] Rabbahynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 39:3.
[2] Rabbahynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994), p 457.
[3] Rabbahynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 26:1.
[4] Rabbahynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 26:7.
[5] Rabbahynu Shlomo ben
Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 26:15.