The
Significance of the Laws Governing the Design of the Mishcan
As all I show you concerning the structure of the Mishcan and the
structure of all of its utensils so you should do. (Shemot 25:9)
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sfrono explains that the command to
build a Mishcan was not given until
after the worship of the Egel HaZahav – the
Golden Calf. Prior to this sin there
was no institution for centralized worship.[1] It is for this reason that the incident of the Egel is inserted in the middle of the
account of the construction of the Tabernacle.[2] Rashi agrees with this opinion. He explains that the Torah’s
account of the commandment to construct the Mishcan and the section
describing the incident of the Egel are not a chronological presentation
of events. The command of the
Tabernacle was given only after the sin of the Egel.[3]
Many commentators disagree with Sforno and
Rashi. Nachmanides is among this group.[4] They maintain that these sections of the Torah are in
chronological order. They argue that
the commandment to build the Mishcan
was given at Sinai prior to the incident of the Egel HaZahav. The
commentators agree that the Torah is not a chronological history. However, they contend that there is a
specific reason for every departure from the chronological presentation. In other words, the Torah does present
events in chronological order unless there is some specific reason to deviate
from this order.[5] On this basis, the position of Nachmanides is
understandable. The command to
construct the Mishcan is presented
prior to the event of the Egel. He argues that there is no reason to assume that this order is not
chronologically correct.
In addition to Nachmanides’ objection, Sforno and
Rashi’s position presents a problem.
According to Rashi and Sforno, the command of the Mishcan followed the sin of the Egel. This implies that the sin somehow occasioned
the command to build the Tabernacle.
This is difficult to understand.
Was not the Tabernacle a blessing?
Why should the people be rewarded for the sin of the Egel with the command to build a
Tabernacle?
There are two important aspects of the
Tabernacle. First, it is part of a
detailed system of law. These laws
define the exact manner in which we serve Hashem. Halacha dictates every
aspect of the sacrifices. The
appearance and clothing of the kohanim
offering the sacrifices are described by the laws. Every element of the construction of the Mishcan is determined by halacha. Halacha
leaves little opportunity for the intrusion of personal interpretation into
divine worship. Why does the Torah
impose this detailed system of law upon the worshipper?
Maimonides indicates that the Torah is concerned
with the possible intrusion of pagan worship into divine service. In order to prevent such perversions, the
individual is prohibited from devising the mode of worship. We must follow the prescription of the
Torah. Adherence to the sacred laws of
divine service assures that no pagan influences enter into our worship.[6]
The second aspect of the Tabernacle is that its
construction and structure reflected a profound system of wisdom. The Mishcan
was not only physically
beautiful—it also possessed an intellectual grandeur. The laws combined into a system of awesome wisdom. The halachah
not only dictates every aspect of the Tabernacle’s design and construction, but
its structure also symbolically expresses various theological, scientific and
philosophical ideas. [7] The worshipper, in contemplating the structure of the Tabernacle,
was inspired by its wisdom. The desire
to serve Hashem resulted in a profound transformation in the worshipper. The worshipper was transported from the
mundane to a spiritual universe of ideas.
Nachmanides maintains that the essential element of the
Mishcan is the abstract system of
wisdom represented through the structure.
In the Torah, divine worship is not merely a subjective expression of
the need to appeal to and form a relationship with a higher power. Instead, through worship, the Torah seeks to
foster an objective relationship with Hashem.
This relationship is based upon wisdom and truth. The objective of elevating our relationship
with Hashem is fundamental to the Torah.
Therefore, Nachmanides maintains that the command to build a Mishcan was part of the Torah revealed
to Moshe at Sinai. It was not a
reaction to the Egel.
Sforno and Rashi recognize that the laws of worship
are a profound system of wisdom. This is true for the laws regulating every mitzvah. However, they maintain that the essential element of the Mishcan is the super-determination of
every aspect of worship. The halachah
is designed to prevent the intrusion of any pagan element. This objective became essential only after
the Egel HaZahav. Therefore, Sforno and Rashi argue that the
command to build the Tabernacle was given after
the sin.
The Poles Cannot Be Removed from
the Aron
The poles should be in the rings of the Ark. They should not be removed.
(Shemot 25:15)
A ring was attached to each corner of the Ark. Poles were passed through these rings. These poles were used to carry the Aron – the Ark. The Torah commands us that the poles must
remain in the rings at all times. Even
when the Mishcan is erected and the Aron is at rest the poles are to remain
attached.
The poles were designed for the transport of the
Ark. When the Aron was to be moved, the poles were needed. However, when the Ark was at rest, the poles
did not have any apparent function. Why
should they not be removed at such times?
Gershonides discusses this issue. He explains that the Ark represented the
Torah. The Torah is perfect. Therefore, the Ark must always be perfect. With the removal of the poles, the Ark would
no longer be complete. An incomplete Aron is unfit to represent the Torah.[8]
Gershonides’ explanation seems difficult to
understand. In order for an object to
be perfect, it must be complete.
However, perfection also requires that the object have no extra, or
meaningless, components. Imagine the
perfect machine. Every part would serve a purpose; no needed component would be
absent. No component would lack
purpose.
When the Ark was at rest the poles had no
purpose. They were extra, or unneeded,
components. It seems the Aron would
have better represented the perfection of the Torah without this superfluous
component!
Gershonides is providing us with an important
insight into the nature of the Aron. The Ark was constructed in the wilderness
and was transported as the nation traveled.
Therefore, the Aron was
constructed so that it could be carried.
However, this design was not merely a practical necessity. The portability of the Ark was essential to
its very definition. In other words,
the Ark was defined as a “portable” item.
The Aron could only be
considered perfect when it expressed this definition. Even at rest the Ark was required to conform to this
definition. It must remain completely portable. For this reason, the Aron of the permanent Bait
HaMikdash remained unchanged in design.
The poles were part of the design and could not be removed.
Perhaps, this provides a message regarding the
perfection of the Torah. This
perfection, in part, lies in the portability of Torah. Torah is a way of life that applies to all
times and places. Even when Bnai Yisrael are dispersed throughout the world,
Torah is still to be the guide.
Hashem’s Presence in the Mishcan
And they should create for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell among
them. (Shemot 25:8)
In this pasuk
Hashem instructs Moshe to command Bnai Yisrael to construct the Mishcan. Hashem tells Bnai Yisrael that through this Mishcan, He will dwell among the people. This passage cannot be understood literally. In order to understand the difficulty
presented by a literal interpretation of the pasuk, an introduction is needed.
Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishne,
enumerates the basic foundations of the Torah.
The third of these basic principles is that Hashem is not, in any sense,
material.[9]
Maimonides discusses this principle in further
detail in his Mishne Torah. He again
explains that Hashem is not material.
He adds that it is also inappropriate to attribute to Hashem any of the
characteristics associated with physical bodies. For example, Hashem does not have a front or back. One cannot ascribe physical actions to
Hashem. Also, one cannot describe
Hashem as occupying physical space in any material sense.[10]
This principle, identified by Maimonides, is a
logical extension of the proposition that Hashem is a unity. The Torah clearly states that “Hashem is
one”.[11] This statement tells us that there is only one G-d. However, our Sages understand the passage to
also mean that Hashem is a perfect unity.
This means that He has no parts or aspects. He is not subject to division.
He is an absolute representation of “oneness.”[12] The principle of Hashem’s unity precludes attribution of a
material existence to Him. Any material
entity has parts, or aspects. It has a
front, sides, and a back, i.e., dimensions.
These characteristics contradict the concept of absolute unity.
Furthermore, the Torah clearly states that Hashem is
not material. This principle is
communicated in Moshe’s review of the Revelation. He reminds the nation that they had experienced Revelation at
Sinai. In this
experience, Hashem was not represented by any
material image.[13]
We can now understand the difficulty presented by
our passage. If our passage is
interpreted literally, it contradicts this principle. Literally understood, our passage attributes a location to
Hashem, stating that Hashem will dwell among Bnai Yisrael! This is impossible. Hashem is not material. Therefore, it is not correct to say He dwells in any place.
Unkelus is sensitive to this anthropomorphism. In his translation of our passage, he alters
the problematic phrase. In his
rendering, the phrase reads, “And I will cause the divine presence to dwell
among them.” Unkelus’ intention is to
remove any attribution of place to Hashem.
According to Unkelus, the passage refers to Hashem’s divine presence or
influence. In other words, the passage
describes a providential relationship without ascribing physical movement or
locality to Hashem. In this rendition, Hashem calls upon “the divine presence”
to dwell among Bnai Yisrael. Hashem will exercise His providence over the Mishcan and the people.
Rav Yosef Albo, in his Sefer HaIkkrim, uses the same
approach to explain various anthropomorphic expressions found in the
Torah. A few examples will illustrate
this approach. Hashem tells us, in
reference to the Temple, “My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually”.[14] Hashem does not have eyes or a heart. The intent of the passage is to communicate that a special
providential influence exists over the Mikdash.[15] The Torah states that at Revelation, “the appearance of the glory
of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain”.[16] This passage does not intend to communicate that Hashem was
physically present at Revelation. This
would attribute a place to Hashem.
Instead, the passage is stating that the influence of Hashem was
evidenced through a physical manifestation.
In this case, the manifestation was the conflagration that appeared at
the top of Sinai.[17] It should be noted that the pasuk
refers to the “glory” of Hashem. This
supports this interpretation. Hashem
was not present. However, His “glory”,
or influence, was indicated by the fire.
One anthropomorphic expression has occasioned
considerable discussion among the Sages.
One of the names used for Hashem is HaMakom
– the Place.[18] This is popularly understood to mean that the divine presence
extends everywhere. However, our Sages
provide a different explanation of the term.
They explain that the term means that Hashem is the makom – the place – of the universe.[19]
This explanation is very difficult to
understand. How can the Sages refer to
Hashem as “the place” of the universe?
Hashem is not material. He is
not a place! Rav Yitzchak Arama offers
a novel interpretation of the Sages’ comments.
He explains that the term “place” can be understood as the base upon
which something rests or is supported.
As an example, he cites the second mishne of Tractate Avot. The mishne
explains that the world stands on three pillars: Torah study, divine service,
and acts of kindness. The intent of the
mishne is that these three activities are essential to the existence of the
world. The mishne expresses this idea
by representing the world as standing upon these activities. In other words, standing in a place (i.e., upon the pillars of Torah
study, Divine service, and acts of kindness) represents dependency. Rav Arama explains that the name HaMakom communicates the universe’s
dependency upon Hashem. He is the
“place” upon which the universe stands.
This means the universe only exists as a result of His continuing
will. His will supports the universe’s
existence. Without His will, the
universe would cease to exist.[20]
And they should create for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell among
them. (Shemot 25:8)
Our parasha
discusses the construction of the Mishcan. The Mishcan
was the portable sanctuary that accompanied Bnai Yisrael in the
wilderness. Once Bnai Yisrael entered
and conquered the Land of Israel, this Mishcan—Tabernacle—was
replaced by a permanent structure. This
structure was the Bait HaMikdash—the
Sacred Temple—constructed by King Shlomo.
Our passage contains the specific command to
construct the Mishcan. However, Maimonides indicates in his Sefer
HaMitzvot that this passage is also the source for the commandment to build the
Bait HaMikdash. This suggests an obvious problem. The passage is not discussing the Bait HaMikdash. It is specifically commanding the
construction of the Mishcan. How can Maimonides contend that this passage is the source for the
obligation to build the Bait HaMikdash?[21]
Minchat Chinuch offers an answer to this
question. He suggests that our pasuk legislates the requirement to
establish a sanctuary. This institution
does not have a specific form. Instead,
the structure of the sanctuary is flexible.
This commandment includes the Mishcan
constructed in the wilderness and the Bait
HaMikdash constructed by Shlomo.[22] How are these different structures included in one mitzvah? Minchat Chinuch maintains that sometimes it is appropriate for
this sanctuary to be a portable structure.
At other times, a permanent structure is more fitting. The environment in which the sanctuary will
be placed determines its specific form.
When Bnai Yisrael were traveling in the wilderness, the nation was not
permanently situated, and so it was appropriate for the sanctuary to travel
with the camp. Once Bnai Yisrael
settled in the Land of Israel, the nation was permanently situated. At this point, a permanent structure became appropriate.
This answers our question on Maimonides. In fact, our pasuk is not legislating the construction of the Mishcan or the Bait HaMikdash. It is
commanding Bnai Yisrael to create an institution of “sanctuary.” The surrounding “camp” will determine the
exact form to be assumed by this sanctuary.
In the wilderness, this camp was mobile because the nation was traveling
to the Land of Israel. Therefore, the sanctuary described in our parasha was a portable Mishcan. When the surrounding camp is
the nation that settled in the Land of Israel, the sanctuary must be a
permanent structure—the Bait HaMikdash. Our pasuk requires a sanctuary. The Bait
HaMikdash is a variation of this sanctuary.
This is a reasonable explanation for the derivation
of the requirement to build the Bait HaMikdash from our passage. However, it does present one
difficulty. Maimonides seems to
indicate that the commandment to construct a sanctuary does not include the
creation of the Mishcan. In describing the commandment to create a
sanctuary, Maimonides quotes the Midrash Sifri. The midrash enumerates three commandments that came into effect
when Bnai Yisrael entered the Land of Israel: to appoint a king, to build a Mikdash, and to destroy Amalek. It seems that Maimonides is asserting that
the commandment to construct the Mikdash—a
sanctuary—is comparable to the other two commandments mentioned by the
Sifri. These other two commandments did
not apply in the wilderness. Similarly,
it appears that the commandment to build a Mikdash
did not apply in the wilderness.
Instead, the commandment first became operative with Bnai Yisrael’s
conquest of the Land of Israel.
According to this analysis of Maimonides’ comments,
the creation of a Mishcan is not
included in the commandment to create a Mikdash. However, this is problematical. The commandment to create a Mikdash is derived from our
passage. Our pasuk is clearly referring to the Mishcan. How is it possible
that the pasuk commanding us to
create a Mikdash is a passage
referring to the Mishcan – yet the Mishcan is not included in this mitzvah?
It must be noted that Maimonides’ position on the
status of the Mishcan is not
completely clear. As we have indicated
in Sefer HaMitzvot, Maimonides seems to exclude the Mishcan from the commandment to create a sanctuary. However, his comments in the Mishne Torah
are somewhat ambiguous. There, after
describing the commandment to create a sanctuary, he immediately describes the Mishcan.[23] Maimonides does not explicitly state that the construction of the
Mishcan is included in the commandment.
However, his discussion of the mitzvah
to build a sanctuary is
immediately followed by his a description of the mishcan. This suggests
that it is somehow included in this commandment. In short, the two treatments seem to be contradictory. No mention of the Mishcan is made in
the Sefer HaMitzvot. But in his Mishne
Torah, Maimonides seems to include the Mishcan within the mitzvah
to build a sanctuary.
Gershonides offers an interesting but enigmatic
explanation of the relationship between the Mishcan and the Bait
HaMikdah. He suggests that the Mishcan was a preparatory
institution. The nation was to create a
sanctuary in the Land of Israel. They
would serve Hashem in this Bait HaMikdash. The Mishcan
provided an opportunity to prepare for this duty. The Mishcan was a
practice facility for the activities to be performed in the Mikdash.
Gershonides explains that our passage refers to both
the Mishcan and the Bait HaMikdash. However, the fundamental aspect of the
commandment is to build the Bait HaMikdash. The Mishcan
was merely a preparatory step towards this ultimate goal.[24] Perhaps, this is also Maimonides’ position as well.
There are a number of problems with Geshonides’
contention that the Mishcan was
merely a preparatory institution. First,
the Torah strictly regulates the services performed in the Bait HaMikdash. Each
sacrifice and service must be performed precisely as described by the
Torah. Deviations result in serious
consequences and punishments. Of
course, the same requirements apply to the performance of these services in the
Mishcan. The objective of this practice is to perform a specified activity
exactly as will ultimately be
required. If the objective of the Mishcan is to create an opportunity to
practice these services, the practice services should emulate the actual
service that will be performed in the Bait
HaMikdash. However, it is
remarkable that deviations that occurred in the Mishcan were treated as seriously as those occurring in the Bait HaMikdash. They resulted in the same consequences and
punishments as those occurring in the Bait
HaMikdash! We would expect
deviations in a practice service to
result in lesser consequences and punishments.
Second, the completion of the Mishcan was followed by an initiation period. The purpose of this initiation was to train
the Kohanim and Leveyim in the services they would perform in the Mishcan. It seems strange that the Torah required a practice, or training
process, for service in the Mishcan. The Mishcan
was only a preparatory institution. It
seems the Torah required training for a practice activity. This seems somewhat redundant!
The first step required to address these problems is
to recognize that they suggest Gershonides does not completely disagree with
Minchat Chinuch. He agrees with the
fundamental premise that the Torah commanded the creation of a sanctuary. This sanctuary takes different forms. In the wilderness, the concept of sanctuary
was expressed in the Mishcan. In the Land of Israel, the Bait HaMikdash embodied the concept of
sanctuary. Therefore, service in the Mishcan was treated as seriously as
service in the Bait HaMikdash.
If this is the case, what is Gershonides’ meaning in
his contention that the Mishcan was a
practice facility? Gershonides is
providing an insight regarding the reason for including the Mishcan in the commandment to create a
sanctuary. On this issue, he differs
dramatically from Minchat Chinuch. In
order to identify their disagreement, let us focus on a specific aspect of Minchat
Chinuch’s position.
Minchat Chinuch assumes that the Mishcan and the Bait HaMikdash are of equal significance. They are two equally valid expressions of a single institution—a
sanctuary. Gershonides disagrees,
maintaining that the Bait HaMikdash is the ultimate expression of the
institution of sanctuary. However, this
does not mean that the Mishcan’s sanctity was inferior to that of the Bait
HaMikdash. Instead, Gershonides is
asserting that the Mishcan is modeled after, and is a prelude to, the Bait
HaMikdash. In other words, were
there no requirement to create a Bait HaMikdash, there could not be a Mishcan. Gershonides does not intend to imply that
the service performed in the Mishcan was merely “practice.” Instead, he is explaining the relationship
between the two versions of a sanctuary. The Mishcan was modeled after
the Bait HaMikdash and was its prelude.
We can now fully understand Maimonides’
position. Maimonides maintains that the
essential definition of the mitzvah
described in our pasuk is to create a
Bait HaMikdash. This is the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah. However, this commandment engenders an additional
obligation. This is the obligation to
create a Mishcan in the
wilderness. In Sefer HaMitzvot,
Maimonides defines the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah. He explains that
the essential element of the commandment only applies once the Land of Israel
is conquered. Maimonides appreciates
that our passage includes the Mishcan. However, he maintains that the obligation to
create the Mishcan was engendered by
the requirement of Bait HaMikdash.
We can now also resolve the apparent contradiction
between Sefer HaMitzvot and the Mishne Torah.
In Sefer HaMitzvot, Maimonides defines the essential component of the
commandment. This is to build a Bait HaMikdash. However, in Mishne Torah, Maimonides
acknowledges that this fundamental requirement engendered the obligation to
create the Mishcan in the wilderness.
[1] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 25:9.
[2] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 31:18.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 31:18.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 25:1.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 7:2.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh Nevuchim, Volume 3, Chapter 32.
[7] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Sehmot, pp. 243 -254.
[8] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon
(Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on
Sefer Shemot, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994),
p 342.
[9] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanhedrin 10:1.
[10] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah, 1:11.
[11] Sefer Devarim 6:4.
[12] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah, 1:7.
[13] Sefer Devarim 4:15. See Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanhedrin 10:1.
[14] Melachim I 9:3.
[15] Rav Yosef Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, volume2, chapter 14.
[16] Sefer Shemot 24:17.
[17] Rav Yosef Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, volume2, chapter 17.
[18] See, for example, Mesechet Avot 2:9.
[19] Midrash Rabba, Sefer Beresheit 68:9.
[20] Rav Yitzchak Arama, Akeydat Yitzchak on Sefer Shemot, Parshat Terumah.
[21] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 2.
[22] Rav Yosef Babad, Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 95, note 1.
[23] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bait HaBeChirah 1:1.
[24] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot, (Mosad HaRav Kook), pp. 339-340.