Othodox Jewish: Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei

From: "Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com"
<Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com>
To: Parasha-Page List <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>, Weekly Torah List
<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Othodox Jewish: Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:40:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

by Rav Alex Israel

PARASHAT VAYAKHEL - PEKUDEI

VANITY MIRRORS

PART 1 - STRUCTURE AND DETAIL OF THE PARASHA

This week we read a double parasha. It describes
the fashioning and crafting of the tabernacle structure
by the "skilled people whose hearts were endowed with
wisdom by the Lord" (36:2). These are the third and
fourth in a series of parshiot which carefully detail the
construction of the tabernacle. The discerning reader
will notice that our parasha describes many of the
vessels of the sanctuary for a second time (e.g. the Ark,
Table, menora are described here in ch.37 - a repeat of
ch.25). We read the account here wondering why this
detail is necessary. Why does the Torah need to go into
this lengthy description a second time?

STRUCTURE IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS

A structural look at the book of Exodus will
accentuate our problem.

25:1-31:11 The command to build the sanctuary
31:12-18 Shabbat
32:1-34:35 The sin of the Golden Calf and the renewal
of the covenant
35:1-3 Shabbat
35:4-40:38 The people construct the sanctuary

Note the command of Shabbat which lies alongside
each account of the tabernacle - both in concept and in
construction. Note, too, how the Shabbat description is
the length of but a few verses, whereas the detailing of
the sanctuary covers 12 entire chapters!

Shabbat gets only a few lines in the Torah. It
never receives detailed treatment, no more than a few
verses at a time are devoted to it, yet its laws are
incredibly complex and massive in their scope. The
Rabbis pictured the Laws of Shabbat as "a mountain
suspended by a thread" (Chagiga 1:8). The "thread" is
the minimal space devoted to Shabbat in the Torah. The
"mountain" is the enormous volume of legal material which
describes the obligations and restrictions of Shabbat.
Why did the Torah choose to present Shabbat in such
minimal terms and to become so verbose when talking about
the sanctuary?

My teacher David Nativ suggests the following
historical answer. The Torah, despite its divine nature,
was not born in a vacuum. Its messages are eternal,
there are lessons for all time, but we must all agree
that the written law was given over, at a particular
point in history to a particular people who lived in a
world with a strong, firmly established way in religious
expression. At the time of the birth of Judaism, all
cultures had temples and all religions were practiced
through sacrifices of one type or another. This is the
religious reality, the cultural background that Judaism
had to contend with.

Judaism arrived and introduced a revolution in many
areas: the dignity of man, human freedom, ethical
monotheism. Judaism introduced many new ideas. For the
Jews, there were laws and regulations to follow, 613
commands which would shape the new way of life that God
was introducing into the world. Certain ideas were
unique to the new religion. Do not mix milk and meat and
Shabbat for example. These could be mentioned in a
sentence. There was no danger that any of the
contemporary culture would pollute these ideas because
only the Jews were practicing them. But if God told them
to build a temple, to bring sacrifices, they would have
simply followed the contemporary pagan way!

So, for the notion of sacrifice, of temple and
sanctuary, God had to spell it all out. To prevent
possible osmosis from other cultures, the infiltration of
alien ideas into the sanctum of the monotheistic mindset,
the Torah had to define these spiritual tools in the most
miniscule detail. A Jewish temple was to be exactly this
way. Nothing was to be left to interpretation.

But as for the Shabbat, there was no danger from the
outside to that institution. However Moses defined it
would become its shape and form. Hence, Shabbat receives
rather brief description. The tabernacle, on the other
hand, is described in deliberate detail to ensure that
its symbolism conforms to the sophisticated ideas of the
Divine plan.

ATONEMENT

This explanation only tells us something about the
detailed descriptions here. Their intricacy and detail
is indeed striking. But what of the repetition of the
entire construction? Could the Torah not have stated;
"And the people acted as the Lord had commanded" or
something of that sort?

The above outline of the structure of Exodus already
introduces us to another concept which might explain the
"repetition" of the construction of the vessels of the
tabernacle that we read in our parasha. Note a clearly
symmetrical structure: tabernacle - Shabbat - Calf -
Shabbat - tabernacle. This is termed a "chiastic
structure" in the academic world. This concentric
structure - commonly found in the Torah - tells us much
about the inter-relationship of the themes within it.

In this case, it would seem that a connection is
being deliberately drawn between the sin of the Golden
Calf and the tabernacle. What might that connection be?

On Yom Kippur the Israelites were forgiven for the
sin of the Golden Calf. That very day they were
commanded, "Make me a sanctuary and I will dwell
amongst them" (25:8) in order to inform the world
that they had received atonement for the sin of the
calf. That is why it is called "the Tent of
Testimony" (38:21), for it testifies to all the world
that God resides in your tabernacle.

God said, "Let the gold of the sanctuary come and
atone for the gold that formed the Calf." There it
states "The people removed their gold rings etc."
(32:3), and the gold was their atonement as it
states, "This is the donation that you shall receive
from them, Gold" (25:3) (Midrash Tanchuma - Teruma).

The tabernacle is a sign that God has forgiven the
Israelites. How so? One might imagine that the plan to
erect a sanctuary - the expression of the covenantal bond
between God and Israel - would have been "postponed
indefinitely" in the wake of the Calf affair. After all,
the Golden calf was a classic act of betrayal. How could
the nation put up a structure denoting God's presence
amongst them so soon after they had rejected him?

It is indeed remarkable that the show did go on.
Moses' intercession on the Israelites' behalf ensured the
Children of Israel were granted a reprieve. One might
imagine that certain scars still lay beneath the surface,
that the relationship would be forever tainted in some
way. The Torah repeats it all, word for word, to
emphasize that the pre-sin and the post-sin relationship
are identical. The repair is absolute, the healing
complete.

Hence, the double description tells an important
tale of forgiveness and return to the covenantal
relationship with God.

PART II - VANITY MIRRORS

Let us, however, move from the general to the
specific. Let us discuss one particular "vessel" of the
tabernacle. We will talk about the washing laver.

But one note of introduction is in order here. A
fundamental principle of the commentaries on these
chapters is that every element of the sanctuary, every
item, each choice of pattern, material, and shape,
embodies a particular message or concept. There is an
entire science of "tabernacle symbolism" - examining the
materials, the method of design, the aesthetics and the
form of each and every part of the tabernacle. (Hirsch
is really the champion of this view: See his commentary
on Teruma or his book "The Commandments as Symbols." The
philosophy that underlies this theory states that the
basic ideas of Judaism are the primary factor that gave
shape to the holy vessels of the tabernacle. Indeed, it
was the craftsman Betzalel and his group of workers (see
35:30-36:3) each endowed with "chokhmat-lev" - wisdom of
the heart - who were able to take the conceptual
blueprint and put it into concrete form.

As we study the parshiot of the tabernacle, it is
useful to stop and focus on certain details which can
frequently give an interesting, novel or inspiring angle
on points of Jewish thought. If the tabernacle is the
physical translation of absolute Jewish ideas, then the
study of the furniture of tabernacle will reap rich
dividends in understanding classic Torah concepts.

This week, we take one example from the tabernacle
and we will show how the difference of approach by
various commentators hides a fundamental difference of
opinion in Jewish philosophy.

THE BASIN

One of the interesting items contained in the
tabernacle was the "kiyor" - the laver or washbasin. The
priests were required to wash their hands and feet before
they performed the "avoda" or "holy service" so this was
a rather essential element of the tabernacle.

The command to create the kiyor is described in last
week's parasha:

Make a laver of copper and a copper stand for it, for
washing; and place it between the Tent of Meeting and
the altar. Put water in it, and let Aaron and his
sons wash their hands and feet from it. When they
enter the Tent of Meeting they shall wash with water,
that they may not die... (30:17-20).

The actual construction of the kiyor is described in
our parasha where we are told in a single sentence:

He made the laver of copper and its copper stand from
the mirrors of the women who gathered at the entrance
to the tent of meeting (38:8).

This description immediately arouses our curiosity.
Why do we need to be informed as to the origin of the raw
materials for the basin? We are never told whose gold
created the menora, or whose wool made the curtains of
the tabernacle. Why are we emphatically informed that
this copper originated with this group of women? Are we
interested if a woman donates her copper mirror or a pair
of earrings or anything else for that matter? And
another question can be asked. Who is this group of
women who congregate at the entrance to the Tent of
Meeting? They are referred to as if they were a
definable group but we don't know a thing about them!

WOMEN OF FAITH

Rashi (38:8) answers both our questions. He tells
us why the materials used for the kiyor are singled out
and this is linked with the identity of these women.

The womenfolk of Israel had mirrors which they used
when they beautified themselves with cosmetics. When
the women offered these mirrors as gifts for the
tabernacle, Moses' immediate reaction was to reject
them as they were made for the "yetzer hara" (the
evil inclination - i.e. for sexual purposes - to make
themselves sexually attractive and endear them to
their husbands.) God told him 'Accept them! - These
are dearer to me than all the other gifts! - because
it was due to these mirrors that these women brought
miryads (tzeva'ot) into the world when they were in
Egypt.

When their husbands were engaged in backbreaking
labor they would go to see their husbands bringing
along food and drink. They would eat together and
then they would hold up the mirrors together and
would see themselves in the mirror. She would tease
him saying - 'I am more good-looking than you' and in
this way they would seduce their husbands ... and had
children ... and these are the mirrors (mar'ot ha-
tzov'ot).

This rather sexual comment by Rashi paints for us
the desperate situation that the Israelites experienced
in Egypt. There was no hope in the future. Husbands
lived in labor camps away from their wives. Bringing
children into the world was an absurdity. Why bring
another slave into the world? And if it happens to be a
boy, he will be flung into the river.

The situation as described here reminds us of the
famous midrash (see Chizkuni on Shemot 2:1) about
Yokheved and Amram - Moses' parents - who separated
rather than bring further children into the world. It
was an act of faith which led them to get back together
and they were rewarded with Moses as their son. Here
too, the men have despaired of the future of their
people. The women still have faith in God. They have
hope. The women visit their husbands in the midst of
their despair, their depression and filth, and they use
the mirrors as part of a process that induced their
husbands to sleep with them. In this way, the Jewish
people was given new life, and "miryads were brought into
the world."

Rashi uses a interesting pun here. The mirrors are
described as "mar'ot ha-tzov'ot." Mar'ot are mirrors,
but the word "tzov'ot" is unclear as to its meaning.
Rashi connects it with the word "tzeva'ot" - miryads.
These were the mirrors which created miryads of Jews - an
entire generation.

BEATIFICATION OR BEAUTIFICATION?

The Ramban disagrees with Rashi's reading. He feels
that it doesn't fit with the second phrase of the pasuk
"asher tzav'u petach ohel mo'ed." Textually, Rashi's
interpretation is difficult. The Ramban comes up with a
new theory based on a comment by the Ibn Ezra.

Women habitually look in the mirror - made of copper
or glass - every morning to put their head-dress into
shape. ... Now, amongst the Israelites were certain
women, dedicated to the service of God, who distanced
themselves from worldly desire. They donated their
mirrors to the tabernacle as they had no further use
for beautification. These women would come each day
to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to pray and to
hear the details of the mitzvot (Ibn Ezra - Perush Ha-
arokh).

According to this explanation of the Ibn Ezra, there
was a group of women who gave away their mirrors! These
were women who decided to dedicate every last fiber of
their being to God. To this end, it would appear that
they paid no attention to their physical appearance and
would not indulge in worrying about the way they looked.
Instead, they occupied themselves solely with Torah and
prayer. These ascetic women disposed of their mirrors as
an expression of their non-worldly aspirations. They
were used - quite appropriately - for the basin of purity
which stood, just like these women, at the entrance to
the Tent of Meeting.

HUMAN DESIRE AND GOD

Clearly, these two readings of a single verse reveal
diametrically opposed approaches to the same issue: the
place of human sexuality and desire in the value system
of Judaism.

Rashi expresses a view which suggests that
sexuality, when used to enhance love between husband and
wife, when utilized to further the Jewish people, is
appropriate. In fact, it is more than appropriate, it is
holy! Moses initially shies away from accepting these
mirrors which are instruments of human desire. God tells
Moses that he has to adopt a wider view. These mirrors
were used for a noble purpose - for the selfsame purpose
that caused God to create human passion in the first
place. These mirrors find their place in the sacred
space of a tabernacle.

The Ibn Ezra proposes that one can find true
holiness when one transcends the human. Sexuality is an
important aspect of human living but there are spiritual
realms which rise above those levels. There is a need
for a separation between the physical and the spiritual.
The two are located in different worlds. For the
ordinary man, human desire can find its place integrated
within a life of holiness. But there are pious saintly
levels which demand that one transcend the passions of
the flesh. Moses went to the top of Mount Sinai and did
not eat or drink for forty days. According to the
midrash (see Rashi Bamidbar 12:1), Moshe separated from
his wife. There is a certain view which sees the
ultimate holiness as beyond the realm of humanity.

Can the human enter the Holy of Holies? Can human
desire be sanctified and elevated, or is there a level of
Godliness that can be reached only by negating one's
humanity? This question is difficult. Maybe there are
different answers for different people. Certainly,
different groups throughout Jewish history have proposed
a whole range of answers.

SHIR HA-SHIRIM - THE SONG OF SONGS

But maybe we might end with a discussion which dates
back to the second century. The Rabbis at the time were
deciding on the canonization of the Tanakh - which books
would be included and which would be rejected. The
question came up of whether to include Shir Ha-shirim
(which we read in just a few weeks time, on Pesach). The
problem with this book was its overt sexual imagery.
Shir Ha-shirim is a passionate love story, understood by
the Rabbis as a metaphor for the turbbut passionate
relationship between Israel and God. Was it an
appropriate work to be included in the Tanakh? The
opponents said that the sexual descriptions could not
find their place in the holy writings. The proponents
replied that there were certain depths of feeling which
could be understood only in terms of sexual passion, that
through human desire we could understand religious
passion and dedication. Through human feelings we could
understand our relationship with God.

Rabbi Akiva said: ... The world would have justified
its existence if only for the day on which Shir Ha-
shirim was given to Israel; for all the other books
(of the Tanakh) are holy but Shir Hashirim is the
Holy of Holies! (Mishna Yadayim 3:5).

Shabbat Shalom.

**********************************************************************