Dynamism and Stability

Transcription

1 Dynamism and Stability R. Yaakov Bieler Parashat Teruma In Nechama Leibowitz ZaTzaL worksheet for Parashat Teruma 5726 (see ) 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 1 Even Parashat Ki Tisa, to the extent that it is about the Tablets that were placed inside the Aron, contains at least some similar elements common to the other Parshiot. 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 3 Iyunim Ketzarim BePeshuta Shel Parashat HaShavua, Mitoch Gilyanot Shabbat BeShabbato , Zomet, Alon Shevut, 5766, pp

2 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 Ark, situated at the center of the Holy of Holies: Ibid., 26:33 And you shall hang up the veil under the clasps, that you may bring there within the veil the Aron HaEidut (Ark of the Testimony) 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. 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.

3 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 Mt. Sinai when the Divine Presence of the God of Israel was there (BaMidbar 10 which describes the arrangement of the tribes when the people would travel from place to place is also believed to be the arrangement when the entourage encamped. The 5 For a fuller discussion of this latter point, see my essay Listening to the Mitzvot Mishpatim 5769, fn. 6.

4 Levi im and Kohanim took places within the square formed by the other tribes, with the Mishkan itself in the center. A similar arrangement could be imagined when the people were at Sinai were one to take a bird s eyeview, i.e., looking down from on high, one would see the Shechina in the center on the mountain, some of the Kohanim upon the mountain midway, and the rest of the people at the foot of Sinai) 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

5 Said R. Avdimi demin Chaifa: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the scholars 6 Said Ameimar: A scholar is superior to a prophet. 7 8 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, 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 proactively 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, Jerusalem, 5722, pp

6 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. 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.