An analysis of the various parshiyot dedicated to the construction of the mishkan reveals other anomalies. The degree of repetition and detail reflected in the Torah's account of this project is unparalleled. The fact that the cataclysmic episode of the egel ha-zahav interrupts the various accounts of the mishkan is particularly striking. Hazal focused special attention on the attitude of different populations and individuals toward the construction of the mishkan. Perhaps a better understanding of some of these phenomena will provide the framework for better comprehending Bezalel's decisive conclusion.
Hazal perceived a flaw in the approach to this mitzvah that is symbollically conveyed by the omission of a letter in the word "nesiim". Rashi (Shemot 35:27) cites the midrash which is critical of the nesiim's lack of initiative in donating to the mishkan, viewing their apparently generous guarantee to cover any outstanding deficit as insufficient. The Midrash HaGadol amplifies this theme, arguing that the nesiim minimized the process that would ultimately produce a home for the aron and kelim. They conceived of the building of the mishkan as a technical process devoid of any intrinsic value, as merely an instrument to achieve the ultimate goal of housing the kelim, and hashraat ha-Shekhinah. Midrash Hagadol implies that their view was fostered by the fact that the masses were to be a part of the process. In any case, Hazal conclude that the nesiim were insensitive to the true significance and opportunity provided by this process.
In fact, Hazal view the construction of the mishkan as an inherently valuable religious experience and as the necessary prelude to hashraat ha-Shekhinah. The independent value of this process is reflected in numerous ways. Both Ramban (39:37) and R. Behai (39:42) note the use of the term "avodah" (rather than "melakhah") with respect to the construction of the mishkan. They assert that this usage signifies an inherent service to Hashem ("she-asu otah la-avodat Hashem Yitbarakh"). Ramban (36:8) also offers two explanations of the five-fold repetition of the details of the mishkan's construction, each of which underscores the independent value of the building process. He proposes that the repetition indicates the special affection and stature ("hibah yeterah ve-derekh maalah") that Hashem accords to this service. Furthermore, the detailed enumeration establishes that knowledge and acceptance of the total process was a necessary prerequisite for involvement in any of its distinctive phases. Clearly, the construction was far more than a vehicle to achieve a certain result. Ramban explicitly rejects the notion that Bezalel's technical skills qualified him to direct the construction of the mishkan. He argues that only a scholar of Bezalel's spiritual magnitude could have built the aron. This view has strong roots in Hazal, who assert that "hakhmah, binah, daat" refer to different dimensions of Bezalel's attainments in the study of Torah ("hakhmah- she-hayah hakham ba-Torah; tevunah- she- hayah meivin ba-halakhah; u-be-daat- she-hayah maleih daat ba-talmud"). The final stage of the mishkan's construction could only be concluded by Moshe Rabenu himself accompanied by Divine intervention, as Rashi (39:33) records. Ramban advances the idea that a special level of intent ("kavanah rezuyah") was necessary to advance the process. Seforno also develops the idea that a special measure of "kavanah lishmah" was indispensable to the building of the mishkan. The accenting of spiritual values in a highly technical construction process illustrates that this vehicle for hashraat ha-Shekhinah was perceived as an inherent act of avodat Hashem.
The midrash abounds with comparisons and parallels between the process of kelal yisrael's construction of the mishkan and that of Hashem's creation of the world! The ingredients of "hakhmah, binah, ve-daat" were demonstrated to have been integral to both creations. Phrases and formulations common to both processes are enumerated in Midrash Hagadol and R. Behai in the context of these parshiyot. In one section, the midrash concludes that Hashem had greater pleasure from the construction of the mishkan because of all the effort and human input that it entailed-"aval mishkan, Moshe ve-yisrael nitasku bo, Bezalel ve-talmidav nitasku bo, Oholiav ve-talmidav nitasku bo". The inspiration and expertise used to build the mishkan is traced to Hashem-"kol ha-hokhmah hazu minayin min Hashem; ve-kol ha-binah she-haytah be-Bezalel mi-shel Hashem ...". The inherent importance of the process itself is unmistakenly conveyed in these and other sources.
Against this background, we can appreciate that the exchange between Moshe and Bezalel with respect to the order of the building was not a debate between a technician and a spiritual leader, but rather represented two distinct spiritual perspectives on the nature of this critical process. Bezalel convincingly demonstrated that building the mishkan was independently significant as an act of avodat Hashem, and that its integrity demanded that it precede the construction of the kelim it would ultimately serve.
Bezalel may have argued that unless one invests kedushah into the process-vehicle, it will not effectively produce its desired goal of bringing about a more profound kedushah either. Kedushah does not arrive in a vacuum nor can one attain this lofty goal without significant attention to its context and framework. Furthermore, the juxtaposition with the episode of the egel inspired Hazal to perceive the building process as a contrast and antidote to that spiritual calamity- "ba Bezalel le-rapot ha-makah; yavo zahav ha-mishkan ve-yekhaper al zahav ha-egel." According to one prominent perspective advanced by Ramban and others, the very confusion of means and ends, of vehicle and goal, was precisely the foundation for the sin of the egel. Perhaps the confusion that prevailed was a dialectical one. On the one hand, Kelal Yisrael, in the absence of Moshe Rabenu, were desparate for a concrete vehicle through which they believed they could develop a closer relationship with Hashem. At the same time, they were absolutely uncritical in choosing that vehicle, almost as if the method and process was irrelevant to the outcome. The mishkan, with its myriad of detail and repetition indeed constitutes a corrective, even an antidote to this dialectical misconception. Its repeated emphasis on "kasher zivah Hashem" establishes unequivocally that there can be no vehicle without the Divine sanction embodied in the norm of zivui Hashem. Furthermore, its accent on every detail, its projection of spiritual motifs, as well as the integrity and the priority of the building and structure underscore that the goal of hashraat ha-Shekhinah will be achieved only if the vehicle is both sanctioned and itself, sanctified.