Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
The parshiyot beginning with Terumah and culminating at the end of sefer Shemot are devoted to the construction of the mishkan. The objective of hashraat ha-Shechinah, providing a physical framework for Hashem's spiritual presence, is crystallized in the pesukim in Tezaveh (29:45-46): "ve-noadeti shamah le-Venei Yisrael ve-nikdash bikvodi…veshachanti betoch benei yisrael ve-hayiti lahem Leilokim ve-yadeu ki ani Hashem Eloikeihem asher hozeiti otam mei-Eretz Mitzrayim leshachni betocham. Ani Hashem."
Shlomo ha-Melech (Melachim 1:8:27), upon completion of the Beit ha-Mikdash articulated the obvious paradox when he queried how a physical abode might enhance the infinite and incorporeal presence of Hashem: "ki ha-amnam yeisheiv Elokim al haaretz hineh ha-shamayim u-shemei ha-shamayim lo yechalkeluchah af ki ha-bayit ha-zeh asher baniti." The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni Shemot ,365) registers a parallel conversation between Moshe Rabbeinu and Hashem. The midrash records that Hashem affirms the significance of the mishkan and its construction, although He does not explicate the mystery.
While the mystery remains, the Torah does hint at the perspective that can contribute to the attainment of such a lofty goal. Twice (Ki Tissa- 31:12-17; Vayakhel 35:1-3) the Torah integrates the mitzvah of Shabbat observance into its account of the fashioning of the mishkan. Chazal derived from this juxtaposition of the two themes that Shabbat may not be desecrated even for the sake of the mishkan. At the same time, the mishkan construction constitutes the paradigm for prominent activity that defines the prohibition of melachah on Shabbat (Shabbat 49b). It is possible that the Torah's linking of Shabbat and the mishkan conveys an additional crucial theme: physical activities and structures may facilitate and enhance Hashem's presence only when a Shabbat perspective is applied. In both contexts, the Torah emphasizes the active work week that precedes the Shabbat. Chazal emphasize that the whole active week revolves around Shabbat. Shamai ha-Zaken was constantly cognizant of the need to prepare for the forthcoming Shabbat (Beitzah 16a). The Ramban notes that Jews count days on the basis of proximity to Shabbat. The Ohr ha-Chayim (Vayakhel) posits that the Torah refers to the active work week in Ki Tisa and Vayakhel in order to establish that it is Shabbat observance alone that provides its justification and that accords it even spiritual significance- "ki Shabbat hi nefesh kiyum ha-olam". The pursuit of spirituality must be relentless and ubiquitous if kedushah is to be invested in the physical realm.
The midrash frequently compares the building of the mishkan with the act of creation. Shabbat serves as the telos of creation, as we note in our Shabbat evening prayers- "tachlit maaseh shamayim va-aretz" (based on "va-yechulu hashamayim ve-haaretz"). Though the world was created six days earlier, Man's first full day on earth was actually on Shabbat (see, also Shabbat 69b-mehalech ba-midbar…) Thus, it is axiomatic that the mishkan, too, demands a single-minded spiritual focus. It follows that a mishkan born by means of Shabbat violation would be inherently flawed.
The mefarshim (Siftei Hachachamim, Keli Yakar etc.) were troubled by the repetition of the Shabbat-mishkan connection in two different parshiyot. Furthermore, they were puzzled by some discrepancies between the two accounts. In Ki Tissa, Shabbat follows upon the conclusion of the mishkan, while Moshe Rabbeinu's communication to Kelal Yisrael in Vayakhel registers Shabbat prior to the mishkan (See Keli Yakar, Vayakhel).
Perhaps the intervening episode of the egel ha-zahav may explain the different emphasis. The mishkan is viewed by Chazal as an antidote for the egel transgression precisely because the egel episode exemplifies the disastrous consequences of misplaced emphasis in harnessing physical vehicles for the attainment of spiritual goals. In the aftermath of the egel calamity, the Torah needed to further accentuate that the spiritual objective alone invests meaning in concrete symbols. It was no longer sufficient to locate Shabbat following the mishkan; it was crucial to establish that the Shabbat objective is omnipresent and directs every detail of the mishkan.
This approach might explain other changes in the Torah's presentation of Shabbat in the two parshiyot. Prior to the egel episode the Torah barely refers to the weekdays and only in the aftermath of Shabbat observance, while in Vayakhel the Torah's treatment of Shabbat begins with and underscores the weekdays that introduce Shabbat. Perhaps this shifted emphasis was designed to reinforce the notion that the weekdays themselves are defined and justified by the goal of Shabbat and invested with significance only because of that anticipated objective. Still it is important to underscore that only the Torah itself could determine that Shabbat might have this profound effect.
The pre-egel verses in Ki Tisa speak about Shabbat observance and desecration in more general terms- "et shabtotai tishmoru…mechaleleha mot yumat…kol ha-oseh bah melachah", while the post-egel reiteration of Shabbat in Vayekhel specifies one of the melachot: "lo tevaru eitz bechl moshvoteichem be-yom ha-Shabbat". The gemara (Shabbat 70a) derives from this reference that each form of melachah constitutes a distinct violation of the sanctity of Shabbat, requiring separate sacrifices for atonement (chiluk melachot be-Shabbat). Many of the mefarshim also note that by referring to the prohibition of fire, the Torah signals here that Shabbat does not share the yom tov allowance of heter ochel nefesh (food preparation). The doctrine of chiluk melachot and the exclusion of even cooking etc. preclude the notion that Shabbat, and by proxy, other institutions and concepts of kedushah merely convey a general theme or didactic message that might be adapted or substituted in other circumstances. These elements feature the intrinsic and ontic sanctity of Shabbat and establish unequivocally that halachic categories and spiritual values are governed by strict principles; they are not merely disposable or interchangeable vehicles for avodat Hashem. The reformulated presentation of Shabbat, then, may addresses important dimensions of the severe miscalculation implicit in the egel transgression, reintroducing the construction of the mishkan as an effective antidote to the egel and as an even more effective model of a physical framework for kedushah.
While the capacity of concrete structures like the mishkan to facilitate Hashem's presence remains a challenging concept, we can be confident in Hashem's affirmation that when implemented scrupulously we will attain the goal of "veshachanti betocho".