AND THE CLOUD COVERED THE TENT OF MEETING, AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED THE TABERNACLE.

MOSES COULD NOT ENTER THE TENT OF MEETING BECAUSE THE CLOUD RESTED UPON IT AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED THE TABERNACLE.

WHEN THE CLOUD ROSE UP FROM OVER THE TABERNACLE, THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SET OUT IN ALL THEIR JOURNEYS.

BUT IF THE CLOUD DID NOT RISE UP, THEY DID NOT SET OUT UNTIL THE DAY THAT IT ROSE. FOR THE CLOUD OF THE LORD WAS UPON THE TABERNACLE BY DAY, AND THERE WAS FIRE WITHIN IT AT NIGHT, BEFORE THE EYES OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF ISRAEL IN ALL THEIR JOURNEYS.

(Shemot 40:34-38)

 

The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Glory of God filled the Tabernacle - From this it appears that the Glory of God is not the cloud, but rather the fire and the light, i.e. the Glory of God, was seen from within the cloud. Were it not for the cloud, it would have been impossible to gaze upon it, for man cannot gaze into the light of the sun, all the more so he cannot look at the brilliance of His Presence. Therefore the holy light was always seen from within the cloud, and when the Tabernacle stood, the two [the cloud and the Glory] were separated from each other, for the Divine light would enter the Tabernacle, for there was the place of His holiness, and the cloud would remain outside... therefore it says here: Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud rested upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. For if the Glory of God were combined with the cloud it would have been possible for Moshe to enter into the cloud, as is recorded at the end of Parashat Mishpatim Moses entered the cloud, because then the Glory of God was covered and it was possible for Moshe to enter the cloud, but now that they were separate from each other, the cloud being outside and the Glory of God was - without the cloud - inside the Tent, Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting...

(R. Efrayim Lunschitz's Kli Yakar, Shemot ad loc)

 

The Tabernacle built by the Israelites for God's service is a testimony to God and to man's recognition of God. This is the glory of the Lord - there is nothing tangible here and no object that filled the Tabernacle…

The RaMBaM leaves the matter to the understanding of the student and reader of Torah, according to his intellectual level and the depth of his faith. From this it may be deduced that if the faith of the believer requires physical realization of recognition of God, he is permitted to explain this verse as relating to a visually perceived phenomenon, such as those experienced by Israel. But if one can ascend to a higher level of cognizance, and can deepen his faith, he does not need this physical expression. He understands very well that the gory of God mentioned here is only an idiomatic expression of the service of God in the Tabernacle.

(Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat ha'Shavu'a, p.432)

 

The Tabernacle: Aesthetics vs. Ethics

Devorah Greniman

I used to view the concluding parshiyot of Shemot as being almost anticlimactic. Following the drama of the revelation at Mount Sinai, these parashiyot come along, full of quite boring details and trying to describe a structure that is very difficult to grasp. In addition, they make use of words that are not commonly used in our day and whose meanings are insufficiently clear.

Despite this, in the past few years I find myself getting excited every time anew by the story that hides behind these details - the story of the Tabernacle's planning, the creation of its vessels, its erection, and the resting of the Divine Presence upon it and within it. From amongst the details there arises a verbal description of something that cannot be expressed in words: a building whose essence is absolute spiritual beauty, a spiritual beauty existing both in the sensual aesthetic of its components - ravishing cloths, fine fragrant wood, spices, precious stones, sparkling vessels of gold, silver, and copper - as well as in the way these components are created and assembled into a prefect structure.

Susan Sontag, of blessed memory, contrasted the notion of beauty with that of "the interesting" in an article which appeared in the Fall 2005 Daedalus (available online at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200510/ai_n15744642). She writes that the criterion of beauty has been marginalized in the modern era because it is seen as elitist and exclusivist. In contrast, the "interesting" is an inclusive and general concept. But, Sontag asks, what is "interesting? She answers her question with a quote from the German philosopher Carl Schmitt:

Liberalism is boring, declares Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political, written in 1932 (the following year he joined the Nazi Party). A politics conducted according to liberal principles lacks drama, flavor, conflict, while strong autocratic politics - and war - are interesting.

Long use of "the interesting" as a criterion of value has, inevitably, weakened its transgressive bite. What is left of the old insolence lies mainly in its disdain for the consequences of actions and of judgments. As for the truthfulness of the description - that does not even enter the story. One calls something interesting precisely so as not to have to commit to a judgment of beauty (or of goodness). The interesting is now mainly a consumerist concept, bent on enlarging its domain: the more things that become interesting, the more the marketplace grows. The boring - understood as an absence, an emptiness - implies its antidote: the promiscuous, empty affirmations of the interesting.

I wish to claim that the Tabernacle stands in opposition to the "interesting" - lofty in its beauty, ravishing, indescribable; it is composed of thousands of "boring" details.

This boringness actually springs from the fact that we can only experience the Tabernacle by way of its written description. This was not true for Moses. When we ponder his experience of forty nights and days spent on Mount Sinai, we most likely call up an image of a discursive experience: God dictates the Torah to Moses. Actually - and this is the Kabalistic understanding - Moses underwent a powerful visual and sensory experience, as the text repeatedly emphasizes: as in the image I showed you on the mountain. Relating to our parasha, Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg quotes a midrash from Bamidbar Rabbah which is concerned with the nature of this image. According to the midrash, Moses saw an image of the Tabernacle composed of flames of four colors - red, green, black, and white. God commanded him to take this model and reconstruct it on earth out of earthly materials. Avivah says it is obvious that Moses, and Bezalel and Ohaliav after him, had to use their imaginations in order to realize the heavenly model.

I would like to contrast this view with another possibility. Moses actually saw a paradoxical vision. The prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel had visions of heavenly sights. Moses, standing on the mountain top between heaven and earth, flooded with God's presence, experienced a vision of an earthly reality, of a Tabernacle composed of the most earthly materials, and of a human society, imbued with love and fear of God, working in harmony in order to realize the vision and to create a building that is both earthly and spiritual - a place on earth in which to experience lofty spirituality.

Moses succeeded in transferring this vision to the people - perhaps with greater success than he had with any other of his visions. Was it, as Zornberg proposes, the trauma of the golden calf incident that made this possible? I have heard Michael Manheim say the same drive that brings people to make a calf can also bring them to build a Tabernacle. However, the chasm between those two alternatives is immense. The calf was actually created by one person who threw jewelry brought by members of the people into the fire, making a calf of it. In contrast, the Tabernacle was built under Bezalel's ingenious and strict management with Ohaliav's assistance and its components were the work of many hands. The wisdom referred to in these passages - by their plain meaning - is none other than the wisdom of art, of imagination, of craftsmanship. This characteristic was not the sole property of Bezalel and Ohaliav alone; all who saw themselves as wise of heart were invited to donate their handiwork to the Tabernacle. It is not stated that their work was subject to critique. In addition to the inspiration that Bezalel received from God, many other individuals were inspired in creating their private contributions to the project. When the Tabernacle was created, each of them could say: "I created this part. My handiwork is a component of the Tabernacle." Would we risk constructing a synagogue in this fashion today?

Finally, I would like to discuss a specific donation of unique character. In chapter 38 verse eight, we read: He made the laver of copper and its stand of copper, from mirrors of the women who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. A number of midrashim relate to this verse. One of them states that Moses was infuriated when the women offered their mirrors, which represent vanity and earthly and sensuous beauty, to be used in making the Tabernacle's vessels. However, the Holy One blessed be He personally informed him that during the difficult years of servitude, when the outer world was all ugly and oppressive, the women used their mirrors to arouse sexual feelings in themselves and in their husbands in order to raise up the "hosts" of Israel which were to be eventually redeemed - those same hosts of Israel that now stood at Sinai. Another midrash has it that the women forsook outer beauty, preferring to it the spiritual experience of prayer in the Tabernacle. Thus, they could happily donate their mirrors, which were no longer of use to them. A further midrash relates to the function of the laver that was constructed from those mirrors. When the priests would come to purify their hands and feet before engaging in the holy service, they would see their reflections in its shining surface, inspiring them to inner contemplation and driving out negative intentions.

According to the various views expressed by these midrashim, the mirrors symbolized a number of possible conceptions of female beauty and its cultivation. It may be seen as something that arouses attraction that is essentially positive in that it leads to coupling and the creation of new offspring for the people. It can be deemed shameful, dangerous, and opposed to spirituality. It can be viewed as something that requires women to be overseen. It is characteristic of the image which woman brings to the outside world and something that must be guarded within the home. It is even something that can be exchanged for spiritual, "inner" beauty. Sontag's article continues:

Beauty can illustrate an ideal; a perfection. Or, because of its identification with women (more accurately, with Woman), it can trigger the usual ambivalence that stems from the age-old denigration of the feminine… For if women are worshipped because they are beautiful, they are condescended to for their preoccupation with making or keeping themselves beautiful.

In opposition to this, Sontag claims that involvement in aesthetics is actually involvement in ethics. "Beauty" is the word we use to describe a perfect situation - all kinds of changing and unpreservable states of society, nature, and of humanity. As Sontag writes:

And the wisdom that becomes available over a deep, lifelong engagement with the aesthetic cannot, I venture to say, be duplicated by any other kind of seriousness. Indeed, the various definitions of beauty come at least as close to a plausible characterization of virtue, and of a fuller humanity, as the attempts to define goodness as such.

Is this not the lesson of the Tabernacle's construction - the place whose lofty beauty combines a Divine plan with the generosity and wisdom of an entire people?

Devorah Greniman edits Nashim, a journal for the study of women and gender in Judaism. She is an editor for the National Academy of Sciences and translates and writes.

 

 

You shall kindle no fire - The Fires of Gehinnom and the Flame of Torah

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The fires of Gehinnom cannot harm Torah scholars. This can be learned from a comparison with the salamander:

The salamander is born of fire, and one who anoints himself with its blood cannot be harmed by fire. All the more so, Torah scholars, who are entirely made of fire [cannot be harmed by fire]! As it is written: Are my words not like fire, says the Lord (Jeremiah 23).

(Hagiga 27a)

 

Apparently, burning is not a creative action, but rather a destructive action. On the other hand, it is precisely the artificial creation of fire which brings about and ensures man's true dominion over the physical world. Only by means of fire can man make his work-tools and penetrate the innermost nature of materials, separating them and shaping them. Therefore we can understand why, of all categories of work, Scripture made special mention of burning.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch Shemot 35:3)

 

The Calf and the Tabernacle

The Israelites were commanded: Bring Me gifts, gifts of all that was needed for constructing the Tabernacle. Afterwards, when the command was executed, we read that all those whose heart moved them brought the gifts. The midrash reads this passage carefully, noting that when a good cause is involved, e.g., building the Tabernacle - all those whose heart moved them brought gifts. All those whose heart moved them is not a collective name for all of the people, all of the community, or all of the public. In contrast, when the people themselves wanted to worship what they saw as a god - the calf - it is written: and all of the people removed their golden nose-rings.

So: for the good - all those whose heart moved them, for the bad - all of the people.

The worship of God does not derive from an innate human drive. It requires that man make a psychological effort to overcome his nature and accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven upon himself. However, people are naturally driven to idolatry...

(Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz ztz"l, He'arot le'parashiyot ha'shavua, pp. 63-64)

 

When all the work that King Solomon had done in the House of the Lord was completed, Solomon brought in the sacred donations of his father David - the silver, the gold, and the vessels - and deposited them in the treasury of the House of the Lord.

(I Kings 7:51 - the beginning of the Haftara for Parashat Pekudai, when it does not fall on one of the four Parashiyot)

 

Solomon brought - from that which his father had consecrated. He donated it to the construction of the House in honor of his father, even though he did not need those materials since he already possessed abundant silver and gold, and copper. However, out of respect for his father David gave some of it towards the work on the Temple and the remainder he deposited in the treasuries of House of Lord.

Regarding the midrash that states that Solomon used none of the funds which his father David had consecrated in construction of the Temple, there are those who say: Since Solomon knew that that it eventually would be destroyed, better that the nations of the world not say that it was destroyed because it was built with materials which David had stolen and plundered. Others say: Thus said Solomon - In Father's days there was a famine which extended three years, and he should have spent these treasuries on keeping the poor alive; let them be put aside for times of need.

(RaDaK, I Kings, 7:51)

 

In other words, if the Jewish people builds its House with spoils taken from the nations, or in a modern style, using available resources for splendor and honor - even if the splendor and honor are for religious purposes - instead of serving human needs and sustaining the impoverished of Israel, the project will be severely blemished.

The subject is very timely. It is important that all know that the possessions of the nation and the state exist not in order to glorify the state and the nation, and not even its holy sites and projects, but first of all they exist to meet the needs of the nation's deprived.

(Leibowitz, ibid., p, 436)

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il