Parashath Tëruma (Exodus XXV,1-XXVII,19) 2/24/12

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר: דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי: וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם וגו' (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe, to say: Speak to the bënei Yisra’él, and they will take for Me a donation [tëruma]; from each man as his heart moves him shall you take My tëruma. And this is the tëruma which you will take from them....”). So begins our parasha.

After enumerating the various materials of which the tëruma was to consist, G-d goes on to say, ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם: (“And they will make for Me a sanctuary [miqdash] and I shall dwell [vë-shachanti] in their midst”; XXV, 8). He then proceeds to detail the various accoutrements with which the Mishkan (from the same root as shachanti, the tent which would serve as the miqdash until the permanent structure was raised by King Shëlomo in Yërushalayim) was to be furnished: The aron qodesh which would house the tablets (10-22); the shulhan, on which the lehem ha-panim would be displayed (23-30); the mënora (31-40), and only thereafter the Mishkan itself.

Hazal record that Bëtzal’él ben Uri, who would be commissioned to supervise all this work, questioned this sequence: כלים שאני עושה להיכן אכניסם שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים אמר לו שמא בצל א-ל היית וידעת (“The items which I am making, where shall I put them? Perhaps the Holy One, Blessed is He, said to you, ‘Make a Mishkan, an aron, etc.?' [Moshe] told him, 'Perhaps you were in G-d’s shadow [the literal meaning of the name Bëtzal’él], and you know!'”; ברכות נ"ה.).

This peculiar passage raises several questions: First off, Moshe was the chief of the prophets and teacher of all Israel: How was it, then that he apparently reversed the order in which G-d told him that the work should be done? More than that: What precisely was the point of Bëtzal’él’s objection? What did it matter what the order in which things were to be made was? Surely Bëtzal’él could have made the various items and stored them in some other tent until the Mishkan was erected!

B.

What follows is based on a beautiful insight of the ‘Arvei Nahal.

We begin by citing a comment of the Alsheich on Song of Songs III, 9: אפריון עשה לו המלך שלמה מעצי הלבנון (“A pavilion did King Shëlomo make for Him of the trees of Lebanon”). As Rashi ad loc. makes clear, the reference is to the miqdash of which Ha-Shem spoke in the passage from our parasha, and this prompts the Alsheich to ask: Why, precisely, does the Al-Mighty require any sort of building li-shkon sham Shëchinatho, so that His Presence might dwell there? Is it not that case, as we read, that השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלהו (“The heavens and heavens of the heavens do not contain Him”; II Chronicles II, 5 )?

He answers by noting that every single member of Israel responded to the call for dona-tions with great love, reverence, and heartfelt willingness. These, he goes on to say, are the choicest and noblest of human qualities, and are what underlie the essential sanctity of the Jewish soul, וידוע כי בהיות אדם מקדש עצמו במדות אלה ממשיך בזה על עצמו השראת שכינה כי השי"ת אוהב מדות אלה (“and it is known that when a person sanctifies himself by [developing] these qualities, he draws down in this manner on himself an infusion of the Divine Presence [Shëchina], for Ha-Shem loves these qualities”).

However, the sacred capacity of a single individual cannot be compared to the collective capacity of a large number of people to draw down an infusion of the Shëchina, and in this lies the basic purpose of the tërumoth for the Mishkan and. later, the Béyth ha-Miq-dash: To serve as the focal point for the enthusiastic devotion of each and every individual member of Israel, a great capacitor or (to use an older term) condenser, concentrating the individual inputs so as to maximise the potential for gilluy Shëchina, the revelation of G-d’s Presence in this world.

C.

‘Ad kan the Alsheich. The ‘Arvei Nahal continues: והנה נודע כי בה"מ הוא ציור כל העולמות וידוע גם כן כי האדם גופו עולם קטן וכן נפשו כלול מכל העולמות כו' ואומר אני כי מבואר בזה"ק כי בה"מ הוא לבו של עולם ואמצעותו כו' והוא החיות של כל העולם כלב שהוא חיות כל הגוף (“and it is known that the Béyth ha-Miqdash is a representation of all the realms of the cosmos, and it is also known that a human being is himself a microcosmos, and that his soul is comprised of all the worlds... and I say that the holy Zohar explains that the Béyth ha-Miqdash is the heart of the universe and its center... and is the [source of] the entire universe’s vitality, as the heart is the [source of] the vitality of the entire body....”).

The heart circulates blood through all of the constituent limbs and organs of the body, bringing sustenance and necessary nutrients to those various limbs and organs, which blood then returns to the heart, bringing fresh materials. such as oxygen from the lungs, nutrients from the digestive system, and so on, through the heart to be redistributed throughout the body, making it stronger. There is, in short, a feed-back loop in operation between the heart and the rest of the body through the blood.

Like the physical feed-back loop, there is a parallel metaphysical one. Hazal note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between each of the 613 mitzvoth and the limbs and organs of the human body as they count and describe them, a fact to which, e.g., King David alludes as well כל עצמתי תאמרנה ד' מי כמוך וגו' (“All my bones say, Ha-Shem who is like You....”; Psalms XXXV, 10). As each limb performs its mitzva, the metaphysical energy flows back to the heart, whence it is recirculated back to the limbs, invigorating them and making them stronger and more able to do yet more mitzvoth. This is what Hazal mean when they declare, שמצוה גוררת מצוה, “that a mitzva draws [in its wake another] mitzva”;אבות פ"ד מ"ב).

The very same analogy applies to the relationship between Israel and the Béyth ha-Miq-dash at our national center: It serves to gather and concentrate the collective qëdusha of all of the individual mitzvoth being performed, which is then redistributed amongst the nation as a whole, strengthening each individual, raising him to a higher and more capable level than where he started.

But this gives rise to a “chicken and egg” sort of question: How does the feed-back loop get started? Does it begin with the individual inputs which are sent to the heart, or does it begin with the hith‘orëruth, the initial stimulus of the heart to the constituent members?

Hazal address this question in several places (עיי' למשל סוטה מ"ה: ויומא נ"ד: בין השאר), in which they discuss, e.g., whether a fetus starts its development from an external limb or from its center, or whether the universe was created from it centre outward or from the periphery inward; in all cases, there are Tanna’im on both sides of the question.

The ‘Arvei Nahal says in the name of the Arizal that both answers are correct, and explains himself in this way: There are great tzaddiqim, yëhidei sëgula, precious, treasured individuals, who possess love and reverence and heartfelt willingness to such a vast degree that they are, as it were, self-starters; they perform mitzvoth with such a degree of dedication that they influence events. Hazal say of such giants, צדיקים לבם ברשותם (“the hearts of tzaddiqim are in their control”; בראשית רבה פל"ד סי' י"א). And then there are the rest of us, who also basically wish to be ‘avdei Ha-Shem, but who require some impetus, some inspiration and initiative to get us going. We need the hith‘orëruth ha-lév, that initial stimulus of the heart to get our “limbs” into action.

D.

If we now re-examine our parasha’s initial passage, we shall find that it quite clearly reflects this dichotomy: “Speak to the bënei Yisra’él and they will take for Me tëruma...” As Rashi explains, הפרשה יפרישו לי מממונם נדבה (“A separation will they make for Me from their wealth [as a] gift”); this is the “general” or “collective” tëruma. It then goes on to say: “...from each man as his heart moves him...,” the sacred “donation” of Israel’s collective sanctity is gathered at its “heart,” at the Béyth ha-Miqdash to which it is directed, and is then redistributed, to move and inspire yet more sanctity. “And this is the tëruma which you will take from them....” – these individual efforts are again gathered, condensed, and redistributed in the feed-back loop to generate yet more sanctity, and so it goes on.

This, then, is the difference between Moshe’s vision and Bëtzal’él’s; precisely because he stood at the pinnacle of human potential, Moshe viewed reality from the standpoint of those relatively rare tzaddiqim whose “hearts are in their grasp”; he saw the individual objects, the mitzvoth which those unique individuals would provide which would then be gathered into the Mishkan.

Bëtzal’él, surely also a tzaddiq, was nonetheless not on Moshe’s level. A bit closer to the rest of the people, he saw the need for the “heart,” the collected, concentrated qëdusha of the Mishkan to inspire and motivate all of the furniture with which it would ten be filled.

And Moshe readily saw his point, and readily admitted that he was right, concerning all the rest of us.

Parshath Tëruma (Exodus XXV,1-XXVII,19) 2/4/11

A.

With this week’s parasha begins the discussion which occupies most of the rest of the Book of Exodus: The specifications, materials and construction of the Mishkan.


At the center of the Mishkan lay the Qodesh ha-Qodashim, the most sacred (qadosh) precinct of the Mishkan in which were located the aron ha-qodesh, the gold-plated wooden box which held the second set of tablets and the fragments of the first, with Moshe’s séfer Torah alongside, and the mënorath ha-zahav, the great golden lamp, וששה קנים יצאים מצדי' שלשה קני מנרה מצדה האחד ושלשה קני מנרה מצדה השני (“and six branches coming out of its sides, three mënora branches from its one side and three mënora branches from its second side”; XXV, 32). What is the significance of these features, specified by G-d in such fine detail?

B.

The great Rabbi S. R. Hirsch provides a brilliant insight.

He begins by noting that the words nér and or, “light-source” and “light,” respectively (mënora shares a root with nér), recur continually in Tanach as metaphors for knowledge and wisdom. To cite just a few examples: נר לרגלי דברך ואור לנתיבתי, “A light-source for my foot is Your word, and light for my path” (Psalms CXIX, 105); פתח דבריך יאיר מבין פתיים, “The entrance-way of Your words enlightens, making the ignorant understand”; ibid.,130); מצות ד' ברה מאירת עינים, “Ha-Shem’s mitzva is clear, enlightening the eyes”; כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, “For a mitzva is a light-source and Torah, light” (Proverbs VI, 23).

Israel was granted the light of Torah for a purpose. Before Mattan Torah, the bënei Yisra’él learnt that they were to be a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6) – just as the kohanim and Lëviyyim were to be the chief repository of Torah authority amongst Israel, so were Israel to be for the world at large: אני ד' קראתיך בצדק ואחזק בידך ואצרך ואתנך לברית עם לאור גוים, “I, Ha-Shem have called you in justice and held your hand, and kept you and placed you as a national covenant as the light of the nations” (Isaiah XLII, 6); כי תורה מאתי תצא ומשפטי לאור עמים ארגיע, “For Torah comes forth from Me, and with My judgment as the light of peoples shall I make peace”; (ibid., LI, 4); כי הנה החשך יכסה ארץ וערפל לאמים ועליך יזרח ד' וכבודו עליך יראה: והלכו גוים לאורך ומלכים לנוגה זרחך , “For behold, darkness covers the earth and fog, the nations; and over you shines forth Ha-Shem, and His glory is seen over you. And nations will go by your light, and kings by the brightness of your shining”; ibid., LX, 2). However, המה היו במרדי אור לא הכירו דרכיו ולא ישבו בנתיבתיו, “They [the nations] were amongst those rebelling against the light; they did not recognize His ways, and did not settle in His paths”; Job XXIV, 13). The gift of Biblical morality has been resisted tooth and claw, and תחת אהבתי ישטנוני, “instead of my love they have opposed me”; Psalms CIX, 4).

Thus, concludes R’ Hirsch, this metaphor of light connotes both illumination and dynamic movement, knowledge and action; it requires application of the knowledge, and impels one to act.
When he looks for another word in the Holy Language which appears to embrace two similar meanings (i.e., one for which light can be a metaphor), he finds רוח, ruah. Thus, Yoséf’s superior insight and knowledge caused Pharaoh to see in him the ruah Eloqim (“spirit of G-d”; Genesis XLI, 38); Bëtzal’él, tasked with overseeing the construction of the Mishkan and all its accoutrements, is filled with a רוח חכמה, “spirit of wisdom” (Exodus XXXV, 31); Yëhoshua‘, Moshe’s successor, was an איש אשר רוח בו, “man in whom there was spirit” (Numbers XXVII, 19), possessed of רוח חכמה. like Bëtzal’él (Deuteronomy, XXXIV, 9).

On the other hand, we also find such passages as ובאו כל איש כו' אשר נדבה רוחו אתו וגו' (“And they came, every man... whose spirit urged him...”; Exodus XXV, 21); ולא אבה סיחון מלך חשבון העבירנו כי הקשה ד' אלקיך את רוחו וגו', “And Sihon, king of Heshbon, did not wish us to pass through [his country] for Ha-Shem your G-d had hardened his spirit” (Deuteronomy II, 30); ותהי על יפתח רוח ד' ויעבר את הגלעד וגו' , “And Ha-Shem’s spirit was upon Yiftah and he crossed the Gil‘ad....” (Judges XI, 29); ותחל רוח ד' לפעמו במחנה דן וגו', “And Ha-Shem’s spirit began to move him in the camp of Dan....”; (ibid., XIII, 25); הנני נתן בו רוח ושמע שמועה ושב לארצו ודו', “Behold, I am placing in him a spirit, and he will hear a rumor and will return to his country....” (II Kings XIX, 7); and so on.

Hence, concludes R’ Hirsch, or is a metaphor for ruah.

He finds confirmation of his thesis in a prophecy of Zëcharya concerning Israel’s final redemption. The navi’ is shown a vision of the seven-branched mënora fully lit; when he asks what it means, the mal’ach presenting the vision tells him זה דבר ד' אל זרובבל לאמר לא בחיל ולא בכח כי אם ברוחי אמר ד' צב-אות (“This is Ha-Shem’s word to Zërubbavel, to say, 'Not by force and not by power but by My spirit,' says Ha-Shem of Hosts”; Zechariah IV, 6). Israel’s melech ha-mashiah, her “anointed king,” is here called Zërubbavel, because his line of descent from King David would be through the line of Zërubbavel ben Shë’alti’él (cf. I Chronicles III, 1-18).

This leads R’ Hirsch to another prophecy concerning ha-melech ha-mashiah: ויצא חטר מגזע ישי ונצר משרשיו יפרה: ונחה עליו רוח ד' רוח חכמה ובינה רוח עצה וגבורה רוח דעת ויראת ד': (“And a shoot [hoter] will come out from the trunk of Yishai [David’s father], and a twig will sprout from his roots. And Ha-Shem’s spirit will rest upon him, the spirit of hochma [wisdom] and bina [understanding], the spirit of ‘étza [counsel] and gëvura [strength], the spirit of da‘ath [knowledge] and yir’ath Ha-Shem [fear of Ha-Shem]”; Isaiah XI, 1-2). Taking these two prophecies together, the association of the mënora with Mashiah, R’ Hirsch constructs a schematic of the mënora, such that the central stand, the hoter, is labeled ruah, from three pairs of arms emanate, the lowest of which are hochma and bina, the middle pair ‘étza and gëvura, and the topmost pair da‘ath and yir’ath Ha-Shem.

But this model raises a question: The message transmitted to Zëcharya was that neither hayil nor koah, “force” or “power,” can prevail, only the ruah Ha-Shem, whilst Yësha‘yahu has gëvura, strength associated with that very ruah Ha-Shem. Why is this not contradictory?

C.

An answer suggests itself from an observation which I have neard attributed to Rabbi Yoséf Dov ha-Lévi Soloveitchik. In the Birchoth ha-Shahar, the blessings recited on arising each morning, we make reference to אוזר ישראל בגבורה, “Who girds Israel in gëvura,” and to הנותן ליעף כח, “He Who gives strength [koah] to the weary.” Obviously, gëvura and koah are not perfect synonyms. Koah, explains R’ Soloveitchik, is physical, bodily strength. One who is weary lacks the strength to carry out his necessary daily tasks; G-d gives koah to the weary. Gëvura, on the other hand, is spiritual strength, the quality which Israel possesses as an inheritance from the eponymous patriarch Yisra’él, whose struggle with the mal’ach, saro shel ‘Ésav (Genesis XXXII, 24-32, Rashi ad loc.), was not a contest of physical strength (since a mal’ach is not a physical being) but rather one of strength of character, determination, will, and courage. Ha-melech ha-mashiah must be aware that his will not be a conventional government of force, brute strength, and coercion, but will emanate from the ruah Ha-Shem, which generates the gëvura necessary to stand up for the truth of Torah in a world populated by hostile nations (ועיי' חגיגה י"ב. רש"י שם דה"מ "כח" ו"גבורה" דכח הוא כח בזרוע וגבורה היא גבורת הלב, וע"ע אבות פ"ד מ,א איזהו גבור הכובש את יצרו דמסתמא הגרי"ד ביסס את עצמו עליהם ).

D.

R’ Hirsch’s observation of the relevance of these prophecies to understanding the mënora puts us on notice that all true science, wisdom, and knowledge (hochma, bina, and da‘ath) stem from one single source, the light of Ha-Shem. For this reason, Moshe was told ועשית את נרתי' שבעה והעלה את נרתי' והאיר אל עבר פני' כפתריהם וקנתם ממנה יהיו כולן מקשה אחת זהב טבור:(“Their knobs and their branches will be all of them a single beaten piece of pure gold. And you will make its lights seven, and elevate its lights and shine toward its face”; ibid., 37). Rashi elucidates: עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאים מצדי' מסובין כלפי האמצעי כדי שיהיו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים "אל עבר פני'" מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה (“Make the mouths of the six lights at the heads of the qanim coming out of its sides inclined toward the middle, in order that the lights, when you light them, will be shining ‘towards its face’, their light will be inclined toward the face of the middle qaneh which is the body of the mënora”). All of the lesser lights of science and wisdom, then, properly shine back on the great central light whence they all sprang.

This principle that all knowledge and wisdom spring from Ha-Shem is stated numerous times scripturally, for instance, ראשית חכמה יראת ד' (“The foundation of wisdom is fear of Ha-Shem”; Psalms CXI, 10) or, as Shëlomo ha-melech formulated it, תחילת חכמה יראת ד' (“The beginning of wisdom is fear of Ha-Shem”; Proverbs IX, 10). The Mishna tells us: מי שזכה בדשון המנורה נכנס ומצא שני נרות מזרחיים דולקים מדשן את המזרחי ומניח את המערבי דולק שממנו הי' מדליק את המנורה בין הערבים (“He who won the privilege of removing the ashes and refilling the mënora enters and finds the two easternmost lights burning; he removes the ashes and refills the easternmost [of the two; i.e., the one at the furthest end], and leaves the western [inner] one burning, for from it he lights the mënora at twilight”; תמיד פ"ו מ"א). The very order of lighting proceeds from the center outward and returns thither, presumably to make the same point, that true knowledge and wisdom stems from Ha-Shem, and leads us back to Him, as the navi’ infers when he says: שאו מרום עיניכם וראו מי ברא אלה (“Lift up your eyes and see: Who created these things?”; Isaiah XL, 26).

Parshath Tëruma (Exodus XXV,1-XXVII,20) 2/19/10

A.

Our parasha tells of the donations by the bënei Yisra’él for the construction of the Mishkan: gold, silver, and copper; fine dyed materials; hides; wood; olive oil; spices; and precious stones. The first of the objects to be made of these materials addressed by our parasha is a gold-plated, wooden box called the aron qodesh, the “box of holiness” to hold both the luchoth, the tablets which Moshe had brought down from his second time on the mountain, and the fragments of the first set of luchoth (whence it is also called aron ha-‘éduth, “the aron of testimony”).

The aron was equipped with a cover (kapporeth) surmounted by two figures: ועשית שנים כרבים זהב מקשה תעשה אתם משני קצות הכפרת: ועשה כרוב אחד מקצה מזה וכרוב אחד מקצה מזה מן הכפרת תעשה את הכרבים על שני קצותיו: והיו פרשי כנפים למעלה סככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת ופניהם איש אל אחיו אל הכפרת יהיו הכרבים: (“And you shall make two këruvim, gold; beaten shall you make them of the two edges of the kapporeth. And make one këruv from an edge from this [side] and one këruv from an edge from this [side], from the kapporeth shall you make the këruvim on both its edges. And they will be spreading wings upward, sheltering over the kapporeth with their wings; and their faces will be each toward his brother; [belonging] to the kapporeth will be the këruvim”; XXV, 18-20).

Two weeks ago, we read the words uttered by G-d at Mt. Sinai, which the bënei Yisra’él not only heard but actually saw in the air before them: לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה אשר בשמים ממעל ואשר בארץ מתחת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ וכו' לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשו לכם (“You will not make for yourself a statue or any representation of what is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water lower than the earth.... You should not make gods of silver, and gods of gold you will make for yourselves”; XX, 4, 20). The Ha‘améq Davar notes concerning the latter verse א"א לפרש באזהרת ע"ז שהרי כבר נזהרו מפי ד' אלא כל זה אזהרה במה שאינו ע"ז ממש וגו' (“[It is] impossible to explain this as an admonition [about] idolatry, for they had already been warned [directly] from the mouth of Ha-Shem... rather, all this is an admonition concerning what is not an actual idol....”).

The midrash tells us that the Babylonians, accompanied by ‘Amonim and Mo’aviyyim when they conquered Yërushalayim נכנסו לבית קה"ק ומצאו שם שני כרובים נטלו אותן כו' והיו מחזירין אותן בחוצות ירושלים ואומרים לא הייתם אומרים שאין האומה הזאת עובדת ע"א ראו מה מצינו להם ומה היו עובדים (“entered the Holy of Holies and found there two këruvim; they took them... and were taking them about the outskirts of Yërushalayim and saying, 'You wouldn’t say that this nation was not serving idols; see what we found, and what they were serving....'”; פתיחתא דאיכה רבתי סי' ט').

Why was their accusation untrue, in light of the above? What were the këruvim and why did G-d command that they be made, in the face of His own admonition prohibiting images?

B.

The simple answer, of course, is that since making the këruvim was mandated by the Divine Author of the prohibition against making any other representations, plainly the këruvim were not idols, but an integral part of the Mishkan and later the Béyth ha-Miqdash built according to Divinely transmitted design, as Moshe and the bënei Yisra’él prophetically sang at Yam Suf: מכון לשבתך פעלת ד' מקדש אד-ני כוננו ידיך (“an institution for Your dwelling You are effecting, Ha-Shem, a sanctuary of my L-rd Your hands prepare”; XV, 17).

Indeed, the Mëchilta points out שאם עשה הכרובים במקדש של כסף או הוסיף עוד ב' כרובים או עשאן בבתי כנסיות נחשבים אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב (“that if one makes the këruvim in the Miqdash of silver. or adds another two këruvim or makes them in the synagogues, they [would be] considered gods of silver and gods of gold”; מכילתא פר' יתרו לפ"כ כ' ). Any innovation or alteration of the këruvim would have rendered the mocking statements of the ‘Ammonim and Mo’aviyyim correct (עיי' מהמר"ל מפראג, תפארת ישראל פמ"ו).

We see from the above, had we any need, that every detail of their construction is vital and meaningful, lest they be considered idolatrous objects, G-d forbid. What do the details convey? Why were they made?

C.

The Ramban, in his introductory comment on our parasha, tells us that the “secret” of the Miqdash is that it was intended to represent and make permanent the Divine revelation which all Israel experienced at Mt. Sinai, which appears to have its source in the Holy Zohar (ח"ב רכ"ט., וע"ע העמק דבר ר"פ תצוה שם מגדיר את המשכן כתבנית ודגם העולם הנברא שגם הוא מקורו בזה"ק בכמה דוכתי).
The Ramban’s point is buttressed by what we read, וישכן כבוד ד' על הר סיני (“And the glory/honor [kavod] of Ha-Shem settled [va-yishkon] upon Mt. Sinai”; XXIV, 16), on which root the name of the original structure erected in the desert, Mishkan, is formed. Hence, the heart of the structure is the מקום מנוחת השכינה שהוא הארון (“the resting place of the Shëchina, which is the aron”), which is therefore the first item fashioned from those donations to be described in our parasha.

G-d tells Moshe ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת מבין שני הכרבים אשר על ארון העדת וגו' (“And I shall have appointments to meet with you there, and I shall speak with you from the kapporeth, from between the two këruvim which are on the aron of the Testimony”; XXV, 20). When King David gave his son Shëlomo a model of the work to be done in erecting the Béyth ha-Miqdash, we learn ולתבנית המרכבה הכרובים זהב לפרשים וסככים על ארון ברית ד' (“and for a model of the Merkava, the këruvim, gold, for those spreading and sheltering over the aron of Ha-Shem’s covenant”; I Chronicles XVIII, 18). Merkava means a wheeled vehicle, often translated “chariot,” and is the term used to describe the prophet Yëhezqél’s vision (עיי' משניות חגיגה פ"ב מ"א, פירוש ר, עובדי' מברטנורה ומנחת יתחק שם), which included beings תחת אלקי ישראל בנהר כבר ואדע כי כרובים המה (“beneath Israel’s G-d, at the River Këvar, and I knew that they were këruvim”; Ezekiel X, 20).

We shall not attempt a detailed discussion of the metaphysical reality which underlies the physical analogue in the Miqdash, but it is to be noted that G-d is repeatedly described as “sitting” or “riding” upon këruvim (cf. e.g. I Samuel IV, 4; II Samuel VI, 2; Psalms LXXX, 2; עבודה זרה ג: ).

Why two këruvim? The Ramban notes the peculiar stress given the phrase וכבוד ד' מלא את המשכן (“and Ha-Shem’s kavod fills the Mishkan”; XL, 34-35), repeated twice, and offers that one instance refers to His kavod and the other to His godel, “greatness” or “magnitude”; cf. Deuteronomy V, 21: הראנודג' אלקינו את כבדו ואת גדלו (“Ha-Shem our G-d showed us His kavod and His godel”). He also notes the verse וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו מעל הכפרת אשר על ארן העדת מבין שני הכרבים וידבר אליו (“And [Moshe] heard the voice speaking to him from upon the kapporeth which was on the aron of testimony from between the two këruvim, and He spoke to [Moshe]”; Numbers VII, 89) which repetition reflects the transmittal of the Divine voice from the heavens, and the transition from the metaphysical state to its physical manifestation (ע"ע במדבר רבה פי"ד סי' ל"ב). (In this connection, note the highly unusual form of the participle in the first clause, middabbér, generally understood to be in the reflexive hithpa‘él – in the metaphysical state, Ha-Shem’s “voice” “speaks” to Itself, and becomes manifest here below).

Finally, why did they have to be of gold? The Divine Presence was felt and the Voice heard in a fashion analogous to Moshe’s original revelation at the burning bush, as Moshe himself tells us: מן השמים השמיעך את קלו כו' ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה ודבריו שמעת מתוך האש (“From the heavens He made heard to you His voice... and on the earth He showed you His great fire, and His words you heard from the fire’s midst”; Deuteronomy IV, 36). The bright, shining gold is emblematic of the Divine fire.

So the aron with its këruvim is the first thing fashioned from the donations to be discussed, because it was the actual centre of the Mishkan and its raison d’être. As G-d subsequently tells Moshe, איועד לכם שמה לדבר אליך שם: ונעדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבדי (“I shall keep appointments with you [plural] there to speak to you [singular; i.e. Moshe]. And I shall keep appointments there for the bënei Yisra’él and it will be holy through My kavod”; Exodus XXIX, 42-43).

D.

The Talmud tells us that the original aron qodesh was buried beneath the Béyth ha-Miqdash by King Yoshiyahu: מעשה בכהן א' שהי' מתעסק וראה את הרצפה שהיא משונה מחברותי' בא ואמר לחבירו לא הספיק לגמור את הדבר עד שיצתה נשמתו וידעו בייחוד ששם הארון גנוז (“It is told that a certain kohén was working [in the Second Temple] and saw that the floor was different from the other sections of flooring. He came and told his fellow, and before he was able to finish the matter his soul departed, and they knew with certainty that the aron was hidden there”; ירושלמי שקלים פ"ו ה"א במשנה ובגמרא שם וע"ע יומא נ"ב:). Thus protected, we may be assured that it has never been found, and is still there, waiting for us.

The verb ivva‘éd, translated “I shall keep appointments” is imperfective in form. The imperfective implies something continuous, unending, possessed of future potential. Since the destruction of the Béyth ha-Miqdash the Shëchina has been in exile, together with His holy nation. But the prophets have promised that the Béyth ha-Miqdash will be rebuilt, that the aron qodesh will be found, and the Shëchina will return with us from exile, to settle in our midst.
After all, we have appointments to keep.

Parshath Truma (Exodus XXIV,1-XXVII,19) 2/27/09

A.

As our parasha opens, G-d tells Moshe to instruct the bnei Yisra’él to donate the materials to be used in constructing the Mishkan and its associated artifacts. Amongst those artefacts, Moshe is instructed make a large, rectangular box (aron) 2 ½ ammoth long by 1 ½ wide and 1 ½ deep (144 x 86.5 x 86.5 cm or 56.75 x 34.05 x 34.05 inches, בשיעור החזון אי"ש), made of wood and plated with gold within and without.

The cover (kapporeth) of this aron qodesh or “casket of holiness,” intended to hold the ‘éduth, or “testimony” of Israel’s unique encounter with the Infinite at Sinai -- the Tablets which Moshe had brought down from Sinai – would bear two remarkable figures: ועשית שנים כרבים זהב מקשה תעשה אתם משני קצות הכפרת: כו' והיו הכרבים פרשי כנפים למעלה וגו' (“And you shall make two kruvim; of beaten gold shall you make them, from both ends of the kapporeth.… And the kruvim will be spreading wings….”: XXV, 18, 20).

Not the least remarkable thing about these figures is that the Divine instruction to make them comes so soon in the wake of לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה אשר בשמים ממעל ואשר בארץ מתחת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ (“You will not make for yourself a statue or any image [of] what is in the heavens above or what is on the earth below or what is in the water below the earth”; XX, 4).

The existence of kruvim cannot be gainsaid, as it is attested by the Torah from the dawn of mankind. When the first man and his wife were expelled from the garden, the Torah tells us: וישכן מקדם לגן עדן את הכרבים כו' לשמר דרך עץ החיים (“…Andd He established east of Gan ‘Eden the kruvim… to guard the way [to] the tree of life”; Genesis III, 24).

What, then, are these mysterious creatures, and why should they feature so prominently in the Mishkan on the aron qodesh, such that (as our parasha goes on to inform us) the Divine Presence would later be manifest between them, when G-d communicated with Moshe (v. 22)?

B.

The midrash asks our question: כרובים הללו למה לי? כדי לידע שיש כרובים למעלה. ומנין שיש כרובים למעלה? דכתיב, "היא החי' אשר ראיתי תחת אלקי ישראל בנהר כבר ואדע כי כרובים המה" (“Why [must] I have these kruvim? In order to know that there are kruvim up above. And whence [do we learn] that there are kruvim up above? For it is written; ‘That is the animal which I saw under the G-d of Israel at the River Kvir, and I knew that they were kruvim’ [Ezekiel X, 20]”; מדרש הגדול, פרשתנו).
Indeed, the Zohar tells us, commenting on Psalms CVI, 3: "המהלך על כנפי רוח" דא רוחא דמקדשא עלאה ורזא דא "שנים כרבים זהב" (“‘Who goes upon wings of spirit’ – this is the spirit of the supernal Miqdash, and the allusion is ‘two kruvim [of] gold’”; זוה"ק ח"א ל"ב:). Kruvim up above, as our midrash asserts.

But why should it be so necessary to know that there are kruvim above, that they should be physically represented on the aron qodesh containing the ‘éduth?

Enter Rambam: ונצטוינו אנחנו לבנות היכל לבורא ולעשות שם הארון ובו שני לוחות וכתוב בהן "אנכי ד' אלקיך" ו"לא יהיו לך" ומן הידוע כי עיקר אמונת הנבואה הוא מוקדם לאמונת התורה כי אם אין נביא אין תורה והנביא תבואהו הנבואה באמצעות המלאך כו' עד שמשה רבינו תחלת נבואתו היתה במלאך כו' (“And we are commanded to build a Temple for the Creator and to make there the aron in which are the two Tablets on which is written ‘I am Ha-Shem your G-d’ and ‘You shall have no other’; and it is known that the principle of faith in prophecy [nevu’a] has precedence over faith in the Torah, since if there is no prophet [navi] there is no Torah; and a navi receives his nevu’a by means of a mal’ach… until the beginning of the nevu’a of Moshe our teacher was through a mal’ach [cf. Exodus III, 2]”; מורה נבוכים ח"ג פמ"ה).
So the aron contains testimony of the founding document of Israel, the Torah, and its continual presence amongst our people. But, as Rambam asserts, the gift of Torah was not possible without the possibility of communication between the Infinite and mankind; that communication is called nevu’a, and the Torah attests repeatedly that nevu’a takes place through, and therefore presupposes, the medium of mal’achim.

Rambam goes on: והנה נתבאר במה שהקדמנו כי אמונת מציאות המלאכים נמשכת אחרי אמונת מציאות הא-ל ובזה תתקיים האמונה והתורה ולחזק אמונת זה העיקר צוה הבורא ית' לעשות על הארון צורות שני מלאכים כדי לקיים מציאות המלאכים בלבות ההמון כו' ואילו תהי' צורה אחת כו' והיא הטעאה גדולה כי יחשבו כי זה צורת האלוקה הנעבד כמו שיעשו ע"ז כו' וכאשר נעשו שני כרובים ונאמר בתורה "ד' אלקינו ד' אחד" התקיים בזה אמונת מציאות המלאכים ושהם רבים כדי שלא יטעו בם וגו' (“It is explained in what we have previously said that faith in the existence of mal’achim is drawn from faith in G-d’s existence, and through this are established faith and Torah. To strengthen faith in this principle, the blessed Creator commanded to make on the aron the forms of two mal’achim, in order to establish the existence of mal’achim in the hearts of the masses.…. And were there only one form… it would be a great cause of error, for they might think that this was the form of the Divinity being worshipped, as if they were making an idol… And since the kruvim were made, and it was said in the Torah, ‘Ha-Shem our G-d, Ha-Shem is one’ [Deuteronomy VI, 4], faith in the existence of mal’achim, and that they are numerous, is established, in order that they not err through them”; שם).

In support of Rambam’s thesis, it should be noted that the M’chilta points out that G-d added the apparently superfluous prohibition אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשו לכם (“Gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves”; Exodus XX, 23) specifically because of the commandment to make the kruvim, to preëmpt any atavistic idolatrous impulses (מכילתא דבחדש פ"י).

The grammatical oddity of the phrase shnayim kruvim (where one should expect shnei kruvim) prompts Chazal to offer an additional reason for the number two: המשכן כנגד ברייתו של עולם, שני כרובים על ארון העדות כנגד שני שמות הקדושים ד' אלקים (“The Mishkan is symbolic of the creation of the world, and the two kruvim atop the aron ha-‘éduth are symbolic of the two holy names, Ha-Shem Eloqim [through which the creation was effected]”; מדרש תדשא פ"ב).

Hence, the obligation to make two mal’achim appears clear; why two kruvim, specifically?

C.

What, exactly, is a kruv? The Talmud asks this question, and provides Rabbi Abbahu’s answer: כרביא שכן בבבל קורין לינוקא רביא (“Like a child [ravya], for in Babylon they call an infant [yenuqa] ravya”; חגיגה י"ג:). Rabbi Abbahu sees ruv as the root of the word, and the initial k as the comparative prefix.

There is some evidence in support of this view; for instance, in Genesis XXI, 20, the phrase roveh qashath can be interpreted as “a youth, a bowman,” likewise deriving roveh from ruv (עיי' פי' רבינו חננאל על הגמרא, אונקלוס שם בספר בראשית, והעמק דבר עה"פ ). In the Zohar we find: מאן מקיים עלמא כו' ינוקי דלעאן באורייתא ובגין אינון רביין דעלמא עלמא אשתזיב. לקבליהון "תורי זהב נעשה לך", אלין אינון ינוקי רביין עולמין דכתיב "ועשית שנים כרובים זהב" (“Who supports the world?...The yenuqei which occur in the Torah, and because of those ravyan of the world, the world has been preserved. Concerning them [it is written] “Doves of gold shall we make for you” [Song of Songs I, 11]; these are the yenuqei ravyan ‘ulmin [“youths’], as it is written, ‘And you shall make two kruvim, gold”; זוה"ק ח"א הקדמה א:).

But this cannot be the whole story. As the sharp-eyed reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noted from our passage, the definite prefix precedes the initial k, rather than following and being absorbed into it, as we would expect, implying that the k is part of the root. Rav Pappa noted this, and the Talmud also records his view: אלא מעתה דכתיב "פני האחד פני הכרוב ופני השני פני אדם ובשלישי פני ארי' ונרביעי פני נשר" היינו פני כרוב היינו פני אדם אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרא (“But from now, since it is written, ‘the one’s face was the face of a kruv, and the second’s face the face of a human being, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle’ [Ezekiel X, 11], this means that the face of a kruv is a human face, whether adult or child”; חגיגה שם, וע"ע רש"י רשב"ם ראב"ע רא"ם וגור ארי' על פסוקינו בענין פירוש מלת כרוב). Rabbeinu Bechayé cites Rav Pappa’s drasha, and adds: ויהי' זה להעיר על אהבתו לישראל כאהבת אב לבנו שהיא אהבה חזקה (“And this is to highlight His love for Israel, like the love a father for His son, which is a strong love”).

So, kruv is formed from a unique root, and denotes a mal’ach with a human face, sometimes that of an adult, sometimes that of an infant (presumably the kruvim guarding Gan ‘Eden, which Rashi terms מלאכי חבלה, “angels of destruction,” were the adult variety); when they are the sort with the juvenile face, it seems, they can be referred to by the Aramaic term ravya.

D.

G-d’s gift of Torah to Israel, then, is the measure of His love for us. The prophet Yirmyahu declares the tie between Torah and the world’s continued existence: אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (“If My covenant is not [in effect] by day and night, I shall not have established the laws of heaven and earth”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 28).

The Chatham Sofér quoted his rebbe, the great Rabbi Nathan Adler, as saying that the reason the kruvim face each other is to indicate that Torah scholars must learn with one another, face to face, with the pure intent of seeking to under the wisdom of the Torah contained in the aron. Hence, even the positioning of the kruvim is emblematic of Torah and Torah scholarship.
Perhaps this is why G-d chose to make His Presence manifest between the kruvim, for the mishna tells us שנים שיושבים ויש ביניהם דברי תורה שכינה שרוי' ביניהם, שנאמר "אז נדברו יראי ד' איש אל רעהי ויקשב ד' וישמע ודו' (“Two who sit and there are words of Torah between them, the Divine Presence dwells in their midst, as it is said, ‘Then shall those who fear Ha-Shem speak to one another, and Ha-Shem will pay attention and listen… [Mal’achi III, 16]” ; אבות פ"ג מ"ג).

And perhaps the father-and-son appearance serves to remind us that Torah flows from father to son, and from rebbe to talmid: כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו (“Anyone who teaches his counterpart’s son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he had sired him”; סנהדרין י"ט).

Parshath Truma (Exodus XXV,1-XXVII,19) 2/8/08

A.

Amongst the materials for construction of the Mishkan in this week’s parasha we find: וערת אילם מאדמים וערת תחשים ןעצי שטים (“and ram hides dyed red, and tachash hides and shittim wood;” XXV, 5).

Rashi explains the elusive tachash with an abbreviated statement from the Talmud, which it is worth quoting here in full: אומר הי' ר"מ, תחש שהי' בימי משה ברי' בפני עצמה הי' ולא הכריעו בו חכמים אם מין חי' הוא אם מין בהמה הוא, וקרן אחת היתה לו במצחו, ולפי שעה נזדמן לו למשה ועשה ממנו משכן ונגנז (“Rabbi Me’ir used to say, 'The tachash which existed in Moshe’s day was a unique creation, and the Chachamim never decided whether it was a sort of wild animal or a sort of domestic animal; and it had a single horn in its forehead, and was made available to Moshe for that moment, and he made a Mishkan from it, and [the tachash] was put away;'” שבת כ"ח:).

Though a rare beast, the tachash appears not to have been so rare as all that, since the prophet Yechezqel, who lived centuries after the Mishkan was bult, also makes mention of it (Ezekiel XVI, 10), which prompts the Sifthei Chachamim to explain why Rashi found it necessary to assert the animal’s uniqueness: ותחש דיחזקאל מין חי' טמאה היא (“and Yechezqel’s tachash was a sort of tamé wild animal”), and hence not suitable for a holy purpose, such as the contruction of the Mishkan. In order that there be a uniquely kosher variety of tachash for this purpose, it seems, such a creature was created.

B.

But was a special act of creation the only way in which a kosher tachash could have been brought into existence?

The question is prompted by the following extraordinary case, mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud: בהמה טהורה שילדה כמין בהמה טמאה מותר באכילה, וטמאה שילדה כמין בהמה טהורה אסור באכילה, שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא והיוצא מן הטהור טהור (“A clean animal which has given birth to [a young animal] resembling a sort of tamé animal, [the young] is permissible to eat, and a tamé animal which has given birth to a [young animal] resembling a clean animal, the young is forbidden to eat, for what comes out of a tamé animal is tamé, and what comes out of a clean animal is clean;” בכורות ה: במשנה). The gmara ad loc. explains that the mishna is a gzeirath ha-kathuv, a Biblically mandated finding, based on a careful reading of Numbers XVIII, 17.

The principle is brought down l’halacha (שו"ע יו"ד סי' ע"ט סעיף ב'), on which the Pithchei T’shuva comments: שנסתפק אם דינה כטמאה ממש או אמרינן הואיל ויש בה סימני טהרה הרי היא כטהרה אלא אסורה באכילה (“that it is doubtful whether [a clean animal born of a tamé mother] has a status completely like a tamé animal, or do we say [that] since it possess signs of cleanness [i.e., resembles a kosher animal], it is like a clean animal, but is forbidden to eat” because of the gzeirath ha-kathuv; שם ס"ק ב' בשם תשובת יד אלי').

The Pithchei T’shuva appears to be telling us that such an anomalous creature shares aspects of both its natures: Its kashruth is determined by the status of the mother, but, in the event that, e.g., a mare has somehow given birth to an anatomically correct cow, the thing happens to be a tamé cow, which cannot be eaten, not a misshapen horse.

If we now return to our original issue, it seems to me that a kosher tachash could have been obtained in this manner: If a pregnant cow or a ewe were Divinely directed to give birth to an anatomically correct tachash, then following the logic of the Pithchei T’shuva, the animal would be entirely kosher, since its mother was kosher, but it would also possess the simanim, the “signs” of a tachash, without necessitating the special creation of a unique creature, as the gmara cited supra and Rashi intimate.

So what was the hechrach, the necessity, for the special act of creation they seem to require?

C.

Though he does not say this explicitly, the Pithchei T’shuva’s halachic svara, his “legal logic,” seems to me to be based upon another mishna, where we learn: המפלת כמין בהמה חי' ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין, אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה כו' דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים, כל שאין בו מצורת אדם אינו ולד (“'[If a woman] miscarries [a fetus shaped] like a sort of domestic animal, or wild animal, or fowl, if it is male, she should sit [for the requisite period] for a male [cf. Leviticus XII, 4] and if it is female, she should sit [for the requisite period] for a female [ibid., 10]...' [those are] the words of Rabbi Me’ir; and the Chachamim say, 'Anything which does not partake of the form of a human being, is not a [human] fetus;” נדה כ"א. במשנה).

The Pithchei T’shuva clearly seems to be guided by the opinon of the Chachamim in his estimation that the shape or form of the young animal determines its identity (וכן הלכתא, עיי' שו"ע יו"ד סי' קצ"ד סעיף ג' ), but what is most interesting for our purpsoes is Rabbi Me’ir’s opinion. He appears to hold that the young creature’s identity is entirely defined by its mother; indeed, a bit later on in the gmara (שם, כ"ג.), Rabbi Yirmya takes Rabbi Me’ir’s position to its logical extreme: לר"מ דאמר בהמה במעי אשה ולד מעליא הוא, קבל בה אבי' קידושין מהו? (“According to Rabbi Meir, who says that a beast in a woman’s belly is a valid human fetus, what would be the case if [such a female fetus survived and] her father married her off?”).

In light of his opinion, then, it is not at all surprising that it is Rabbi Me’ir who requires that the kosher tachash be a completely unique creation, since he would not accept our case of a “tachash son of cow” as being a tachash at all, but simply a misshapen calf.

But it is noteworthy that when Rashi excerpts this passage, he follows his usual custom of not ciring the author of the statement. The implication is that he, and the Talmud, feel that this was the metzi’uth, what actually took place. Since it seems to be important that this is Rabbi Me’ir’s opinion being cited (because the halacha, as we see from the Pithchei T’shuva, does not appear to agree with him), why does Rashi not mention Rabbi Me’ir here?

D.

The answer, I believe, can be seen by returning to the words of the Pithchei T’shuva: He says that the status of the anomalous young animal is נסתפק, “doubtful”; he does not express certainty one way or the other, if the young creature is a calf (according to its form) or a colt (according to its mother).

The argument which I have made above, following the Pithchei T’shuva’s logic, may be true. It may be the case that a cow could give birth to young resembling a tachash in every respect save that they are kosher, but it also may not be so. If the creature originates from a special act of Divine creation, though, it obviates all doubts, and one avoids having to ask the sh’éla.

This, then, is the lesson to be learnt, I believe, from how Rashi deals with this matter. ברי ושמא ברי עדיף, the Talmud tells us (כתובות י"ב:); when confronted with a choice between a clear certainty and a case of “perhaps,” choose the clear certainty.