Mishkan and Shabbat
MISHKAN
AND
SHABBAT
By Rav Ezra
Bick
As is immediately obvious, Parashat
Vayakhel-Pekudei is about the construction of the mishkan. God
There is one rather striking exception
to this description. The parasha
begins with a short section containing the commandment to observe the
Shabbat. This singular exception is
so obviously out of place that the impulse to connect the observance of Shabbat
to the construction of the mishkan is unavoidable, and hence nearly all
commentators cite the principle that the intention of the section on Shabbat is
to forbid the construction of the mishkan on Shabbat. In other words, the passage should be
read as "observe Shabbat and do not let the building of the mishkan
override the observance of Shabbat."
Rashi comments, "(The Torah) presented
the prohibition of Shabbat before the commandment of the construction of the
mishkan to teach us that (the mishkan) does not override
Shabbat."
The Ramban strengthens this connection
between the construction of the mishkan and the prohibition of working on
Shabbat by pointing out that the relationship between Shabbat and mishkan
in the verses is more than proximity.
The introduction to the prohibition of Shabbat reads, "These are the
things (plural) which God has commanded to be done." This is followed by the
commandment of Shabbat, and then a new opening. "Moshe spoke to the entire community of
Israel saying; This is the thing (singular) which God has commanded,
saying." This is followed by the detailed commandment to build the
mishkan. The Torah has
demonstrated its ability to distinguish between things and thing –
so why is the short and concise commandment of Shabbat introduced with the
plural "things"? The Ramban answers that the introductory verse is not
referring to Shabbat at all but to the multifaceted building of the
mishkan, with its many vessels and constructions. The verse is an introduction to the
entire parasha, and specifically not to the section on Shabbat. Why then does it precede Shabbat? The
Ramban answers by reading the first two verses of the parasha as being in
opposition: These are the things – all the work needed to construct the
mishkan – which you are commanded to do, but "six days shall the
work be done, and on the seventh day it shall be holy for you, a day of
cessation for God." The prohibition in the verse is explicitly referring not to
work in general but to "these things," the work of the mishkan, and is
restricting it to the six days of the work week.
Actually, the connection between
Shabbat and mikdash had already been made in the original instruction
section beginning in parashat Teruma, and, like all the elements of the
mishkan construction, is being repeated in Vayakhek-Pekudei. However, that original Shabbat
injunction was not actually found in Teruma or Tetzave, but in parashat Ki
Tisa. This highlights one striking
difference between that appearance and the one in our parasha. The first part of Ki Tisa is, in fact, a
direct continuation of the mishkan construction instructions of the
previous two parshiot. Although
towards the end of Tetzave, there appears a closing verse indicating that the
mishkan is complete (29, 45-46), there are a number of "additional"
instructions, firstly, the altar of incense at the end of Tetzave, and then
shekalim, the kiyor, the anointing oil, the composition of the
incense, and the appointment of Betzalel, at the beginning of Ki Tisa. Immediately afterwards (31, 12-17),
there appears a parasha of Shabbat, and this concludes the entire section of the
construction of the mishkan.
So, while God included the Shabbat commandment at the end of the
mishkan instructions, Moshe placed it at the very first position
in our parasha.
There are also differences of content
between the two parshiot. The
first, in Ki Tisa, includes a number of themes absent in Vayakhel. In Ki Tisa, God says that Shabbat should
be observed "because it is a sign (ot) between Me and you for all your
generations." Later, the verses add that Shabbat is "an eternal covenant
(brit olam)" as well as an "eternal sign," referring back to the creation
of the world in six days. These
themes are not mentioned at all in our parasha.
However, I would like to concentrate
on a distinctive common denominator in both parshiot, albeit one which, as we
shall see, is emphasized more clearly in Vayakhel.
Firstly, these parshiot state for the
first time that one who desecrates the Shabbat is punished with death and with
karet. This is not mentioned
in the previous commandments about Shabbat, neither in the asseret
hadibbrot, nor at the next explicit commandment of Shabbat, at the end of
parashat Mishpatim (23,12). In Ki
Tisa, God states:
You shall observe the Shabbat, for it
is holy unto you; those who desecrate it shall surely be put to death, for
anyone who does work on it shall be cut off from his
people.
Six days shall work be done, and on
the seventh day (shall be) a cessation (Shabbat Shabbaton), holy unto
God; anyone who does work on the Shabbat day shall surely be put to death. (31, 14-15)
At the beginning of Vayakhel, Moshe
says to the assembled people:
Six days shall work be done, and on
the seventh day shall be for you holy, a cessation, unto God; anyone who does
work on it shall be put to death.
(35,2)
But what is even more striking is that
these two parshiot, which mandate the death penalty for one who does forbidden
work on Shabbat, do not explicitly state that it is forbidden to do
work. Obviously, if one
receives the death penalty for working, it is apparently a crime; and equally,
if you are to do your work for six days, and the seventh day is a Shabbat, a
cessation, then apparently you are not to do any work on the seventh day – but
the simple and halakhically required statement that "you shall not do any work
on Shabbat" is not explicitly present.
It is, of course, clearly stated elsewhere, for instance in the
asseret hadibbrot in parashat Yitro.
The seventh day is Shabbat for HaShem
your God; you shall not do work, neither you, nor your son and daughter,
your servant and maid and your animal, nor the stranger who is in your
gates.
(20,9).
How do the verses in our two parshiot
indicate that one is forbidden to work on Shabbat? They do not address the work
of the person; they address the nature of the day. Where the verse in Yitro commands the
individual to not do work, our parshiot define the day of Shabbat as being
"Shabbat Shabbaton," which literally means a day of cessation, and, in context
(six days shall work be done), clearly means a cessation from work. This focus on the nature of day rather
than on the permitted and prohibited activities of the individual is already set
in place in the beginning of the verse (both in Ki Tisa and Vayakhel): "Six days
shall work be done (yei
But even more striking is the
introduction of a new designation for Shabbat, at least new in relation to the
cessation from work. Both verses in
our parshiot state that Shabbat is a day of cessation, and also that it is
holy. In context, they are
hinting that six days are appropriate for work, but Shabbat is different because
it is holy. "Six days shall work be
done, and on the seventh day, a cessation, holy unto God." It does not say that
you should not do work; it simply says that the day is holy, and that makes it
clear that work shall not be done.
Now the idea that Shabbat is holy is
not found for the first time in this verse. It is stated explicitly already in
Bereishit, at the first Shabbat.
God blessed and sanctified the Shabbat. In the asseret hadibbrot as well,
the Torah repeats that God blessed the Shabbat day and sanctified it
(20,10). The new idea here is that
one is forbidden to work on Shabbat because it is holy, or, in a more accurate
formulation, it is the fact of its holiness that causes the cessation that
grants Shabbat its name.
Now, you will point out, there is
another mention of the holiness of Shabbat before our parasha. In the beginning of the commandment of
Shabbat in the asseret hadibbrot, we read "Remember the Shabbat day to
sanctify it," followed by the prohibition of work. But that is precisely my point. In the asseret hadibbrot,
we sanctify Shabbat by not working.
In other words, not working is the cause of sanctity. In the parshiot of the mishkan,
the relation is reversed. The
sanctity of Shabbat is the cause of the prohibition of work.
In fact, this is subtly emphasized
even more in Vayakhel than in Ki Tisa.
When God spoke to Moshe, he said, "Six days shall work be done, and on
the seventh day a cessation, holy unto God." The phrase I translate as
"cessation" – Shabbat Shabbaton – is a noun defining the day of Shabbat,
but it also directly refers to the fact that one ceases to work on Shabbat. This is followed by the statement that
the day is "holy unto God." When Moshe transmits this command to the people, he
reverses the order of the designations of the seventh day. "Six days shall work be done, and on the
seventh day shall be for you holy, a cessation, unto God." The implication here
is that six days you can work, but on the seventh day, you meet up with a day of
holiness – and hence it is a day of cessation. In other words, work on Shabbat is not
merely a prohibition imposed by God, it is a contradiction to the nature of the
day.
This is exactly what the word used in
Ki Tisa to describe transgression of the Shabbat laws – desecration
(chillul) means. One who
works on Shabbat is not only transgressing, he is desecrating the holy. His sin is an affront to the holiness of
Shabbat. We are so used to speaking
of one who "keeps" (shomer) Shabbat and one who desecrates
(mekhalel) Shabbat that we are perhaps not sensitive to the singular
use. One who eats chametz on
Pesach is not mekhalel pesach; he is not desecrating the day, but "only"
disobeying God. But working on
Shabbat is desecrating the holiness of Shabbat, for the holiness of Shabbat is
what causes the necessary cessation of work on the holy day.
Combining these two points – the death
penalty and the holiness of Shabbat as a cause of the prohibition – it is
logical to reach the conclusion that the severity of Shabbat transgression as
expressed in the death penalty is a result of the desecration involved. So long as Shabbat was presented as a
memorial to God
There may be a subtle reference to the
special nature of a punishment engendered by desecration rather than by
individual transgression. The
Meshekh Chokhma on Vayakhel points out that usually the death penalty is
written "mot yumat," which is, in fact, the way it appears in Ki
Tisa. In Vayakhel, the unusual form
"yumat" appears. He claims
that "mot yumat" refers to juridical punishment, while "yumat"
means death at the hand of God. The
parasha in Ki Tisa is defining chillul Shabbat for the future (as
evidenced by the phrase li-doroteikhem (for your generations, meaning for
all generations). However, in
Vayakhel, the verse is specifically referring to not constructing the mishkan
on Shabbat. Until the
mishkan is completed, claims the Meshekh Chokhma, the legal system
does not operate, and hence yumat at the hands of God rather than mot
yumat in court. I would
suggest, based on the analysis above, that the verse in Vayakhel is not reacting
to a personal act of disobedience, but to one of desecration. Desecrating the sacred results in
death almost as a natural consequence, the way children expect to be struck by
lightning after an act of blasphemy.
It is not that one is subject to the death penalty, but that one dies on
the spot, cut off from the basis of life.
The Netziv, analyzing the subtle
differences between Vayakhel and Ki Tisa, claims that Vayakhel contains certain
implications which are not, in fact, halakhically true. This unusual approach is not our concern
now, but his actual examples fit in very well with our interpretation. First he claims that use of the word
ta'ase (ta'ase melakha) in Vayakhel rather than the word
ya'ase in Ki-Tisa could imply that it is forbidden that work be done on
Shabbat even if the human action was arranged before Shabbat (in other words,
you couldn’t use a Shabbat clock).
The Netziv writes the reason is that "even though it is permitted
according to Torah law, it is not appropriate to the honor of the mishkan
that the sanctity of Shabbat be desecrated because of it." In other words, even
if no one is doing anything wrong (since the human intervention was finished
before Shabbat), there is still an element of desecration of the holiness of
Shabbat if the machine continues to work.
This apparently is true, even if it does not result in a halakhic
prohibition. There is reason to
protect the sanctity of Shabbat aside from the prohibition of doing work
yourself.
A second example of the Netziv is
based on the phrase yehiye lakhem kodesh – it shall be holy to you. The Netziv understands this to imply
that we should add kedusha to Shabbat, and his example is taken from the
practice of some people to avoid any sin, such as dishonesty, on Shabbat more
than on a weekday. Here too, we see
a reaction to the sanctity of Shabbat rather than a prohibited
action.
What is the connection between this
concept of Shabbat and the mishkan? The answer is obvious. In the context of the mishkan,
the holy place, Shabbat assumes the character of the holy time. Just as the mishkan is the
repository of God
Therefore, since Shabbat and
mikdash are two different aspects of the same manifestation, we have the
complex and seemingly contradictory situation whereby in the mishkan and
mikdash the sacrificial service continues even on Shabbat, whereas in
constructing the mishkan, Shabbat calls a halt in the work. Shabbat is holy from all time, and hence
cannot be subjugated to create a new sanctity in place. However, once the mishkan is
finished, the service of God there combines the two forms of sanctity, for both
are truly one, both the presence of God.
They are not in competition but are two sides of God