Parashat Ki-Tisa: The Sin of the Golden Calf and the Construction of the Mishkan
CHASSIDUT
by Rav Itamar Eldar
Yeshivat Har Etzion
ParAshat
Ki tisa
The
Sin of the Golden calf
and
the construction of the Mishkan
Rav Itamar
Eldar
In our parasha,
we read about the great tragedy that befell the people of Israel, which just
yesterday had experienced a miraculous Divine revelation, and now sinks to the
depths of the sin of the golden calf, punishment for which would be visited upon
Israel for many generations to come.
Between the sin of the
golden calf mentioned in our parasha and the two-fold assembly at Mount
Sinai – the giving of the Ten Commandments described in parashat Yitro
and the covenant of the basins found at the end of parashat Mishpatim
– we find the parashiyot of Teruma and Tetzave, in
which God commands the people of Israel about the construction of the
Mishkan. This command is carried out in the coming parashiyot,
Vayakhel and Pikudei, following the sin of the golden
calf.
This location of the
story of the golden calf brought the great biblical commentators to disagree
about the order of the events under discussion. Thus writes
Rashi:
There is no "earlier" or
"later" [= no chronological order] in the events related in the Torah: in fact
the incident of the golden calf happened a considerable time before the command
regarding the work of the Mishkan was given. For on the seventeenth of
Tammuz were the Tablets broken and on Yom Kippur God became reconciled with
Israel, and on the next day, the eleventh of Tishrei, they began to bring their
contribution for the Mishkan which was set upon the first of Nissan.
(Rashi, Shemot 31:18)
Even though the command regarding the Mishkan appears before the
sin of the golden calf, Rashi maintains that the sin of the golden calf preceded
that by many days. He bases this claim on the principle that there is no
chronological order in the events related in the Torah.
The Ramban disagrees, writing as follows:
By way of proper
interpretation of Scripture, Moshe was commanded about the building of the
Mishkan prior to the incident of the golden calf, and when the Holy One,
blessed be He, became reconciled to him and promised him that He would cause His
Divine Glory to dwell among them, Moshe understood of his own accord that the
command concerning the Mishkan remained valid as before, and he then
commanded Israel regarding it, as I have explained in the section of
Vayakhel. (Vayikra 8:2)
The Ramban argues that the command concerning the Mishkan had
already been given prior to the incident of the golden calf. But despite its
chronological primacy, the very fact that in the aftermath of that sin, God did
not go back on his intention to rest His Shekhina in the Mishkan
that was eventually to be constructed, teaches us that God had become
reconciled with Moshe and forgave Israel for their sin. The building of the
Mishkan after the sin is therefore significant.
The disagreement regarding the order of the events is not only a
disagreement about chronological order. The question whether or not the command
concerning the Mishkan preceded the sin of the golden calf has
ramifications regarding a fundamental issue relating to the very essence of the
Mishkan.
According to the Ramban, the fact that the command concerning the
Mishkan preceded the sin of the golden calf teaches us that the
Mishkan was built lekhatchila, in ideal manner, and not as a
response to a certain event. He writes as follows:
The secret of the
Mishkan is that the glory which abode upon Mount Sinai [openly] should
abide upon it in a concealed manner. For just as it is said there, "And the
glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai" (Shemot 24:16), and it is
further written, "Behold, the Lord our God has shown us His glory and His
greatness" (Devarim 5:21), so it is written of the Mishkan, "And
the glory of the Lord filled the Mishkan" (Shemot 40:34). Twice is
this verse, "And the glory of the Lord filled the Mishkan," mentioned in
connection with the Mishkan, to correspond with "His glory and His
greatness." Thus Israel always had with them in the Mishkan the
glory which appeared to them on Mount Sinai. And when Moshe went into the
Mishkan, he would hear the Divine utterance being spoken to him in the
same way as on Mount Sinai. Thus just as it is said at the giving of the Torah,
"Our of heaven He made you to hear His voice, that He might instruct you; and
upon earth He made you to see His great fire" (Devarim 4:36), so it is
written of the Mishkan, "And he heard the voice speaking unto him from
above the ark-cover… from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him"
(Bamidbar 7:89). The expression "speaking unto him" is mentioned here
twice in order to indicate that which the Rabbis said in the Tradition that the
Voice would come from heaven to Moshe from upon the ark-cover, and from there He
spoke with him; for every Divine utterance with Moshe came from heaven during
daytime, and was heard from between the two cherubim, similar to what is said,
"And you did hear His words out of the midst of the fire" (Devarim 4:36).
It is for this reason the the two cherubim were made of gold. And Scripture so
states: "Where I will meet with you, to speak there unto you; and it shall be
sanctified by My glory" (Shemot 29:42-43). For there [in the
Mishkan] will be the appointed place for the Divine utterance, "and it
will be sanctified by My glory."
(Ramban, Shemot 25:1)
The Mishkan, according to the Ramban, is a direct continuation of
the assembly at Mount Sinai, and in essence constitutes a "moving Mount Sinai" that allows for
God's constant revelation among the people of Israel. The Ramban proves this
point from the similarity between the description of the resting of God's
Shekhina on Mount Sinai and that of the resting of His Shekhina in
the Mishkan.
On the other hand,
saying that the sin of the golden calf preceded the command concerning the
Mishkan makes room for a wide variety of possibilities to understand the
Mishkan as a response, an answer, a repair or, in general terms, a
consequence of the sin of the golden calf. From this perspective, it is very
possible that had Israel not sinned with the golden calf, the Mishkan
would never have been constructed. It must be clarified how exactly the
Mishkan constitutes a response to the sin of the golden
calf.[1]
The two midrashim
that follow view the building of the Mishkan as a response to the sin
of the golden calf in two different ways:
"These are the accounts
of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of Testimony." The Mishkan of
Testimony is testimony for all who come into the world that the Holy One,
blessed be He, has been reconciled with Israel. A parable: To what is the matter
comparable? To a king who took a wife and loved her excessively. He became angry
with her and left her. Her woman neighbors said to her: He will not return to
you. After some days the king was reconciled to her and entered his palace with
her, where he ate and drank. Now her neighbors would not believe that he had
been reconciled to her; but when there was an aroma in the heavens over her,
they immediately knew that the king had been reconciled to her. Similarly, the
Holy One, blessed be He, loved Israel, gave them the Torah, and called them a
priestly kingdom and holy nation. At the end of forty days they made the calf
and said: "This is your god, O Israel." In that hour the nations of the world
said: The Holy one, blessed be He, will never again be reconciled to them. When
Moshe arose and prayed for them, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "I
have pardoned them as you asked" (Numbers 14:20). Moshe said: Who will
inform the nations? He said to him: Let them make Me a sanctuary. When the
nations of the world saw the incense rising from the Mishkan, they
understood that the Holy One, blessed be He, had become reconciled with them.
(Tanhuma, Pekudei 6)
According to this midrash, the Mishkan which is called the
"Mishkan of testimony" is testimony to all of mankind that God had become
reconciled with His people and forgave them for their sin. The "sweet savor"
that testifies that God became reconciled with Israel symbolizes God's making
peace with "the impulse of man's heart" (Bereishit 8:21) and His
readiness to forgive him. As explained by the Ramban, the very fact that God was
ready to rest His Shekhina among Israel teaches that He forgave
them.[2]
The second midrash, so it seems, goes one step
further:
It can be compared to a
young man who came to a city and found the people thereof collecting money for
charity, and when they asked him also to subscribe, he went on giving until they
had to tell him that he had already given enough. Further on his travels, he
lighted on a place where they were collecting for a theater, and when asked to
contribute towards it, he was also so generous the he had to be told, "Enough."
Israel, likewise, contributed so much towards the golden calf that they had to
be told "Enough," and they also contributed gold so generously towards the
construction of the Mishkan that they again had to be told "Enough," as
it is said: "For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it,
and too much" (Shmemot 26:7). The Holy one, blessed be He, thereupon
said: "Let the gold of the Mishkan atone for the gold they brought
towards the making of the golden calf." Further did God say to Israel: "When you
made the calf, you provoked Me to anger by exclaiming: "This (eleh)
is your god," but now that you have built the Mishkan with the word
"eleh," I have become reconciled to you." Hence, "These
(eleh) are the accounts of the Mishkan." God said unto
Israel: "Just as in this world I have become reconciled unto you by means of the
word "eleh," so in the World-to-Come," because it says: "Behold these
(eleh) shall come from far; and, lo, these (eleh) from the north
and from the west, and these (eleh) from the land of Sinim (Yeshaya
49:12); and also: "Who are these (eleh) that fly as a cloud, and as
the doves to their cotes?" (ibid. 58:8). (Shemot Rabba 51,
8)
According to this midrash, the Mishkan does not testify to
the reconciliation, but rather it brings it about. The gold that the people of
Israel must contribute for the construction of the Mishkan is an act of
repair and repentance for their having brought gold for the fashioning of the
calf. The silver that the people of Israel bring, about which it is stated,
"These ('eleh') are the accounts of the Mishkan" is a repair of
their cry during the sin of the golden calf, "This ('eleh') is your god,
O Israel."
The significance that this explanation attaches to the Mishkan
seems to be entirely after the fact, for the building of the Mishkan,
according to this midrash, is a repair for the sin of the golden calf.
Repair is only necessary when something is broken. In the absence of something
broken, there is no need for repair.[3]
The relationship between the sin of the golden calf and the
Mishkan also engaged the great Chassidic thinkers. Let us examine what
they had to say on the matter.
BELIEF IN MIRACLES AND BELIEF IN NATURE
We have seen how the Midrash focuses on the "testimony," and how
the Mishkan constitutes a response to the sin of the golden calf and
testimony to Israel's pardon. R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev has a different
understanding of the "testimony" of the Mishkan. He writes as
follows:
According to this, we
shall explain to you why on Pesach we are commanded to eat matza
and also to offer sacrifices in the Temple that are matza, whereas on
Shavu'ot the two loaves were chametz, and the thanksgiving
offering is partly matzah and partly chametz. The reason is that
matzah alludes to the way people worship God, blessed be He, because of
His miracles. This is also indicated by the plain sense [of Scripture], for the
mitzva is to eat matza in order to remember that the Egyptians
were rushing them to leave, as it is stated (Shemot 12:39): "And they
baked the dough, etc." And similarly the eating of the korban pesach
indicates the haste. These remembrances serve as a reminder that we
apprehended Him by way of His miracles. When, however, they reached Mount Sinai,
they recognized the truth, and the miracle was not deemed important because of
the miracle itself. For they understood that God alone created everything by His
word, and so He is capable of changing them. Thus, they did not have to serve
Him because of their apprehension of the miracles and the wonders. Therefore,
God did not command that the offering of Shavu'ot must be brought as
matza, for matza indicates apprehension by way of miracles and
wonders, and on the holiday of Shavu'ot they did not have to worship Him
in this manner. Now, a thanksgiving offering was brought for a miracle, as they
say (Berakhot 54b): "Four are required to offer thanksgiving." Now, when
the Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miracle for a person, he first
comprehends the miracle, and afterwards, because God had performed the miracle
for him, he remains constant in his worship, and thus comes to the level that
they had reached at the assembly at Mount Sinai. What helps him reach this level
is the fact that we had already apprehended this at Sinai. He, therefore, brings
a thanksgiving offering composed of matza and chametz, which
alludes to the two aforementioned aspects, one before the miracle and one after
the miracle. Now, when they constructed the golden calf, they lost their
comprehension of worship in these two aspects. It was only when they constructed
the Mishkan that they returned to the first aspect of His service,
blessed be He, based on miracles. But the aspect of the assembly at Mount Sinai
is only when someone worships Him, blessed be He, constantly and with total
dedication. Then he merits this aspect little by little as he improves his ways.
Now, the Ramban of blessed memory writes that the worship of God, blessed be He,
based on His miracles, is called "testimony," for it testifies to Him, blessed
be He. This stands in contrast to one who recognizes His true essence, He having
created everything; he sees with the eye of his mind that everything exists
because of Him, blessed be He. The word pikudei may be understood in the
sense of "lacking," as in "and not one man of us is missing." This is the
allusion in the verse, "These are the accounts of the Mishkan," namely, a
lacking in the Mishkan, for even though the aspect of worship because of
His miracles was restored to them, nevertheless there was a deficiency in this,
in that it does not constitute perfect service. The verse explains the
deficiency when it says, "the Mishkan of testimony." The deficiency is
that they gained only the worship called "testimony," as mentioned above, and
not worship based on the recognition of the truth as there was at Sinai.
(Kedushat Levi, Pekudei)
R. Levi Yitzchak describes here two approaches to the service of
God.
The first, "because of
their apprehension of the miracles and the wonders," "by way of His miracles."
This apprehension finds expression in the exodus from Egypt. The second,
"recognizing His true essence, He having created everything." This comprehension
finds expression on Shavu'ot. We shall try to examine more closely these
two types of apprehension.
R. Levi Yitzchak cites
in the name of the Ramban that the first apprehension is called "testimony,"
because the miracles and wonders testify to God. When the people of Israel left
Egypt, God split not only the Red Sea, but also all the frameworks and
limitations of nature, thus exposing the Jewish people to a reality that is not
natural and that lacks logic and order. This is the miracle that testifies that
all power lies exclusively in the hands of He who performed the miracle. The
faith and service that rest on this "testimony" require constant connection to
those miracles that testify to the Creator whom we
worship.
This faith, it would
seem, is reminiscent of the position of R. Yehuda Ha-Levi in his Kuzari.
When the chaver was asked about his belief, he responded to the king of
the Khazars as follows:
I believe in the God of
Avraham, Yitzchak, and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with
signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after
having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent
Moshe with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His
law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is
comprised in the Torah – a very large domain. (Kuzari, I,
11)
The king of Khazars is astonished by this answer in that it relates to a
specific historic event, and not to the fundamental definition of God as
Creator. The chaver explains that our obligation to God came into being
as a result of an encounter that cannot be denied, where God acted on our behalf
in a supernatural way, leaving us with absolute certainty regarding His
existence and powers.
This is the "testimony" about which R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev is
speaking, that which gives the people of Israel faith and certainty in His
existence and power. This is also the eating of matza that echoes the
breach of the frameworks of nature and the change of its order. It finds
expression in the dimension of "haste" which involves a departure from the
regular order, a "skipping," a "passing over" of stages and
laws.
However, R. Levi
Yitzchak does not remain at this level of belief; he wishes to climb up to a
higher level, which rests on "a recognition of the truth," a recognition that
had been acquired at the assembly at Mount Sinai. This recognition brings the
people of Israel to the creation of the world, from which R. Yehuda Ha-Levi's
chaver tried to flee. Recognition of the creation of the world fashions a
world of faith, where the borders between nature and miracle are blurred. The
created world, asserts R. Levi Yitzchak, is nature, but its very creation is a
miracle, and in this sense it turns nature into a miracle. Thus writes R.
Nachman of Breslov:
In truth, we cannot
understand what is nature and providence, for even nature is His providence,
blessed be He. It is impossible for man to understand two things as one, namely,
nature, which in truth is His providence, blessed be He. (Likutei Moharan
Tinyana 17)
When God is perceived as the Creator in an active manner, and not merely
in a historical manner, the boundary between nature and miracle becomes blurred:
"For they understood that God alone created everything by His word, and so He is
capable of changing them." Thus, a person who contemplates the world in this
manner lives with the sense of "He who told the oil to burn will tell the
vinegar to vinegar to burn" (Ta'anit 25a).[4] From this perspective, a
person does not inquire about the miracles performed in this world, because he
sees the natural world as an embodiment of the miracle and wonder of God as the
world's creator and maintainer. This is bread, which, in contrast to
matza, expresses the natural world, the world of sowing, plowing,
harvesting, grinding, kneading, and baking.
The manna whose taste, according to certain midrashim, was the
taste of matza, gives expression to the "testimony" discussed by R. Levi
Yitzchak, which created the Jewish people's obligation to God, as proposed by R.
Yehuda Ha-Levi. An obligation that rests on a recognition of His wonders, and
draws its vitality from His miracles. However, a higher level is eating the
bread of nature, out of a profound recognition that there is no difference
between manna and bread, for "man does not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord does man live" (Devarim
8:3).
Faith from the perspective of continuous creation is superior to faith
resting on the "testimony" of miracles, for on the level of the latter faith, a
person stands constantly before his God and sees His wonders. When faith rests
on the "testimony of miracles," God hides in nature and breaks out for moment in
the guise of a miracle. In contrast, when faith rests on continuous creation,
God appears at all times in natural governance, and nature does not confuse a
person or divert him from openly seeing God.
According to R. Levi Yitzchak, Israel acquired this elevated faith at
Mount Sinai, where God appeared to them in an unmediated manner. The Sinai
experience, as opposed to the exodus from Egypt, did not breach the laws of
nature in a radical manner, at least according to the plain meaning of the
scriptural text. A parted sea is no doubt more impressive than a heavy cloud and
thick darkness, but at Mount Sinai the emphasis was not upon the miracle, but on
the unmediated manner in which God appeared with His voice and His speech before
the people of Israel. From that time, Israel acquired the elevated faith of
seeing the revelation of God in the entire creation, and they were able to burst
out in song over every opening of an eye or move of a hand, just as they had
sung at the Red Sea.
The
Mishkan – contraction
Against the background
of this spiritual level, we come to the terrible tragedy of the sin of the
golden calf, and in a moment, the people of Israel lose both levels of faith.
The Mishkan, according to R. Levi Yitzchak, restores to Israel the first
level of faith – the faith of testimony – and therefore the Mishkan is
called "the Mishkan of testimony."
The following passage explains why the Mishkan was effective
regarding the first level, but not the second level:
And
similarly we find in parashat Tisa in the command regarding the work of
the Mishkan that it was stated following the sin, as Rashi explains there
on the verse, "And He gave to Moshe, when He had made an end" (Shemot
31:18). And even according to what the Ramban of blessed memory says (beginning
of parashat Vayakhel) that everything appears in order and they were
commanded about the work of the Mishkan prior to the sin of the [golden]
calf, nevertheless the matter of the command of the work of the Mishkan
was only because God, blessed be He, saw in advance that they would sin, and to
repair the sin they would need the Mishkan. For were it not for the sin,
it would have been proper for the Shekhina to be in the lower world
everywhere that Israel dwells, as was the case prior to the sin of the first
man, and for the entire camp of Israel to have the sanctity of the place of the
Mishkan. (Peri Tzadik, Vaetchanan 5)
R. Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin categorically states that the Mishkan
was a direct response and result of the sin of the golden calf. Were it not
for that sin, there would have been no need for the Mishkan, and God’s
mode of governance would have been entirely different.[5] The fitting mode of
Divine governance, according to R. Tzadok ha-Kohen is "for
the Shekhina to be in the lower world everywhere that Israel dwells… and
for the entire camp of Israel to have the sanctity of the place of the
Mishkan." The Mishkan,
teaches us R. Tzadok, is an aspect of contraction, for while on the one
hand the very building of the
Mishkan allows for a revelation of the Shekhina, on the other hand
it restricts it to place, time, and person. Only in the Mikdash, only at
a certain time, and only to certain people.[6]
This contraction, according to R. Tzadok, is a direct result of the sin
of the golden calf. Thus, the Mishkan is an expression of the descent of
Divine governance from the aspect of "there is no place empty of Him," at least
with respect to the Jewish people, to the aspect of "And they shall make for Me
a sanctuary." R. Tzadok does not explain why it was specifically the sin of the
golden calf that caused this fall, but there seems to be no difficulty finding
the connection. The process leading to the golden calf began with Moshe's
absence and with the difficulty that it raised for the people of
Israel:
And when the people saw
that Moshe delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered
themselves together to Aharon, and said to Him, Rise up, make us gods, which
shall go before us; for as for this man Moshe, who brought us up out of the land
of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. (Shemot
32:1)
The people of Israel developed a dependence upon Moshe's leadership and
connected it to closeness with God; thus, in the absence of Moshe, it is
necessary to form a "god." The experience of Divine revelation at Mount Sinai
was not directed in the right direction. Instead of seeing how the Divine
presence to which Israel merited at Mount Sinai opens a new window to reflection
upon the work of creation from the perspective of revelation, Israel wished to
constrict their perspective to a material, defined, and designated object, which
would be defined as a "the realm of the holy." The people of Israel chose the
narrow and defined Divine revelation, and wished to realize it through the calf,
the product of human hands. Instead of the world, the handicraft of God, being
His dwelling place, they wished to rest God in the work of flesh and blood, and
thus, by they very fact that the work of man is limited in time and place, so
too is Divine revelation similarly limited.
The Mishkan, in great measure, is a response to Israel's request
expressed through the sin of the golden calf. The Mishkan is also the
product of human hands, and it too limits the Divine revelation to time and
place. We can now return to the words of R. Levi Yitzchak of
Berditchev.
When the calf was completed, the people of Israel cried out: "This is
your god, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt." R. Levi
Yitzchak teaches us that, with this cry, the people of Israel did two
things.
First, they lowered the consiousness of faith from the level of
recognizing the full presence of God as creator and maintainer of the universe
to that of "testimony" through the miracles that God performed for Israel: "This
is your god, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt." This call
returns Israel to the consciousness of the exodus from Egypt, rather than to the
consciousness of the Sinai experience. Israel once again take hold of the
manifest miracles that they had merited, and thus return to the original,
restricted consciousness, according to which God reveals Himself at certain
moments through a breach in the laws of nature. This testimony of Israel is,
however, "false testimony," for the people of Israel relate these manifest
miracles to a material creation, the golden calf.
According to R. Levi Yitzchak, the Mishkan leaves Israel at the
level to which they had fallen at the time of the sin of the golden calf. It
repairs the "false testimony," and establishes in its place "the Mishkan
of testimony" which attests to the true Miracle Maker, but it leaves the
faith, the religious consciousness and the Divine service on the level of
"testimony." The Mishkan, as we saw with R. Tzadok, restricts the Divine
governance to time and place, just as the consciousness of miracles restricts
Divine revelation to miracles.
When the people of Israel constitute the Shekhina's dwelling
place, the miracle becomes embodied in nature and in the natural governance
under which Israel lives. God lives in every house, in every act and in every
movement, and the entire world says "Glory." In a world in which the Mishkan
is built and into which the Divine presence flows, nature once again
"conceals," and the mundane is mundane and the holy is holy. In such a world,
only a miracle allows for a connection with the holy and with revelation; nature
is silent.
R. Levi Yitzchak adds that while the Mishkan repaired the "false
testimony" and left Israel in the original faith of the exodus from Egypt, the
second story of faith – recognition of the truth of God and His being the
creator – can be built through the total dedication of each and every Jew. Such
dedication allows a person to leave the framework of the natural world, its laws
and its limits. At the foundation of dedication, stands the recognition that the
entire world is in essence a garment and cover for the Divine revelation to
which we strive. One who is ready to dedicate his life for the sake of God
fashions his life according to other standards, and bestows inner, spiritual
meaning to the entire world around him. In the words of R. Levi Yitzchak: He
turns nature into a miracle, and in that way he slowly restores the elevated
faith that had been acquired at Mount Sinai and had slipped away in the
aftermath of the sin of the golden calf.
If the
sin of the golden calf gives expression to the contraction of the Divine
revelation, and the Mishkan, in great measure, adopts this contraction,
both from the aspect of miraculous governance versus natural governance,
according to R. Levi Yitzchak, and from the aspect of the Divine presence in the
entire world versus a world that distinguishes between holy and mundane,
according to R. Tzadok – through dedication the limits are once again breached
and the Divine presence once again spreads through the entire
world.
We
shall do and we shall hear – Spiritual world versus material
world
We
have seen that there are those who wish to see the Mishkan as an
expression of the contraction of Divine appearance and the faith therein. It
seems that the Sefat Emet wishes to go one step further. He writes as
follows:
"These
are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of testimony." It
serves as testimony that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave [Israel] for the
sin of the [golden] calf. And in the Gemara: It is testimony that the
Shekhina dwells in Israel. For the Mishkan was a repair of the
sin; before the sin there was no need for service through acts and work. Because
they had stated "We shall do" before "We shall hear," the strength of doing was
entirely abolished. After they sinned with an action, it was necessary to
clarify the matter by way of an action, by constructing the Mishkan in
accordance with the will of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, as it is written,
"As He commanded." (Sefat Emet, Pekudei,
5635)
Prior
to the sin, asserts the Sefat Emet, Israel merited a level in which "the
strength of doing was entirely abolished." They merited this level by saying "We
shall do" before "We shall hear." So too he writes in a different
passage:
For
the root of the Torah is above, as it is written: "It is hidden from the eyes of
all living" (Iyyov 28:21). Only through effacement in Him, blessed be He,
do the people of Israel merit to draw the light of Torah among them. The people
of Israel merited this when they said "We shall do" before they said "We shall
hear." For through such dedication, the people of Israel rise above the material
garment. Just as they were at the giving of the Torah like ministering angels.
But after the sin we lost this level. (Sefat Emet, Teruma,
5644)
Like
R. Levi Yitzchak, the Sefat Emet sees in the dedication that comes to
expression in Israel's call of "We shall do and we shall hear" the way to
elevate oneself above the material world. The Mishkan service is entirely
material service. From the Mishkan itself fashioned out of gold, silver,
copper and other materials, through the sacrifices, the meal-offerings, the
blood, the slaughter, the eating and the drinking that make up the day to day
service. This "material service," asserts the Sefat Emet, is a direct
result of the sin of the golden calf. Once again the connection is clear, for
the golden calf was Israel's attempt to actualize their service in a concrete
and tangible manner.
And
once again the Mishkan serves as an answer to this need of Israel.
Israel's dedication when they proclaimed "We shall do" before "We shall hear"
stemmed from the readiness to rise above their understanding, their
consciousness, and their comprehension, and thus, to emancipate themselves from
the material and the limiting. Thus Israel went beyond their limits and merited
the level of "ministering angels." This emancipation liberated them also
from the need for material service.
Israel's
request for the golden calf relates to the level of their understanding – "We
know not what is become of him." The people of Israel suddenly wish to know, to
understand, to place "We shall hear" before "We shall do," and thus they once
again adopt human limitations. Thus, it was only the "golden calf" that could
satisfy the spiritual needs of the people of Israel, when that need takes into
account the limitations of understanding and the senses.
The
Mishkan too, asserts the Sefat Emet, recognizes this limitation,
and proposes to the people of Israel "material service" that will make room also
for the material-sensual need of Israel.[7]
The
Mishkan, according to this, contains two opposites. On the one hand, it
reveals the Shekhina and allows for God's presence in the world; on the
other hand, it restricts that presence. This restriction expresses itself on
various levels.
First,
on the level of the distinction between miracle and nature; between
particularism and all-embrasiveness; between "the faith of testimony" and
recognition of its truth.
Second,
on the level of God's presence in the world, in the distinction between place,
time and person, and full holiness having the aspect of "there is no place void
of Him"; between "and in His palace, everything says, 'Glory,'" and "the entire
world is filled with His glory."
Third,
on the level of religious service, in the distinction between material service,
by way of the mitzvot, by way of actions, by way of the sacrifices, and
service that is entirely spiritual, having the aspect of communion and placing
"We shall do" before "We shall hear."
The
common denominator is that the more we intensify our dedication in the sense of
"We shall do and we shall hear" for the sake of God, so will we merit to repair
the consequences of the sin of the golden calf - there being no generation that
does not suffer punishment on account of it - and rise to the level of Mount
Sinai. May the shining faith that grows out of this level reveal His kingdom
over us speedily, in the sense of "the entire world is filled with His
glory."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It
should be noted that it is not necessary to connect the disagreement between
Rashi and the Ramban regarding the chronological order of the events to the
question whether or not the Mishkan reflects the ideal situation.
[2] As
was stated, this understanding does not require us to assume that the
commandment regarding the Mishkan was given after the sin of the golden
calf, for the Ramban maintains that the commandment regarding the Mishkan
preceded the sin, but nevertheless he sees the resting of the Shekhina in
the Mishkan as an expression of God's reconciliation with Israel.
[3]
The Rabbi of Apta, R. Avraham Yehoshua Heschel, wishes to accept the
Midrash, but still assume that the Mishkan reflects the ideal
situation, as argued by the Ramban. He writes as follows: "'Six day you shall
perform work, etc.' In this section, the holy Torah sets the warning regarding
Shabbat before the work of the Mishkan. But in parashat
Tisa it sets the work of the Mishkan before the keeping of
Shabbat. It may be suggested according to the plain sense that in fact
the Sages of blessed memory said that the Mishkan came to atone for the
sin of the golden calf. As is evident from all the verses stated with respect to
the work of the Mishkan, to repair with the very words with which they
sinned, as it is stated in the Midrash… But it seems in fact that even
had Israel not sinned with the golden calf, they would also have made the
Mishkan, as God, blessed be he, said to Moshe, 'And let them make Me a
sanctuary, that I may dwell among them' (Shemot 25:8). For the Mishkan
was built as a model of the sanctuary above, heikhal corresponding to
heikhal, etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that we construct a
Mishkan below in order to draw the Shekhina among the seed of
Israel, His chosen people. But after they made the [golden] calf, God, blessed
be He, commanded that they contribute to the Mishkan, and that they have
in mind to atone thereby for the sin of the [golden] calf. Then there was added
another reason and intention for building the Mishkan, that is, for the
atonement. This was in addition to the first reason which was to draw the
Shekhina. Now the keeping of Shabbat is also a repair of the sin
of the [golden] calf. As our Sages of blessed memory said: 'Whoever keeps the
Shabbat, etc. even if he worships idols, is pardoned.'" (Ohev
Yisrael, Vayakhel). The command regarding the Mishkan comes as
a continuation of the resting of God's Shekhina, as argued by the Ramban,
but after Israel sinned, another meaning was added – repair of the sin of the
golden calf.
[4] We
dealt with this in our lecture about Chanuka in parashat
Miketz.
[5] It
should be noted that despite R. Tzadok's approach, he does not find it necessary
to adopt Rashi's chronological order. Even if we say that the commandment
regarding the Mishkan preceded the sin of the golden calf, following the
Ramban, it is still possible to argue that the Divine command came through the
knowledge that Israel would in the future commit the sin of the golden calf.
Thus, R. Tzadok touches upon the difficult and complicated issue regarding
Divine decree and human choice, and the tension between the two. Such a
statement appears to undermine the idea of free choice. It fits in well with R.
Tzadok's unique position on the issue, which wishes to provide full autonomy to
both concepts, retaining the paradox to which this gives rise. This is all the
more difficult when we are dealing with sin. We find an expression of the
difficulty in R. Tzadok's position in the words of the Shem mi-Shemuel,
the Admor of Sochotchov (Teruma, 5672). R. Shemuel is not prepared to
hold on to both ends of the rope. If we say that the Mishkan was after
the fact, we must say that the command to construct the Mishkan was
issued in the aftermath of the sin, for were this not so, Israel would have been
denied free choice. He adduces support for this from the Arizal's understanding
of the statement, "For on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die,"
said to the first man, as a decree that removed from him the ability to choose
whether or not to sin.
[6] We
dealt with this tension between Mishkan in the sense of place and
Mishkan in the sense of person in the previous lecture on parashot
Teruma-Tetzave.
[7] It
is interesting to note that it was precisely the destruction of the Temple that
reduced in a certain measure the "material service," and placed new emphasis on
spiritual service. Yom Kippur in a synagogue hardly touches the physical plain,
which was not the case with Yom Kippur in the Temple.
This
is connected to a long and profound argument put forward by the Sefat Emet
and others, who saw the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of
prophecy as having enabled the opening of a new channel for man's encounter with
God (the Oral Law, God's presence in all places). It was precisely the absence
of the Shekhina's revelation in the Mishkan and in the
Mikdash that provided the opportunity to expose and reveal it.
(Translated
by David Strauss)