Tetzaveh - Sanctity in the Mikdash
Themes and ideas in the haftara
*********************************************************
This haftara series is dedicated in memory
of our beloved Chaya Leah bat Efrayim Yitzchak
(Mrs. Claire Reinitz), zichronah livracha,
by her family.
*********************************************************
Tetzaveh
Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein
Parashat Tetzaveh is one of the main parashot dealing with
the Mishkan and its vessels. Its haftara
(Yechezkel 43:10-27) also fits in well in the
series of haftarot for the parashyot in the book of Shemot
that deal with the issue of the Mishkan. But unlike the rest of the
haftarot for the parashot dealing with the Mishkan which are
taken from the chapters describing the first Temple built by Shelomo, the
haftara of Tetzaveh was selected from among the prophecies of
Yechezkel that describe for the people who were sent into exile in the
wake of the destruction the Temple that will be built in the future. The
haftara's preoccupation with the Temple of the future that has not yet been
built, rather than the Temple of the past that had already been built, creates a
bridge between the past, the present and the future, between the Mishkan
and the Temple built by Moshe and Shelomo, and the Temple that will be built in
the future, between a description of a reality and a process that already took
place and a lofty vision. Thus the haftara fits in well with the end of
Parashat Tetzaveh that deals with the dedication of the Mishkan[1]
and the transition from a point of time in the wilderness to service that
will be performed for all generations ("once in the year shall he make atonement
upon it throughout your generations"; Shemot 30:6).
This haftara is different from the other haftarot relating
to the Mishkan on one very important point, namely, the standing of the
altar in the context of the entirety of the Mikdash. When we examine the
verses of the haftara, we see that most of the haftara deals with
the altar, rather than with the Temple. Even though it opens with the
declaration, "Describe the house to the house of Israel" (v. 10), several verses
later it begins to focus on the altar to which it devotes most of its attention.
This point is both interesting and surprising, for at first glance, we do
not perceive of the altar as the center of the Mikdash. Surely the most
sanctified place in the Temple is the Holy of Holies and the ark located within
it, and the altar is not directly connected to it. The sanctity of the various
components of the Mikdash stems from their relationship to the ark and
the Holy of Holies, the site of the resting of the Shekhina, and the
level of the sanctity of the rest of the parts of the Temple stems from the
connection between those places and the source of the sanctity. Indeed, the name
of the Holy of Holies testifies to its importance, its rank, and its centrality
in the Mikdash. This perception of the sanctity of the Temple, of
concentric circles moving out from the Holy of Holies and spreading out toward
the rest of the Temple, clearly emerges from the mishnayot at the
beginning of tractate Keilim, that establish the Holy of Holies as the
center of sanctity in the world.
There are ten grades of holiness: The Land of Israel is holier than all other
lands. And what is the nature of its holiness? That from it are brought the
omer, the first fruits, and the two loaves, which may not be brought from
any of the other lands. Cities that are walled are holier, for lepers must be
sent out of them and a corpse, though it may be carried about within them as
long as it is desired, may not be brought back once it has been taken out. The
area within the walls [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that holy things
of a minor degree and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for
neither zavs nor zavas nor menstruants nor women after childbirth
may enter it. The rampart is holier for neither idolaters nor one who contracted
corpse uncleanness may enter it. The court of women is holier, for no tevul
yom may enter it though no sin-offering is thereby incurred. The court of
the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory
sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he incurs thereby a sin-offering.
The court of the priest is holier, for no Israelites may enter it except when
they are required to do so in connection with the laying of hands, slaying or
waving. The area between the Ulam and the altar is holier, for men
afflicted with blemishes or with a wild growth of hair may not enter it. The
Heikhal is holier, for no one whose hands or feet are unwashed may enter it.
The Holy of Holies is holier, for only the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement,
at the time of the service may enter it.
As we can see, there are ten concentric circles of sanctity that spread
out from the Holy of Holies until they encompass the Land of Israel. According
to this, of course, the Temple courtyard and the altar are inferior in their
level of sanctity than the more inner areas, as spelled out in the Mishna.
This Mishna, however, represents only one perspective, according to which
the Holy of Holies is indeed the center of sanctity in the world. But the truth
of the matter is that there are two focuses in the Mikdash: the first is
the Heikhal, which includes the Holy of Holies, the most important part
of the Heikhal, whereas the second is the altar; and both are represented
in our haftara.
To support this argument, we must consider the laws of the Mikdash
and its vessels and understand the relationship between them. The Mikdash
houses many utensils, e.g., the ark, the table, the candlestick, the laver, and
the altars; they are all spelled out in the parashot of the Mishkan
in the book of Shemot, in the framework of the commandment to build and
erect the Mishkan. The vessels are an essential part of the Mikdash
and are considered an integral part of it, and therefore thus explains the
Rambam in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot (positive precept no. 20) the fashioning
of these utensils is not considered an independent mitzva, but rather it
is included in the mitzva of building the Mikdash, for "the
candlestick, and the table, and the altar, and all the others are part of the
Mikdash, and it is all called Mikdash, and there is a command
for each part."
There is, however, a big difference between the ark's connection to the
Temple and that of the other vessels. As opposed to the other vessels, whose
place is exclusively in the Mikdash, the sanctity of the ark does not
stem solely from the fact that it is part of the Temple, but rather it is holy
in and of itself, and the ark has meaning even outside the Mikdash. We,
therefore, find it serving as a source of sanctity even when it is not situated
in the framework of the Temple: It leaves the Mikdash and goes out to war
because it is the "ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth" (Yehoshua
3:11), and it does not diminish in significance because it is outside the
Temple.
This doubling is reflected in the Torah's accounts relating to the ark.
In addition to its place in Parashat Teruma as the vessel that opens the
list of the Mikdash's vessels, two sections are dedicated to the ark by
itself as an independent focus of sanctity, without any connection to the
Mikdash: the section of "Vayehi bi-neso'a ha-aron" ("And it came to
pass, when the ark set forward") (Bamidbar 10:35) and the section of "At
that time the Lord said to me" (Devarim
10:1).[2]
This point regarding the uniqueness and independent significance of the
ark as opposed to the rest of the holy vessels was emphasized by the Ramban in
his discussion of the count of the mitzvot regarding the vessels.
According to him, the fashioning of the ark "is a separate mitzva
standing on its own, not a preparation towards another mitzva like
the candlestick, the altars and the table," and therefore it should be counted,
unlike the rest of the vessels. This is because the other vessels are part of
the Mikdash or a means by which to offer sacrifices, whereas the ark has
independent standing.
The truth is that we are dealing here not only with the independent
standing of the ark, but also with the establishment of the basic relationship
between it and the Mikdash as cause and effect. Whereas the rest of the
vessels come to serve the needs of the Mikdash and therefore they draw
their significance from the fact that they are vessels of the Mikdash,
regarding the ark, the situation is just the opposite the Mikdash draws
its meaning from the fact that it is the place where the ark is stationed. The
ark does not merely integrate within it, but rather it is the source of the
sanctity, and the Mikdash and its walls serve as a casing around it. This
point was emphasized by the Ramban (Shemot 25:2):
Now the main desire in the Mishkan is the site of the resting of the
Shekhina which is the ark, as it is stated: "And there I will meet with you,
and I will speak with you from above the covering" (Shemot 25:22).
Therefore, the ark and its cover are mentioned first, for it is first in
importance.
This understanding of the ark as the focus of the Temple's sanctity is
also what underlies the opening lines of our haftara:
This is the Torah of the house; Upon the top of the mountain its whole limit
round about shall be most holy. Behold this is the Torah of the house. (Yechezkel
43:12)
After this, however, the haftara does not develop the motif of the
ark and the Holy of Holies, but rather it deals at length with the altar.[3]
Now, if we consider the criteria mentioned above as attesting to the independent
importance of the ark, we find many parallels between the ark and the altar.
Like the ark, the altar is also different from the rest of the vessels of the
Mikdash, in that we find it outside the Mishkan as a vessel with its
own spiritual meaning that does not require the framework of the Mishkan
in order to be regarded as a holy vessel. Surely throughout the Torah until
the building of the Mishkan the altar serves as a place of drawing near
to God, whether to offer sacrifices or to call out in the name of God. Noach
brings a sacrifice when he emerges from the ark, Avraham builds altars and calls
out by them in the name of God, Moshe marks the victory over Amalek by building
an altar, and even later in Scripture we read about many altars outside the
Mikdash. We should not be surprised then to find regarding the altar as
well, similar to the ark, that a separate section is devoted to it not in the
framework of the sections dealing with the Mishkan "An altar of earth
shall you make to me" (Shemot 20:21) thus establishing it as a factor
with independent importance. The Raavad (strictures to the Rambam's short count
of the mitzvot, positive precept no. 20) even counts the building of the
altar as a separate mitzva that is fit to be counted on its own.
Note should also be taken of the position of the Rambam who sets the
sacrifices as the focus of the Mikdash:
It is a positive commandment2
to construct a house for God,3
prepared for sacrifices to be offered within. We [must] celebrate there three
times a year, as it is stated [Shemot 25:8]: "And you shall make Me a
sanctuary." (Hilkhot Bet ha-Bekhira 1:1)
It should also be emphasized that not only the sacrifices, but even the
altar itself is a focal point for the Shekhina, and therefore the absence
of the altar or damage to it impairs the sanctity of the Temple as a whole, and
not only use of the altar itself, as it follows from two passages in tractate
Zevachim:
When Rav Kahana went up, he found Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi [Yehuda
HaNasi] teaching in the name of Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yose: How do we
know that all the sacrifices slaughtered at a damaged altar are unfit? Because
it is said: "And you shall sacrifice thereon your burnt-offerings and your
peace-offerings." Now, do you then sacrifice on it? Rather, [it means:] when it
is whole, and not when it is defective. (Zevachim 59a)
Rabbi Elazar said: If the altar was damaged, you cannot eat the remainder of
the meal-offering on account of it, because it is said: "And eat it without
leaven beside the altar." Now did they eat it then beside the altar? Rather [it
means]: when it is whole, and not when it is damaged. (Zevachim 60a)
We see then that there are two focuses in the Mikdash: the ark and
the altar. It should be emphasized that they also differ in their spiritual
significance. The ark represents God's descent into this world and the resting
of His Shekhina in it. God descended, as it were, from on high, and
dwells in our midst. As the Ramban stressed in the passage cited above, the ark
is the place of "the Shekhina's rest," and the resting of the Shekhina
in the Mishkan follows the pattern of what happened at Mount Sinai.[4]
The altar, in contrast, represents the opposite direction not God's descent to
man, but man's drawing near to God. Man offers a gift to the King of kings,
sacrifices of his own, expresses his gratitude to his Master, and even declares
his readiness for self-sacrifice. With respect to the ark, God goes down to
between the keruvim and man enters into the place reserved for the
Shekhina with fear and trembling once a year, whereas with respect to the
altar, man climbs up the ramp and ascends. He initiates and he brings the
present, the meeting taking place in the courtyard of the Ohel Mo'ed, in
a place that is accessible to man.[5]
These two focuses can also be presented as representing the fundamental
pair of principles service out of love and service out of fear with the
intimacy of the Holy of Holies expressing the love and the encounter between man
and God out of a relationship of closeness,[6]
whereas the altar and the fire burning upon it and consuming the meat of the
offerings express the world of fear and self-sacrifice.[7]
To summarize, there are two different principles of sanctity, and they
necessitate two different focuses in the Temple.
The significance of the altar as a source of sanctity and the parallel
between the standing of the altar and the standing of the ark is explained in a
midrash cited by Rashi in his commentary to the Torah (Shemot 29:42):
Some of our Rabbis learn from this that it was from above the brass altar that
the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with Moshe after the Mishkan was
erected. But some say that He spoke from above the cover of the ark, as it is
stated: "And I will speak to you from above the cover" (Shemot 25:22).
Now, returning to our haftara, we can understand the transition
from "the Torah of the house" which emphasizes the centrality of the Holy of
Holies at the beginning of the haftara ("This is the Torah of the house;
upon the top of the mountain its whole limit round about shall be most holy.
Behold, this is the Torah of the house") to occupation with the altar throughout
the rest of the haftara (vv. 13-27). This also creates the connection
between the haftara and the parasha, for a major portion of what
is stated in the haftara (vv. 18-27) relates to the dedication of the
altar, the topic appearing at the end and at the climax of Parashat Tetzaveh.
Now, if we examine the verses relating to the consecration of the Ohel
Mo'ed and the altar (Shemot 29:42-46), which come in the wake of the
command relating to the consecration of the priests and the milu'im, we
see that they speak of the consecration of the Mikdash and the resting of
the Shekhina in its midst in terms reminiscent of the opening verses of
Parashat Teruma, and in this way they create a framework for all of the
sections dealing with the Mishkan found in these parashot. It is
stated as follows:
This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door
of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there to
you. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and I shall be
sanctified by My glory. And I will sanctify Aharon and his sons, to minister to
Me in the priest's office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and
will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God that brought
them out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their
God. (Shemot 29:43-46)
As stated above, the words, "And I will dwell among the children of
Israel," direct us toward "And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell
among them" (Shemot 25:8). But whereas there we pass naturally from the
resting of the Shekhina to the fashioning of the ark (as noted by the
Ramban, cited above), here we find a combination of the altar and the ark, with
the altar serving as the primary component. In this context, it should be noted
that also in the book of Bemidbar, in the account of the dedication of
the tribal princes, the emphasis is on the dedication of the altar, and not on
the dedication of the Mishkan or of the ark ("This is the dedication of
the altar").
We see then that the haftara presents us with the two focuses of
sanctity in the Mikdash that represent two different principles regarding
the resting of the Shekhina, while focusing on the role of the altar in
the context of the Mikdash as a whole, and thus it is similar to the
Parasha, which also recognizes these two elements and establishes the altar
and its dedication as a central component in the resting of the Shekhina
in the midst of the people of Israel.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] See the
Ramban's strictures to the Rambam's Sefer ha-Mitzvot (principle 3), where
he notes that the dedication of the altar was not a one-time event, but rather a
mitzva that applies for all generations, and therefore it bears
significance with respect to the dedication of the future Mikdash and
altar. This is what he says, which includes verses from our haftara:
The dedication of the altar is certainly a commandment for all generations, as
it is stated in Parashat Tetzaveh: "Now this is what you shall offer on
the altar" (Shemot 29:38), which is the commandment of dedication. From
this we learned (Menachot 49a): "The altar is only dedicated with the
daily offering brought in the morning." It also seems that the Mishkan as
well when it is erected and the Mikdash when it is built always require
dedication. The offering of the princes was a temporary measure with respect to
the quantities that they came up with, but the dedication itself was an
obligation. So also Shelomo had a dedication (I Melakhim 8; II Divrei
ha-Yamim 5), and so too the men of the Great Assembly (Ezra 6). And
so too in the days of the Messiah. As they said (Menachot 45a): "The special consecration-offering was offered in the time of Ezra just as it was
offered in the time of Moshe."
And there were consecration-offerings on the
altar to consecrate it, as it is written (Shemot 29:36): "And you shall
offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement, and you shall
cleanse the altar, when you have made atonement for it," and it is written
(ibid. v. 37): "Seven days you shall make an atonement for the altar, and
sanctify it." And these are the consecration-offerings that were brought in the
days of Ezra, because the new altar required such offerings to consecrate it as
at first in the days of Moshe
And it is further written explicitly regarding
the altar (Yechezkel 43:25-26): "Seven days shall you prepare every day a
goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out
of the flock, without blemish. Seven days shall they make atonement for the
altar and cleanse it; and they shall consecrate it." Thus it is explicit.
[2] The mitzva
to fashion poles for the ark for all generations and the special prohibition to
remove them unlike the rest of the vessels in the Mishkan which
required poles only during the periods of journey in the wilderness, and even
then there was no negative commandment forbidding their removal also follow
from the fact that the ark is different from the rest of the vessels. It is not
considered a fixed part of the Mishkan that has no meaning outside of it,
but rather like a vessel that when necessary is ready to be moved. This was true
even after the ark was set up in the Temple in Jerusalem (see Sefer
ha-chinukh, commandment 96: "Because the ark is the dwelling place of the
Torah, which is our entire essence and glory, and we are obligated to treat it
with all honor and splendor, to the best of our ability, therefore we were
commanded not to remove the poles of the ark from it, lest we have to quickly
leave with the ark to somewhere else").
Further
support may be brought from the Rambam's position that in later generations the
ark was carried by the priests, and not by the Levites this in contrast to the
other vessels in the Mikdash. See Chiddushei Riz HaLevi al ha-Rambam,
letter from 5682 printed at the end of the volume (see also Rav M. Ilan, "Torat
ha-Kodesh," vol. 2, no. 12).
[3] It should be
noted that in several verses in the book of Yechezkel close to and
preceding our haftara, greater emphasis is placed on "the inner
courtyard
the glory of the Lord filled the house," thus creating a more
balanced picture of these elements. Our purpose here, however, is to discuss the
haftarot and the points that they choose to stress, and not the
prophecies of Yechezkel as a whole.
[4] "The mystery
of the Mishkan is that the glory that rested upon Mount Sinai should rest
upon it. As it is stated there (Shemot 24:16): 'And the glory of the Lord
rested upon Mount Sinai,' and it is written (Devarim 5:21): 'Behold, the
Lord our God has shown us His glory and His greatness.' So too it is written
with respect to the Mishkan (Shemot 40:34): 'And the glory of the
Lord filled the Mishkan.' It mentions twice with respect to the
Mishkan: 'And the glory of the Lord filled the Mishkan,'
corresponding to 'His glory and His greatness.' And the glory that appeared to
Israel at Mount Sinai was always with them in the Mishkan." (Ramban,
Shemot 25:2)
[5] The
presentation in this section suffers from excessive schematization. The issue is
exceedingly important for understanding the world of the Mikdash and
requires extensive discussion, more complex formulations, and consideration of a
broader array of phenomena, conceptual and halakhic. It is important to
emphasize that there are many dualities that reflect these dialectics even
within each separate component. Thus, for example, the discussion concerning the
altar should relate to the fact that a fire from heaven burns on the altar, but
nevertheless there is a mitzva to bring a mundane fire. This, however, is
not the forum to expand upon all these issues.
[6] See Yoma
54a: "Rav
Yehuda contrasted the following passages: 'And the ends of the poles were seen,'
and it is written: 'But they could not be seen without.' How is that possible?
They could be observed, but not actually seen. Thus was it also taught: 'And the
ends of the poles were seen.' One might have assumed that they did not protrude
from their place. To teach us [the fact] Scripture says: 'And the poles were so
long.' One might assume that they tore the curtain and showed forth; to teach us
[the fact] Scripture says: 'They could not be seen without.' How then? They
pressed forth and protruded as the two breasts of a woman, as it is said: 'My
beloved is unto me as a bag of myrrh, that lies between my breasts.' Rav Kattina
said: Whenever Israel came up to the Festival, the curtain would be removed for
them and the keruvim were shown to them, whose bodies were intertwisted
with one another, and they would be thus addressed: Look! You are beloved before
God as the love between man and woman."
[7] So too there
are commentators who distinguish between these worlds based on the duality of
study and action, with the ark expressing the principle of the sanctity of the
Torah, and the altar representing the commandments and the world of action.