|
And my opinion is that all the Torah is in chronological order (except in those places where an earlier event is explicitly told later like "On the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle... (Num. 7:1)
Ramban on Lev. 16:1
|
The next two parashiyot: VaYakhel and next week's Pekudei conclude the Torah's description of the Tabernacle's construction-- much of the text is an almost exact repetition of the previous parashiyot. Like last week, before Moses begins his instructions, he again stresses the commandment of resting on Shabbat. From a literary point of view, we have a very nice sandwich. Two weeks of Tabernacle instructions (Terumah, Tetzaveh), the middle filling: the Golden Calf incident, (Ki Tisa), and the 2 weeks of the actual Tabernacle construction (VaYakhel, Pekudei). Commentators who note the Torah's brevity on many occasions struggle with the Torah's repetition. Surely, the painstaking details outlined and the lists of materials did not need to be recapitulated? The Torah could have simply said: All that God commanded, they did. Although the lists of materials and the construction descriptions are virtually identical, there are two slight differences. While in the earlier parashiyot the text was instructions (in the future): "You shall make the altar" here the text switches to the actual construction (and therefore the past tense): "He made the altar." Also, the description begins with the holiest and most important objects and works outward; the actual construction goes from the outside in. It makes sense to describe the most important objects first, but in the actual construction, one needs to create the space/place for them before building them. Otherwise, you'd have your basins and your Menorah, and nowhere to put them while you constructed the tent!? Rabbi Plaut points out that this A-B-B-A chiastic sequence may also be a purely literary technique.
This week's Parashah begins with the word 'VaYakhel - Moses assembled'. The root kahal, like the word kehilah, means congregation. The word echoes 'VaYekahel - The people assembled' which appeared in last week's story of the Golden Calf and provides a literary link between the Calf and the Tabernacle. Their function was also similar as both the Calf and the Mishkan were used for prayer. Gold, a prominent element of the Mishkan also serves to connect the two stories. The Midrash Tanhuma even goes so far as to suggest that the gold of the Tabernacle was brought to atone for the gold of the Golden Calf.
The way this Midrash (which Rashi follows) reads it then, the story of the Calf precedes the Mishkan. But the way the story appears in the biblical text, the instructions for the Tabernacle appear before the Golden Calf episode. That is the way Nahmanides (the Ramban) reads it. Why would the midrash re-arrange the stories? Well, there is one logical problem with the present literary arrangement. We can imagine, the Israelites, not knowing how to worship God after their liberation from slavery reverting to idol worship. But if they had just received explicit instructions to build God a sanctuary, then why wouldn't they have simply channelled their gold and their desire to worship God in the exact manner God requested? Why deviate from God's wishes? The midrash resolves this puzzle by suggesting that the Golden Calf episode actually occurred before the instructions to build the Mishkan. Then, if the tablets were received (as the Rabbis calculate) on the 6th of Sivan, the date of Shavuot, then 40 days later the tablets would conveniently be broken on the 17th of Tammuz, the very day the walls of the Temple were breached and a minor fast in Jewish tradition. (In other words, by reversing the text's order, both the giving and the breaking of the tablets occur on significant days in the Jewish calendar. According to rabbinic tradition all misfortunes that befall the Jewish people can be traced at some level to the sin of the Golden Calf). And there is another subtle implication in this: If the instructions for the Mishkan come after the Golden Calf, then the Mishkan becomes a symbol of God's forgiveness, and indeed, with some creative number manipulation, counting 80 more days (40 days of praying for forgiveness and 40 more days for the second set of tablets) from the 17th of Tammuz lands us squarely on Yom Kippur, the day of forgiveness. The Mishkan then becomes a powerful symbol that even after their egregious sin, God has forgiven the Israelites and that God's presence still dwells among them. So, it is certainly compelling to imagine the Golden Calf episode before the instructions for the Mishkan, except for the inconvenient detail that the Torah has the instructions come before the parashah of the Golden Calf.
However, we can still argue that the Torah (like many Oscar winning movies, TV or other excellent novels) can take poetic license to tell events out of order. Just because the Torah tells us 'A' before 'B' doesn't mean that 'A' happened before 'B'. We tend to forget that the order that a story is told is not necessarily the actual order of the original events. This is an important principle in Torah interpretation. As Rashi says (on Ex. 31:18) quoting the last of the 32 principles of Midrashic Interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose: "Ein Mukdam u'm'ukhar baTorah. There is no earlier or later in the Torah." Although this is often quoted as is if to explain how, for example, Lot served Matzah (he was celebrating Passover?), its real meaning is simply that the Torah is not necessarily in chronological order. But the Ramban won't hear of it: "Why transpose the words of the Living God?" First it requires this rearrangement, which Ramban feels is unnecessary. And there is one more thing that bothers Ramban. If the Mishkan comes as a reaction to the Calf, then does it not mean that the Mishkan was not actually God's original intent, but a concession to human needs? Ramban holds the minority opinion; most commentators believe the Mishkan was the Israelites' idea. After all, God doesn't need a sanctuary, it was the Israelites' need to have a respectful house of worship like the other nations. According to the Midrash, they wanted God to be treated like other kings who had a special palace and special utensils. The Israelites wanted God to have a sanctuary, or needed a tangible reminder of God's presence. Whereas the Ramban would like to imagine that the Mishkan was part of God's original design and not a mere afterthought.
Whether before or after, the Mishkan and the Calf are intricately connected. The key word that connects the two stories is the word 'assembled,' coming together is common motif. The Israelites assembled to build the Golden Calf; Moses assembled them so that they would channel that creative, spiritual desire to worship God, not an idol. The Jerusalem Talmud finds the Israelite's non-discriminating behaviour peculiar: To build the Mishkan, they donate generously; but to fashion a Golden Calf, they also donate generously!
Lessons for Today
These two stories illustrate that group cohesiveness and unity, by themselves, are not necessarily always positive. Rashi comments on two verses where Egypt and Israel have verbs in the singular instead of the expected plural forms: And Egypt [he] travelled [nosei'a] after them (Ex. 14:10) and "Israel encamped [vayikhan] there" (Ex. 19:2). On both verses, Rashi says, "As one person, with one heart." By connecting the two verses Rashi seems to be making the point that people can join together with positive or negative motivation. Egypt was united is wishing to attack the Israelites. Israel was united when it stood at Sinai. Unity and harmony are generally positive forces, but just because a group is united doesn't mean that their goal is automatically benevolent or commendable. What we choose to build determines whether it will be another Golden Calf or a sanctuary for the divine.
That's why we have to be so careful when we 'band' together. Groups like gangs can be powerful and destructive. Those of us with children worry about who they 'hang around with' because we know the power of groups; our peers can be the most influential forces in our lives. The Rabbis contrast the building of the Mishkan with the destruction of the Second Temple. The latter was destroyed because of Sinat Hinam- gratuitous hatred, divisiveness within the Jewish community. While division is always destructive; unity and harmony can be positive or negative. In order to be constructive, we have to make sure that we are working together to build God's sanctuary.
Shabbat Shalom
|
