|
שבת שלום - פרשת תרומה
|
|
Video Shiur
|
Click play to watch the video shiur by Rav Pesach Wolicki
|
|
News and Notes
|
This week, our students traveled to the North of Israel
for what many have called the best tiyul so far this year.
The activities included hikes, climbing a mountain near the
Israel-Syrian border, wine tasting, a boat ride on the Kinneret,
ATVing, visiting the Talmudic Village and Keshet, and more.
The quality accomodations and delicious food added to everyone's enjoyment.
We thank Rav Yaakov Arram, our menahel meshek, Yizchak Fisher,
and our tour guide, Hillel Brenner, for accompanying the
students on the trip.
On Thursday, Magen David Adom came to the yeshiva for a
blood drive. We're proud of the many students who participated
in this important mitzvah. Click Here to see more pictures.
This Shabbat is an in-Shabbat, hosted by Rav Meir Arnold and family.
Rav Arnold is offering several shiurim, including "Priorities and
Conflicts between Parents and Children", "The Role of a Ben Yeshiva",
and "Costumes and Skits: How to make your shpiel really funny".
The oneg will take place at the home of Daniel and Lori Esses.
Finally, we wish mazal tov to Eitan Morad, who made a siyum in
the Beit Midrash this week on Seder Nezikin. Eitan made the siyum
in commemoration of the shloshim of a friend of his who passed away
in New York last month. May the Torah learning in her memory be a
source of comfort to her family.
|
The Mishkan: Lekatchila or Bedi'avad?
By Rabbi Scott Kahn
Parashat Terumah discusses the building of the Mishkan - the Sanctuary which traveled with Bnei Yisrael in the desert and in the Land of Israel, before being replaced by the Beit HaMikdash - and its numerous holy vessels. The initial commandment regarding the Mishkan was given to Moshe at the very beginning of the Parashah, where Hashem asks him to request donations for the project:
"Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying, Speak to the Children of Israel, that they should take for Me an offering; from every individual whose heart desires, take My offering."(Shemot 25:1-2)
What precipitated the giving of this commandment?
Numerous commentators note that this mitzvah appears immediately after Moshe ascended to the top of Mount Sinai for forty days. Avraham Ibn Ezra states that the Mishkan should accordingly be seen as a replacement for Mount Sinai; after it is built, Hashem will speak to Moshe from within the Mishkan, instead of from the top of the mountain. The Ramban, similarly, explains that once Hashem has spoken to the Children of Israel face-to-face, has given them some of the basic commandments, and has made a covenant with them, it is proper for them to build a Sanctuary so that the Divine Presence can dwell among them. The Mishkan would then be the place in which Hashem would communicate with Moshe, and the spot where, "The glory which dwelled [overtly] on Mount Sinai can dwell within it in private... and the glory which was revealed to them at Mount Sinai would permanently exist in the Mishkan." Rabbeinu Bachye is equally explicit when he takes note of numerous parallels between the Mishkan and Mount Sinai, and says that, "The idea of the Mishkan is to be like Mount Sinai, and that glory which dwelled on Mount Sinai in public dwelled in the Mishkan in private."
Rashi, in contrast, declares that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given long after Moshe's initial ascent to Mount Sinai: "There is no chronological order in the Torah; the events surrounding the Golden Calf occurred many days before the commandment to work on the Mishkan..." (Rashi on Shemot 31:18) Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor says that this commandment took place later, as well: "This section was stated during the final forty days [i.e., during Moshe's third forty day ascent to Mount Sinai]." (Bechor Shor on Shemot 25:2) While the Chizkuni cites both opinions, he also appears to favor the latter option. (See Chizkuni on Shemot 25:2 and 25:21)
Nevertheless, even those commentators who espouse this second opinion still recognize that the commandment of building the Mishkan is written immediately following Moshe's ascent to Mount Sinai. Although the Torah sometimes ignores strict chronology in recording particular events, it always maintains a strict thematic order. Thus, even Rashi, Bechor Shor, and Chizkuni inevitably recognize that there is a deep thematic connection between the Mishkan and Mount Sinai. The difference between the two opinions is not whether there is a relationship between Matan Torah and the Sanctuary, but rather what event brought about the need for a Sanctuary at all. According to Ibn Ezra, the Ramban, and Rabbeinu Bachye, the Mishkan is a recreation of Mount Sinai, while Rashi, Bechor Shor, and the Chizkuni all view the Mishkan as a response to the Golden Calf.
It seems that the root of this dispute is predicated upon the question of whether a recreation of the Mount Sinai experience is lekatchila or bedi'avad - that is, whether the Mishkan is an a priori good, or whether the Revelation's constant reenactment in a physical structure exists only as a response to a flaw in human nature. Ibn Ezra, the Ramban, and Rabbeinu Bachye maintain that the Children of Israel are best served by having a specific physical space which serves as a metaphorical dwelling place for G-d. Matan Torah was the first and greatest communal revelation, but other comparable experiences should be readily available to the nation. A physical place in which Hashem relates to the world and in which people can seek Him directly is fundamentally desirable. In other words, direct experience of the Divine by means of physical reality is the ultimate human experience.
Rashi, Bechor Shor, and the Chizkuni, however, believe that Matan Torah was a singular event, and ideally would not have been recreated in a physical structure. The ultimate goal of Matan Torah was the transmission of the Torah, whereas the experience of G-d's emergence in concrete physical reality was secondary. From the moment of Matan Torah and onward, G-d would be primarily experienced through the intellect - via Torah and contemplation - rather than in physicality. Only after the sin of the Golden Calf, which demonstrated Israel's continued longing for Hashem's overt presence in the physical, did Hashem allow them to build a space for the reenactment of the Revelation. Ideally, the reenactment of that experience would take place in the individual's mind, rather than in a structure.
This same dispute is reflected through an ambiguity in the Midrash. Chazal tell us in Shemot Rabbah (33:1) that G-d's command to "take for Me an offering" is referring to both the Mishkan and to G-d Himself, as He is manifest in the Torah:
"Did you ever see a purchase in which the seller is sold along with the purchase?! Yet the Holy One, Blessed is He, said to Israel, 'I sold you my Torah; I have, so to speak, been sold along with it!' - as it is written, 'Take for Me an offering [i.e., take Me as the offering]... The Holy One, Blessed is He, told Israel, 'I have given you the Torah; I cannot bear to be apart from it, yet I cannot tell you not to take it, either. So in every place you go, make for Me a single house so that I can live in it [and be near the Torah]."
The same verse is used in the same Midrashic passage to refer to G-d's existing both within the Torah, and inside the Mishkan. Rashi would understand the Midrash to mean that Hashem is ideally manifest in the Torah, but secondarily available through the Mishkan. The Ramban would understand the two to be complimentary, such that the intellectual adventure of Torah learning is completed by the experiential closeness provided by the Mishkan.
May we all experience the Divine Presence in every aspect of our lives - the intellectual, as well as the experiential.
|
