|
|
|
Parshat Teruma - abstract
Did the Golden Calf Precede the Mishkan?
Last week, Parshat Mishpatim concluded as Moshe
ascended Har Sinai for forty days and forty nights. Hence,
when Parashat Teruma begins with a lengthy set of laws
concerning the Mishkan, it would only be logical to assume
that these laws recorded in Parshat Teruma were indeed given
to Moshe during these forty days. However, for some reason,
Rashi claims that these laws concerning the Mishkan were
given at a later time, i.e. after the events of the sin of
the Golden Calf, and to atone for that sin!
In contrast to Rashi, Ramban prefers to undestand these
laws in there chronological order, and hence explain that
the Mishakn serves to perpetuate the experience of Matan
Torah. Hence, these are the first set of laws that Moshe
receives on Har Sinai, for through the presence of the
Shechina in the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael will be able to
relive, to some extent, the Revelation at Sinai.
One may wish to conclude that Rashi and Ramban argue
whether the entire concept of a mikdash [Temple] represents
an ideal or a compromise. Ramban would maintain that a
mikdash was necessary even before the calf, while Rashi
would hold that this sin itself necessitated a physical
representation of God in order to avoid future blunders of
this type. If the nation had never fashioned a calf, it
would have never needed a mikdash.
However, Biblical references to a mikdash before the
incident of the calf preclude such a notion. Benei Yisrael
sung about the mikdash at Yam Suf (Shemot 15:17) and God
earlier mentioned the obligation of bringing first fruits to
the "House of God" (23:19). Clearly, a mikdash was planned
even before the calf. But if so, how can Rashi claim that
the mishkan came to atone for golden calf? Wouldn't it have
existed regardless?
The answer is that a 'permanent' mikdash would have
existed even had Bnei Yisrael not sinned (with "chet
ha'egel"); even though the 'temporary' mishkan would not
have been necessary. .As Bnei Yisrael were due to enter the
Promised Land and build a mikdash immediately upon conquest
of the land, no temporary structure was necessary. However,
as a result of the golden calf, the "Shechina" left the
nation (see, for example, 33:7). This situation had to be
rectified, through the construction of a mishkan, before
Bnei Yisrael could enter the land. Ramban, by contrast,
maintains that after the Shechina's descent upon Mount
Sinai, Bnei Yisrael immediately needed a vehicle to "carry"
it with them as they made their way towards the land. They
therefore needed a mishkan even before the incident of the
calf. [Additionally, Ramban here follows his general
aversion towards rearranging Biblical chronology. He
generally maintains that the sections of the Torah follow
chronological sequence unless explicitly stated otherwise.]
One final issue remains regarding Rashi's approach: why
did the Torah record the laws of the mishkan before they
were actually given? Ironically enough, the answer brings
us back to Ramban's approach. This arrangement of the
parshiyot highlights the inherent relationship between the
Revelation and the mishkan. The Torah intentionally placed
the laws of the mishkan after the account of the Revelation
to underscore the point that the mishkan serves primarily to
perpetuate the Sinai experience, as explained by Ramban.
Thus, Rashi and Ramban aren’t so different after all!
Abstracts by David Silverberg
|