Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 28-29/0

Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 28-29

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.

Priestly Garments

To explore the significance and symbolism of the priestly garments, many look to other instances where clothing plays a role in Tanakh.

Articles

The following resources interpret the symbolism of the priestly garments in light of parallels elsewhere in Tanakh. Scholars look at the role of clothing in many narratives, from the story of the Garden of Eden to the story of Mordechai and Esther, applying their findings to the priestly vestments.  

• Listen to: The Symbolic Meaning of Clothing in Tanakh, by Dr. Avigayil Rock, for analysis of why Tanakh devotes so much attention to clothing (including the priestly garments) whereas it generally does not focus on mundane or superficial details.  Dr. Rock examines the symbolism of clothing in narrative and prophetic passages about individuals and the Jewish nation.  Clothing represents sin or blamelessness, as well as reflecting emotion, character, and identity.  Dr. Rock concludes with a discussion of the symbolism of Aharon’s vestments. 
• See Do Clothes Make the Man?, by R. Jonathan Sacks, who argues that clothing in Tanakh is generally associated with deceit and betrayal,¹ representing Tanakh’s focus on the internal rather than the external.  The priestly garments represent “the routinization of charisma,” in which leadership becomes associated with an institution rather than an individual personality -- a necessary stage for the survival of the nation, but not the ultimate goal.
• See Tetzaveh: The Holy Garments, by R. Chanoch Waxman, for analysis of the symbolism of the priestly garments in light of parallels elsewhere in Tanakh.  The materials of the breastplate hearken back to the story of Gan Eden, representing the atonement and pristineness that the priest is meant to achieve for the nation.  The inscriptions that the priest wears on his shoulders, heart, and head are also interpreted through parallels to other mitzvot that relate to the shoulders, heart, and head.      
• See The High Priest’s Holy Clothes, by R. Chanoch Waxman who explores and brings Biblical supports from Neviim and Ketuvim for Ramban’s interpretation that the priestly garments represent royalty.
• See Purim and Tetzaveh: Aharon and Mordechai’s Clothing, by R. Yehudah Kerbel, for comparison of the clothing Mordechai wears (Esther 8:12) with the priestly garments, and the symbolism of each.  This parallel reflects the connection between political and spiritual leadership, as well as the qualities necessary for both. 

Terumah-Tetzaveh vs. Vayakhel-Pekudei

The pericopes of Vayakhel and Pekudei describe the fulfillment of commandments relating to the Tabernacle that are set forth in Terumah, Tetzaveh, and the beginning of Ki Tisa.  Commentators seek to understand both the need for the detailed repetition and to explain the places where the execution does not appear to match the command.

Tools

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two sets of chapters.  The table highlights how the language used to describe the construction of the Tabernacle is almost identical to that used when issuing the original command.

Primary Sources

• See RambanShemot 36:8About R. Moshe b. Nachman who suggests that the repetition is an expression of love, and betrays Hashem's great desire for the Tabernacle and its workers.
• R. HirschShemot 36:8About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch posits that the Tabernacle's construction is mentioned with so many details to highlight the the worker's recognition of their holy task and how they undertook it with this constantly in mind.

Articles

Many modern scholars attempt to explain the repetition as well:

• See פרשת ויקהל מול פרשת תרומה, by R. Menachem Leibtag, who suggests that the differences between the units may be understood by virtue of the perspective from which each pericope is presented (the perspective of Hashem versus that of the people).  The Torah devotes so much attention not only to the commands relating to the Tabernacle but to the people’s fulfillment of them because the building of the Tabernacle serves as atonement for the sin of the golden calf, and even for the sin of Adam.
• See Vayakhel: More than Repetition, by R. Yair Kahn, who suggests that Terumah represents a conceptual approach to the Tabernacle whereas Vayakhel reflects a pragmatic approach.  Alternatively, as R. Leibtag notes, the seeming repetition in Vayakhel demonstrates Hashem’s forgiveness of the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf. 
• See Vayakhel Pekudei: Repetition in Context, by R. Avraham Walfish, for an explanation of the repetition that draws on the linguistic parallels between the story of the golden calf and the narrative of constructing the Tabernacle.  R. Walfish suggests that the feelings of anxiety and urgency that motivated the people in worshiping the calf are channeled and sublimated through the construction of the Tabernacle, imparting a message about the importance of balance and self-control in spiritual life.
• See שתי הבחינות במשכן, by R. Yehuda Rock, which suggests that there are two conceptual streams in the Torah’s descriptions of the commandments relating to the Tabernacle.  Hashem both gives Moshe detailed commands regarding every vessel and also shows him a general visual model. By understanding these different aspects, one can resolve seeming redundancies and arrive at a deeper understanding of the purpose of the Tabernacle. 

Consecration Ceremony (טכס ימי המילואים)

The instructions regarding the consecration ceremony of the Tabernacle are found in Shemot 29, while they are first fulfilled in Vayikra 8.  There are several differences between the command and its execution, making one question whether certain changes were made to the ceremony when it was implemented. If so, what caused these changes? If not, why does the description of the ceremony veer from the command? 

Tools

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two chapters.

Articles

• For analysis of commentators’ approaches to understanding the differences between the two passages, see Consecration Ceremony – Command and Implementation. Some suggest that, despite the differences in the description, in practice, the ceremony was performed as mandated. According to this approach, most of the discrepancies are not fundamental, but instead stem from technical factors related to the individual context of each unit. Others, in contrast, posit that the discrepancies reflect a change in plans in the implementation of the ceremony resulting from the sin of the golden calf. 
• R. Nathaniel Helfgot explains the differences between the passages in Shemot and Vayikra  in his article The Miluim and the Shadow of the Golden Calf, following the second approach mentioned above, that they relate to the sin of the calf. He posits that as a result of the sin, the nature of the ceremony changed from one in which inauguration of the sacrificial service was primary to one in which attaining atonement took precedence.
• For discussion of why the consecration ceremony is described in Vayikra, whereas it seems more naturally connected to Shemot, see R. Menachem Leibtag’s The Mishkan’s Two-Part Dedication Ceremony.  R. Leibtag identifies thematic connections between the ceremony and the legal topics of Sefer Vayikra.  

¹ He notes that the Hebrew word for clothing, בגד, is related to the verb "בגד", to betray.