Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 39-40

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 various narratives from the  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. 

• 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.

• 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.

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. 

Many sources connect the Tabernacle's construction with the creation of the world, either explicitly or implicitly:

• See Tanchuma Pekudei 2 which notes many linguistic parallels between the two accounts.
• Bavli Shabbat 87b and Bereshit Rabbah 3:9 note that the Tabernacle was built on the first day of Creation, while Bavli Megillah 10b compared the joy of building the Tabernacle with the joy of Creation.
• See also Shabbat 49b, which implicitly associates creation and the Tabernacle by ruling that work done to build the Tabernacle is the kind that may not be done on Shabbat, when we commemorate Hashem’s cessation of the work of creation.

• See The Architecture of Holiness, by R. Jonathan Sacks, which suggests that the parallels impart the idea that precision and order are essential both in the natural world God created and the moral and spiritual lives human beings create.
• See Making Space, by R. Jonathan Sacks, which develops the idea that the creation of the world represents God’s creation of a home for mankind by making space for the mundane, while the construction of the Tabernacle represents man’s creation of a home for God by making space for holiness.
• Listen to: The Mishkan - A Reflection of Revelation, or of Creation?, by R. Menachem Leibtag, which develops connections between the Tabernacle and the uniqueness of man as conveyed by the narrative of the creation of the world.
• Listen to: What is the Goal of the Mishkan? Two Understandings of the Connection between the Mishkan and the World’s Creation, by R. Yehuda Turetsky, for an analysis of the many parallels between the two stories, discussing the distinction between God’s creation and man’s creation.
• Listen to: Creation and Mishkan: The Shabbos Aspiration, by R. Reuven Brand, for comparison and contrast of the two narratives with attention to its relevance to the laws and meaning of Shabbat.  
  
  

• See A Return to the Garden of Eden, by R. Amnon Bazak, which draws a parallel between the construction of the Tabernacle and man’s role of dominion as described in Bereshit 1, and the service of the Tabernacle and man’s role of stewardship as described in Bereshit 2.  Taken together, the construction and service of the Tabernacle serve as a means of repairing Adam’s sin.  
• See פרשת ויקהל מול פרשת תרומה, by R. Menachem Leibtag, which suggests that the building of the Tabernacle serves as atonement both for the sin of the golden calf and the sin of Adam.  Parallels between the stories include the image of cherubs which appear in both. 

• Tanakh Lab demonstrates that (not including other chapters that discuss the Tabernacle) one of the chapters most linguistically similar to Shemot 25 is Melakhim 6, describing the Mikdash.  See here to compare the two.

• See בין מקדש למשכן, by R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, which contrasts the intimacy and functionality of the Tabernacle with the grandeur and splendor of the Temple.
• See משכן ה’ ומקדש שלמה, by R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, which contrasts the communal generosity which supported the building of the Tabernacle with the compulsory tax imposed by Shelomo. As a result of this, as well as other heavy-handed aspects of Shelomo’s leadership of the building process, the people of Sehlomo’s time did not feel a sense of partnership and pride in the building as they might have with different policies in place. For the same reason, the Temple is often called the Temple of Shelomo, whereas the Tabernacle is never associated with Moshe’s name but with Hashem’s. While Shelomo’s policy choices had negative ramifications, they illustrate that Shelomo directed his considerable ambitions to a project infused with holiness rather than simple self-aggrandizement.

• See בין פרשת נח לפרשיות המשכן, by Ariel Frisch, for analysis of the many parallels between the sections about the Mishkan and Parashat Noach.3 The author suggests that Noach is unsuccessful at his mission of repairing the sin of Adam which led to the deterioration in mankind which caused the flood. He was meant to be a vehicle atonement but failed, and so this task is later given to the priests in the Tabernacle.

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two chapters.

• 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.