Purpose of the Mishkan/2/en

Purpose of the Mishkan

Exegetical Approaches

THIS PAGE HAS NOT YET UNDERGONE EDITORIAL REVIEW

An Ideal

Symbol of Sinai

The Mishkan was a physical symbol of the continuation of the Divine revelation which began at Mt. Sinai, and it served as a home for the Tablets of the Covenant which were given at Sinai.¹

Sources: R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 25:2Shemot 30:1Shemot 36:8About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanShemot 25:2Shemot 40:34Introduction to VayikraIntroduction to BemidbarDerashat Torat Hashem Temimah (p. 163)About R. Moshe Nachmanides, U. CassutoIntroduction to Shemot 25About U. Cassuto

Need for a home – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that, at its most basic level, the Tabernacle was designed to house the Ark, which in turn functioned as a safe deposit box for the Tablets. Ramban then develops the notion that this connection to the Tablets also mystically transformed the Mishkan and the Ark into an extension of Mt. Sinai,² thereby facilitating the continued Divine presence.³ In contrast, Cassuto asserts that although Hashem can dwell amidst the people without the existence of any physical structure, the nation needed to see a tangible building to reassure them of God's ongoing presence.⁴

Why now? – The command to build the Mishkan logically comes at this point, since it is an outgrowth of the revelation at Mt. Sinai and must house the Tablets which came from Sinai.

Chronology – According to Ramban and Cassuto, the command to build the Mishkan is recorded in chronological order, as it flowed from the Sinaitic revelation and preceded (and was unconnected to) the sin of the Golden Calf.⁵ R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, maintains that the instructions were given only after the sin of the Golden Calf.⁶

Ancient Near Eastern parallels – In the Ancient Near East, copies of treaties were often stored in the temples of the gods of the two parties,⁷ presumably both for their safekeeping and to instill fear of retribution for any transgressions from the divine witness. As the Tablets of the Law served as testimony to the covenant (or treaty) between the nation and Hashem, it is not surprising that they were similarly stored in Hashem's "Temple", the Mishkan.⁸

Biblical parallels – Ramban points to a number of linguistic and conceptual parallels which link the giving of the Decalogue at Mt. Sinai and the construction of the Mishkan.⁹ These highlight how the Tabernacle transformed the initial one-time revelation into a continuous one.¹⁰

Focal point – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ramban¹¹ maintain that the Ark ("אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת") and the Tablets ("לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת") are the raison d'être for the entire Mishkan (which was thus referred to as "מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת")‎,¹² as it is above the Ark that Hashem would descend to commune with Moshe. They also assert that for this very reason, the aron is the first vessel commanded to be made.¹³

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – This position maintains that these words provide Hashem's explanation of the primary purpose of the building.¹⁴

Altars for atonement – Ramban explains that by atoning for the nation's sins, the sacrifices insured that the Divine presence would not desert the sanctuary.¹⁵ Thus, the altars were subservient to the Ark which was the main focus of the Tabernacle.¹⁶

Tabernacle unmentioned before Moshe's ascent – According to this approach, it is possible that Hashem initially mentioned only the Tablets to Moshe, since they are what created the need for the Tabernacle.¹⁷

Honoring Hashem

The Mishkan provided an opportunity for the people to give to and show respect for Hashem. It is the equivalent of the commandment to give of one's first fruits; in this case man's first creative work is consecrated back to God.

Sources: Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 27:1About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), BiurBiur End of ShemotAbout the Biur

Need for a house – According to this approach, it is the process of building and dedicating a house to Hashem, rather than the resulting completed product, which is important.

• Midrash Aggadah asserts that the nation desired to build a special place for God, as a way of glorifying Him. Turning to human models of relationship, the people thought to honor God in the way that subjects glorify a king, by building him a palace with a candelabrum, table, and incense.¹⁸
• According to the Biur, consecrating a House for God was for the people's own benefit. In dedicating the first fruits of their building, the nation learned to recognize Hashem's hand in all they did and made.

Why now? – As the nation was about to enter the land and begin building an infrastructure, homes, and other institutions, it was incumbent on them to first consecrate their first building to Hashem.¹⁹

Chronology – The command to build the Tabernacle is in chronological order.

Parallels – The Biur compares this commandment to that of bikkurim, the giving of first fruits. Just as one must give the first of one's womb, land, and animals, so too one must consecrate the first of one's creative actions to Hashem.

Focal point – This position does not focus on any particular vessel or section of the Mishkan, but rather on the edifice as a whole.

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – This approach would view this verse not as the ultimate purpose of the building but one of the practical benefits of the nation's gift to God.

Altars for atonement – These commentators do not explain the relationship between the building being a gift to God and its use as a site for sacrificial offerings and a means of atonement for sins.

No mention before ascent –

National Center

The Mishkan ensured the unity of the nation, providing a centralized location for all to gather in their worship of God.

Sources: ShadalShemot 25:1Vayikra 1:2Shadal Yirmeyahu 7:22About R. S.D. Luzzatto

Need for a house – Shadal suggests that the house served as a unifying communal center for the nation, helping to keep tribal divisions at bay and instill feelings of brotherhood as they gathered together in service of Hashem.²⁰. In addition, the tangible building impressed upon the masses a full appreciation of the fact that God, their king, was in their midst.²¹ As such, the tabernacle was built in the likeness of a king's palace with all its trappings.²²

Why now? Shadal asserts that God did not want to wait until the nation would finish the conquest so as to build this center, and thus commanded to build a portable house which could be set up anywhere.

Chronology – The story is in its chronological place.²³

Focal point – This approach might suggest that the sacrificial service on the altar is the main focus of the Tabernacle, for that is what brought people to gather together.

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – The fact that God chose to dwell in the Mishkan is what leads people to sacrifice and gather there.

Altars for atonement – Though Shadal does not emphasize the role of atonement, he does believe that the institution of bringing sacrifices for atonement to one centralized location helped unify the nation.

No mention before ascent – Shadal does not address this point.

A Corrective Measure

Atonement

The Tabernacle was built to atone for the sin of the Golden Calf specifically, or as a vehicle through which to attain atonement for any sin.

Sources: SifreDevarim 1About Sifre, TanchumaTerumah 8About the Tanchuma, Lekach TovBeginning of Parsahat VayakhelAbout R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. BachyaShemot 25:6About R. Bachya b. Asher, Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 27:1About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)

Need for a house

• Those who suggest that the Tabernacle was a related to the sin of the Calf suggest that though God dwelled amongst the people beforehand even without a house, afterwards, the only way He was willing to return to the nation's midst was if they built a Tabernacle for Him. The act of construction and giving to God, more than the resulting building, was crucial for the nation to reconnect to God.
• For those who disconnect the command from the specific sin of the Calf, it is not clear why a home was a necessary part of the atonement process and why individual altars alone did not suffice.

Chronology –

• Achronological – Sifre and Tanchuma maintain that the command to build the Tabernacle is achronological. Though it appears before the Sin of the Golden Calf, it actually was first commanded after, and in response to, the sin.
• Chronological but related to Calf – Though Lekach Tov and R. Bachya agree that the building helped atone for the nation's error, they assert that the command, nonetheless, preceded the sin. God, in his mercy, provides a "cure" for "diseases" even before one gets sick.
• Chronological and unrelated – Alternatively, God commanded to build an edifice to facilitate the atonement process unrelated to the nation's blunder, right after giving the initial commandments.

Why now? According to most of these commentators, had the people not sinned, there would have been no need for the Mishkan. Once they erred, though, building a house for God was an essential part of their atonement process.²⁴Alternatively, as soon as Hashem gave the first set of mitzvot, He also instituted a procedure through which to atone if one transgressed them.

No mention before ascending – According to the Sifre and Tanchuma, God only mentions that he will give Moshe the Tablets (and said nothing about the Tabernacle) since that is all that occurred on the mountain during the first ascent.²⁵ It was only during the second ascent, after the sin, that Hashem directed Moshe to build the Mishkan.

Focal point –

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – This verse describes the goal of the building, to have God return to the nation after their sin.

Altars for atonement – Since the Tabernacle was built to atone for the nation's sin, it is appropriate that it becomes the site of sacrificial offerings that bring atonement for other sins as well.

General Atonement

The Tabernacle was built as a vehicle through which people could atone for their sins, regardless of the sin of the Golden Calf.

Sources: Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 27:1About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 30:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

Chronology – Though R. Yosef Bekhor Shor follows Chazal and assumes achronology in the command, this position could easily hold that the story is in its proper place. God commanded to build an edifice to facilitate the atonement process, unrelated to the nation's specific blunder with the Calf.

Why now? If one asserts achronology, then one might suggest that the major offense of the nation made it evident that a site for atonement was necessary. Alternatively, if one maintains chronology, one might suggest that soon after giving the initial laws, Hashem instituted a process for atoning when one transgresses them.

No mention before ascending –

Does Hashem need a house?

Why a house? – It is not clear why Hashem needed to institute a Tabernacle as a site for sacrifices rather than allowing individual altars.

Focal point – This approach views the altar rather than the ark as the focal point of the Mishkan.

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" –

Sign of Forgiveness

Sources: TanchumaTerumah 8Pekudei 2About the Tanchuma, RashiShemot 31:18Shemot 38:21Vayikra 9:23About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki

–

–

–

–

–

Concession to Human Foibles

Sources: R. Yehuda HaLeviKuzari 1:97About R. Yehuda HaLevi, RambamHilkhot Beit HaBechirah 1:1About R. Moshe Maimonides

–

–

–

–

–

Combination

Shift in Purpose

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

Dual Focus

Mishkan / Sacrifices, Mishkan / Incense Altar

Sources: AbarbanelShemot 35Yirmeyahu7About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoShemot 24:18Vayikra 11:2Kavanot HaTorah 6,13About R. Ovadyah Seforno

–

–

–

–

–

¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor is the commentator who most explicitly merges these two motifs. It is theoretically possible to split between them, however the Sinai connection serves as the link between them.

² See Ramban Devarim 4:9 regarding the importance of maintaining the memory of the Sinaitic experience, and cf. Ramban Shemot 13:16 regarding the various mitzvot which insure the continued experience of the Exodus.

³ See Ramban's formulation: "וסוד המשכן הוא, שיהיה הכבוד אשר שכן על הר סיני שוכן עליו בנסתר". For Ramban, the Mishkan replaced Mt. Sinai as the source of revelation, and thus subsequent mitzvot were given from the Tabernacle.

⁴ Note the contrast between Ramban's mystical approach and Cassuto's more rational bent. Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor who suggests that the command to build the Tabernacle was intended to provide the people with extra opportunities to observe mitzvot.

⁵ Ramban here is consistent with his general disinclination to suggest that Biblical narratives are out of order, unless this is explicitly indicated by the text. See About Ramban for elaboration.

⁶ R"Y Bekhor Shor might explain that since Hashem knew that the first set of Tablets would be broken, he waited to command Moshe about the Mishkan until Moshe's third set of forty days on Sinai when he received the second set of Tablets.

⁷ See Cassuto Shemot 25:16 who mentions this practice with regards to a treaty between Ramses of Egypt and a Hittite king. See, also, N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 137-138, who points to a Hittite treaty in which the king writes, "A duplicate of this treaty has been deposited before the sun-goddess of Arnina... In the Mitanni land [a duplicate] has been deposited before Tessub, the lord of the kurrinu [sanctuary or shrine] of Kahat".

⁸ This practice can also explain the opinion of the Sages in Mekhilta Yitro BaChodesh 8 that each of the two tablets contained all ten utterances. If treaties were usually written in duplicate, one copy for each party, it is logical that the tablets, too, were identical, one being a copy for Hashem and one for the Nation of Israel, each stored in the ark within Hashem's Mishkan.

Cassuto suggests that the ark itself was also seen as more than a storage chest. In the Ancient Near East, treaties were deposited "at the feet" of the deity and it is possible that the Israelites imaginatively viewed the ark as Hashem's "footstool". Thus, King David says "אֲנִי עִם לְבָבִי לִבְנוֹת בֵּית מְנוּחָה לַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית ה' וְלַהֲדֹם רַגְלֵי אֱלֹהֵינוּ". Tehillim 132:7-8, also, relates the two, "לְמִשְׁכְּנוֹתָיו נִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַהֲדֹם רַגְלָיו קוּמָה ה' לִמְנוּחָתֶךָ אַתָּה וַאֲרוֹן עֻזֶּךָ".

⁹ He notes that the cloud of Hashem's glory descended upon both Mt. Sinai and the Mishkan, God's voice was heard from each, both included prohibitions against coming too close to Hashem's holiness on pain of death, protective boundaries were set around each, and how Hashem called to Moshe to approach in both cases.

¹⁰ The roots of this explanation can be found in the words of R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaoncited by Ibn Ezra Shemot Long Commentary 19:13About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon who points out that Hashem's glory migrated directly from the Mountain to the Tabernacle. See also R. Yosef Bekhor Shor on Shemot 40:29 and Cassuto.

¹¹ See also Ramban in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 33, where he counts the mitzvah to build the Ark as its own distinct commandment.

¹² This position is also explicit in RashbamShemot 25:10Shemot 26:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir.

¹³ See also Rashbam cited above. Rashbam, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban all explain that the different ordering in Parashat Vayakhel is pragmatic, as one cannot construct the ark until there is a house to place it in. Thus, in Vayakhel, the physical structure is built first and only afterwards are the vessels made.

¹⁴ See also TanchumaPekudei 2Naso 11Naso 22About the Tanchuma.

¹⁵ Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor who contends that atonement sacrifices allow a person to get a fresh start, thereby preventing him from despairing and wallowing in his sins.

¹⁶ Cf. Ramban in his Derashat Torat Hashem Temimah where he suggests that the Divine glory initially descended upon the Mishkan and the Mikdash only as a result of sacrifices.

¹⁷ Alternatively, according to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem waited to mention the Tabernacle until it was needed for the Tablets.

¹⁸ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor on Shemot 30:1 who similarly sees the Mishkan as modeled after a human palace, and to Shadal below. The outside altar and sacrifices are parallel to the palace kitchen, the table and menorah represent the inner rooms of the palace, while the inner sanctum with the ark is comparable to the king's own bedroom.

¹⁹ One might question why this was not done in Israel itself. Perhaps, God preferred the nation to dedicate as a collective, something which would be less practical upon arrival in Israel when the nation would be distracted by wars of conquest and subsequently dispersed to their individual inheritances in the Land.

²⁰ In his explanation of several commandments, Shadal consistently points to their value in uniting the nation. For example, when explaining aspects of the sacrificial service, he asserts that one of the reasons for the prohibition of leaving over meat from an individual sacrifice was so that the person would be forced to share with others. Shabbat, too, he says, enables friends and neighbors to gather together to eat and drink. [See his comments on Shemot 20:11Shemot 20:11About R. S.D. Luzzatto.] The three pilgramage holidays provide similar opportunities.

²¹ Shadal suggests, like Cassuto above, that the people needed a physical reminder of God's presence.

²² Cf. Midrash Aggadah above. Shadal extends the analogy not just to the "furniture" (lamp, table, incense) of the palace but even to the need for the king's servants = kohanim.

²³ Shadal emphasizes that the sin did not prompt the command, but, to the contrary, delayed its execution as God did not desire to dwell amongst a sinning nation.

²⁴ The gold of the Tabernacle was supposed to atone for the gold of the Calf, the new "gathering" to contribute for the Mishkan was supposed to undo the original "gathering" to worship idolatry etc. See Lekach Tov for other parallels.

²⁵ One might question why forty days were necessary just to engrave the Tablets.