Purpose of the Mishkan/2/en

Purpose of the Mishkan

Exegetical Approaches

THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDERGOING EDITORIAL REVIEW

An Ideal

Building the Mishkan provided a diverse array of benefits and opportunities for the Children of Israel.

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 house – 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, as per their literal interpretation, these words provide Hashem's explanation of the primary purpose of the Tabernacle.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 prior to 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

Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash – Ramban equates the Mishkan and the Mikdash.¹⁸ The primary purpose of both was to be a home for the Divine presence.

Honoring Hashem

The Mishkan provided an opportunity for the Children of Israel to express their gratitude to and respect for Hashem. Thus, all of the nation's initial collective and creative labors are dedicated to Hashem in the form of the Tabernacle.

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.¹⁹
• 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 that 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 the initial fruits of their labor to Hashem.

Chronology – According to this approach, it is logical to assume that the command to build the Tabernacle appears in its chronological place.

Parallels – The Biur compares the Israelite's dedication to Hashem of the first product of their labors to the obligation of giving the first fruits of one's progeny, land, and livestock to God.

Focal point – This position does not focus on any particular vessel or portion of the Mishkan, but rather on the edifice in its entirety.

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – This approach would view this verse, not as the ultimate purpose of the building, but as merely one of its practical benefits.

Altars for atonement – This opinion also does not see atonement to be the main objective of the Tabernacle.

Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash – Mendelssohn in the Biur explains that when the nation attained a higher economic status in the time of Shelomo, it was appropriate to also upgrade from Tabernacle to Temple.

National Center

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

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 instilling feelings of brotherhood as they gathered together in service of Hashem. In addition, the tangible building impressed upon the masses a full appreciation of the fact that Hashem, their king, was in their midst.²⁰ As such, the Tabernacle was built in the image of a king's palace with all of its grandeur.²¹

Why now? Shadal asserts that God did not want to wait to build this center until the nation would finish the conquest and already be dispersed. Thus, He commanded them while they were still united to build a portable house which could be set up anywhere.

Chronology – According to Shadal, the command to build the Mishkan is in its chronological place.²²

Parallels – Shadal develops similar theories with regard to Shabbat and the Three Pilgrimage Festivals ("שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים") that they too were designed to unify the nation.²³

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

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – Shadal interpets this verse to be explaining how the nation's belief that Hashem is dwelling in the Mishkan is what will cause them to gather there.

Altars for atonement – .

Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash –

A Corrective Measure

The construction of the Mishkan was intended not as an end unto itself, but rather as a means of fixing a problematic situation.

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.

Focal point – This position views the sacrificial altars, the source of atonement, rather than the ark as the focal point of the Tabernacle.

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" – This verse describes the ultimate goal of the atonement process, to have God return to the nation/individual after their sin.

Tabernacle unmentioned prior to Moshe's ascent – According to the Sifre and Tanchuma, God does not mention the Tabernacle since it was only commanded during the second ascent.²⁵

Sign of Forgiveness

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

Need for a house –

Why now?

Chronology –

Parallels –

Focal point –

"וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם" –

Altars for atonement –

Tabernacle unmentioned prior to Moshe's ascent –

Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash –

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 See also the parallels noted by Rashbam Shemot 40:35.

¹⁹ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor above and Shadal below who similarly see the Mishkan as modeled after a human palace. 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.

²⁰ Shadal suggests, like Cassuto above, that the people needed a physical reminder of God's presence.

²¹ Cf. the Midrash Aggadah and R"Y Bekhor Shor above. Shadal extends the analogy from the palace furniture to the need for royal servants (the kohanim).

²² Shadal emphasizes that the sin of the Golden Calf did not prompt the command, but, to the contrary, delayed its execution, as God did not desire to dwell amongst a sinful nation.

²³ See Shadal in his commentary on Shemot 20:11Shemot 20:11About R. S.D. Luzzatto, and in Yesodei HaTorah 53-54 (pp.61-62)Yesodei HaTorah 54About R. S.D. Luzzatto, and in [= Mechkarei HaYahadut I (pp.44-45)]. Cf. Philo in On the Special Laws I:70, Josephus in Antiquities 4:8:7 (203-204), and Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim 3:32,43.

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 Lekach Tov and R. Bachya might suggest that it was not mentioned as it was not relevant as of yet.