Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Terumah/0/en

Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Terumah

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Does Hashem Need a House?

As God has no need of shelter, light, bread or meat, why did He command the nation to build the Tabernacle and its accompanying vessels? See Purpose of the Mishkan.

• According to RambanShemot 25 IntroductionAbout R. Moshe b. Nachman, the Mishkan facilitated the continuation of the Divine revelation which began at Mt. Sinai and the building served to house Hashem's presence. Does this imply that God can be contained in a physical structure? What does it suggest about the concept of "sacred space;" are certain locations more holy than others? Finally, how would having God literally in your midst affect your relationship with Hashem?
• The Sifre1About Sifre Devarim views the Tabernacle as a means to atone for the Sin of the Golden Calf, while the TanchumaTerumah 8About the Tanchuma focuses on how it serves as a sign to surrounding nations that God had forgiven Israel. What polemical factors might be motivating the Tanchuma's reading?¹ Can you think of other cases where a commentator's understanding of a story is polemically motivated?
• ShadalShemot 25:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto suggests that the Tabernacle served to enhance not only man's relationship with Hashem but also to his fellow man. By providing a centralized location for all to gather in their worship of Hashem, the Mishkan served to unify the nation. What are other benefits of centralization? What are some of the down-sides?

Change of Plans

Was sacrificial worship in the Tabernacle always part of Hashem's plans?

• Seforno and Hoil Moshe suggest that though Hashem had always wanted a sacrificial service, he had not wanted to limit it to any individual group or place, preferring to be worshiped via individual altars rather than in a centralized Tabernacle.  Only after the Sin of the Golden Calf did He decide that the nation was not worthy of such worship and needed limitations and safeguards. 
• Abarbanel, in contrast, suggests that in Hashem's original plan there was to be just a Tabernacle, a vehicle through which the nation would feel Hashem's presence. After the Sin of the Golden Calf, however, Hashem added a sacrificial component to facilitate the atonement process.

Is it possible that Hashem can change His mind or that a commandment in Torah be relevant only for a particular era?²  What textual difficulties might such a suggestion resolve?³  What theological difficulties does it raise?  See Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood and Purpose of the Mishkan.

טעמי המצוות

The reasoning behind most commandments in not explicit in Torah.  Though many interpersonal laws might be self-explanatory, a large number of laws between man and God, such as the need for the Tabernacle and its vessels, beg the question, "why".

• Is it preferable to look into the reasons for mitzvot, or to simply accept them without questioning?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
• To what extent must an explanation account for all the details of a commandment? 
• Is it problematic to propose a practical or utilitarian purpose for a commandment, or to suggest that it is  a concession to human foibles? In other words, must the Torah's laws represent an ideal and be inherently valuable, or might they simply be addressing human needs and nature?

Of Tables, Bread and Covenants We often look for symbolic meaning in rituals or religious objects.  What symbolism might lie behind the Ark, Table, Menorah and Incense Altar? What role does eating play in religious life?  How many rites or commandments necessitate partaking of food; why?

• Abarbanel suggests that the Ark symbolizes the Torah, while the other vessels represent the physical (table), intellectual (menorah) and spiritual (incense) rewards granted to those who observe it. Do you find this reading compelling?  Why or why not?

• In the time of Tanakh, meals were often connected to signing covenantal agreements, serving the same function as a handshake might today. In light of this, R. Hovav Yechieli⁴ suggests that the Lechem HaPanim constituted a covenant sealing meal which continuously renewed the Covenant of Sinai.  What textual or conceptual support can you bring for this reading?

• See Purpose of the Shulchan and Lechem HaPanim for more on both approaches.

¹ The Midrash might be a direct response to Christian doctrine that the Golden Calf caused a permanent breach in God's relationship with the Children of Israel and created the need for them to observe all of the mitzvot (as a punishment) rather than merely achieving salvation by having simple faith.  According to the Midrash, it is specifically the commandment to build a Tabernacle which follows the sin of the Golden Calf, while all other mitzvot were given already at Marah or on Mt. Sinai before the sin. In addition, the Tabernacle itself is not a sign of a dysfunctional relationship but a mended one.

² Can you think of other cases in which an intervening event might have led to a change in Hashem's original plan?  See Rashbam on The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe?  What other commandments might be understood to pertain to just one era? For two examples, see Hoil Moshe on  "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye and Rambam on Purpose of the Sacrifices.

³ The Hoil Moshe uses his explanation to account for the discrepancy in the laws regarding the altar in Shemot 20 and Shemot 27.

⁴ See R. Hovav Yechieli, "תערך לפני שלחן – השולחן ולחם הפנים", Megadim 44 (5766): 33-49.