YOU SHALL MAKE A MENORAH OF PURE GOLD; THE MENORAH SHALL BE

MADE OF HAMMERED WORK; ITS BASE AND ITS SHAFT, ITS

CUPS, CALYXES, AND PETALS SHALL BE OF ONE PIECE… MAKE ITS SEVEN LAMPS – ITS

LAMPS SHALL BE SO MOUNTED AS TO GIVE THE LIGHT ON ITS FRONT SIDE.

(Shemot 25:31, 37)

to give the

light on its front side – fashion the six lamps which are

at the tops of the shafts which come out of its sides so that they face

inwards, in order that when you light the lamps they shall give light on its

front side; their light is turned towards the central shaft, which is the body

of the Menorah.

(Rashi Shemot

25:37)

…He

further commanded that the Menorah be placed there. Everyone agrees that it

alludes to the light of learning and knowledge, and I have already written that

the Ark alludes to the wisdom of the Torah and of

prophecy, which is the wisdom that comes only by the appearance of God in

revelation. The Menorah, in contrast, alluded to that which a person can learn

on his own, understanding gained through the power of his own intelligence. That

is the difference between wisdom and understanding. The wisdom of Torah does

not reside in the angelic realm; they [the angels] asked for the Torah but it

was not given to them. Rather it is found in those who are naturally endowed

with intelligence and understanding, and they emanate intelligence and

understanding of this sort to human beings…the fruit of this understanding

are the seven sciences which humans invented using their own minds. It was

represented by the seven shafts which allude to the light of intellect, all of

which faced the central lamp, which was the divine wisdom…

(Malbim, Rimzei HaMishkan Shemot 25:37)

God's Room

Nahem Ilan

What degree of precision is it possible and proper to attain in the

comparison between a parable and that to which it alludes? How correct is it to

set up a close and exacting comparison between them? Does the deep message lie

in their similarities or in teir differences? Where

does the darshan achieve his most focused expression

– in the parable or in its explication? These and other questions arise

whenever an idea is not expressed directly, but rather "clothed" in

parable form. The beginning of Midrash Rabbah for parashat Terumah

offers a powerful stimulus for the clarification of these issues.

While discussing the verse, you shall accept gifts for Me (Shemot 25:2), the midrash says:

…is there something, which when one sells it, he himself is sold with

it?

The Holy One blessed be He told Israel:

I sold you My Torah, it is as if I were sold together with it, for it

is said you shall accept gifts for Me.

It is like the [story of the] king who had but a single daughter.

One of the kings came and took her.

He asked to return to his land, taking his wife with him.

He [the father] told him: "I gave you my daughter, she is my only

child. I cannot separate myself from her, yet I cannot tell you 'Do not take

her,' for she is your wife. Just do me one favor – everywhere you go build a

small room for me, so that I can live with you, for I cannot leave my daughter."

So said the Holy One blessed be He to Israel: "I gave you the Torah. I cannot

separate Myself from it, neither can I ell you 'Do not

take it.' But everywhere you go, make Me one house to

live in, as it is said and make Me a sanctuary (Shemot 25:8). (33:1, pg. 89 in the Merkin

edition)

The parallels can already be established in the first reading: God – the

father; Torah – the daughter/bride; Israel – the groom. If so:

1) There is a "genetic" connection between the Holy One

blessed be He and the Torah. The Torah is represented as God's direct

descendant, and a father-daughter relation holds between them. The Torah is,

then, an independent entity. In contemporary parlance, one might say that the

Torah has an independent personality and existence.

2) An erotic relationship exists between Israel and the Torah, like the connection between

man and wife. This image also assumes that each of the participants in the relationship

has his or her own independent existence and

autonomous personality. Their life together results from a willed decision, and it does not cancel the uniqueness and

independent existence that they each maintain as individuals.

3) It would at least appear that even if God were not present the Torah

would still enjoy a certain status and value, and that some basis for its

observance by Israel would remain. The father might be left without a room, and in any

case, his room would merely be an appendage to the home.

4) The Tabernacle – and years later, the Temple – do not fulfill a human need but rather a

divine need; it is a human gesture of compassion for Gods "weakness'!

5) In any case, the Tabernacle (and afterwards, the Temple) is not an essential, and it is certainly

not a central component in the relationship between Israel and the Torah. Rather, it is an expression

of the close yet separate presence of the father/God.

Did the darshan really have all of these

consequences in mind when he related his parable? It seems quite doubtful. It

is, of course, possible to claim that this derasha

should be treated as is any other literary creation; the moment it is published

it anyone can interpret it as he wishes, and no particular reading can be deemed

"truer" than the others. It is possible to continue in this spirit and

claim that the writer himself is not always aware of all the deep meanings that

lie hidden in his own works. The deepest inner meanings are often those which

are not known consciously to the writer, as is alluded to by the expression, "The

heart did not reveal it to the mouth."

On the other hand, the consequences listed above may produce some

degree of consternation. Is that due to the consequences, or to he who draws

them? In other words: do the defects, the confusions, the distortions or the deflections

belong to the conclusions and the way they were derived, or do they belong to

the spiritual world of he who draws the conclusions – the listener or reader? I

will leave this question to the side for the moment.

The parable serves more than one function for those who use it; I shall

mention the two which seem to me the most basic:

1) The parable serves as an illustration, it helps making a point

intelligible. In such a case, the explanation contains more than the parable,

and an overly detailed comparison of a parable with its explanation will damage

and coarsen the latter. The general idea of the parable, and not its details,

is of the essence.

2) The parable is a medium for the veiled and allusive expression of

ideas that the author wants to avoid setting out directly and explicitly. He

might employ a parable because the ideas he wishes to express are complex,

abstract, or overly charged. In that case, the parable contains more than it

would seem to on a first reading. The parable offers the end of a thread which

the reader or audience can follow as far as they wish. Such a parable allows us to peek into

its author's inner world. It does not give us an uncomplicated or

straightforward view of his world, and that is exactly its principle value.

The parable with which I began this discussion can be interpreted along

at least three different lines:

1) It comes to symbolize and make concrete both how vital the

Tabernacle is as well as the unmediated nature of the relationship between God

and Torah.

2) It comes to warn us against attributing exaggerating significance to

the Tabernacle, to the Temple, and to ritual objects in general. In hindsight, it is clear that this

is a real danger in religious life, as cults of the dead and their graves – currently

so popular – demonstrate.

3) It can elicit thoughts of the possibility of finding significance in

the Torah even if God were not present, and perhaps even if He were missing

from the world of the "husband." This interpretation would seem to be

obviously wrong, since God's words and deeds are founding every page of the

Torah. Then what? I would cautiously suggest that the author of the parable

holds that a reciprocal and equal relationship between Israel and the Torah remains possible even when God

is not present. This interpretation even seems to be supported by history. Justice,

equality, sensitivity to the rights of the weak, consideration for the motives

behind transgressions, and most importantly, consciousness of the

responsibility that is demanded from every adult – all of these are values that

have long been adopted by many societies whose world views have been shaped by

scriptural foundations, even though those societies do not belong to the Jewish

People.

This line of thought finds expression in other derashot

that are unconnected to the one presently under discussion. I shall cite but

one of them:

R. Huna and R. Yirmiyah

said in the name of R. Hiya bar Abba: It is written, they

left me and did not observe My Torah (Jeremiah

16:11) – would

that they had left Me and observed My Torah! Being

occupied with it, its "leaven" would have rehabilitated them. (Eikhah Rabbah, Buber edition Petihta 2, pp. 2-3;

J. Hagiga 1:7 or page 3 line 780 in the Academy for

the Hebrew Language edition)

This datum teaches us that the Sages entertained the idea that the

Torah can have value even in the absence of a connection to God was present,

and that idea was not the opinion of a lone darshan. Its

documentation in a group of mutually independent midrashim

and in the Jerusalem Talmud shows that the editors of those books did not find

anything unacceptable or shameful in it that would have otherwise led them to

edit it out.

It turns out that our parable inspires quite a bit of interpretive

creativity. The nature of its inspiration and the directions it takes are a

matter that every one must determine for himself: it

can teach something about the darshan, about his

views and rhetorical gifts. It can, at the same time, show us things about the

reader, about the daring or lack of such that he brings to the literary and

philosophical adventure offered by the parable, as well as to the challenge

offered by the Torah.

Prof. Nahem Ilan teaches in the MA

program in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute in Jerusalem (belonging to Touro College)

Make Me a sanctuary

that I may dwell among them – not in it, but among them

It

does not say that I may dwell in it, but rather among them, in order to teach that the Shekhinah [Divine Presence] does not rest upon the

Sanctuary because of the Sanctuary, but rather because of Israel – for the

Temple of the Lord are these [these good ways mentioned in the previous verse] (Jeremiah 7:4).

(Tzeidah La-Derekh

as quoted in Prof. Nechamah Leibowitz's

Iyyunim be-Sefer

Shemot, p. 353)

He

commanded each person to build the chambers of his heart into a temple, that he

should prepare himself to be a tabernacle for God and a fortress for His

mightiness to dwell in, and also an alter on which to offer up all the parts of

his soul, until he devotes his soul to His glory at all times.

(Malbim Shemot 25:8)

If

you follow my laws (Vayikrah 26:3)… I will establish My abode in your

midst (26: 11). If we meditate upon these verses, two

things will become clear to us as absolute certainties:

1.

The meaning of that I may dwell among them goes way beyond the mere

indwelling of the Shekhinah in the Tabernacle.

In reality, it refers to God's immanent closeness to us that came with the

fulfillment of the covenant between Him and Israel, the closeness which is revealed when His

protection and blessing influence the flowering of life for the individual and

collective.

2.

That being said, the building of the Tabernacle and its pains-taking

maintenance do not lead God to allow His Shekhinah,

His protection, or His blessing to rest upon us. Rather, this results from the

sanctification of every aspect of our private and public lives for the sake of

keeping His commandments. This was not demonstrated only by the historical

events of the destruction of the Sanctuary at Shilo,

and of the two Temples in Jerusalem; Scripture itself speaks of it clearly and

with explicit warnings… In any case, Scripture proclaims that I may dwell

among them will occur in the wake of let them make Me

a sanctuary. Therefore, the sanctuary is but an expression of the more general role

whose fulfillment is the condition for the indwelling of the Shekhinah in Israel to be assured.

(R.

Samson Raphael Hirsch on Shemot 25: 3-8)

After

having taken the laws and teachings upon themselves, and the Lord was King

in Jeshurun, it was proper for them to make Him a

sanctuary, as if their King lived in their midst, for that would be a strong

factor to preserve national and national adherence to the Torah. Even though it

had not yet been decreed that they tarry forty years in the wilderness God did

not want them to postpone construction of a Temple until they conquered and divided the land

and a place was chosen to serve as the center of the kingdom. And so, He

commanded them to make a portable Tabernacle that they could continue to erect

in the land wherever they wanted according to the needs of the hour. That

Tabernacle served for four hundred and eighty years until the Temple was built in Solomon's days (I Kings 6:1).

(ShaDaL on Shemot 25:1)

Make Me a sanctuary and I may dwell among

them (Shemot

25:8). It should have said [and

I may dwell] in it. But it says dwell among them because every

person is required to create a Sanctuary; and this [obligation] is always

in practice. The Zohar writes of tefillin, which are the secret of the

Divine Chariot, that when a man dons them he becomes the Sanctuary,

and that a person should purify himself and all of his limbs, and then he takes

on the form of a Tabernacle and sanctuary.

(Sefer HaShLaH by R. Yishayahu Horowitz, Massekhet Ta'anit 28)

The

plain understanding is that as soon as Israel said we shall perform and hear they

had accepted the Torah in their hearts and with such willing spirits that they

mentioned performance before hearing. Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He

said accept gifts for Me, etc., i.e., to make a

Sanctuary, as is written later, Make Me a sanctuary and I may dwell among

them. In their hearts these are the Temple of the Lord (Jeremiah 7:4), and they merited that their

hearts would be under their own control…

(Yitav Panim part two, 12b)

Rabbi

Menahem Mendel of Kotzk

would say: The Divine Presence is found in every place it is allowed to enter…

Life, Death, and Holiness Are In

the Power of the Tongue

The

sin of language is one of speech, not of thought. It [the priest's robe] had

pomegranates and bells [on the hem] – which made sounds

– to atone for the

tongue which is in the mouth, similar to the clapper inside the bell, and the

atonement for speech is that one no longer break his pledge and should speak

only of holy matters, as is written: And his voice will be heard when he enters

the sanctuary, and he will not die, because lashon

ha-ra – slanderous speech – kills three (Arakhin 15). From

this we derive that one who is careful not to speak slanderously will be spared

death, as in the story of the vendor who used to announce "Who wants to

buy the elixir of life, etc."

(Kli Yakar,

Shemot 28:31)

Regarding the Tabernacle, it is written (Shemot 25) Gold and silver and copper, no iron whatever was used; regarding the Temple it is written: no

hammer or ax or any iron tool was heard in the House while it was being built. Iron

was used for the making of the sword, which destroys the world, but the Temple preserves the world.

(Rabeinu Bahayey, Bereishit 27:40)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $700

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel,

checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel

Fund of Great Britain,

26 Enford Street, London

W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER

$100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317

Madison Ave., Suite 607, New

York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be

marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of

tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to

Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central

religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national

obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law

clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence

between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to

issues of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web

site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's

society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the

furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to

engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli

Arabs and with Palestinians.