And this is the donation that you shall take from

them:

Gold and silver and bronze, and indigo and purple and

crimson,

And linen and goat hair, and reddened ram skins

And ocher-dyed skins and acacia wood.

(Shemot 25:3-4)

And acacia trees – Some of our ancients claimed that our father

Jacob planted them and the Israel

took them from Egypt

on Moshe's command, and the proof is 'acacia wood, such as the indigo and the

purple'. One wonders, why does it say 'and with whomever was found' [meaning] for

his [personal] need […] why did they take along acacia trees, what need had

they for them? To add to the question, the Egyptians thought that they were

going to worship and that they would return afterwards, and therefore they lent

them. How then could the Israelites take out so many boards, 10 cubits each, and

also latches and they passed through the royal site of Egypt? And what was their answer

when asked why they are taking acacia trees when going away three days to

worship?

We know not whether these ancients had a

tradition that Israel took

the acacia trees out of Egypt

– in which case we accept their authority. But if it was conjecture, a

different solution must be found. We suggest that near Mt. Sinai

was a forest of acacia trees. When they arrived there, he told them that they

would be staying for a long time and, as I explained, they would have no cloud

above them. So everyone made booths, and the princes built kinds of enclosures,

each according to his station, and, because they were so many, they felled the

entire forest and made booths, and Moshe spoke to them regarding the Sanctuary

only after the Day of Atonement, and this explains 'and with whomever was found'.

 (Ibn Ezra (The long version) on Shemot 25:5)

And this is the donation – It would seem that all [materials mentioned] before

the end of the list of donations is superfluous, because we see all the materials

mentioned here [appear later] in the chapter on the Sanctuary. And we know what

was needed for each task. But [mention of the materials here] comes to teach us

the manner of estimation and requisition the Lord demanded, that it not be

answers everything' […] But the estimates were to take into

consideration what each person had on hand of each of these materials, and the

person who had none of these materials, even if he was a wealthy person, was

exempted.

(Haamek Davar, Shemot 25:3)

The parochet, its cherubim and its weavings

Dalia Marx

The Mishkan's accouterments that the Israelites were ordered to fashion

included the parochet – the curtain – described as follows:

And you shall

make a parochet of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen;

with cherubim the work of the skilful artisan shall it be made. And you shall

hang it upon four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold, their hooks being of

gold, upon four sockets of silver. And you shall hang up the parochet

under the clasps, and shall bring in thither within the parochet the ark

of the testimony; and the parochet shall divide unto you between the

Holy and the Holy of Holies. (Exod 26:31-33, and

slightlydifferently Exod 36:8).

During the Second

Temple period, the parochet

was one of the most impressive accoutrements of the Sanctuary. Josephus

Flavius, the historian of priestly descent who had seen the Temple in both its glory and its devastation,

describes the artistry of the parochet's weaving: "The composition

of materials was not chosen without pre-planning, it was made in the image of

the universe. It seems that the crimson alludes to fire, the linen to earth,

the indigo to air, the purple to the sea… the fabric's embroidery describes

heaven and all its hosts, except for the animals (Wars

IV, 5). According to this description, the curtain represented the

entire universe with all its elements – fire, earth, air and water, with the

embroidery depicting the heavens and their hosts. In this matter (at least) Flavius's

description is at odds with the Torah which has cherubim alone on the curtain ("with

cherubim the work of the skilful artisan shall it be made")

The curtain, whose purpose was to separate between "the Holy and

Holy of Holies" was not made of long-lasting, enduring textiles, but from

degradable materials. Indeed, the Mishna relates that the wear and tear

necessitated production of two parochot every year (Shekalim 8, 5). The Torah details not only the

precious materials used in the weaving of the curtain, but also the way they

should be woven – "the work of the skilful artisan shall it be made",

and even the image depicted upon it, the "cherubim". The cherubim are

heavenly winged beings, described in the Bible in various contexts and different

portrayals.

The parochet screening the Holy of Holies, the ark and the two

cherubim above the cover, also depicted, according to the Torah's description,

images of cherubim. It presented a two-dimensional version of what lay inside

the Holy of Holies. But in the Second

Temple, when the ark and

its cherubim were hidden, what did the parochet with its cherubim

screen? The curtain and its cherubim concealed the absence of the ark and the

cherubim from the Holy of Holies. The picture on the cloth represented that

which it was intended to conceal, but actually it hid the void behind it. And

the parochet itself was hidden from the eyes of the people.

"Work

of a skilled artisan"

The Talmud records a controversy regarding the quality of work required

for the crafting of the curtain and its cherubim:

One text says: "embroiderer's

work" (Shemot 26:36), but a

different text says: "work of a skilled artisan" (ibid.

31) – a single face. "Work of a skilled artisan" – two faces.

work" a lion on this side and a lion on the other side. "Work of a

skilled artisan", a lion on one side, the other side empty. The other

says: "Embroiderer's work", a lion on one side, the other side empty".

"Work of a skilled artisan", a lion on one side and a vulture on the

other. (Yerushalmi Shekalim I 2, 51b)

It is conceivable that the two texts are referring to different

curtains¹. It is still possible, however, to learn how our Sages

understood the change in terminology. The anonymous view in the Yerushalmi

identifies "embroiderer's work" with "a single face",

meaning a single figure, whereas "work of a skilled artisan" is "two

faces", i.e. the embroidered images on each side of the fabric are different.

According to R. Nehemiah, whose view seems consonant with that of the anonymous

Yerushalmi sage, "work of a skilled artisan" is so sophisticated that

each side presents a different image ("a lion on this side, a vulture on

the other"). Even if the festival pilgrims were allowed to see the parochet

on the festivals, as described in Amoraic sources, they could see only the

external side. The interior side could be seen only by the High Priest and only

on Yom Hakippurim.

From the above we may deduce that the embroidery on the Temple parochet

was not just expert and complex work, but that it also contained a dimension of

mystery. The mystery was revealed only – in addition to the High Priest – to

those involved in the production of the curtain.

The Weaving

(Thinking?) Maidens 

Who wove the curtain? In Israel, as in other cultures,

textile-related work, including spinning, weaving and embroidery was considered

female work. A number of verses in "Eshet Hayyil" – "Woman

of Valor" (Proverbs 31) portray the

ideal woman as one who works with wool and linen, spinning and weaving.

Tractate Negaim, when describing the body positions in which people are to

stand before the priest who examines their blemishes, says that they must stand

as they do in their day-to-day activity, the man "as one who hoes and

picks olives" and the woman as – among other depictions – "as one

working dough, as one nursing and as a weaver" (Negaim 2, 4)

The Torah informs us that the women were responsible for production of

fabrics for sacred ritual use: "And every woman wise-hearted with her

hands spun […] And all the women whose hearts moved them with wisdom spun the

goat hair" (Shemot 35:25-26). Talmudic

literature also relates that women were employed in the Temple for weaving the parochet. The

Tosephta lists among the artisans who were on the Temple's payroll "and women weaving the parochet

(Shekalim 2, 6). From the following

source in the Talmud Yerushalmi, we see that there was no doubt that the women

were the curtain-weavers; the only remaining question was from which article of

the Temple

budget the women were to be recompensed:

Shmu'el said:

Women who weave the Temple

parochet draw

their wages from the contribution of the chamber. Rav Huna [said]: From the

contribution to Temple

upkeep. What are they disputing? Shmu'el understood [the women's function as

equivalent] to a sacrifice, and Huna understood [it as equivalent] to a

structure (ySheq 4:3, 48a).

These

sources show that women played an active part in the Temple and its service. The weaving of the parochet

was their work. Other sources indicate that the curtain-weavers were in

particular young maidens. In the Apocryphal composition II Baruch (or – Syriac

Apocalypse of Baruch), the author² bewails the approaching

destruction of Jerusalem.

He orders the priest to fling the keys of the Temple

heavenward, for they could no longer protect the Temple, and to say: "You watch over Your

house, for we have failed to watch over it". Immediately following, in a

female parallel to the priests, he turns to the weaving maidens and orders:

And you, virgins who spin fine

linen,

And silk with gold of Ophir,   

Make haste and take all things,

And cast them into the fire,

So that it may carry them to Him who

made them.

And the flame sends them to Him who

created them,

So that the enemies do not take

possession of them. (II Baruch 10:19)³

A commentary on Tractate Tamid,

positioned on the printed page where Rashi's commentary is ordinarily found (and

is therefore referred to by some as 'pseudo-Rashi') claims that the weavers

were young virgins: "Maidens who had not yet menstruated worked on it [the

parochet] because they wanted that it be made in purity" (Bavli Tamid 29b).

Boundaries and

Intimacy

The

parochet represents worlds of opposites: Its weaving required the slow

and delicate work of the maidens, but the curtain itself was very heavy;

according to the Mishna, three hundred priests were needed in order to immerse

it (Shekalim 8, 8). It symbolizes purity

but is easily defiled. It symbolizes the entire cosmos – so implies Josephus – but

it is constricted to the Jewish nation's most intimate and set apart place.

In

other cultures, too, virgins wove the ritual fabrics. Prof. Shaul Lieberman

compares the weavers of the parochet to the girls who wove the ritual

dress of Athena (peplos) in ancient Greece, all between the ages of

seven and eleven. What can explain the choice of young pre-puberty girls to

weave for the holy service in different cultures? The simple answer is that

their thin fingers were suitable to the delicate work. Classic commentators

mentioned that employment of the young girls averted the danger of defilement

with menstrual impurity (tum'at niddah), but there may be deeper

reasons.

Perhaps

we can identify a symbolic connection between the parochet and the state

of virginity – both embody clear separation, a boundary forbidden to all,

permitted only to those duly appointed and at the correct time. Perhaps for

this reason, the Temple's

desecration by Titus, its destructor, is described in terms of a brutal rape.

His breaking into the Temple

is thus described: "And he took a sword and slashed the curtain" (Bavli, Gittin 56b). The Bavli continues and

relates: "Miraculously, blood spurted out". The conqueror thought

that he had killed himself, and perhaps this is the Talmud's euphemistic way of

saying that he thought that he had killed Him whose Temple it is. The torn curtain is the symbol

of the Temple

whose fate was sealed.

Parochet and

Minor Sanctuary

The

parochet did not disappear with the destruction of the Temple. On the contrary, its symbolic

representation is found in tens of thousands of synagogues throughout the ages.

It is one of the ritual objects of the synagogue whose purpose is to remember

and commemorate the Temple.

If in ancient Israel

it could be seen only on special occasions by festival pilgrims, today it is

present and seen by all who enter the house of prayer.

The

synagogue parochet is usually made of expensive and fine materials and

is donated to the synagogue to commemorate a special individual or communal

events. Embroidered upon it are Biblical and liturgical verses, decorations,

symbols, and personal dedications. Styles differ and each parochet tells

a personal and individual story, but all teach us that the holy can be created

only through slow, restrained and loving work.

The parochet

is a constant reminder that the synagogue is a minor temple, a mikdash me'at

(a lesser temple) in the absence of the Temple. The very existence of the institution

of the synagogue and its vitality constitute an irrefutable response to the

attempts of Titus and all his successors to destroy Judaism.

1.

Shmot 26:36 speaks of a "masach" – a screen – for the Tent of

Assembly, whereas verse 31 (quoted above) speaks of a parochet which

separates between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

2.

II Baruch or "The Apocalypse of Baruch" is attributed to Baruch son

of Neria, the prophet Jeremiah's scribe, but it was probably composed after the

destruction of the Second

Temple.

3.

It is interesting to note that in parallel versions of the priests flinging the

Temple keys heavenward which appear in Talmudic literature (Bavli Taanit 29a;

Yerushalmi Shekalim 1 3, 50a) there is no mention of the parochet weavers.

Dr. Dalia Marx teaches liturgy and midrash at

the Hebrew Union

College in Jerusalem. Her book on feminist critique of

the Talmud (in English) will soon appear.

And they shall

make me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them…

"Certainly at the heart of the matter of

holiness and the sanctuary and His resting His presence stands Man." So

does R. Chayim of Volozhin begin his exposition on God's command to construct a

sanctuary… R.Chayim (1749-1821) wrote

in a rabbinical style not easily translatable into English, and therefore I take

the liberty of summarizing rather than translating.  If man sanctifies himself properly through the

observance of all the mitzvoth Then he himself is the actual sanctuary

and within himself is the Lord, blessed be His name, as is written (Jeremiah 7) 'The Temple of the Lord, the

Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these [buildings]' but as they

taught 'And I shall dwell in them' – Scripture does not say 'in it [in

the Sanctuary]', but rather 'in them' – in the people. The tzadikkim, through

actions which are desired by Him, are themselves the true sanctuary of

God. The physical sanctuary is external, and it has important educational

value. The Torah wishes to tell us, do not think that the end goal of God's

intent is the creation of the external sanctuary, but "know you that the

the form of the sanctuary and its utensils, suitable for Me to actually

rest My presence in you.           The

sanctuary's existence is dependent upon our walking in His paths. When the

nation's internal sanctuary becomes corrupt, the Temple cannot help, and the foundations are

destroyed.

(R. Hayyim of Volozhin – Sefer Nefesh Hachayim – Gate

1 – Chap.4)

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 among us

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

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

collective.

2. That being said, God does

not allow His Shekhinah, His protection, or His blessing to rest upon us

by the building of the Tabernacle and its painstaking maintenance, but rather,

by 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)

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 that 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.

4,500 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.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our

website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il