(link to original page)

That which is written above, "That its sound may be heard whenever he comes into the Holy-Shrine . . . so that he does not die," is, in my opinion, the rationale for the mitzvah of the bells. There is no need for them as part of the garment, and it is not the custom of prominent men to wear them. Therefore He said that the He commanded their attachment in order that their ring may be heard in the sanctuary. Thus he will come before his master as though he had received permission, because royal protocol establishes the death penalty for one who enters the royal hall without prior announcement, as in the case of Ahasuerosh.

"Be heard" – found thrice [ in the Tanach]; "that its sound may be heard whenver he comes into the Holy-Shrine" "All that God has spoken we will do and we will hear" "the judgement of the king will be heard" (Esther 1:20). And thus we find in Tractate Megilla (3b): Rava [Trans. note – variant reading "Rabba"] says that [faced with the choice of] reading the Megilla or study of the Tora – the reading of the Megilla takes precedence; the reading of the Megilla and Temple service – Megilla takes precedence, as per "All that God has spoken we will do and we will hear" — this refers to Torah study. 'Temple service', as per "its sound may be heard". "Then will the judgement executed by Your Majesty be heard throughout your realm . . ." refers to the reading of the Megilla, and this is immediately followed by "great though it is"; from this we deduce that it (Megilla) takes precedence, and [another reason for its preference] is that the ruling was isssued by Rabba [Hebrew for "great"]..

"And when he goes out" – found twice in the Tanach, "And whenever he goes out, so that he does not die" and , in reference to King Yoash (Chroncles II, 23:7) "Stay close to the king in his comings and goings" – they guarded him lest he be murdered, as in , "And whenever he goes out, so that he does not die."

Rabba asked: [When faced with the obligations of] reading the Megilla and attending to mayt mitzvah – a corpse which has no one to bury it and is waiting to be buried – which takes precedence? Does the reading of Megilla have priority because of pirsoomei nisa – publicizing the miracle? Or mayt mitzvah because of respect for persons? After asking the question, Rava himself answers: The meyt mizvah takes preference, for our teacher has taught: "Respect for persons takes preference over all negative commandments in the Torah." (Bavli, Megilla 3b)

******************************************************************

The opening passage of Parashat Tetsaveh has perplexed many commentators. Why does God tell Moshe to command the Children of Israel to bring the oil to Moshe ("Now you command") instead of commanding them Himself? Secondly, why must the Children of Israel bring the oil to Moshe ("fetch you") and not directly to God?

Both questions become more convincing when we compare the beginning of Parashat Tetsaveh with the beginning of Parashat Teruma. The teruma offering is made voluntarily ("from every man whose heart makes him willing") and not as an obligation; and the teruma is given to God ("that they take Me a raised-contribution") and not to Moshe.

Rashbam explains that the difference derives from the fact that the teruma was a one-time donation – an offering of metals, wood, skins, oil, spices and precious stones for the construction and operation of the Mishkan. The Mishkan was a temporary structure, not a permanent sanctuary. The command "to bring olive oil for the menorah", on the other hand, is "for all generations", as is emphasized, "to draw up a lampwick regularly." This is to say that a voluntary act, noble and well-intended as it may be, cannot last for long. The flame of enthusiasm is extinguished as quickly as it is lit. Continuation requires institutional organization; a responsible person must be appointed to lead.

Ramban softens the difference between the volitional teruma and the commanded levy by pointing out that the verb "to command" appears consistently in earlier parshiot in the context of building the Mishkan. The fact that Moshe orders the bringing of the olive oil, suggests the Ramban, is the result of a practical consideration. In the desert, olive oil is a rare and valuable commodity. Even though the goal is the erection of the Dwelling Place for God, premium olive oil will be given only by virtue of command and not voluntarily. In relation to the question of why the oil had to be brought directly to Moshe alone, Ramban's approach is one which seeks pragmatic answers. Moshe was the central figure to receive the oil, because he had to determine whether or not the oil met the prescribed standards ("olive oil, clear, beaten").

We have seen that the Rashbam belittles the value of volunteering by judging it on a time scale. The drive to volunteer is ground under the wheels of time. Ramban, on the other, hand qualifies the motivation to give freely by using a value scale. The Children of Israel were not prepared to willingly offer valuable materials and commodities for the sake of erecting the Mishkan.

Our Sages offer a no less fascinating explanation. The Torah's emphasis that the command come from Moshe himself is intended to indicate that God did not need the light ascending from the menorah. "You command" – not because I need light, but to provide light for you." (Yalkut Shimoni, Tetsaveh 378). In a number of midrashim following this principle, our Sages emphasize that the builders of the Mishkan were inclined to believe that God was the one in need of light emanating from the menorah, and, so, by implication, also in need of the offerings. But such was not the case. It was not the Holy One, Blessed Be He, who needed the light radiating from the menorah, nor any of the ritual ceremonies of the Mishkan, nor even the Mishkan itself – – they were needed by Man. To say that God needs light implies that He is, as it were, in the dark, and that Man does Him a favor by lighting up his path. In other words, if the lighting of the candles and the holy service in the Mishkan and Mikdash are intended to benefit God, this means that He is dependent upon Man! Man does not serve God but puts Him to work. Our Sages, in their exegesis, attack this conception. In their view, Man gropes his way in the dark, and it is he who is in need of the menorah. It is Man who needs the Mishkan and the Mikdash.

But this is not enough. We still have to clarify what human need is there for offerings? Our Sages (ibid.) offer an interesting and daring answer:

The parable describes a world without paradox, a world functioning routinely – until reaching the city and the house. The Jewish nation is sightless, in the existential sense of the word, and cannot find its way without direction by Divine Providence. The Holy One offers his help and leads the Jewish people who lean upon him. Upon reaching Eretz Yisrael, and then the house – the Mishkan and the Mikdash, an incomprehensible situation is created. The seeing commands the sightless to light a lamp. The paradox intensifies, for the sightless does not gain sight, neither before nor after the lighting. The blindness is part of his nature, of his very being. Offerings anconstruction of the Mikdash do not essentially change man's condition. At the same time, it is clear that the Holy One does not need offerings and temple ritual. Why, then, is the sightless charged to light a lamp? It becomes clear that the need is not utilitarian , i.e., to facilitate function with the house, to prevent bumping into walls and furniture. It is a need of awareness, and it affects the past and not the present. The lighting of the lamp is intended to transform passivity into activity, to change perception of the past from passive to active. But this change must occur only ex post facto. Only after the sightless man has entered the house under the direction of the seeing, is he obliged to change his consciousness and become an autonomous, mature, and independent personality — then, and not a second earlier.

Another conclusion which may be derived from this midrash is that the Holy One does not want beholden and submissive subjects. On the contrary. The Mikdash is not meant to serve Gold, but rather to serve Man, to modify his past perception of himself.

In this midrash, our Sages shift direction of the Mishkan and Mikdash from future to past. When the sightless and the seeing were en route, they had a goal waiting in the future: to reach home. Once the destination is reached, the sightless changed direction. His orientation shifts from the future to awareness of his past. The purpose of the Mikdash is to correct something in the understanding of the past, not to mold the future. But this is grasped only upon reaching the Mikdash. Only upon reaching the Mikdash, do we understand that the desired goal is not exactly what we had imagined. The goal in embodied in the path, in the awareness which accompanied the journey, not in the new reality inside the house.

An important and basic question arises: Is the Mikdash really relevant to the picture of the future? Does the Beit HaMikdash stand as a future goal only in a state of galut, only when we are still 'on the way' to the city and the home? Once having reached home, perhaps it is not relevant per se. Are our Sages not telling us between the lines that more than the Beit HaMikdash is relevant to geulah – to redemption – it is relevant to galut – to exile; they strive to locate a place for it in galut even though the redemption has already arrived. It seems to me that if one understands the midrash in this manner, he will not have offended it. According to this midrash Chazal, the Beit HaMikdash is connected to the past and not to the future. When we reach it, it is no longer relevant to the new reality.

Strong support for this understanding is to found at the end of the midrash: "Said the Holy One to Israel: In this world you needed the light of the Beit HaMikdash, but in the world to come, through the merit of that lamp, I will bring you the Anointed King – the mashiach – who is compared to a lamp . . . And yet more, I will provide you with light." (ibid.) According to this astounding midrash, the Beit HaMikdash is part of this unredeemed world, and does not belong to the days of Mashiach! Either Beit HaMikdash or Mashiach – either the Beit HaMikdash or God!

Only Amalek was not afraid; "did not stand in awe of God". He alone inherited the character of that nation which chose as its inheritance the sword and which seeks glory in the blood-soaked laurel wreathes, the nation which strives to realize the motto "we will make for ourselves a name." (Bereishit 11:4) with which the aged Nimrod begins the history of the world. And how is this to be achieved? By destroying international peace and human happiness. (Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Shemot 17, 8)

"Relief" (Revach): (The word revach appears) twice, here: "and leave room [revach] between herd and herd." (Bereishit 32:17) and the other, "Relief [revach] and deliverance will come to the Jews" (Esther 4:14) This is a sign for future generations, that they will bribe their masters. (Baal HaTurim, Bereishit 32:17).

"If you keep silent" — If you remain quiet now, and do not plead on behalf of your nation, your end will be that you also remain silent in the distant future. You will not be able to justify why, when you were able to do good in your lifetime, you did not do so. And what do you think, that God will neglect Israel? In any case, He will appoint

them a redeemer, as is written: "Relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place." (Midrash Esther Rabba, 8)

Rav Huna said: It is written (Bereishit 4) "God has granted me another seed" — seed which comes from another place, and what is that? That is the anointed King – Hamelech Hamashiach.

"But they did not lay hands on the spoil" (Esther 9:10) Even though the royal decree specified "to plunder their possessions" , they did not take spoil, lest the king say that their intention was not deliverance from their enemies, but the taking of spoils, therefore "but they did not lay hands on the spoil" – that it be known that that they were innocent of that. Know yet more, they related properly to this miracle, for the miracle was wrought not so that Israel acquire wealth, but to vanquish their enemies. This is the difference between this deliverance (geulah) and other deliverances: from all other deliverances, they profited. When they left Egypt – the geula was to bring them out of Egypt and make them a free people – they profited from this geula. But the purpose of this – the Purim – miracle was to remove the foe, but not to gain anything beyond what they had before, for even after the miracle they were still subjects of Ahasuerosh. Thus Israel acquired nothing in Ahasuerosh's days beyond what they already had. Even though the fear of Jews was upon them, this was to remove the adversaries, but not to rule over them, as will soon be explained. Had they taken their wealth, it would have looked as though the miracle was wrought so that they profit from the geula – but certainly there is no profit here, for they were still in exile.