AND

THE CLOUD COVERED THE TENT OF MEETING, AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED THE TABERNACLE.

MOSES COULD NOT ENTER THE TENT

OF MEETING BECAUSE THE CLOUD RESTED UPON IT AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED

THE TABERNACLE.

WHEN THE CLOUD ROSE UP FROM

OVER THE TABERNACLE, THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SET OUT IN ALL THEIR JOURNEYS.

BUT IF THE CLOUD DID NOT RISE

UP, THEY DID NOT SET OUT UNTIL THE DAY THAT IT ROSE. FOR THE CLOUD OF THE LORD

WAS UPON THE TABERNACLE BY DAY, AND THERE WAS FIRE WITHIN IT AT NIGHT, BEFORE

THE EYES OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF ISRAEL IN ALL THEIR JOURNEYS.

(Shemot

40:34-38)

The cloud

covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Glory of God filled the Tabernacle – From this it appears that the Glory of God is

not the cloud, but rather the fire and the light, i.e. the Glory of God, was seen from within the cloud. Were it not for the cloud, it would have been impossible to gaze upon it,

for man cannot gaze into the light of the sun, all the more so he cannot look

at the brilliance of His Presence. Therefore the holy light was always seen

from within the cloud, and when the Tabernacle stood, the two [the cloud and

the Glory] were separated from each other, for the Divine light would enter the

Tabernacle, for there was the place of His holiness, and the cloud would remain

outside… therefore it says here: Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting

Tabernacle. For if the Glory of God were

combined with the cloud it would have been possible for Moshe to enter into the cloud, as is recorded at the end of

Parashat Mishpatim Moses entered the cloud, because then the Glory of

God was covered and it was possible for Moshe to enter the cloud, but now that

they were separate from each other, the cloud being outside and the Glory of

God was – without the cloud – inside the Tent, Moses was unable to enter the

Tent of Meeting…

(R.

Efrayim Lunschitz's Kli Yakar, Shemot ad loc)

The Tabernacle built by the Israelites for God's service is a testimony

to God and to man's recognition of God. This is the glory of the Lord – there is

nothing tangible here and no object that filled the Tabernacle…

The RaMBaM

leaves the matter to the understanding of the student and reader of Torah, according

to his intellectual level and the depth of his faith. From this it may be

deduced that if the faith of the believer requires physical realization of

recognition of God, he is permitted to explain this verse as relating to a

visually perceived phenomenon, such as those experienced by Israel.

But if one can ascend to a higher level of cognizance, and can deepen his faith,

he does not need this physical expression. He understands very well that the

gory of God mentioned here is only an idiomatic expression of the service of

God in the Tabernacle.

(Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat ha'Shavu'a,

p.432)

The Tabernacle: Aesthetics vs. Ethics

Devorah Greniman

I

used to view the concluding parshiyot of Shemot as being almost anticlimactic. Following

the drama of the revelation at Mount Sinai, these parashiyot come along, full of quite

boring details and trying to describe a structure that is very difficult to

grasp. In addition, they make use of words that are not commonly used in our

day and whose meanings are insufficiently clear.

Despite

this, in the past few years I find myself getting excited every time anew by

the story that hides behind these details – the story of the Tabernacle's planning,

the creation of its vessels, its erection, and the resting of the Divine

Presence upon it and within it. From amongst the details there arises a verbal

description of something that cannot be expressed in words: a building whose

essence is absolute spiritual beauty, a spiritual beauty existing both in the

sensual aesthetic of its components – ravishing cloths, fine fragrant wood,

spices, precious stones, sparkling vessels of gold, silver, and copper – as

well as in the way these components are created and assembled into a prefect structure.

Susan

Sontag, of blessed memory, contrasted the notion of beauty with that of "the

interesting" in an article which appeared in the Fall 2005 Daedalus (available

online at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200510/ai_n15744642).

She writes that the criterion of beauty has been marginalized in the modern era

because it is seen as elitist and exclusivist. In contrast, the "interesting"

is an inclusive and general concept. But, Sontag asks, what is "interesting?

She answers her question with a quote from the German philosopher Carl Schmitt:

Liberalism

is boring, declares Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political,

written in 1932 (the following year he joined the Nazi Party). A politics

conducted according to liberal principles lacks drama, flavor, conflict, while

strong autocratic politics – and war – are interesting.

Long

use of "the interesting" as a criterion of value has, inevitably,

weakened its transgressive bite. What is left of the old insolence lies mainly

in its disdain for the consequences of actions and of judgments. As for the

truthfulness of the description – that does not even enter the story. One calls

something interesting precisely so as not to have to commit to a judgment of

beauty (or of goodness). The interesting is now mainly a consumerist concept,

bent on enlarging its domain: the more things that become interesting, the more

the marketplace grows. The boring – understood as an absence, an emptiness – implies

its antidote: the promiscuous, empty affirmations of the interesting.

I wish to claim that the

Tabernacle stands in opposition to the "interesting" – lofty in its beauty,

ravishing, indescribable; it is composed of thousands of "boring"

details.

This boringness actually

springs from the fact that we can only experience the Tabernacle by way of its

written description. This was not true for Moses. When we ponder his experience

of forty nights and days spent on Mount Sinai, we most likely call up an image of a discursive

experience: God dictates the Torah to Moses. Actually – and this is the

Kabalistic understanding – Moses underwent a powerful visual and sensory

experience, as the text repeatedly emphasizes: as in the image I showed you

on the mountain. Relating to our parasha, Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg quotes a

midrash from Bamidbar Rabbah which is concerned with the nature of this image. According

to the midrash, Moses saw an image of the Tabernacle composed of flames of four

colors – red, green, black, and white. God commanded him to take this model and

reconstruct it on earth out of earthly materials. Avivah says it is obvious

that Moses, and Bezalel and Ohaliav after him, had to use their imaginations in

order to realize the heavenly model.

I would like to contrast this

view with another possibility. Moses actually saw a paradoxical vision. The

prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel had visions of heavenly sights. Moses, standing on

the mountain top between heaven and earth, flooded with God's presence,

experienced a vision of an earthly reality, of a Tabernacle composed of the

most earthly materials, and of a human society, imbued with love and fear of

God, working in harmony in order to realize the vision and to create a building

that is both earthly and spiritual – a place on earth in which to experience

lofty spirituality.

Moses

succeeded in transferring this vision to the people – perhaps with greater

success than he had with any other of his visions. Was it, as Zornberg proposes,

the trauma of the golden calf incident that made this possible? I have heard

Michael Manheim say the same drive that brings people to make a calf can also

bring them to build a Tabernacle. However, the chasm between those two alternatives

is immense. The calf was actually created by one person who threw jewelry

brought by members of the people into the fire, making a calf of it. In

contrast, the Tabernacle was built under Bezalel's ingenious and strict

management with Ohaliav's assistance and its components were the work of many

hands. The wisdom referred to in these passages – by their plain meaning – is

none other than the wisdom of art, of imagination, of craftsmanship. This

characteristic was not the sole property of Bezalel and Ohaliav alone; all who

saw themselves as wise of heart were invited to donate their handiwork

to the Tabernacle. It is not stated that their work was subject to critique. In

addition to the inspiration that Bezalel received from God, many other

individuals were inspired in creating their private contributions to the

project. When the Tabernacle was created, each of them could say: "I

created this part. My handiwork is a component of the Tabernacle." Would

we risk constructing a synagogue in this fashion today?

Finally,

I would like to discuss a specific donation of unique character. In chapter 38

verse eight, we read: He made the laver of copper and its stand of copper, from

mirrors of the women who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

A number of midrashim relate to this verse. One of them states that Moses was

infuriated when the women offered their mirrors, which represent vanity and earthly

and sensuous beauty, to be used in making the Tabernacle's vessels. However, the

Holy One blessed be He personally informed him that during the difficult years

of servitude, when the outer world was all ugly and oppressive, the women used

their mirrors to arouse sexual feelings in themselves and in their husbands in

order to raise up the "hosts" of Israel which were to be eventually

redeemed – those same hosts of Israel that now stood at Sinai. Another midrash

has it that the women forsook outer beauty, preferring to it the spiritual

experience of prayer in the Tabernacle. Thus, they could happily donate their

mirrors, which were no longer of use to them. A further midrash relates to the

function of the laver that was constructed from those mirrors. When the priests

would come to purify their hands and feet before engaging in the holy service,

they would see their reflections in its shining surface, inspiring them to inner

contemplation and driving out negative intentions.

According

to the various views expressed by these midrashim, the mirrors symbolized a

number of possible conceptions of female beauty and its cultivation. It may be

seen as something that arouses attraction that is essentially positive in that

it leads to coupling and the creation of new offspring for the people. It can

be deemed shameful, dangerous, and opposed to spirituality. It can be viewed as

something that requires women to be overseen. It is characteristic of the image

which woman brings to the outside world and something that must be guarded within

the home. It is even something that can be exchanged for spiritual, "inner"

beauty. Sontag's article continues:

Beauty

can illustrate an ideal; a perfection. Or, because of its identification with

women (more accurately, with Woman), it can trigger the usual ambivalence that

stems from the age-old denigration of the feminine… For if women are worshipped

because they are beautiful, they are condescended to for their preoccupation

with making or keeping themselves beautiful.

In

opposition to this, Sontag claims that involvement in aesthetics is actually

involvement in ethics. "Beauty" is the word we use to describe a

perfect situation – all kinds of changing and unpreservable states of society,

nature, and of humanity. As Sontag writes:

And

the wisdom that becomes available over a deep, lifelong engagement with the aesthetic

cannot, I venture to say, be duplicated by any other kind of seriousness. Indeed,

the various definitions of beauty come at least as close to a plausible

characterization of virtue, and of a fuller humanity, as the attempts to define

goodness as such.

Is

this not the lesson of the Tabernacle's construction – the place whose lofty beauty

combines a Divine plan with the generosity and wisdom of an entire people?

Devorah Greniman

edits Nashim, a journal for the study of women and gender in Judaism. She

is an editor for the National Academy of Sciences and translates and writes.

You shall

kindle no fire – The Fires

of Gehinnom and the Flame of Torah

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The fires of Gehinnom

cannot harm Torah scholars. This can be learned from a comparison with the

salamander:

The salamander is born of fire, and one who anoints himself

with its blood cannot be harmed by fire. All the more so, Torah scholars, who

are entirely made of fire [cannot be harmed by fire]! As it is written: Are my

words not like fire, says the Lord (Jeremiah 23).

(Hagiga 27a)

Apparently, burning is not a creative action, but rather a

destructive action. On the other hand, it is precisely the artificial creation

of fire which brings about and ensures man's true dominion over the physical

world. Only by means of fire can man make his work-tools and penetrate the

innermost nature of materials, separating them and shaping them. Therefore we

can understand why, of all categories of work, Scripture made special mention

of burning.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch Shemot 35:3)

The Calf and

the Tabernacle

The Israelites were commanded: Bring Me gifts, gifts

of all that was needed for constructing the Tabernacle. Afterwards, when the

command was executed, we read that all those whose heart moved them brought

the gifts. The midrash reads this passage carefully, noting that when a good

cause is involved, e.g., building the Tabernacle – all those whose heart

moved them brought gifts. All those whose heart moved them is not a

collective name for all of the people, all of the community, or all of the

public. In contrast, when the people themselves wanted to worship what they saw

as a god – the calf – it is written: and all

of the people removed their golden nose-rings.

So: for the good – all

those whose heart moved them, for the bad – all

of the people.

The worship of God does not derive from an innate human

drive. It requires that man make a psychological effort to overcome his nature

and accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven upon himself. However, people are

naturally driven to idolatry…

(Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz ztz"l, He'arot

le'parashiyot ha'shavua, pp. 63-64)

When all the work that King Solomon had

deposited them in the treasury of the House of the Lord.

(I Kings 7:51 – the beginning of the Haftara for

Parashat Pekudai, when it does not fall on one of the four Parashiyot)

Solomon

brought – from that which his father

had consecrated. He donated it to the construction of the House in honor of his

father, even though he did not need those materials since he already possessed abundant

silver and gold, and copper. However, out of respect for his father David gave

some of it towards the work on the Temple and the remainder he deposited in the treasuries of

House of Lord.

Regarding the midrash that states that Solomon used

none of the funds which his father David had consecrated in construction of the

Temple, there are those who say: Since Solomon knew that that it eventually

would be destroyed, better that the nations of the world not say that it was

destroyed because it was built with materials which David had stolen and

plundered. Others say: Thus said Solomon – In Father's days there was a famine

which extended three years, and he should have spent these treasuries on

keeping the poor alive; let them be put aside for times of need.

(RaDaK, I Kings, 7:51)

In

other words, if the Jewish people builds its House with spoils taken from the

nations, or in a modern style, using available resources for splendor and honor

– even if the splendor and honor are for religious purposes – instead of

serving human needs and sustaining the impoverished of Israel,

the project will be severely blemished.

The subject is very timely. It is important that all

know that the possessions of the nation and the state exist not in order to

glorify the state and the nation, and not even its holy sites and projects, but

first of all they exist to meet the needs of the nation's deprived.

(Leibowitz, ibid., p, 436)

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

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

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.

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