(Check out the previous post (link) where we discuss the opinions of Rashi and the Ramban.)
While it is commonly believed that Rashi holds that the tzivuy of mishkan was only given in response to the cheit ha-egel, we showed last time that this is not the case. Both Rashi and the Ramban agree that Hashem intended for there to be a mishkan all along. As the Mizrachi explains, the point of contention between the 2 is solely whether Bnei Yisrael needed a new tzivuy after cheit ha-egel to allow them to build the mishkan even though they had sinned so egregiously, or whether they could rely on the first tzivuy and G-d's original plan.
The seforno, however, does say something along the lines of what is commonly understood in rashi.
Seforno (31:18) : יח) ויתן אל משה ככלותו. אחר שספר מה היה הטוב שהושג בסוף כל הפעמים ששהה משה בהר ארבעים יום, פירש הטעם מפני מה לא הושג התכלית שיעד האל יתברך במתן תורה, באמרו ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (לעיל יט, א) ובאמרו מזבח אדמה תעשה לי בכל המקום אבא אליך (שם כ, כא) עד שהוצרך לעשות משכן, והודיע שקרה זה בסבת רוע בחירת ישראל. כי אמנם בסוף ארבעים יום הראשונים נתן הלוחות מעשה אלקים לקדש את כלם לכהנים וגוי קדוש ככל דברו הטוב. והמה מרו והשחיתו דרכם ונפלו ממעלתם, כמו שהעיד באמרו ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים מהר חורב:
The difficulty, as we asked in the previous post, is that the mitzvah of binyan mishkan / beis hamikdash was clearly given before cheit ha-egel. Even if you are a kofer and don't accept Chazal's say so, there are several pretty compelling remazim in the torah to the concept of a beis hamikdash: amongst them, the mitzvah of aliyah liregel, which appears in parshas mishpatim, which everyone agrees was said before cheit ha-egel.
The seforno addresses this question partially (20:21): כא) מזבח אדמה תעשה לי. וגם כן לא תצטרך לעשות היכלות של כסף וזהב ואבנים יקרות למען אקרב אליכם, אבל יספיק מזבח אדמה:
בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי. שאבחר לבית ועד לעבדי, כענין הזכירו כי נשגב שמו (ישעיהו יב, ד:
אבא אליך וברכתיך. לא תצטרך למשוך השגחתי אליך באמצעיים של כסף וזהב וזולתם כי אמנם אני אבא אליך וברכתיך:
Even the seforno agrees that the concept of a place that would be meyuchad for karbanos and avodas hashem always existed - there always was a plan to have a mishkan and beis hamikdash, in that sense. What changed was the nature of such a place. Before cheit ha-egel, the mishkan wouldn't have been a היכל של כסף וזהב ואבנים יקרות - it would have been just a simple mizbeach. There wouldn't be a special group of people in fancy clothes serving in this original beis hamikdash - we would all be a mamleches kohanim.
I saw cited this seforno (38:24): כל הזהב. העיד על קצבת הזהב והכסף והנחשת שנכנסה במלאכת המשכן שהיה דבר מועט מאד בערך אל העושר שהיה בבית ראשון כמבואר בספר מלכים (מ"א ו, כ - לה. ז, מח - נ) ויותר ממנו העושר שהיה בבנין הורדוס (בסוטה פ' היה נוטל). ועם כל זה יותר התמיד מראה כבוד ה' במשכן של משה ממה שהתמיד במקדש ראשון, ולא נראה כלל במקדש שני. ובזה הורה שלא קצבת העושר וגודל הבנין יהיו סבה להשרות השכינה בישראל, אבל רוצה ה' את יריאיו ומעשיהם לשכנו בתוכם:
The seforno, lishitaso, thinks that the gold / splendor of the mishkan was all bdieved - really G-d didn't want any of that - He just wanted a simple mizbeach. All the gold, fancy clothing, special people, etc. came about because bnei yisrael, by sinning with a golden calf, showed that they weren't on the level to be so pure and spiritual. They needed a fancy and expensive mishkan, with fancy kohanim serving in it, to be able to appreciate and respect the sanctity of the beis hamikdash. Thus, the seforno notes that there was an inverse correlation between the splendor of a mishkan / beis hamikdash and the hashraas hashechinh associated with it. The splendor of the beis hamikdash was a necessary evil - and it had negative consequences.
This has tremendous implications (maybe even lihalacha, I need to do more research) for the way we should build shuls. There is a halacha, patterning off of the beis hamikdash, to make a shul beautiful - but the seforno would tell us that this is really a "bdieved" halacha. Hashem doesn't want fancy shuls - he wants our hearts.
Good shabbos!
Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post (notwithstanding certain sentences in the first paragraph:)). I always found the Seforno's peshat very interesting. Just a couple of quick questions. You mentioned how the Seforno would deal with the mitzov of binyan hamikdash, but what about all the mitzvos related to Kohanim specifically? Also I always found it odd that the Seforno believes that having a more materialistic and physical relationship with G-d would help save the Jews from apostasy, it seems sort of counter intuitive. Judaism is about weaning man off a puerile conception of G-d to an understanding of his true nature. All the pomp and circumstance would seem to lead one down the path of idolatry again. I asked this question to a rabbi of mine at Gush, and he pointed me towards an Abravanel in Yeshaya, which asks this question and answers that in fact the point of all the emphasis on a physical manifestation of G-d was to induce belief amongst the Jews of an active G-d who is mashgiach on our lives. I find this an interesting alternative to the Seforno. Your thoughts?
Yours Truly,
Tzafnas Paneach
The kohanim question is a great question. I had that question in a slightly different form at the end of parshas bo - if the bechoros were only replaced by the leviim due to cheit ha-egel, how could there already be a mitzvah in parshas bo to redeem bechoros? I dont know the answer to this question, but I think an answer to that will answer your question as well.
DeleteCould you give me the exact citation of the abarbanel? Thanks.
In terms of the substance of your final point, I'll just throw in (I was debating mentioning this originally) that I believe this shittas haseforno connects very strongly to shittas harambam about karbanos (how they wean us off avodah zarah) which faces your critique as well. That does not answer your point, but at least the seforno no longer has to face your challenge alone.
Cordially,
Mr. Mashkim
Abravanel perek 66 regarding eizeh bayis asher tivnu li. Regarding the seforno and rambam, it truly seems like giving heroin to a drug addict, whose abusrdity, admittedly, in our times is less obvious. The rambam definitely agrees to Abravanel's idea and uses it to explain supplicatory prayers (see moreh ithink perek 25, 3 chelek) so perhaps we can posit a dialectic of sorts in terms of the rambams shita, as I'm sure you know there's nothing like a good dialectic to solve an intractable contradiction!
ReplyDeleteYours,
Tzafnas Paneach
See also abravanel veasu li mikdash in terumah for his main exposition of his pshat.
ReplyDelete