Rashi, supposedly, thinks that although parshios terumah and tetzaveh appear before cheit ha-egel in the torah, this is just an application of the principle "ein mukdam u-meuchar batorah". Really cheit ha-egel came first, and only afterwards did Hashem command on the building of a mishkan. Had bnei yisrael never sinned, there wouldn't have been a mishkan. Why does the torah mention the mishkan then, before cheit ha-egel? Presumably it is something along the lines of "hikdim refuah limachalah".
Ramban, on the other hand, believes that the torah is kiseder. Hashem always planned a mishkan - we needed a mishkan as a "transportable har sinai". Cheit ha-egel was a rude interruption to G-d's lofty plans -- but those plans never changed.
There is a fatal flaw with this whole thinking: The torah never changed! Moshe did not receive one torah the first time with many, many less mitzvos than 613 (The mitzvah to build a mishkan / beis hamikdash is in parshas terumah, the parshah which apparently was only said in response to cheit ha-egel), and only receive the full torah as we know it the second time around - it is impossible that the original plan was to have no mishkan.
Lets look at the actual rashi:
ויתן אל משה וגו' - אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן:
Rashi proves that the torah is using ein mukdam umeuchar as follows: The tzivuy of mileches hamishkan could not have taken place before cheit ha-egel, because there simply was no time for it -- all the time between mattan torah and yom kippur is accounted for by the three periods of forty days. Mimeila, the tzivuy could not have been until the day after yom kippur, after cheit ha-egel.
This proof is very difficult to understand. Take a look at the daas zekeinim:
ויקחו לי תרומה. פרשה זו נאמרה בתוך ארבעים יום שהיה ממתן תורה וצוהו הקב"ה להיכן מניח' שיעשו משכן ובית קדשי הקדשים ובתוכו ארון ובתוך הארון לוחות ושם תשרה שכינה וישראל סביב כמו המלאכים סביב כסא הכבוד ושכינה ביניהם וכן כתוב ושכנתי בתוכם כמו בתוך המלאכים ועל זה נאמר אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם להיות שכינתי ביניהם:
Why did rashi need to apply ein mukdam...? Along the lines of the daas zekeinim, just say that the tzivuy in terumah tetzaveh was the tzivuy hashem said to moshe during the first forty days when moshe was on har sinai, and moshe was just unable to communicate that tzivuy to bnei yisrael due to the cheit ha-egel and time constraints until after yom hakippurim? Isn't this an easy pshat that gets us out of Rashi's "proof" that we must apply ein mukdam umeuchar??
The meforshei rashi ask this question, and they all (maharal, mizrachi) peh echad assume against the commonly held pshat in rashi: No one thinks this rashi means that there wouldn't have been a mishkan had Bnei Yisrael not sinned.
The mizrachi gives a powerful answer:
שאי אפשר לומר שצווי ה' למשה על מלאכת המשכן היה קודם מעשה העגל, וצווי משה לישראל על המשכן היה אחר שנתרצה על מעשה העגל, שאם כן איך ידע משה אם נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל על דבר המשכן עד שצוה אותם על נדבת המשכן, שמא לא נתרצה רק על נתינת הלוחות לישראל, שנאמר לו בפירוש (לד, א): "פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים כראשונים" מפני קיום הדת, שלא היה אפשר לדחותן מן הדת אחר שכבר נתגיירו וקבלו עליהן עול התורה והמצות, שאף על פי שחזרו לסורן הראשון, הרי הן כישראל שנשתמד, שהוא כישראל לכל דבריו, כדאיתא בפרק החולץ (יבמות מז ב), אבל לעשות גם המשכן לשכון בתוכם, שהיא חבה יתרה, לא, שהרי לא מחל להם רק שלא לכלותם יחד, ולא מחילה גמורה, כדכתיב (לב, לד): "וביום פקדי ופקדתי עליהם חטאתם" ש"אין פורענות באה לישראל שאין בה מפורענות עון העגל", כדכתב רש"י ז"ל. ואף על פי שהסכים ה' ללכת בקרבם להנהיגם בעצמו ובכבודו, ולא על ידי מלאך, לא יחוייב מזה שישרה שכינתו בתוכם, כעניין שצוהו תחלה (כה, ח): "ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם", שהרי גם קודם המשכן כבר היה "הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן... ולילה בעמוד אש" (יג, כא), ועם כל זה לא היה משרה שכינתו בתוכם, ואם כן איך סמך משה על המחילה הזאת שנתרצה לישראל ביום הכפורים, לצוותם על נדבת המשכן, לפיכך חייבו מזה, שגם צווי ה' למשה במלאכת המשכן לא היה רק אחר מעשה העגל, ופרשת העגל קודמת בהכרח מצווי ה' למשה למלאכת המשכן, ואין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, וזהו שכתב רש"י גבי (לג, יא): "ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים וגו' ושב אל המחנה - בעשרה בתשרי נתרצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל ואמר לו (במדבר יד, כ): 'סלחתי כדבריך' ומסר לו לוחות האחרונות וירד והתחיל לצוותו על מלאכת משכן".
To summarize (but its powerful, so dont let this stop you from reading it): If moshe was only commanded about the mishkan before cheit ha-egel, he would never have been allowed to assume that he could continue with this project afterwards. Hashem was mochel, true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we're back together as if nothing ever happened. Maybe Hashem agrees now to let us have the torah again, but he still does not want to live together with us in the mishkan. It must be, says the mizrachi, that the tzivuy of mileches hamishkan came after cheit ha-egel.
(So to clarify: Moshe learned the whole torah on har sinai in the first 40 days, and that obviously included the mitzvos of mishkan / beis hamikdash. Parshas Terumah, however, records Hashem's repetition of this tzivuy after cheit ha-egel to allow Moshe to build the mishkan even though bnei yisrael sinned. Thats shittas rashi. The Ramban learns like the daas zekeinim above.)
Its here that the ramban argues: The Ramban (first ramban in vayakhel) thinks that Moshe did not need a new tzivuy to be allowed to build the mishkan after cheit ha-egel:
ואמר לכולם ענין המשכן אשר נצטוה בו מתחלה קודם שבור הלוחות, כי כיון שנתרצה להם הקב"ה ונתן לו הלוחות שניות וכרת עמו ברית חדשה שילך השם בקרבם, הנה חזרו לקדמותם ולאהבת כלולותם, ובידוע שתהיה שכינתו בתוכם כענין שצוהו תחלה, כמו שאמר (לעיל כה ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, ולכן צוה אותם משה עתה בכל מה שנצטוה מתחלה:
But rashi clearly disagrees. In the beginning of parshas pekudei, rashi writes:
משכן העדת - עדות לישראל שויתר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא על מעשה העגל, שהרי השרה שכינתו ביניהם:
The maharal asks, why is the mishkan more of a testimony to Hashem's forgiveness of klal yisrael than the luchos shnios? According to the mizrachi, the answer is obvious. Even though Hashem was "mochel" and gave us luchos shnios, he still might not have wanted to come back to klal yisrael and live in their midst in the mishkan - that he did so shows that Hashem really did forgive us and really came back to loving us like he did before.
The lesson from the mizrachi and this mehalech in rashi is powerful: Mi yaaleh bihar hashem, mi yakum bimkom kadsho? Even if there is a tzivuy to build a mishkan, it requires a certain audacity to think that we can live together with G-d, that there can exist a concept such as hashraas hashechinah. Even the slightest wrongdoing, and kol shekain a cheit ha-egel, throws the potential for such an idea into jeopardy. Who has the audacity to build a mishkan?
More generally, we all have a spiritual side and want to connect to G-d. But we have to approach this with humility - we cannot just arrogantly assume we can just walk right in and take on new hanhagos that will make us closer to G-d. Are we rauy for such hanhagos, or are we climbing har hashem with arrogance? When people just decide to put on tefillin, or to wear their tefillin after davening, where did they get this audacity from to take on these new hanhagos?
We should approach our avodas hashem (and I speak to myself as much as to everyone else) with humility and fear. Living with G-d is a scary idea, and we should therefore treat it as such.
Before I adress the substance of your explanation, I just want to point out a basic methodological flaw. You can claim that rashi could not possibly hold the view ascribed to him as it would imply the torah changed and so many halachos are derived from the mishkan. My response is... so what? So these halachos would not have existed, or would be derived elsewhere, and if cheit adam harishon didn't occur there would never have been a maamad har sinai, and if rivkah had just talked to yitzchak about the brachos, we wouldnt have eisav soneh es yaakov (see netziv bereishis 24:65) and on and on. This is probably also true by many halachos in the torah as well. If tzlafchad had a son, we would not know that the bas is yoresh from bnos tzlafchad, we learn dinay tannaim from shevat reuvan's request, are you saying it was all predetermined? I think your entering dangerous waters here.
ReplyDeleteJust concerned,
Tzafnas Paneach
You are correct. I formulated my problem in a way that was wrong.
DeleteThe pesukim (with chazal) are very clear that moshe got all 613 mitzvos the first time around. So the mitzvah of mikdash was obviously planned all along.
And for the record, I am aware of the seforno. But in shittas rashi, I decided to ignore him.
I'm still waiting for your critique of the substance. I'm looking forward!
DeleteDear Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteSorry but I've been a little busy with work, and one of my kids had the flu (complete nightmare). I don't understand how you answered your basic problem. If Moshe received the Torah with all 613 mitzvos the first time, what exactly was the safeik that G-d would not allow them to build the Mishkan? At the end of the day, according to your pshat, there still is the possibility that the Torah would be changed.
Tzafnas Paneach
I'm very sorry to hear that, and I hope you didn't feel pressured to write anything.
ReplyDeleteI think the mizrachi is suggesting (and I need to look this up more in halacha) that even if there is a mitzvah to build a beis hamikdash, you still need G-d's permission (al pi navi) to go ahead and actually build the beis hamikdash. Thus, there always was a mitzvah of binyan beis hamikdash; that never changed. If Hashem hadn't re-commanded binyan hamishkan after cheit ha-egel, however, then bnei yisrael would not have been allowed to build it (even though its a mitzvah) because they wouldn't have had a hetter from a navi. They would leave in a "bechina" of galus, where Hashem doesn't want a beis hamikdash in the world, even though there clearly is a mitzvah to have one.
Acceptable answer?
Kol tuv,
Mr. Mashkim
Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteYour answer is what I anticipated, but I cannot say I am particularly pleased with your explanation of the machlokes. It seems to me you traded one machlokes that is difficult to understand with another. Rashi still seems to me to be a midrash pliya. If I wanted to be a little harsher I would say that beneath the veneer of sophistication, your argument is revealed to be a particularly mendacious form of intellectual sophistry.
Yours truly,
Tzafnas Paneach.
That's pretty harsh.
DeleteDo you want to explain why you think that?
Dear Mr. Mashkim or should I say Master Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteI am truly sorry if I offended you with my previous comment. Although If you would be midayek in my words you would notice that I said if I wanted to be harsher, nonetheless as a mere guest of this blog I should be more respectful to the Baal Habayis. You provide a great service by sharing your thoughts for all us to to read, and I look forward to continuing what I consider to be a fructifying relationship. I bear the names of two great men, Mcmurto, the hero of the Valley of Fear, and Yosef Hatzaddik, and I should uphold myself to their high standards.
Sincerely,
Tzafnas Paneach
No apology necessary. I appreciate the kind words (and I envy your skills in rhetoric).
DeleteI'm more interested in the substance of your critique, however. Obviously I understand if you're busy, so absolutely no pressure.
Respectfully your,
Mr. Mashkim
Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteThis is my last post on this topic. Here are my issues with your explanation: First of all, Rashi's reasons for applying Ein Mukdam amount to much more than a simple issue of lack of time. The language of the pesuqim which imply that the Mishkan was a form of Kapara: Aaron bringing a bull offering as a chatas-see rashi, the language of G-d "Vaasu Li Mikdash Vishachanti Bisocham", and the commandment that the entire polity should donate to the mishkan in parallel to their collectively donating their gold to the egel, all point toward the simple explanation that the commandment to build the Mishkan was in response to sin. Nothing is more powerful that Rashi's own words "Maaseh Egel Kodem Litzivuy Mileches Hamishkan" Tzivuy in its simplest interpretation is referring to a first time. Now I understand that your approach deals with these issues to some extent, but I think it comes up short of providing a satisfactory approach (as i have pointed out in previous comments), simply put the Mizrachi raises more questions than it answers. Therefore, I would approach this issue with the simple postulate that Rashi held a Mishkan was not originally part of G-ds plan. This is where everyone becomes a little hysterical and Rashi's super-commentators feel a bit uneasy with the "heresy" of their medieval hero. However, one most distinguish between the idea of a Mishkan and the idea of a Mikdash. The Mishkan is temporary, the Mikdash, permanent. It is patently obvious that Rashi does not think that the idea of the Mikdash would not have existed if Bnei Yisrael had not sinned. The idea of Mikdash preceeds the Eigel, as it is alluded to already by Avraham and Yaakov ("Ein Zeh Ki Im Beis Elokim"), the shira al hayam, aliya liregel in Mishpatim. Therefore it is ludicrous to say that Rashi ties the concept of Mikdash with the sin of the eigel. Rather we must conclude that the machlokes Ramban and Rashi revolves around the necessity for a temporary sanctuary for G-d in the midbar. Ramban views the mishkan as a simple continuation of the hashraas hashechina on Har Sinai, and therefore unconnected to the sin. Rashi approaches the mishkan as a means to rehabilitate the Bnei Yisrael, therefore he sees no reason why such an edifice would originally be required in what was supposed to be a uneventful short journey to Israel. I find this approach much more satisfying than yours. Although I did enjoy your words of mussar at the end, and the basic message you deduce from your explanation. I cannot help but end with-what I hope you will take as- a little harmless blog banter, in echoing my namesake in saying that perhaps you should've titled this post Yeyn Kafrisin. Vehameivin Yavin.
Tzafnas Paneach