Editorial note: having received complaints about ever-less-decipherable transliterations, I have decided to indulge my Ashkenazic roots. Hope it helps.
Those who follow the weekly parsha may have noticed that this week and last contain more than trace echoes of parshios past, specifically the detailed descriptions of the mishkan and the various accouterments of service. Why the extensive repetition, rather than a simple statement that everything was carried out as earlier commanded? I believe that one answer helps to resolve a long-standing difficulty I have had with the treatment of idolatry in traditional Jewish sources. On the surface, there seems to be a tendency toward creating a straw-man, a simplistic caricature of idolaters as if they literally worship the works of their hands. This is far from the theory behind any system of veneration of images that I am familiar with. Rather, idols serve as tools for worship, taking some less accessible divine and making it more immediate. One response is that the idolatry that we encounter is not full-blown biblical idolatry; that after Anshei Knesses haGedola (the men of the Great Assembly) slaughtered the urge for idolatry, the pagans developed more philosophical rationalizations for the traditions they inherited, but that feels like a cop-out. Rather, let us return to our doubled mishkan, and the aureous bovine that splits the first instance from the latter.
There are two main opinions regarding the purpose of the mishkan. First, it is an extension of Sinai, a point of interface between the Jewish nation and HaKadosh Barukh Hu and an enduring symbol of the entirety of the covenant. Second, it atones for the sin of the golden calf. I see these two ideas as different sides of the same concept. What motivated the Jews, fresh from the most impressive series of miracles since the flood if not before, culminating with the direct encounter with the divine mere weeks before, to turn aside in such a dramatic fashion? In truth, I do not think it is so very strange, if we take them to be the more philosophical sort of idolaters described above. When they stood at har Sinai and heard the unmediated word of God, they were overwhelmed and requested that Moshe play the role of mediator; at that time, Hashem approved of their desire for a physical intermediary in their service. If Moshe could no longer serve as that intermediary, should he not be replaced? The calf was not meant to draw worship from the Lord, but to enable worship of the Lord. Indeed, that is what the mishkan will be, a physical space and physical objects that are sanctified to serve as the focus and medium of avodas Hashem. That parallel is half the reason that the mishkan makes atonement for the sin, but clearly there must be difference as well as similarity, else no atonement would be needed.
This is where the double description of the mishkan and every item associated with it becomes essential. First it is commanded, and then it is carried out scrupulously, meticulously, in every detail. Again and again in this week's reading, the refrain is repeated, "kaasher tziva Hashem es Moshe" (as Hashem commanded Moshe). Just as will be reiterated when Nadav and Avihu meet their fate, and again when Korach and his followers stage their challenge to Moshe and Aharon, there is a fundamental difference between service that is commanded and service that is not, however superficially similar. What is that difference? Is God simply an obsessive control freak? Not at all. The difference has to do with the very essence of mediation and relationship. These things must be two sided. If we decide to serve God without reference to revelation, we deny God any role in our service. No longer mediating a mutual relationship, the worship becomes a pious veneer on self-expression. Having cut God out of the picture, we substitute a false "image" of God as the object of veneration (and make it an object indeed, not a co-subject at all). In this way, even the most sophisticated philosopher is indeed worshiping nothing but his own creation as long as he fails to allow God as much stake in the intermediary as he claims for himself. So, ultimately, the caricature of the pagan that so bothered me is vindicated, far more subtle than it first appeared.
Of course, this has lessons for us also in our earthly relationships. In sefer Yechezkel (the book of Ezekiel), the careful and precise measurement of the Beis haMikdosh is juxtaposed with an exhortation to care and precision in our obligations towards our fellow people, scrupulosity and reciprocity the basis of connection in this case as well. Just as we cannot invent our own order of sacrifice and call ourselves pious, so we cannot invent our own schedule of payments for debts and call ourselves honest. Faithfulness, emuna, is as indispensable for the one as for the other.
Gut Shabbos!
Beautiful drawing of connections. Gives good support for why unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was such a miserable failure...
ReplyDeleteQuite so, although, to be fair, I doubt anyone expected it to establish a good relationship. Aderaba, the intent was to sever connection and minimize interaction.
DeleteA wonderful drash, but not above critique. Begs the question at the center of the interpretation - once the Israelites requested mediation between themselves and the immensity of God's presence, how do we identify true revelation? Can we even call mediated revelation by that term? Is it revelation if we have to trust some third party's report? Even if we make the leap of faith that the third party did experience a direct revelation, how do we know something didn't get lost in translation?
ReplyDeleteYou are, of course offering this drash as a critique of Reform Judaism - you are so transparent! I would argue that we all must and do judge for ourselves what mediated revelation is true. The difference between Reform and Orthodox is not a difference in the acceptance of the importance of revelation, but rather Reform's insistence on taking personal responsibility for separating true revelation from false, while Orthodox practice is to, at least in theory, delegate that task to "the experts".
Your loving adversary
I give the drash that comes to me. This one may be critical of Reform Judaism, but I didn't set out to find such a critique. The Torah was so transparent!
DeleteSo, to clarify, your position is that Reform practice reflects an acceptance that God has revealed to the Jewish people the ways in which we are to relate to him, but that that revelation has been corrupted by the transmission process and we need to work to rediscover the true revelation? So, for instance, if a Reform Jew were to light Shabbos candles after sundown on Friday, that reflects his or her considered belief that Shemos 35:3 ("Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day") is 'false revelation', whereas the rabbinic enactment to light candles to welcome Shabbos (or perhaps the verses that grant the rabbis the authority to make such an enactment) is 'true revelation'? By what rubric is that evaluated?
As for the way I would answer your point, I said above that a true intermediary must be connected on both ends. True, I focused on the fact that it must be connected to the divine, rooted in revelation, but the text also emphasizes the need for human involvement. Moshe is, as he must be, accepted by the people before he can receive the Torah on their behalf. The mishkan is built by human hands. The Talmud records debates about certain books of prophecy and writings, whether or not they ought to be included in the Tanakh. The urim and tumim must be asked before they answer. Only when anchored on both sides can a mediator be trusted. Once we accept that something has come from a trusted source, how do we know that nothing has been lost in translation or transmission? We don't, but we are unlikely to reduce human error by introducing changes at our pleasure. We have safe-guards in place to try to minimize change over time, while allowing adaptation to new circumstances. They may not be perfect, and perhaps moshiach will have stern words for us when he comes, but only new revelation can separate true from false where the safe-guards have failed.
To be clear, Orthodox practice does not recognize any experts capable of distinguishing true revelation from false in today's world, nor do we see a pressing need until prophecy returns. We have a body of accepted revelation. What is delegated to the experts is merely the fine points of interpretation. Where we have clarity, there is no need to ask. Where we can see both sides and remain unsure, why should we not seek assistance from those who have more knowledge and have given it more thought? That seems to me to be a part of taking personal responsibility. Insisting on judging from a position of known ignorance is taking personal irresponsibility.
I would say that, as usual, you like to contrast the ideal of Orthodoxy against the lowest common denominator of Reform. I of course like to contrast the ideal of Reform against my perception of run-of-the-mill Orthodoxy.
DeletePhilosophically, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I have many times owned my failure to live up to the ideals of Reform as I understand them, and I do understand the value of conservatism in all things which can be summed up as - do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. On the other hand, I think a rigid embrace of a version of revelation that was granted thousands of years ago to our forefathers, as though it were eternal and unchanging is avodah zera, a blasphemous reduction of God and his power to embody ongoing revelation in our holy texts and our hearts.
You feel no pressing need to distinguish true revelation from false until prophecy returns - I hold that prophecy never left, and that we all need to watch and listen with an open heart to the prophets of today, whether Ghandi, Martin Luther King Junior, or Alexander Schindler.
I don't think that run-of-the-mill Orthodoxy is so far from "Where we are confident that we understand the law, do that; else, ask for assistance from someone more knowledgeable". If anything, we tend to stray more toward self-reliance despite ignorance. You can ignore the example, if you think that it is too reliant on failure to live up to the ideal, but I am still unclear on what the ideal method is. What is your rubric? How do you go about distinguishing revelation that connects man to God from the pure product of human creativity?
DeleteThe part of the Torah that claims that it was an eternal and unchanging revelation, was that ever valid in its proper time? There are certain truths that are timeless. I recognize that God can grant revelation as he pleases, but I also recognize that he need not do so. He is completely free. We have what we need, if we are willing to heed it; if not, what difference would another prophet make? True, we must have moral leadership, but I wrote earlier about the different forms set forth in the Torah: kingship, priesthood, scholarship, prophecy. Not every righteous leader worthy of heed need be set in the last category.
Hi Ethan,
ReplyDeleteInteresting reflections on the story of the mishkan. It is always compelling to see just how much of the Chumash is devoted to the enumeration of details, and its repetition in execution, punctuated by the golden calf.
One could observe that our people have had three great forms of gathering to worship, the mishkan, the temple, and the synagogue. According to traditional thinking, only one of these was actually ever commanded to be built with deep detail, the mishkan. But of the three, only two are really talked about. Of course, the synagogue is the active form of architecture used for worship. But the liturgy is filled with an architectural longing to return to the temple. Prayers contain frequent pleas to rebuild the temple, and hastily.
But, I cannot recall any liturgy longing for the rebuilding of the mishkan. There are no psalms I recall that wax poetic about the glory of the mishkan, but many talk about dwelling in the temple.
Once Joshua entered the land, it is as if the mishkan, whose construction as we have noted, is the central construct of the chumash, is suddenly dropped.
This raises many questions. Two that come to mind- why is there no traditional call to rebuild the mishkan (or is there)? And then, if the mishkan went out of use, isn't that a very early example of quite a radical change in practice, without any external force making that change happen, that is, by choice?
A great week to all,
Uncle Arthur
I have heard drashos regarding this issue. It is not clear that the impulse to build the Mikdosh was correct; while well intentioned, it was perhaps hubristic to give up the flexibility and portability of the mishkan in favor of a fixed edifice, however glorious. However, the covenant is mutual, and as full partners we have the agency to take initiative that can influence its form, but any change in terms requires acceptance and confirmation from HKB"H. Shlomo needed the explicit revelatory permission that Dovid was denied before he could begin construction. Once the change has been confirmed, we must live with the consequences; we cannot simply revert when we understand the wisdom of the original plan.
DeleteI remember hearing in the name of a Christian theologian that the only truly faithful way to pray is, "Thy will be done", but that is not the Jewish way. Cutting ourselves out of the relationship is as much nullification of the covenant as cutting out Hashem.
DeleteIf you say the covenant is mutual, and is a full partnership, in which people can indeed propose change, but a revelation is required to have an acceptable change, the end of prophecy suggests that the ability to have a mutual and ongoing discussion with God about our proposals has ended as well. In what way then is the covenant still mutual, beyond the hope that one day revelatory level dialogue will be restored?
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is maintained. The terms are fixed until redemption, on both sides. A closer and more fluid relationship might be desirable to both parties, but we have been distanced from that by violating the relationship.
Delete