The parsha begins with the command to gather all of Israel and command them about two things – Shabbat and the building of the Mishkan. Regarding the latter, the midrashim are replete with sources connecting this command to what took place ‘last week’ – in parsha Ki Tisa – when the Jews committed the sin of the Golden Calf. The Mishkan was commanded now as a means to offer the Jews a tikun – a repair – for their sin.
Just a couple of teachings will suffice to make this connection. First, one Midrash suggests we notice the language used. With regards to the Mishkan, we are told that “Moshe gathered all of Israel”; by the sin of the golden calf, the Torah describes “and all of Israel gathered against Aaron.” With the Mishkan, Moshe said “These are the things” while in Ki Tisa Aaron says “These are your gods.” With the Mishkan – “and Moshe spoke to them” – and with the golden calf – “And they spoke to Aaron.” And finally, in order to build the Mishkan, Moshe called for donations of gold; to build the calf, Aaron called for donations of gold.
Another Midrash connects the Mishkan and the sin by pointing out the underlying motivation of the sin was the natural human desire to concretize spirituality. Intangible ideas are not enough; people need to bring these ideas into the physical world. And thus the golden calf. The command to build the Mishkan was meant to ‘understand’ this human tendency but then transform and elevate it. ”You need to build something physical … fine. But not an idol, but rather a means to draw close to God.”
Both of these above Midrashim – and countless others – make the point clear: The Mishkan was commanded as a result of the sin.
… which leads us to the following problem. The Mishkan was not simply commanded in this week’s parsha; it was also commanded several weeks ago in other parshiot as well, parshiot that precede the sin of the golden calf. So if it’s in response to the sin, how could it have preceded it?
The traditional response is that there is no chronological order in the Torah – Ain Mukdam o’ M’uchar b’Torah – so it doesn’t matter when the command was first given. A more homiletical response might be that God created the cure – in this case the Mishkan – before the disease even appeared – i.e., the sin.
I would like to suggest a third idea, one that suggests that perhaps there were two Mishkans, one before the sin and one after. And if that is too shocking an idea, then at least we should say there were two separate commands for the Mishkan, one before and one after that superceded the first. In a sense, this idea of two Mishkans is not so radical. After all, we often talk about such ‘before and after’ circumstances in the Torah. For example, the creation story seems to describe a First Adam and a Second Adam; certainly a pre-fall Adam and post-fall Adam. More recently, the Torah describes the first luchot – the tablets with the ten commandments written on them – and the second luchot. The first were miraculous, written by the ‘hand’ of God, while the second (following the smashing of the first by Moshe) were written by Moshe and required human involvement.
In parallel to the luchot, I would like to suggest that the first Mishkan, too, was more miraculous in nature. After the sin, however, a different type of Mishkan was required, one that would necessiate human endeavor just as the second luchot necessiated it as well.
The Shem M’shmuel seems to suggest a similar point when he notes that ‘before the sin’ the Mishkan could have been built by any one person within b’nei Yisrael. The actual Torah phrase is “kol ish” – or every person – willing to volunteer. On this phrase, the Midrash in parshat Truma says “God said to Moshe, ‘Even one person from amongst the Jews could do this by himself.’” In other words, something miraculous could have taken place to enable even one individual – any individual – to build the entire Mishkan by himself. After the sin, however, the language changes and no longer can the Mishkan be built by any one individual. Rather, now the power of the community is necessary; everyone must be involved.
[This idea is further supported by the opening verse of the parsha: "And Moshe gathered the entire community (eidah) of Israel and commanded them on these things ..." The traditional way to understand 'these things' is to look at what follows, the mitzvoth about Shabbat and then the Mishkan. Others, however, say 'these things' can be described by what precedes the phrase -- namely, "And Moshe gathered the entire community ..." What did God command Moshe to tell Am Yisrael? To 'gather the entire community' - that's the mitzva!]
***
Once we understand that the ‘second’ Mishkan necessiated a communal effort as opposed to the individual effort required for the ‘first’ Mishkan, we must now ask another question: Why? What is it about the power of unity that corrects for the sin of the Golden Calf?
Here I would like to offer two ideas.
First, notice the word eidah used within the opening verse. It means community, but it also comes from the root eid, or eidut, witness or testimony. The Mitzvoth that follow in this parsha, namely Shabbat and the Mishkan, are all about testimony, about how Am Yisrael gives testimony to the fact that God created the world and rested on Shabbat (that’s what we do with kiddush and why we stand when reciting it, just as one giving testimony in court must stand as well), and about how Am Yisrael gives testimony that God is very much involved in our world, as it does through the Mishkan.
Here’s something interesting about the laws of witnesses. If there are three witnesses or even a hundred witnesses, if they all come and testify at the same time, they are considered as one group. On one hand this is very powerful, but it is also dangerous. For if even one of these witnesses is disqualified, then the entire group is as well. In other words, if there are 99 people in a group of 100 that are all ‘kosher’ for testimony, they testimony will nevertheless be thrown out if that 100th person if found to be not kosher. [That's why at a wedding the Rabbi will often point out that the two witnesses for the ceremony were appointed to the exclusion of everyone else in the audience; after all, many of those in the audience will be relatives of the bride and groom, and thus not qualified to be witnesses, and if they were allowed to 'join' the other two kosher witnesses, they would disqualify their testimony.]
After the sin of the golden calf, it became clear that many Jews were no longer kosher. One might have the tendency to say that’s their problem. So long as I do my thing, and I remain a good Jew, I don’t need to worry about those other Jews. So long as I don’t cheat on my taxes, or steal or act immorally, then I don’t care about those Jews that do.
But it doesn’t work that way. Those that cheat on taxes or steal or otherwise act inappropriately directly reflect on who you are, on who all of Am Yisrael is. The correction for the sin, therefore, cannot be building the Mishkan by one person alone, by an individual who does not need nor is connected to others. Just the opposite. The tikun must be everyone’s involvement. We are all connected to one another and responsible for one another – and thus the command to build the Mishkan must reflect that if it is to truly serve as a tikun for the sin of the golden calf.
Another idea.
Why is Unity so important?
The Chavas Da’at suggests that on a practical level it helps us succeed where disunity would guarantee failure. Why, he asks, does Haman begin his plea to the King to kill all the Jews with the statement that ‘they are dispersed and lack unity?’ Because the King might have feared messing with the Jews if they were united. They would meet to discuss the decree. They would figure out how to challenge it. They would figure out how to defeat him. So Haman puts his mind at ease and tells them they can’t possibly do any of these things because they don’t even talk to one another.
This idea is similarly taught in the first Kli Yakar on Deuteronomy. He says there are two ways people in danger can save themselves. The first is through the mitzvah of ‘love the Lord your God.’ In that case, even if a person is weak and undeserving, God may choose to save them nevertheless because of their desire to cling to God. The second case is by way of nature – nothing miraculous at all. It is through the mitzvah of ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ When one fulfills this mitzvah, he will have an interest in helping others – and others will want to help him. Therefore, even if God forsakes him, even if he has no mitzvoth to his merit, the natural tendency of others to help him will rescue him from danger nevertheless.
Before the sin of the golden calf, Am Yisrael could have relied on the first way of being saved – through loving God. After the sin, though, that avenue was removed. They showed they didn’t love God as much as they should have. All that was left, then, was to love their neighbor – to be united. Thus, the second command to build the Mishkan necessitated the requirement of unity, of getting everyone involved.
Similarly, anytime one wishes to accomplish something meaningful, even if he lacks the protection of God, he may nevertheless be successfull if he at least unifies with others.
