And saradonyxes
and other precious stones for the ephod and the breastplate. (Shemot 25:7)
The Mishcan
was constructed of materials donated by Bnai Yisrael. Our parasha lists the various materials. The final items enumerated are the stones
set into the garments of the Kohen Gadol. It is odd that, although these stones are very precious, they are
listed last.
Rav Moshe
Sternbach suggests that these stones are listed last as an allusion to the
manner in which they were donated. The
princes of the tribes were very wealthy.
They decided that they would allow the rest of the nation to contribute
first to the Mishcan. They
accepted the responsibility of providing any additional materials
required. The nation was very generous
and donated most of the materials needed.
After the nation’s contribution was examined, the only items lacking
were the precious stones for the Kohen Gadol’s garments. Therefore, the contribution of the princes
was limited to these stones. Our Sages
explain that the Torah condemned the princes for this behavior. Subsequently, the princes atoned by offering
extensive sacrifices and other items for the initiation of the Mishcan.[1]
Rav Sternbach
points out that the condemnation of the princes is difficult to
understand. They had expected to make
an immense contribution. They willingly
accepted this duty. Their only error
was that they underestimated the enthusiasm of the nation. Why are the princes criticized for their
decision? Rav Sternbach acknowledges
that the princes had a rationale for their decision. Yet, the Torah indicates that a selfish motivation underlie this
rationale; they were reluctant to part with their wealth.
Can this underlying motive be detected in
the princes’ behavior? It can be
detected if the princes’ decision is scrutinized more carefully. The princes were the leaders of the nation. They recognized, as leaders, that they were
responsible for the ultimate success of this endeavor. This awareness of their responsibility led
them to commit to providing whatever materials were not donated by the rest of
the nation. However, as leaders, they
had another responsibility; one which they overlooked. Leaders are responsible to teach values
through demonstrating proper behaviors and attitudes. This obligation demanded that the princes teach the importance of
generosity and of the Mishcan.
In teaching values, actions are far more significant than words. The princes verbalized their attitudes
through pledging to provide any materials still needed after the contribution
of the nation. However, they had the
opportunity and obligation to make a far more meaningful demonstration. This demonstration should have been made through
a generous donation at the very outset.
The princes overlooked their duty to teach the nation. This error suggests, that in this instance,
some internal personal conflict prevented them from clearly seeing their
obligation. Their failure to fully
assume the responsibility of leadership and inspire the nation with their own
generous contribution suggests an element of greed in their behavior.[2]
And you should overlay it with pure gold. On the inside and outside you should overlay
it. And you should make a gold crown
surrounding it. (Shemot 25:11)
The Torah’s
description of the Aron – the Ark – presents a difficult problem in halachah. According to the Torah description, the Aron
was made of acacia wood. It was
overlaid with gold. The gold covered
the inner and outer surfaces of the Ark.
Although this description provides general guidelines for the Aron’s
construction, it does not address important details.
Rashi explains
that the Ark was composed of three separate boxes. The smallest box was made of gold. A slightly larger box was constructed from acacia wood. The largest box was made of gold. The acacia box was placed within the largest
gold box. The smallest gold box was
placed within the acacia box. This
fulfilled the requirement of the passage.
The inner and outer surfaces of the wood box were covered with gold.[3]
The Chumash
refers to the gold as an “overlay”. The term overlay implies that the gold was
an adornment of the Ark. The essential
material was apparently the wood. This
is difficult to reconcile with Rashi’s description of the Aron’s
construction. According to Rashi, the Aron
was constructed of three boxes. Each
had its own structural integrity. In
fact, it would seem more correct to define the gold as the essential
component. The wood box was hidden
within the two gold boxes!
Perhaps for this
reason Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra disagrees with Rashi. He maintains that the gold overlay was not
created through constructing a series of boxes. Instead, he interprets this requirement literally. The overlay was a coating over the wood of
the Aron.[4] We can easily appreciate the reason for Ibn
Ezra’s position. The Torah refers to
the gold as an overlay. According to
Ibn Ezra, this description is completely accurate. However, according to Rashi’s understanding of the Ark’s design,
the Torah’s characterization of the gold as an overlay does not seem accurate.
Rabbaynu Avraham
ben HaRambam offers a brilliant explanation of Rashi’s position. An
introduction is necessary to understand his insight. The Chumash describes the dimension of the Aron. It was two cubits long, one and a half
cubits wide, and a cubit and a half high.[5] This requirement presents an interesting
problem. The problem is most obvious in
regards to Rashi’s position. According
to Rashi, the Aron was composed of three boxes. Each had different dimensions. Obviously only one box could conform to the
dimensions required by the Torah! To
which box did the required dimensions apply?
Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam responds that the measurements were
applied to the acacia box. This box was
required to conform to the dimensions dictated by the Torah. The inner and outer gold boxes were designed
to accommodate the measurements of the middle acacia box.[6]
This explains
Rashi’s interpretation of the Torah’s description of the Aron. The application of the measurements to the
acacia box indicates that this was the essential box. In this manner, the Torah acknowledges the fundamental nature of
this middle box. Accordingly, it refers
to the gold boxes as an overlay. It is
true that these boxes had independent structural integrity. However, in function they were an overlay.
This pasuk
is also the basis of a well-known homiletic lesson. The Aron contained the Luchot – the Tablets. As discussed above, it was made of wood and
covered with gold on the inside and outside.
Rava explains in Tractate Yoma that the layered structure of the Aron
communicates an allusion to an important lesson. Any Torah scholar whose inside
is not the same as his outside is not a Torah scholar.[7]
Rava’s lesson
seems to be intended to emphasize the importance of honesty. A Torah scholar must not be deceptive. Outward behavior cannot be a mere facade.
The external appearance and behaviors must be an expression of the inner
thoughts and convictions of the Torah scholar.
However, this interpretation seems overly simplistic. The Mishcan and its components were
intended to represent profound truths.
It is difficult to imagine that the design of the Aron was
intended to represent this self-evident lesson. Furthermore, if Rava intends to stress the importance of honest
behavior, his lesson is poorly phrased.
A person who is not honest is a fraud.
Noting that the dishonest individual is not a Torah scholar is an
understatement.
The Aron
as designed to contain the Tablets that Moshe brought down from Sinai. Therefore, the essence of the Aron was
its interior. Therefore, it was
appropriate for the inside of the Aron be overlaid with gold. Why was also the outside overlaid? The gold of the outside reflected the sacred
function of the Aron. The
outside was the observable surface.
Through overlaying this surface with gold, the sacred function of the Aron
was visibly represented.
What is the
effect of scholarship upon the scholar?
Is the effect expressed primarily in the external aspects of the
individual, or does the knowledge of the scholar alter the inner-self? In most
disciplines, it is the externals that are altered. The soul of the archaeologist is not formed or altered by
knowledge of archaeology. The same can
be said of the mathematician and the biologist. However, Hashem expects the inner-self of the Torah scholar to be
molded by the knowledge of His Torah.
It is this inner-self – the soul – that is the true receptacle of the
Torah. If this transformation occurs,
the external behavior of the Torah scholar will naturally reflect this inner
perfection. However, if the soul is not
affected by Torah and only the external behaviors exist, the person does not
appreciate the sacred truth of the Torah.
Such an individual may have amassed much Torah information – but
understanding and appreciation are absent.
Now Rava’s lesson is more clearly
understood. The message communicated by
the inner and outer gold covering of the Aron is not merely that it is
important to be honest. This lesson is
self-evident. Instead, the message of
the Aron is specifically addressed to the Torah scholar. Certainly, it is important for this scholar
to demonstrate proper behaviors and attitudes.
However, these behaviors and attitudes must be the expressions of
internal convictions and knowledge. If
the external behaviors and attitudes are not expressions of the internal values
and wisdom, then this person is not a true Torah scholar. He has been fundamentally unchanged by his
Torah learning.
[1] Midrash
Rabba, Sefer BeMidbar 12:16.
[2] Rav Moshe Sternbach, Ta’am VeDa’at Al HaTorah, volume 1, p 173.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 25:11.
[4] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 25:10.
[5] Sefer Shemot 25:10.
[6] Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam Commentary on Sefer Shemot 25:11.
[7] Mesechet Yoma
72b.