These are the accounts of the Tabernacle – the Tabernacle of the Testimony – that were compiled at Moshe’s direction, the service of the Leveyim under the supervision of Etamar the son of Aharon the Kohen. (Shemot 38:21)
The Parshiyot of Vayakel and Pekuday
complete the Torah’s account to the creation of the Mishcan – the
Tabernacle. These final two Torah
portions discuss the actual fabrication of the Mishcan’s components, the
manufacture of the garments of the Kohen Gadol and Kohanim the High Priest and
the other Priests, and the assembly of the Mishcan. The above passage introduces the Torah portion of Pekuday. In the passage, the Mishcan is referred to
as Mishcan HaEydut – the Tabernacle of the Testimony. The name associates the Mishcan with testimony. However, testimony must be about some event
or fact. What is the event or fact to
which the Mishcan testifies?
Many commentators suggest that the term
Mishcan HaEydut does not mean that the Tabernacle provides testimony. Instead, the term means that the Mishcan
contains or is the home of the Luchot – the Tablets of the Decalogue. These Tablets are referred to in the Torah
as the Luchot HaEydut – the Tablets of the Testimony[1]. The Luchot provide testimony to the
Revelation. Therefore, the Mishcan that
contains the Tablets is referred to as the Tabernacle of the Testimony. [2] However, Rashi disagrees with this
interpretation. He suggests that the
term Mishcan HaEydut means that the Mishcan provides testimony. Therefore, Rashi must identify the event or
fact to which the Mishcan testifies.
Rashi explains that the Mishcan testifies
that Hashem indulged or excused Bnai Yisrael after the sin of the Golden
Calf. He further explains that when the
Mishcan was assembled, the cloud of Hashem descended upon it and the glory of
Hashem filled the Mishcan. This
expression of Hashem’s presence within the encampment of Bnai Yisrael demonstrated
that the sin of the Egel HaZahav – the Golden Calf had been excused or
indulged.
Rashi’s phrasing is notable. He does not say that the sin was forgiven or
that the nation had adequately atoned for the sin. Instead, he explains that Hashem decided to excuse or to indulge
the nation. Rashi seems to suggest that
although Hashem restored His presence in the midst of the nation, this
restoration represented something less that total forgiveness. An example will help explain this
distinction. If a person harms me, and
apologizes, I may decide to forgive the person. This means I completely disregard the act of harm done to me. I
have decided to treat this person as if the action never occurred. It is erased and no longer a factor in our
relationship. However, I may decide
that I can excuse the person or that I am willing to indulge him but that I am
not prepared to forgive the person. In
this case, I am willing to overlook the action. I do feel a need to exact retribution. But I am not satisfied that the person truly regrets his behavior
and accepts full responsibility for his wrongdoing. In other words, forgiveness is secured through a change in the
wrongdoer. Indulgence or being excused
is a unilateral decision made by the wronged party and does not necessarily
reflect any change in the wrongdoer’s attitude.[3]
Rashi’s interpretation raises two issues:
According to Rashi, Hashem did not
forgive the sin of the Egel; He excused it.
Why were Bnai Yisrael not worthy of forgiveness?
If Bnai Yisrael did not deserve to be
forgiven, then why were they excused?
They had committed a very serious transgression and did not deserve
forgiveness. Yet, they were excused! How can this be explained?
And Hashem said to Moshe: I have seen this nation and it is a stiff-necked nation. (Shemot 32:9)
After the sin of the Egel, Hashem
describes Bnai Yisrael as a stiff-necked nation. What is the meaning of this term? The commentators offer a number of explanations. The consensus is that the term communicates
that the nation is stubborn and not likely to repent. However, their interpretations differ in significant aspects. Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno explains that the
term communicates a resistance to learning an adopting new practices and
ideas. The generation that worshipped
the Egel was the product of a pagan, idolatrous society. It had assimilated many of the attitudes,
beliefs, and values of this society.
The nation was certainly capable of moments of absolute clarity. At these moments, the people understood the
folly of their preconceptions and embraced the truths of the Torah. However, they were not capable of completely
uprooting abandoning all remnants of the worldview that they had developed in
Egypt. As a result at moments of
extreme stress, the nation was capable of reverting to idolatrous
behaviors. The sin of the Egel was such
a moment. The stress and anxiety caused
by Moshe’s failure to descend from Sinai developed into a fear of
abandonment. The nation responded to
this fear by reverting to the false but familiar sense of security provided by
idolatrous practices.
Rashi disagrees. He does not understand the term as
describing an inability to learn and adopt new and novel outlooks. Instead, he explains that the term describes
an unwillingness or inability to respond positively to criticism. Rashi does not explain the source or cause
of this resistance to accepting criticism.
In general, this character flaw is a consequence of poor self-image or
weak ego. In order to accept criticism,
a strong ego is helpful. A person with
lacking this degree of self-assuredness struggles to maintain a positive
self-image. Therefore, he resists all
criticism. Conversely, a strong
self-image allows a person to accept that he or she has a flaw without feeling
that this flaw is a threat to his self-respect. A nation of freed slaves can be expected to struggle with
self-image issues. The members of the
nation are likely to have weak self-images and egos. Accepting criticism will difficult if not impossible.
According to both of these explanations,
it was unlikely that the generation redeemed from Egypt could fully
repent. According to Sforno, the nation
could achieve moments of complete clarity.
However, the absolute abandonment of the views, beliefs, and behaviors
learned in Egypt was beyond its grasp.
As a result, they remained susceptible to reverting to these beliefs and
behaviors. According to Rashi, the
people lacked the ego strength to accept criticism and learn from
mistakes. Therefore, they lacked the
ability to engage in the introspection needed to completely shed the remnants
of idolatry from their perspectives and behaviors. Consequently, Bnai Yisrael was not forgiven for the sin of the
Egel. Forgiveness would have required a
level of repentance that was beyond the capacity of the nation. Nonetheless, Hashem did excuse the
nation. Why did He excuse them?
Maimonides explains that there are
certain beliefs regarding Hashem that every Jew must adopt. For example, every member of Bnai Yisrael
must acknowledge that Hashem is incorporeal and He is an absolute unity not
subject to any form of division. He
explains that these fundamental ideas must be taught to every Jew at his or her
level. Maimonides limits this list of
fundamentals to very few elements and also, prescribes a minimal degree of
understanding as being adequate for those who are either uneducated or
incapable of a more thorough, broad, and definitive understanding of the
Torah’s fundamental principles. [4] This is an amazing concession. Maimonides often stresses the importance of
a proper understanding of Hashem[5]
and devotes much of his Moreh Nevuchim to developing this understanding. How can Maimonides’ emphasis upon the
importance of a proper understanding of Hashem be reconciled with the minimal
standard he proposes for the uneducated or less capable?[6]
Maimonides is suggesting that although
these unfortunate individuals have not secured the level of understanding for
which we are all required to strive, nonetheless, they are excused for their
shortcoming. In other words, the Torah
establishes a minimum set of beliefs and an ideal. We are all required to strive for the ideal. But if we achieve only the minimum, we are
excused. In short, a person who, as a
consequence of ignorance or incapacity, has developed an incomplete or not
completely accurate understanding of the Torah’s fundamentals, is excused for
this shortcoming.
Based upon Maimonides’ comments, Rav
Yisrael Chait suggested an explanation of Hashem’s response to Bnai Yisrael’s
failure to fully repent from the sin of the Egel. The nation accepted the fundamentals of the Torah. The people were not completely immune from
beliefs and attitudes that if carefully considered would be seen to be
inconsistent with the Torah. Also, this
lack of introspection and study resulted in some ambiguity and occasional
ambivalence. However, the nation
accepted the fundamentals at a level consistent with its capacity. Therefore, the nation’s failings were not
forgiven. Forgiveness requires a level
of repentance that was beyond the capacity of the generation that left
Egypt. However, they were indulged or
excused.
This suggests that we also should
exercise care in judging one another’s beliefs. Even if they are not completely consistent with the Torah, we
should try to educate and avoid condemning these individuals. Certainly, there are a few very basic
beliefs that should be taught rigorously and extensively to all Jews. But beyond this short list, we should
exercise the same behavior demonstrated by Hashem towards the generation that
created and worshipped the Egel. [7]
[1] E.g. Shemot 31:18
[2] E.g. Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 1:50.
[3] Rashi’s comments are based upon the Midrash quoted by Yalkut Shimoni, BeMidbar 10:723. However, a similar Midrash is found in Midrash Rabbah, Shemot 51:4. In the Midrash Rabba version, Hashem does forgive the nation for the sin of the Egel.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh Nevuchim, volume 1, chapter 34.
[5] E.g. Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh Nevuchim, volume 1, chapter 36.
[6] It should not be assumed that Maimonides is merely exercising pragmatic compassion for those less fortunate – those who lack either the wit or opportunity to secure a proper education. Maimonides is famously unsympathetic for those who err in their grasp of the fundamentals as a result of the misfortune of their upbringing or their incapacity to grasp these principles. See for example Moreh Nevuchim volume 1, chapter 36.
[7] Rav Yisrael Chait, TTL Library, The Tabernacle of Testimony D-346.