Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
I have always found “metichilah ovdei avodah zarah hiyu avotainu, v’achshav karvanu HaMakom l’avodato (in the beginning, our ancestors were idol worshippers, and now, the Omnipresent One has brought us close to worship Him),” to be one of the many fascinating sentences in the Haggadah. It is based on the mishnaic statement: “One begins the telling of the Pesach story with that which is embarrassing (genut) and concludes with that which is praiseworthy (shevach),” (Pesachim 10:4) and is elaborated upon in Talmud Bavli, Pesachim 116a: “What is genut? Rav said: ‘in the beginning, our ancestors were idol worshippers,’ [and Shmuel] said: ‘We were slaves.’”
 
My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and followers, suggests the following explanation of this machloket (dispute):

It appears that they [Rav and Shmuel] are disagreeing as to the essence of the nature of the Egyptian servitude. Rav maintains that the fundamental characteristic of this bondage was the subjugation of the soul (hashibude hanafshi), that is, the Egyptians enslaved the souls of the Jewish people until they were forced down to the level of the 49th gate of impurity... In contrast, Shmuel asserts that the fundamental quality of this slavery was the subjugation of the physical (hashibude hageshami), in that the Egyptians enslaved the Jewish people and forced them to perform back-breaking labor. (This, and the following citations, Haggadah shel Pesach: Siach HaGrid, Rabbi Yitzchak Abba Lichtenstein, editor, pages 45-46, translation and brackets my own)
 
In sum, Rabbi Soloveitchik asserts that Rav maintained spiritual subjugation (hashibude hanafshi) was the essence of our ancestors’ slavery experience in Egypt; whereas Shmuel held that it was fundamentally physical in nature (hashibude hageshami). These differing positions lead to contrasting opinions as to how to understand geulat mitzrayim (the Redemption from Egypt). For Rav, Rabbi Soloveitchik suggests:

… the essence of the geulah, wherein the Holy One blessed be He redeemed us, is also expressed through His drawing us near to Him to His service and giving us the Torah, for, in truth, this was the ultimate purpose of the Exodus… As such, Rav holds that when we tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt, we must begin with genut and speak of our spiritual enslavement and conclude with praise [to the Almighty] regarding the Redemption; namely, the Holy One blessed be He redeemed us, and brought us near to Him to His service.
 
According to the Rav, Shmuel, however, argued that the Redemption should be viewed as the miraculous act wherein:

… the Holy One blessed be He redeemed us from actual physical slavery (m’liyot avadim b’guf), and this is the case even though the purpose of yetziat mitzrayim was the receiving of the Torah. Nonetheless, the geulah from mitzrayim was [to cast off the shackles of slavery], m’hashibude hageshami. Therefore, when we tell the story of yetziat mitzrayim we begin with avadim hi’yinu.
 
The second half of the Haggadah’s statement, “v’achshav karvanu HaMakom l’avodato (and now, the Omnipresent One has brought us close to worship Him),” has received far less attention in the works of the standard Haggadah commentators than the first. This is striking, since the word, “v’achshav,” appears entirely out of place. As the Chasidic rebbe, Rav Avraham Dov Baer of Ovruch, Ukraine (d. 1840) notes:

One must be very exact and ask, what is the meaning of the expression “v’achshav,” when the Haggadah should have written, “v’achar kach karvanu (and afterwards He brought us),” since [everything that is mentioned in the subsequent proof text from Sefer Yehoshua] is prior to our forebears and their Departure from Egypt? (Sefer Bat Ayin, Sefer Vayikra, Drush l’Shabbat HaGadol, this and the following translation and brackets my own)
 
Rav Avraham Dov Baer’s response to his question is an interpretive tour de force:
The explanation of, “v’achshav,” is as follows: Since we now know [the true extent of] our [spiritual] defect, namely, that we were idol worshippers, and we are now exceedingly embarrassed because of the evil of our actions, we are [are now in the position] to beseech Hashem in great humility and embarrassment. As a result of our approaching Him in this manner, He will have mercy upon us, bring us near, and provide an opening for us to do teshuvah. [Moreover,] He will transform the letter “chet” [in the word chametz, chet-mem-tzaddi] into a “heh,” and thereby [metaphorically] change chametz [that represents the yetzer hara] into matzah [mem-tzaddi-heh] that signifies, [in this instance, that which is free of sin] …
 
May it be Hashem’s will and our fervent desire, that on this Pesach, we will be zocheh (merit) to transform all the chametz in our hearts and minds into matzah, so that we may serve Him in holiness and devotion. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
Parashat HaChodesh contains the celebrated verse, “Hashem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon in the land of Egypt, saying: ‘This month (hachodesh hazeh) shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year.’” (Sefer Shemot 12:1-2, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach, with my emendations and underlining) In his Commentary on the Torah, Rashi zatzal (1040-1105) suggests this peshat-level interpretation of hachodesh hazeh: “[Hashem] said this phrase to Moshe regarding Chodesh Nissan, [and stated:] ‘This will be to you the first in the order of counting the months; Iyar shall be called the second; and Sivan third.’” (Sefer Shemot 12:2, Rashi Leipzig Manuscript, translation and brackets my own) 
 
In his posthumous work of Torah analysis, Darash Moshe, Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal (1895-1986) notes that Rashi underscores Nissan’s precedence of place as the first of the months of the year, and examines its significance:

The reason for this is simple: It is insufficient for us, the Jewish people, to believe that Hashem, may He be blessed, is the Creator of the Universe, for we have Shabbat that symbolizes this, and serves as a permanent covenant [between ourselves and the Almighty.] In addition, [and crucially so,] the Jewish people must believe that not only did He create [the Universe in the past], but rather, He is its Creator at this very moment, and its active Guide (manhig). And everything that occurs to a person, and to everything that lives, is from the Holy One blessed be He, just as we have seen regarding the Exodus from Egypt and the [10] Plagues, as we find stated explicitly in the Torah’s text. (Pages 44-45, translation and brackets my own)
 
For Rav Moshe, Nissan’s designation as the first of the months of the year is underscored by Rashi to emphasize that Hashem is the Manhig HaOlam (the Guide of the Universe), as we find in the Torah’s narratives of Yetziat Mitzrayim (the Exodus) and the Eser Makkot. This concept of Hashem’s ongoing hanhagat haolam (guidance of the Universe) is succinctly explained by the Rambam zatzal (Maimonides, 1135-1204) in a celebrated halacha in the Mishneh Torah:

This entity is the G-d of the world and the L-rd of the entire earth. He controls the sphere (v’Hu HaManhig hagalgal) with infinite and unbounded power. This power [continues] without interruption because the sphere is constantly revolving, and it is impossible for it to revolve without someone causing it to revolve. [That one is] He, blessed be He, who causes it to revolve without a hand or any [other] corporeal dimension. (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:5, translation, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger)
 
As Rav Moshe notes, the belief in Hashem’s direct management of the Universe constitutes the foundation of the crucial theological principle: “Everything that occurs to a person, and to everything that lives, is from the Holy One blessed be He.” This is reminiscent of the following beautiful interchange between Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook zatzal (first Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi under the Palestine Mandate, 1865-1935) and Rabbi Aryeh Levin zatzal (the “Tzaddik of Yerushalayim,” 1885-1969) during their first meeting in Jaffa, as cited in Rav Levin’s memoirs:

After an early minhah he [Rav Kook] went out, as his hallowed custom was, to stroll a bit in the fields and gather his thoughts; and I went along. On the way I plucked some branch or flower. Our great master was taken aback; and then he told me gently, “Believe me: In all my days I have taken care never to pluck a blade of grass or a flower needlessly when it had the ability to grow or blossom. You know the teaching of the Sages that there is not a single blade of grass below, here on earth, which does not have a heavenly force (or angel) above telling it, Grow! Every sprout and leaf of grass says something, conveys some meaning. Every stone whispers some inner hidden message in the silence. Every creation utters its song (in praise of the Creator).” Those words, spoken from a pure and holy heart, engraved themselves deeply on my heart. From that time on I began to feel a strong sense of compassion for everything. (A Tzadik in Our Time, pages 108-109)
 
With Hashem’s help and our fervent desire, may we ever recognize Hashem’s guiding hand in our lives, and may this enhance our compassion for all His creations. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The Laws of Kashrut comprise the final portion of our parasha, and are classified as “chukim,” mitzvot whose rationale currently elude us. My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and followers, suggests that chukim should be viewed in this manner:

The laws concerning chukim were classified as unintelligible, enigmatic, mysterious… However, even though it is forbidden to ask for motivation, for the motives or the reasoning pertaining to certain Divine categorical imperatives, we may yet inquire into the interpretation of the law. There is a difference between explanation and interpretation. (This and the following citation, Derashot HaRav: Selected Lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, summarized and annotated by Arnold Lustiger, pages 226-227, underlining my own)
 
In addition, the Rav maintains: “I believe that regarding chukim…we must not ask the question of ‘why,’ because ‘why’ is in general a foolish question to ask, even in regard to mitzvos which in our opinion are quite meaningful.” Instead, “…the question of ‘what’ can be asked. What is the meaning of this chok as far as I am concerned? What does the chok tell me? Not why did Hakadosh Baruch Hu ordain that law? [Instead,] what is the spiritual message that I can assimilate in my world view?”
 
The “what question” is the driving force behind the genre of halachic literature known as “ta’amei hamitzvot—the quest for interpreting the commandments.” Some of its notable exponents include the anonymous author of the Halachot Gedolot (Geonic period), Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (c. 1135-c.1165), the Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204), the unidentified author of the Sefer HaChinuch (13th century), and Rabbi Menachem Recanati (1250-1310). In addition, many well-known Rabbinic luminaries emphasized this topic in their Torah analyses.
 
In his Moreh HaNevuchim, the Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) suggests that the Torah forbade all ma’achlot assurot (forbidden foods) because of their deleterious effect upon our physical wellbeing:

I say, then, that to eat of any of the various kinds of food that the Law has forbidden us is blameworthy. Among all those forbidden to us, only pork and fat may be imagined not to be harmful…With reference to the signs marking a permitted animal…know that their existence is not in itself a reason for animals being permitted nor their absence a reason for animals being prohibited; they are merely signs by means of which the praised [healthful] species may be discerned from the blamed [harmful] species. (III:48, translation, Dr. Shlomo Pines, page 599, brackets my own)
 
In general, the Sefer HaChinuch closely follows the Rambam’s approach in ta’amei hamitzvot as we find in his discussion of ma’achlot assurot:

In the same way, if there is any loss or damage in the body, of any kind, some function of the intelligence will be nullified, corresponding to that defect. For this reason, our complete and perfect Torah removed us far from anything that causes such defect. In this vein, according to the plain meaning we would say we were given a ban by the Torah against all forbidden foods. And if there are some among them whose harm is understood neither by us nor by the wise men of medicine, do not wonder about them: The faithful, trustworthy Physician [Hashem] who adjured us about them is wiser than both you and them. (Mitzvah 73, translation, Charles Wengrove, vol. I, page 285, brackets my own)
 
The hygiene-based interpretation of ma’achlot assurot was not limited to Sephardic Torah giants such as the Rambam and the author of the Sefer HaChinuch. It was championed in Ashkenaz, as well, by the Rashbam (Rabbeinu Shmuel ben Meir, c.1085-c.1158):

In accordance with the direct meaning of the text, and in response to the heretics, all large animals, wild animals, birds, fish, the various kinds of locusts, and those creatures that creep upon the ground, that the Holy One blessed be He forbade to the Jewish people are loathsome indeed, and destroy and heat up the body—they are, therefore, labelled tamei’im (impure). (Gloss on Sefer Vayikra 11:3, translation my own)
 
The world of Jewish thought is dynamic and diverse. Little wonder, then, that the hygiene-based model of interpretation of ma’achlot assurot is not universally accepted. One of its best-known critics is the celebrated Sephardic Torah commentator Rabbeinu Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508):

The majority of Torah meforshim maintain (chashvu) that the prohibited foods which the Torah forbids is to ensure the maintenance of the body and its continued good health…G-d forbid that one should believe such an idea! If this was the case, then the Torah of HaElokim would be on the level of a relatively insignificant work among medical volumes that are overly terse in their words and reasoning; and this is neither the way of the Torah of HaElokim, nor representative of the profundity of its intentions…Rather, the G-dly Torah does not come to cure the bodies and to seek their continued health, instead, it seeks the ongoing health of the soul (briut hanefesh) and to cure its afflictions. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Vayikra 11, s.v. issur hama’achlim, translation and underlining my own)
 
The Seforno (Rabbi Ovadiah ben Ya’akov, c.1470-c.1550) joins the Abarbanel in rejecting the hygiene approach in his summary statement regarding the laws of ma’achlot assurot. Instead of focusing on briut hanefesh, however, he interprets these laws as an “on ramp” to kedushah (holiness):

“And you shall be holy, for I (Hashem) am holy.” In order that you will be holy and ever recognize your Creator, [and long to] walk in His path, for this is My desire, namely, that you will emulate Me. “For I am holy” And all of this you will apprehend when you sanctify yourselves and guard yourselves from forbidden foods. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Vayikra 11:43-44, translation my own)
 
In sum, while the Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch, and the Rashbam, among others, advocate a hygiene-based interpretation of the laws of ma’achlot assurot, this is soundly rejected by both the Abarbanel (briut hanefesh) and the Seforno (“on ramp” to kedushah).
 
Closer to our own time, the Rav analyzed some of the same pasukim as the Seforno regarding ma’achlot assurot and arrived at a strikingly similar conclusion: “What is forbidden here is overindulgence in satisfying human corporeal needs and drives; these mitzvot belong to the category of discipline of the body and its sanctification…The body must be sanctified and elevated…” (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Festival of Freedom: Essays on Pesah and the Haggadah, Rabbis Joseph B. Wolowelsky and Reuven Ziegler, editors, page 137, underlining my own)
 
With Hashem’s help and our fervent desire, may we strive to live lives dedicated to the pursuit of kedushah in all that we do, and may we ever draw closer to Him. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The final section of our parasha is an expansive 36-verse passage that portrays the public investiture of Aharon and his sons into the kahuna. It concludes with the pasuk: “And Aharon and his sons did all the things that Hashem commanded through Moshe.” (Sefer Vayikra 8:36, this and all Tanach and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  In his Commentary on the Torah, Rashi (1040-1105) suggests that the reason why the Torah states, “and Aharon and his sons did all the things,” is to “to tell their praise, namely, that they did not deviate to the right or to the left.” Yet, Rashi’s comment seems to be unnecessary. Aharon and his sons were some of the greatest spiritual leaders of their generation. Why, then,  would the Torah need “to tell their praise,” since they acted precisely as we would have expected?

In his supercommentary on Rashi’s perush entitled, Gur Aryeh, the Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Yehudah Loew ben Bezalel, 1525-1609) elucidates Rashi’s gloss in this manner:

[Rashi felt it necessary to provide this explanation] as the Temple service is of overarching import and replete with many stringencies that stem from the numerous laws that constitute the Korbanot Service. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that they neither deviated from, nor erred regarding any of them, “neither to the right or to the left,” since they acted with great intention and exactitude [in the fulfillment of their task]. (Translation and brackets my own)
 
In the Maharal’s view, Rashi presents a reformulation of the oft-repeated Talmudic dictum: “kohanim zarizim hame--kohanim act with alacrity and punctiliousness in mitzvot observance.” (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 20a)  As such, the behavior of Aharon and his sons warrants recognition and praise at the inception of their avodah (service) in the Mishkan.
 
While Rashi’s focal point in our pasuk is the phrase, “and Aharon and his sons did all the things,” the Netziv (Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1816-1893), in his HaEmek Davar, turns his attention to the end of our verse: “that Hashem commanded through Moshe--asher tzivah Hashem b’yad Moshe,” and to an explication of the term, “b’yad Moshe.” He notes that asher tzivah Hashem refers to “kabbalah be’al peh” (Oral Law). In order to analyze, “b’yad Moshe,” however, he cites Sefer Vayikra 10:11 and Talmud Bavli, Kritot 13b:

“And to instruct b’nai Yisrael regarding all the statutes which Hashem has spoken to them through Moshe (b’yad Moshe).”
 
“And to instruct,” this refers to issuing a halachic decision; “regarding all the statues,” this refers to halachic expositions of the Torah;” “which Hashem has spoken to them,” this refers to halachot l’Moshe mi’Sinai [a specific category of Oral Law]; “b’yad Moshe,” this is talmud [the analyses of Oral Law upon which halachic conclusions are based]. (Translation and brackets my own)
 
According to the Netziv, “talmud’ connotes “that which is created through exacting exploration of the Talmud, an ability that was given to Moshe.” Building on this definition, he suggests, “this is what the expression, ‘b’yad Moshe,’ means, namely, the [singular] ability the Holy One blessed be He bequeathed to Moshe to determine his own halachic positions.” At this juncture, he applies his definition of b’yad Moshe to our original pasuk and states:

And this is the case herein, that they [Aharon and his sons] not only did that which [Moshe] had received through kabbalah be’al peh, but, in addition, they did that which Moshe had determined to be the actual halachic practice in this instance [after his prodigious examination of this material]. (HaEmek Davar translations and brackets my own)
 
I believe the Netziv’s conceptualization of b’yad Moshe helps us understand the depth of Rashi’s earlier comment, “to tell their praise, namely, that they did not deviate to the right or to the left.” Aharon and his sons not only followed the words of the Torah that we have recorded in our parasha, and the Torah Sheb’al Peh that Moshe directly received from the Almighty, but, in addition, they did not diverge in any manner from the halachic guidelines they received from Moshe, himself. Surely this is praiseworthy and deserving of acknowledgement. As Malachi the prophet proclaimed so long ago: “Zichru torat Moshe avdi—Keep in remembrance the teaching of Moshe, My servant.” (Sefer Malachi 3:22)  With Hashem’s help and our fervent desire, may this be so. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
Many Torah-observant Jews are deeply conflicted regarding the reinstitution of korbanot. Although they viewt the binding character of these mitzvot with the same respect they have for other commandments, their alienation from this form of service to Hashem engenders a disconnect between what He has commanded and their personal beliefs. In my estimation, this is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the inherent meaning and purpose of the korbanot. As such, we are fortunate that in his Commentary on the Torah on Sefer Vayikra 1:2, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch zatzal (1808-1888) offers a trenchant analysis of this subject that is as relevant today as it was in the late 19th century.
 
Rav Hirsch begins his discussion of the word “korban” by suggesting, “We have no word that really represents the idea which lies in the expression korban.” He notes that defining korban as “sacrifice” fails to convey its true meaning. In addition, since it “…implies the idea of giving something up that is of value to oneself for the benefit of another, or of having to do without something of value…” it is actually diametrically opposed to the essence of a korban. Even the term, “offering,” fails to communicate what the Torah means by korban:

In addition, the underlying idea of “offering” makes it by no means an adequate expression for korban. The idea of an offering presupposes a wish, a desire, a requirement for what is brought, on the part of the one to whom it is brought, which is satisfied by the ‘offering’. One cannot get away from the idea of gift, a present. But the idea of a korban is far away from all this.
 
If a korban is neither a sacrifice nor an offering, how is it to be defined? Rav Hirsch suggests the following:

It is never used for a present or gift, it is used exclusively with reference to man’s relation to G-d and can only be understood from the meaning which lies in the root krv. Krv means to approach, to come near, and so to get into close relationship with someone. This at once most positively gives the idea of the object and purpose of hakravah (drawing close) as the attainment of a higher sphere of life.
 
This concept of korban as the vehicle whereby one obtains “the attainment of a higher sphere of life” is the essence of Rav Hirsch’s explication of our term. Approaching Hashem in a true I-Thou relationship through a korban, therefore, “…rejects the idea of a sacrifice, of giving something up, of losing something, as well as being a requirement of the One to Whom one gets near…” Instead, the makrivim (the ones who bring the korban) have an overwhelming desire to draw near to their Creator and, therefore, desire something representative of themselves to “come into a closer relationship to G-d…” From this perspective, the korbanot emerge as a symbolic fulfillment of the well-known second verse of the Shema: “And you shall love the L-rd, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.” As such, the purpose of a korban is to enable “kirvat Elokim, nearness to Hashem,” that will lead to “the attainment of a higher sphere of life.”
 
This idea is given powerful voice by Dovid HaMelech when he declares, “kirvat Elokim li tov” (“Closeness to G-d is what is truly good for me,” Sefer Tehillim 73:28). With Hashem’s help and our fervent desire, may we be zocheh (merit) to draw ever nearer to Him, and may we encounter His Divine Presence in the third Beit HaMikdash soon, and in our days. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav
 

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The term, “u’chvode Hashem,” is found twice in the context of the Mishkan: “The cloud covered the Communion Tent, and Hashem’s glory (u’chvode Hashem) filled the Tabernacle. Moshe could not come into the Communion Tent, since the cloud (anan) had rested on it, and Hashem’s glory (u’chvode Hashem) filled the Tabernacle.” (Sefer Shemot 40:34-35, translation, The Living Torah, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan zatzal, with my emendations)  In his Aramaic translation of the Torah on our pasukim, Onkelos (first-second century CE) renders u’chvode Hashem as, “vi’kara d’Hashem” (“and the honor of Hashem”), reminiscent of the celebrated verse in Megillat Esther, “And the Jews had light and happiness and gladness and honor--l’yehudim hayitah orah v’simchah v’sasone vi’kar.” (8:16, translation my own)
 
What does u’chvode Hashem mean? Was it a mystical feeling engendered by being in proximity to the Almighty’s Presence, or something else entirely? While Rashi (1040-1105) is silent regarding the meaning of u’chvode Hashem in our pasukim, his brief gloss on Sefer Bamidbar 14:10, one of the five other pasukim containing this expression in Tanach, identifies u’chvode Hashem with the anan. In contrast, the Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) in his philosophic magnum opus, Moreh HaNevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) interprets our expression as: “... the created light (ha’or sh’nivra) that is designated as kavode in every passage [in Tanach] and that filled the tabernacle…” (I:19, translation, Dr. Shlomo Pines, page 46, brackets my own, and see as well, I:64)  Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550-1619), known as, “the Kli Yakar,” after the name of his commentary on the Torah, embraces the Rambam’s approach in his examination of our pasuk:

It appears from this verse that kavode Hashem is not the same thing as “the anan.” Rather, the fire and the light, that is, kavode Hashem, was visible from the midst of the anan, for without the cloud it would have been impossible to gaze upon it. For if a person cannot look directly at the light of the sun, all the more so is it the case regarding the splendorous light of His Shechinah, may He be blessed. Therefore, this holy light was visible solely from inside the cloud. (Translation my own)
 
We now have two ways of defining the nature of kavode Hashem: According to Rashi, it refers to the anan, whereas both the Rambam and the Kli Yakar associate it with some kind of Divine light; either “ha’or sh’nivra” (Rambam) or “the splendorous light of His Shechinah, may He be blessed” (Kli Yakar). These explications bring us closer to a more profound understanding of one of the most celebrated pasukim in our tefilot: “And one [of the Seraphim] called to the other and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the L-rd of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory (m’lo kol ha’aretz k’vodo).” (Sefer Yeshayahu 6:3, translation, The Judaica Press Tanach, brackets my own) 
 
May the time come soon, and in our days, when the entire Jewish people, and all humankind, will gaze upon the splendorous light of the Shechinah, and join the Seraphim in recognizing m’lo kol ha’aretz k’vodo. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
Our parasha begins with the explicit linkage of Shabbat and the Mishkan:

Moshe called the entire community of b’nai Yisrael to assemble, and he said to them: “These are the things that the L-rd commanded to make [those objects that will be in the Mishkan]. Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have sanctity, a day of complete rest to Hashem…And Moshe spoke to the whole community of b’nai Yisrael, saying: “This is the word that Hashem has commanded to say: ‘Take from yourselves an offering (terumah) for Hashem; every generous hearted person shall bring it, [namely] Hashem’s offering: gold, silver, and copper.’” (Sefer Shemot 35:1-2, 4-5, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach, emendations my own)
 
My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as the “Rav” by his followers and disciples, notes that there are three other passages in the Torah where we find a direct connection between Shabbat and the Mishkan: Parashat Ki Tisa 31: 1-17, Parashat Kedoshim 19:30 and Parashat Behar 26:2. This leads him to ask, “What is the nature of these intertwined concepts?” He begins his response by suggesting:

The answer is fundamental: Both Shabbat and the Tabernacle constitute sanctuaries. One is a sanctuary in time while the other is a sanctuary in space. God wants Jews to establish a residence for Him both in space and in time. The Jew who has prepared properly for the Sabbath and is about to light his candles finds himself in the same position as the Jew of two thousand years ago preparing to enter the Sanctuary. (This and the following Rav Soloveitchik quotes, Darosh Darash Yosef: Discourses of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik on the Weekly Parashah, Rabbi Avishai C. David, editor, pages 197-199, underlining my own.)
 
For the Rav, Shabbat is our sanctuary in time, and the Mishkan/Beit HaMikdash our sanctuary in space. This similarity constitutes the underlying reason, “…why the Torah, in four different places, linked the sanctity of the Sabbath and that of the Tabernacle.” Nevertheless, in the Rav’s estimation, while the Mishkan and Shabbat are both sanctuaries, the nature of their specific sanctity is substantively quite different. For the Rav, the holiness of the Mishkan is supernatural:

There is a difference between the sanctity of Shabbat and that of the Tabernacle and the Temple. The sanctity of the Mikdash can never disappear, for although the physical Temple was destroyed, the Shechinah is always there…The Shechinah was both a physical light and a spiritual experience. It was outside of nature and defied the laws of causality, for the Mishkan was nothing less than an ongoing miracle that transcended the natural order.
 
In contrast, kedushat Shabbat operates within the natural world:

Shabbat demonstrates God’s presence on a natural level…God reveals Himself in the order of nature. One can experience God through the blue sky and the flowering bush. All this is enhanced by the awareness of Shabbat, which epitomizes the natural order at rest. God has no desire to interfere with the natural order. Each individual must pause…to take God’s presence within the natural order into account.
 
Given this distinction, we may very well wonder if the supernatural nature (l’ma’alah min hateva) of the Mishkan/Beit HaMikdash has primacy over Shabbat which operates within the bounds of nature. The Rav addresses this issue in an unequivocable manner:

We have survived two thousand years without the Beit ha-Mikdash, but we could never have survived without Shabbat… Jewish survival is not bound up with the Mishkan. While the Mishkan is a lofty and important place, we must remember…Shabbat, which is essential to Jewish survival, is stronger. 
 
May the time come soon, and in our days, when we will experience kedushat Shabbat as we bear witness to the transcendent holiness of the newly rebuilt Beit HaMikdash. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The best-known theme in our parasha is the Chet HaEgel (the Sin of the Golden Calf), the most grievous sin in our nation’s storied history. In addition, our sidrah contains the powerful narratives of Hashem’s forgiveness for this heinous offense, and Moshe’s second journey to the crest of Har Sinai with the second set of tablets (luchot) in hand, upon which Hashem inscribed “the words that were on the first luchot … the words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments.” (Sefer Shemot 34:1 and 28, all Torah translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  
 
While the words that were on the first luchot and the second luchot were the same, their origin was significantly different. Whereas in the first instance the Torah states, “now the tablets were Hashem’s work,” (32:16) regarding the second luchot we find, “hew for yourself [Moshe] two stone tablets like the first ones… (34:1)  Moreover, a singular difference obtains between Moshe of the first luchot, and Moshe of the second, for it is only in the latter case that the Torah relates his miraculous transformation:

And it came to pass when Moshe descended from Mount Sinai, and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moshe’s hand when he descended from the mountain, and Moshe did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant (ki karan or panuv) while He had spoken with him. And Aharon and all b’nai Yisrael saw Moshe and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. (34:29-30)
 
My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as the “Rav” by his followers and disciples, suggests that “Moshe’s face began to radiate light because he spoke frequently with God.” (This and the following Rav Soloveitchik quotes, Darosh Darash Yosef: Discourses of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik on the Weekly Parashah, Rabbi Avishai C. David, editor, pages 188-189, brackets and underlining my own.)  As even a cursory reading of the Torah suggests, however, Moshe Rabbeinu had engaged in many ongoing and intense personal encounters with Hashem prior to receiving the second set of luchot. This is perhaps why the Rav asked: “Why did Moshe develop this quality [of radiating light] on Yom Kippur [per the second set of luchot] rather than on Shavuot [per the first set of luchot], when God spoke to him?” In my estimation, the Rav’s response is nothing less than an intellectual tour de force:

The answer lies in the difference between the Oral Law [Torah she’beal peh] and the Written Law [Torah she’bichtav]. In receiving the Law, Moshe was a worthy messenger uniquely qualified for this purpose. However, his personality was not yet intertwined with the Torah. The quality of radiance implies that Moshe absorbed the Torah into the essence of his personality—that he now personified the Torah and, in effect, had been transformed into a living sefer Torah. This happened only on Yom Kippur when he received the Oral Torah.
 
The Rav’s answer is based upon his analysis that, “in the same way that Parashat Yitro describes the giving of the Written Law to Moshe [first luchot, Shavuot], Parashat Ki Tisa describes the giving of the Torah she’beal peh—the Oral Law [second luchot, Yom Kippur]:” The Rav derives this concept from the verse that appears in our parasha two pasukim before we are told of Moshe’s radiant face: “Hashem said to Moshe: ‘Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words [that is, Torah she’beal peh] I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel.’” (34:27)  As such, the Rav maintains that Moshe Rabbeinu became a “living sefer Torah… only on Yom Kippur when he received the Oral Torah.”
 
It is crucial to note that this pasuk also states, “for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you [Moshe] and with Israel.” Though only Moshe was transformed to the point that he literally radiated the light of the Torah, the Jewish people were also changed for evermore when Hashem gave us the second set of luchot—the Torah she’beal peh—for this is the source of our everlasting covenant with Him. As the Rav asserts: “Only through the Oral Law could God make a lasting covenant with the Israelites. The Talmud in Tractate Gittin [60b] states, ‘God made a covenant with the Jewish people exclusively around the Oral Law.’”
 
These ideas are given voice in the celebrated phrase of our morning tefilah: “Ashreinu mah tov chelkeinu u’mah nayim goraleinu u’mah yafah yerushateinu!” (“We are overjoyed in the goodliness of our portion! And how pleasing is our fate! And how desirous is our inheritance!”). May our eternal covenant with the Almighty, created through the unique power of the Torah she’beal peh, bring us ever closer to Him. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.
 
Please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com to be added to my weekly email list.
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The Choshen Mishpat, worn by the Kohane Gadol, is one of the more fascinating bigdei kahuna (garments of the kohanim) that is described in our parasha: “And you [Moshe] shall make a decision breastplate (Choshen Mishpat). It shall be a patterned brocade like the ephod. Make it out of gold [thread], sky-blue, dark red and crimson wool, and twined linen.” This translation of, “decision breastplate,” derives from the placement of the Urim and Thumim therein, special stones from which prophetic communications were revealed to the Kohane Gadol: “Place the Urim and Thumim in the decision breastplate, and they shall be over Aharon’s heart when he comes before G-d. Aharon will then carry the decision-making device for the Jewish people before G-d at all times.” (Sefer Shemot 28:15, 30, translation, The Living Torah, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, with my emendations)
 
In his Commentary on the Torah, Rashi (1040-1105) cites an opinion found in Talmud Bavli, Arachin 16a and Zevachin 88b, that suggests the purpose of the Choshen Mishpat is to procure atonement for error in legal decisions. (28:15)  Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv, 1816-1893) takes issue with Rashi’s approach, since “[these Talmudic sources suggest this explanation of the Choshen Mishpat] solely as an allusion and an intimation (remez v’asmachata), and as a statement that by no means represents its essential purpose.” (Ha’amek Davar, Sefer Shemot 28:15, this and the following translation and brackets my own)  As such, the Netziv offers his own analysis of the inherent meaning of the Choshen Mishpat:

Rather, the primary explanation of the word, “mishpat,” is to seek redress for insults against the Jewish people. [So, too, do we find] that the Targum Yonatan on Malachim I:8:49, translates “v’asita mishpatam (and You will maintain their cause),” as, “v’tit’p’rah ulbanhon (and You will seek compensation for their humiliation).” …and, therefore, the [focus on] the Choshen comes to invoke the salvation of the Jewish people and seek revenge against those who pursue them.
 
In sum, the Netziv maintains that the role of the Choshen Mishpat is to “invoke the salvation of the Jewish people and seek revenge against those who pursue them.” In my view, this concept is evocative of the tefilah we recite each morning immediately before the recitation of the Shemoneh Esrai, wherein we beseech Hashem to bring forth the redemption of our people: “Rock of Israel, arise to the aid of Israel and liberate, as You pledged, Judah and Israel. Our Redeemer—Hashem, Master of Legions, is His Name—the Holy One of Israel. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel.” (Translation, The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, page 97.)  May this time come soon and, in our days, v’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org.

To be added to my weekly email list, please contact me at rdbe718@gmail.com.

*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd

*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav

Rabbi David Etengoff
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, Shayndel bat Mordechai Yehudah, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
“And they shall make Me a sanctuary (v’asu li mikdash) and I will dwell amongst them (v’shachanti b’tochom),” is one of the best-known verses in our parasha.  (Sefer Shemot 25:8, this, and all Bible translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  The very next pasuk, however, employs the word, “mishkan,” in place of mikdash : “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do.” Rabbi Chaim Ben Attar zatzal (1696-1743), known as the Or HaChaim Hakadosh after the name of his commentary on the Torah, addresses this change in terminology:
… It appears to me that when the Torah says, “v’asu li mikdash,” it is referring to the general positive commandment that incorporates all times, whether [the Jewish people were in] the desert or when they entered the land [of Israel], as well as the entire period the Jewish people would dwell therein throughout the generations. [Moreover,] the Jewish people were obligated to create a mikdash, even in the Diaspora (galiot), [but were prevented from so doing, since] we find that Hashem forbade all other places [outside of Israel] from the point in time of the construction of the Beit HaMikdash, as it says in the Torah: “For you have not yet come to the resting place or to the inheritance, which the L-rd, your G-d, is giving you.” (Sefer Devarim 12:9)  This, then, is why the Torah does not declare, “v’asu mishkan,” in order that we may understand that the creation of the mishkan was a mitzvah solely at that time. [This is the reason the Torah at first] commands the general mitzvah [to construct the mikdash] followed by the specific [obligation of what was needed] to be built in the desert, which was not the place to create a building of stones… (Or HaChaim, Sefer Shemot 25:8, translation, brackets and paratheses my own)
 
According to the Or HaChaim, the Torah first utilizes the term, mikdash, and then mishkan, to teach us a crucial lesson: the mitzvah of the mikdash is obligatory at all times in Eretz Yisrael; in contrast, the mitzvah of the mishkan was time-bound, namely, its construction was a commandment to the Dor HaMidbar (Generation of the Desert) as a temporary stand-in for the yet-to-be-built Beit HaMikdash. As such, the Torah commands us, “v’asu li mikdash,” rather than “v’asu li mishkan.” The Or HaChaim includes a citation from the Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) that strongly supports his position:
It is a positive commandment to construct a House for G-d, prepared for sacrifices to be offered within. We [must] celebrate there three times a year, as the Torah states: “v’asu li mikdash,” The sanctuary constructed by Moshe is already described in the Torah. It was only temporary, as the Torah states: “For you have not yet come to the resting place or to the inheritance, which the L-rd, your G-d, is giving you.” (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, 1:1, translation, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger)
 
According to the Rambam, the essential purpose of the Beit HaMikdash was to provide a place to offer korbanot and to “celebrate there three times a year.” My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as the “Rav” by his followers and disciples, builds upon this idea, focusing on the intrinsic purpose of the korbanot to strengthen our connection with the Almighty:
God created the world to reside in it, rather than to reside in transcendence. Man could have continually experienced Him instead of trying to infer His Presence through examining nature. But in the wake of the original sin of Adam and Eve, He retreated. And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden (Gen. 3:8).  These “footsteps” were those of God leaving the garden and departing into infinity. Had they not sinned, God would always have been close. As a result of Adam’s hiding and fear of communicating with God in the wake of his sin, God removed His Divine Presence. The purpose of the tabernacle was to restore the relationship between man and God. (Public lecture, Boston, 1979, cited in Chumash Mesoras HaRav, Sefer Shemot: with Commentary Based Upon the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Dr. Arnold Lustiger, editor, page 226, underlining my own)
 
May the time come soon and, in our days, when the relationship between Hashem and the Jewish people is fully restored, and His Divine Presence is once again manifest to us all in the newly rebuilt Beit HaMikdash. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email rdbe718@gmail.com.

*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd

*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link: The Rav