כי תשא

The half-shekel 'atonement’

The national census required each individual to donate a half-shekel:

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַה' בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם (שמות ל:יב)

From a later verse we learn that the silver collected was used for the sockets placed under the walls of the Mishkan (see Ex. 38:27).[1]

Leaving aside the questions of when and how the census was carried out,[2] it seems clear that a serious threat was perceived which required 'atonement' (or ‘protection’ depending on the translation of the verb k-p-r). Yet the Torah does not specify the cause of the danger and how it was to be mitigated via the half-shekel donation.

Most commentators assume the danger related to the census itself. Rashi and various other commentators associate it with the 'evil eye':

ולא יהיה בהם נגף. שֶׁהַמִּנְיָן שׁוֹלֵט בּוֹ עַיִן הָרָע, וְהַדֶּבֶר בָּא עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בִימֵי דָּוִד

This is not the place for a lengthy discussion of the evil eye. To summarise briefly, some understood it in 'scientific' terms based on the way they (incorrectly) understood the eye to function. The Abarbanel and the Ralbag on our verse explain it literally as a destructive ray emitted from the eye.

Such explanations can be traced to Plato’s emission theory that vision is facilitated by the emission of beams from the eye which interact with the object being perceived. We now know that the opposite is true; visual perception comes from light rays entering the eye. Nevertheless, this was a widely held view until at least the eighteenth century.[3]  

Others adopted metaphysical explanations for the evil eye without attempting to ground it in explained natural phenomenon. Of particular interest is Shadal's semi-rational approach:

כשאדם מונה את כספו ואת זהבו, או כשהמלך מונה את אנשי צבאו, קרוב הדבר מאד שיהיה בוטח בעשרו וברבוי חייליו, ויתגאה בלבו ויאמר בכחי ועוצם ידי עשיתי חיל, או אעשה חיל; ואז יקרה על הרוב שיתהפך עליו הגלגל ותבואהו שואה לא ידע... ומזה נולדה בכל העמים אמונת העין הרע, ונראה שכבר התפשטה האמונה הזאת בישראל בדורות שקודם מתן תורה, והנה לא רצה ה' לבטל האמונה הזאת מכל וכל, יען יסודתה על אמונת ההשגחה, והיא מרחיקה את האדם מבטוח בכחו והונו, וזהו עיקר כל התורה כלה...

ואומר כי קצת מן המתפלספים כגון רלב"ג בקשו לפרשו על דרך הטבע, ואמרו שהאידים היוצאים מעיני המביט אל פני האיש הנשקף יוכלו להיות ארסיים ולהזיקו או להמיתו, הכל לפי טבע המקבל; וחכמי דורנו בהפך, רובם לועגים על אמונת העין הרע על דברים אחרים רבים הבלתי מובנים על דרך הטבע. ולדעתי אלו ואלו טועים. אבל העולם איננו מתנהג על פי חקות הטבע החמרי לבדן, אבל יש עוד חקות אחרות, חקקה אותן החכמה העליונה בתחלת הבריאה..

Acknowledging that the evil eye was a widely held belief, Shadal initially writes that the Torah went along with it on the basis that it promoted good beliefs about providence and was a useful tool for preventing self-glorification and overconfidence. But then taking aim at the Ralbag, he ascribes to it an objective reality which cannot be explained in pure natural terms.

The Rambam, on the other hand, appears to have rejected its existence (at least as an objective reality) altogether.[4] 

Stepping away from the particulars of the evil eye, various alternatives have been proposed for identifying the underlying problem of the census.

Some have conjectured that counting has the effect of breaking up a collective unit, thus creating a danger of being judged as an individual rather than as part of a community.[5] Others have seen the threat in the opposite direction insofar as the counting reduces an individual to a mere 'number' causing them to lose their individuality. The fact that these explanations are so diametrically opposed is perhaps indicative of their subjective nature.[6] Furthermore, the concern of a potential plague seems exaggerated if the problem of counting was no more than symbolic.

The Talmud brings an altogether different source for not counting the Jewish people:

כׇּל הַמּוֹנֶה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה מִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמַּד״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִמַּד וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר״ (בבלי יומא, כב:)

This suggests the problem is that counting the Jewish people symbolically limits the blessing that they will be too large to count.[7] In any event it is noteworthy that the Talmud makes no reference to our passage as the source of the prohibition.

Another alternative is proffered by Nahum Sarna who suggests that the anxiety generated by a census was derived from its historical association with preparation for war or the imposition of a new tax.[8] This subsequently developed into a superstition towards any form of census. Such a theory would explain why the Torah may have felt it necessary to relate and respond to such fears, but it is difficult to suffice with this explanation alone. When the Torah engages a foreign superstition, we generally expect to see some form of positive adaption to the Torah's own value system.

An alternative explanation

The above explanations assume that the purported danger arose from the census itself. As already mentioned, however, the Torah does not specify the cause of the danger. Moreover, there are other occasions in Tanach where the people are counted without any concern or special measures taken.[9] This leaves open the possibility that the danger which necessitated the half-shekel payment, was something other than the census itself. Within the surrounding passages the obvious event which posed an existential threat to the Jewish people is the episode of the golden calf. Indeed, there are a number of textual parallels connecting them:

עגל הזהב (שמות:לג:ל-לה)	שמות ל:יא-יד (מחצית השקל)
וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם	כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל
אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם	וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ... לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם
וַיִּגֹּף ה' אֶת־הָעָם עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת־הָעֵגֶל	וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף
וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם חַטָּאתָם	בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם... כׇּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים

If we adopt Rashi's view that the golden calf episode preceded the instruction to build the Mishkan and the census, then it is relatively simple to explain the census as an atonement for the sin of the golden calf.[10] Such a view is explicit in the Midrash:

וְאַף כָּאן, מִי גָּרַם לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּפָרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל (תנחומא, כי תשא ב')[11]

Even if we do not accept Rashi's chronology, and instead follow the plain meaning that the instruction for the Mishkan came prior to the golden calf episode, it is still clear that the Mishkan was a response to an inherent need for tangible symbols to be employed in the service of God. The golden calf episode simply exposed the void when such symbols are entirely absent. The Mishkan provided the authorised mode of worship of the infinite within a regulated tangible framework. Based on this, we might suggest that the half-shekel donations used in the structure of the Mishkan were intended as a collective defence against the trappings of idolatry, the likes of which led to the tragic episode of the golden calf.[12]

Discipline as protection against idolatry 

The contribution of the gold for the golden calf is characterised by lack of self-control and inhibition:

וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל־הָעָם אֶת־נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אַהֲרֹן (שמות:לב:ג)

With the building of the Mishkan, on the other hand, though all the materials (including gold) were donated en masse, it was specifically the half-shekel of silver which provided atonement. The half not the whole, and the silver not the gold. The contribution of a modest but equal amount – 'the rich cannot give more and the poor cannot give less' – demonstrates a form of discipline which protects against a crossover into idolatry arising from the excessive assertion of the self into the worship of God. 

The reservations towards ostentatious building projects constructed 'for the sake of God' comes into focus when King David expresses a desire to build the Beit HaMikdash. God initially rejects the proposal noting that He has thus far been content dwelling in a 'tent':

כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת לְמִיּוֹם הַעֲלֹתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּאֹהֶל וּבְמִשְׁכָּן׃ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בְּכׇל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲדָבָר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי לִרְעוֹת אֶת־עַמִּי אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר לָמָּה לֹא־בְנִיתֶם לִי בֵּית אֲרָזִים׃ (שמואל ב, ז:ו-ז)

God does eventually agree that King David's son, Solomon, will build the Beit Hamikdash, but only – it would seem - as a concession to a fundamental human weakness. The Beit HaMikdash will be grand and glorious, but that addresses a human need, not God's needs. The placement of the building of the Beit Hamikdash alongside Solomon's own (and even grander) palace speaks volumes about the entanglement of glorification of God and self-glorification.

A day of accounting

Following the episode of the golden calf, the nation was not entirely forgiven and only succeeded in receiving a suspended sentence. This basically meant that a future 'day of accounting'[13] could trigger a recall of the original sin of the golden calf. This is highly relevant to understanding the significance of the ‘remembrance' constituted by the half-shekel:

וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי ה' לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם (שמות ל:טז)

The need to ‘remind’ God of the half-shekel donations can be seen as counteracting the incriminating taint of the golden calf and the resultant danger hanging over the people. As much as God threatens to recall the golden calf, He must also take account of the merit of the half-shekel donations.

In light of what we have said, however, we can reframe this in terms which undercuts the root cause of the golden calf rather than simply offsetting the punishment. The Mishkan, for the reasons discussed above, is the approved alternative to idolatry. Critically, the Mishkan comprises a physical framework in which the Divine presence can be manifest, whilst not representing God in any material form. It is thus the Mishkan enterprise, collective funded by the half-shekel donations, which creates a natural shield against future relapse. As mitigation is the real concern of the Torah, this should be seen as the deeper objective of the half-shekel remembrance and the ‘protection’ it affords.[14]  

 

 

 

---

[1] Silver was also used for the decorative bands on the posts of the outer courtyard, but it seems that the silver from the half-shekel was specifically used for the lower sockets of the planks of the Mishkan.

[2] The issue is that we do not see a full census carried out until the second year and there is debate whether there were two censuses or one. With respect to the manner of the count, Rashi assumes that they counted the half-shekel but the more straightforward reading is that they counted the people in the standard manner and simply made the half-shekel payment as they were counted.

[3] For further discussion, see Rationalism v Mysticism: Schisms in Traditional Jewish Thought (N. Slifkin), pp. 411-431  

[4] Responsa 48. Readers can make up their own mind about the tone of the response. The question he is responding to is why he only required a wall of 10 tefachim between gardens when the Talmud apparently concludes היזק ראייה שמיה היזק:

תשובה שאלה זו לא היה ראוי לאנשים גדולים כמותכם לשאול אותה וכי לא שני לכו בין היזק ראיה שהוא היזק גדול ודאי שיראה אדם חברו שהוא עומד ויושב ועושה צרכיו ובין היזק ראיה שיראה קמת חברו משום עינא בישא שאלו דברי חסידות הן שלא יהיה אדם עויין בעין רעה את חברו ואותו השינוי שנוי בעלמא הוא ואינו אליבא דהלכתא...

[5] See Rabbeinu Bachya (Ex. 30:12)

[6] See R Yehudah Amital here. The psychological association between numbering people and loss of individuality was presumably strengthened by memories of the holocaust. 

[7] This is also implied by the verses in 1 Chron. 27:23-24

[8] N. Sarna, JPS commentary, p.195

[9] The standout exception is the census taken by King David (2 Sam. 24) which requires its own analysis.

[10] See Rashi (Ex 31:18). It is somewhat perplexing that Rashi waited until this point to make this comment given its relevance to the chronology of the previous six chapters. It is also noteworthy that the proof Rashi offers relates to the building of the Mishkan and not the instruction. 

[11] Rashi himself did not proffer such an explanation

[12] Kapparah does not necessarily presuppose sin. Though there are various suggestions as to the precise meaning of Kapparah, Ibn Ezra's view that it refers to 'protection' appears to be best supported. See article here by R' Yehudah Rock and here by R' Menachem Leibtag. I have nevertheless used the more common 'atonement' translation throughout. 

[13] It is not entirely clear what triggers this 'day of accounting'. Presumably it refers to a time when they commit a sin similar to the golden calf (cf. Rashi). However, it may refer to any day of reckoning where God's judgement is triggered. According to Ibn Ezra it refers to Rosh HaShanah but it is also possible that a census was itself considered a trigger event.

[14] This is further supported by the fact that the opening phrase 'Ki Tisa' ('when you count') is open ended rather than limited to a specific moment in time. This has been understood as alluding to a regular obligation to donate half-shekel to sustain the sanctuary (see Rambam, Aseh 171). The protection of the half-shekel mentioned in the passage is perpetuated by virtue of the ongoing obligation enabling it to counter the ongoing threat of the golden calf and potential relapse.

תרומה

Where East Meets West

The instructions for the building of the Mishkan commence with the Aron and the Kaporet located in the Kodesh HaKodashim, immediately followed by the Shulchan and the Menorah situated in the Kodesh.[1] When we compare the Aron and Kaporet on the one hand, with the Shulchan and the Menorah on the other, some striking symmetries emerge.

The Aron is a gold-plated wooden structure whilst the Kaporet covering is of pure gold. Though the Aron and the Kaporet together comprise a functional unit, it is clear the Kaporet is also a distinct entity with independent significance as the place from which God's voice emanated.[2]

A similar relationship exists between the Shulchan and the Menorah. The Shulchan was gold-plated whilst the Menorah was pure gold. Though these were clearly separate structures, they are also interrelated. The basic representation of the Menorah together with the Shulchan is that of a lampstand providing light to a dining table.[3] Since the Menorah services the Shulchan, the instruction for the Shulchan precedes that of the Menorah, just as the Aron precedes the Kaporet.

From a textual perspective too, the position of the Shulchan is specifically referenced to that of the Menorah (נֹכַח) which is suggestive of a relationship beyond incidental proximity:

וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָן מִחוּץ לַפָּרֹכֶת וְאֶת־הַמְּנֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן עַל צֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן תֵּימָנָה וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן תִּתֵּן עַל־צֶלַע צָפוֹן׃ (שמות כו:לה)

Chazal were sensitive to this locution and derived that the incense altar, stationed between the Shulchan on the north and the Menorah on the south, must be drawn back a little so that it doesn't separate between the two.[4]

It is also noteworthy that throughout the Torah, discussion of the Shulchan is always adjoined to the Menorah. Even the details of the Lechem HaPanim which are provided only much later at the end of Vayikra (5:5-9), are placed alongside the instructions for preparing the Menorah. Finally, though not exclusive to these furnishings, both the Menorah and Shulchan contain a 'Tamid' element – the 'Ner Tamid' in the case of the Menorah, and the 'Lechem Tamid' in the case of the Shulchan.[5]  

In summary, both the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKodashim contain a gold-plated wooden structure (Shulchan/Aron), holding an item of key significance (Lechem HaPanim/Luchot), serviced by an overarching quasi-independent golden structure (Menorah/Kaporet). Now we will consider each of these elements in closer detail.

1) Shulchan v Aron

The instruction for building the Shulchan closely follows the structure of the Aron. This in true in terms of both the main structural features and the specific language, as the table below demonstrates:

	Shulchan (25:10-16)	Aron (25:23-29)
Interior made from acacia wood; similar measurements	וְעָשִׂיתָ שֻׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ׃	וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ׃
Covered in gold with golden frame	וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ מִסְגֶּרֶת טֹפַח סָבִיב וְעָשִׂיתָ זֵר־זָהָב לְמִסְגַּרְתּוֹ סָבִיב׃	וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב׃
Four rings / four legs? (see Ibn Ezra פעמותיו=legs)	וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּ אֶת־הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל אַרְבַּע הַפֵּאֹת אֲשֶׁר לְאַרְבַּע רַגְלָיו׃	וְיָצַקְתָּ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּה עַל אַרְבַּע פַּעֲמֹתָיו וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל־צַלְעוֹ הָאֶחָת וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל־צַלְעוֹ הַשֵּׁנִית׃
Poles inserted into the rings to enable transport[6]	לְעֻמַּת הַמִּסְגֶּרֶת תִּהְיֶיןָ הַטַּבָּעֹת לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָן׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב וְנִשָּׂא־בָם אֶת־הַשֻּׁלְחָן׃	וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת־הַבַּדִּים בַּטַּבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעֹת הָאָרֹן לָשֵׂאת אֶת־הָאָרֹן בָּהֶם׃ בְּטַבְּעֹת הָאָרֹן יִהְיוּ הַבַּדִּים לֹא יָסֻרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ׃
Description of contents	וְנָתַתָּ עַל־הַשֻּׁלְחָן לֶחֶם פָּנִים לְפָנַי תָּמִיד׃	וְנָתַתָּ אֶל־הָאָרֹן אֵת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ׃

 

2) Menorah v Kaporet

The Menorah and the Kaporet also contain commonalities. Unlike the Aron and the Shulchan, they are fashioned out of pure gold and do not have rings and poles attached for transport purposes.[7] Furthermore, unlike the Aron and the Shulchan, no measurements are provided for either the Menorah or the Kaporet (other than the base of the Kaporet to ensure it fits on the Aron).

Most significantly, the basic design concept of the Menorah and the Kaporet are remarkably similar. Both have intricate symmetrical features on the sides which surround a central point of focus.[8] In the case of the Menorah the description is of 'three branches from one side and three from the other side' (25:32) and in the case of the Kaporet it is 'one Keruv at one end and one Keruv at the other end' (25:19). 

The use of the same word פני (face) in both contexts further reinforces the connection between them. The Keruvim are described as facing toward each other, whilst various commentators suggest that their actual faces were turned downwards towards the Kaporet:[9]

וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו אֶל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת יִהְיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים (שמות כה:כב)

A similar debate surfaces in relation to the direction of the lights of the Menorah. Traditionally, it is understood that the lights were directed towards the middle based on the following verse: [10]

דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹת אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת (במדבר ח:ב)

Yet the Rashbam and the Bekhor Shor understood the requirement was for the lights of the Menorah to tilt forwards towards the Shulchan (the Kodesh HaKodashim was in the west and the length of the Menorah ran from east to west such that it was 'facing' the Shulchan in the north).[11] If the lights of the Menorah were indeed directed towards the Shulchan, then this correlates with the view that the faces of the Keruvim were directed down towards the Aron.

3) Lechem v Luchot[12]

If the Aron corresponds to the Shulchan and the Kaporet to the Menorah, then it follows that the Luchot stored in the Aron somehow relate to the Lechem HaPanim placed on the Shulchan.

Aside from the linguistic similarity of Lechem and Luchot (perhaps with a common etymology[13]), both are referred to in terms of Berit. The Luchot are referred to on several occasions as the Luchot HaBerit, and similarly with respect to the Lechem HaPanim:

בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי ה' תָּמִיד מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם (ויקרא כד:ח)

The very fact that the Lechem HaPanim was brought on Shabbat reinforces the covenantal connection as Shabbat is repeatedly referred to in terms of Berit:

וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית עוֹלָם (שמות לא:טז)

Structurally there is also a similarity as both the Lechem Hapanim and the Luchot consist of two sets of six. With the Lechem HaPanim this is obvious as the twelve loaves were arranged on two stands each holding six loaves. With respect to the Luchot, R. Yoel Bin Nun has convincingly argued that alongside the classic structure of ten commandments split into two sets of five, there is also a prominent six-six division. This is based on the observation that there are exactly twelve negative instructions (‘do not..’), six of which relate to man and God (presumably on one tablet), and six of which relate to man and his fellow man (presumably on the second tablet). Without referring to the fundamental connection we are trying to establish, he notes the Lechem HaPanim as one of the precedents for a 2x6 division.[14]

Displaying the Lechem and concealing the Luchot

As mentioned above, the Kaporet covers the Aron whilst the Menorah lights up the Shulchan. But herein also lies a key difference. The Aron together with the Kaporet conceals the Luchot whilst the Shulchan, with the help of the light of the Menorah, displays the Lechem (aptly translated as 'showbread').[15]

The capacity of the Keruvim to guard against access is familiar to us from the story of Gan Eden:

וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת־הָאָדָם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן־עֵדֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִים וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים׃ (בראשית ג:כד)

The Keruvim woven into the fabric of the partition had a similar function of symbolically guarding the access to the Kodesh HaKodashim which contained the Aron (Ex. 26:1). The Keruvim on top of the Aron should therefore be understood in a similar vein as guarding the Luchot, the metaphorical ‘tree of life’.[16]

What is the meaning of the Shulchan displaying the Lechem, whilst the Aron conceals the Luchot?

Two forms of religious experience

The Mishkan is designed as a house with two rooms, a reception room where guests are welcomed and present themselves, and a more intimate, restricted private chamber. In the former there is scope for human participation, whilst in the latter man can only stand in awe before God’s presence (under the cover of the Ketoret cloud).[17] 

This key difference between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKodashim is also reflected in the difference in the nature of the Lechem and the Luchot. The Luchot were the handiwork of God and contain His word:

וְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹהִים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱלֹהִים הוּא חָרוּת עַל־הַלֻּחֹת (שמות לב:טז)

Bread on the other hand represents the handiwork of man and his harnessing of the forces of nature. Whilst the primordial snake eats the 'dust of the ground', man eats 'bread by the sweat of his brow' (Gen 3:19). Agriculture and food preparation are indeed unique human traits which exemplify man's ability to control nature, and bread in particular is recognised as a key milestone in the development of civilisation.[18] 

The outer sanctuary of the Kodesh is lit up and man is invited to deploy his creative faculties and present his bread. The Lechem HaPanim was in fact renowned for its artistic intricacy as evidenced by the controversy surrounding the family of Garmu that kept the production process a closely guarded secret (see TB Yomah 38a). The bread is brought on the Shabbat day reflecting man's acknowledgement of the source of his creative prowess, yet it is a form of service in which man is allowed self-expression. 

But the Kodesh HaKodashim reflects an altogether different environment and spiritual experience. In place of illumination there is a cloud which conceals. God speaks from between the Keruvim and man is passive and subdued.[19] In the presence of God, man retreats and is existentially challenged. 

The different compartments reflect the experience of Mt. Sinai where the elders and the Kohanim could approach from a distance, but only Moshe could enter the cloud on top of the mountain to commune with God. The Kodesh HaKodashim, which acts both as a repository for the historical word of God (via the Aron which housed the Luchot) as well as a vehicle for ongoing communication (via the Keruvim), is thus the primary domain of Moshe. Moshe was the one to enter the cloud on top of Mt. Sinai to receive the word of God and it is Moshe who hears God’s voice emanating from ‘between’ the Keruvim:

וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת־הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו (במדבר ז:פט)

Whilst the Kohen Gadol could enter the Kodesh HaKodasim once a year under specified conditions, Moshe enjoyed unfettered access. [20] The Kodesh, in contrast, is the domain of the Kohanim led by Aharon, who integrate their human ingenuity into the active service of God. 

A final observation which bears out this distinction. The above verse describing Moshe as entering the Kodesh HaKodashim to listen to God's voice which seems to be a fitting climax to the inauguration of the Mishkan. To our surprise however, the verse is immediately followed by the instruction for Aharon to light the Menorah (Num. 8:1-4). These instructions interrupt the narrative and seem redundant as they have already been taught twice before (Ex. 27:20-21, Lev. 24:1-4).

It seems that grouping the passage of the Menorah with that of the Keruvim alludes to their interrelationship which encapsulates the dual function of the Mishkan. Man reaches out to God and partners with Him on the one side of the curtain; on the other side, man is in state of submission and may only be a recipient of the ineffable word of God. [21] 

 

 

                                                                                                                  

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The instructions concerning the incense altar only appear after the details of the inauguration procedure and daily Tamid offering. Whatever the reason for this deferral (worthy of separate discussion), this justifies its exclusion from the ensuing discussion.   

[2] The Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvot, Aseh 20) was of the view that the building of the individual furnishings are included in the overarching Mitzvah to build a Mishkan/Mikdash. The Ramban (glosses to Aseh 33) argues that the instructions for at least some of the furnishings should be counted as independent Mitzvot. Interestingly, he suggests the Aron and the Kaporet comprise one Mitzvah, and the building of the Menorah and the Shulchan are an integral part of the Mitzvah of the Lechem HaPanim.

[3] See Rashbam 25:31

[4] TB Yoma 33b

[5]  There is a Tannaitic debate whether the 'Tamid' requirement for the Lechem HaPanim implies that the Shulchan must permanently have bread on it and cannot be left empty for any amount of time (see TB Menachot 99b) or whether it implies regularity. In the context of the Menorah, the Tamid reference evidently refers to the latter as the Menorah had to be re-lit daily (though see Tosfot Chagigah 26b, Ramban Ex. 27:20).

[6] With respect to the Shulchan the poles were only attached as required for transfer, whereas in the case of the Aron the poles remained attached at all times.

[7] The famous Arch of Titus depicts Roman soldiers carrying the Menorah on a litter. In the wilderness, the people were instructed to wrap it in Techelet, place it in Tachash skin, and suspend it on a pole (see Num. 4:10).

[8] The central shaft of the Menorah comprised the main part of the structure (see 25:31-32) with the six surrounding branches being ancillary to it. With respect to the Keruvim, God’s voice emanated from the space between the Keruvim.

[9] This is consistent with the view of Bekhor Shor, Ibn Ezra and Shadal.

[10] Aside from Moshe there is no report of any prophet hearing God's word from the Kaporet.

[11] See Rashbam and Bekhor Shor (25:37). This is contrary to the view that the Menorah was positioned parallel to the Parochet (TB Menachot 98b)

[12] For further on the Lechem/Luchot connection see article here by R. Chovav Yechieli. He also connects the Lechem HaPanim with the double portion of Manna.

[13] Apparently Malawah (the Yemenite flatbread) is derived from Lauh in Arabic which is a cognate of Luach, owing to the flat shape of the bread resembling a tablet or board - see here.

[14] הרב יואל בן-נון, "עשרת הדיברות – שנים עשר הלאווין", (תשורה לעמוס, 290-271)

[15] The precise meaning of Lechem ‘HaPanim’ is unclear. Ibn Ezra understood it as connected to the fact that it was placed ‘before’ God, based on the continuation of the verse: לחם הפנים לפני תמיד. This is consistent with the meaning Ibn Ezra attributes to it in the Piyut of Ki Eshmera Shabbat: בו לערוך לחם פנים בפניו

[16] This seems preferable to Cassuto's suggestion that they faced downwards to avoid looking directly at the Shekhinah (Cassuto, 1951, p.233).

[17]  The only service performed there was the purification procedure of Yom Kippur which required the ‘smokescreen’ of the Ketoret.

[18] As to whether the bread of the Lechem HaPanim was leavened or unleavened, and further discussion on the symbolism of the Lechem HaPanim, see post here.

[19] The atmosphere of submission which pervades the Kodesh HaKodashim also explains why the high priest was only allowed to enter in white linen garments, rather than the eight garments worn for ‘honour and adornment’.

[20] See Torat Kohanim and Ramban (Lev. 16:2).

[21] Also noteworthy in this respect is that the cover of the Mishkan was sewn together in two paired sets and fastened together by golden clasps. The two sets, respectively covering the opposing sides of the Mishkan, met exactly above the Parochet:

וְעָשִׂיתָ חֲמִשִּׁים קַרְסֵי זָהָב וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־הַיְרִיעֹת אִשָּׁה אֶל־אֲחֹתָהּ בַּקְּרָסִים וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד (שמות כו:ו)

We might suggest that this meeting of east and west symoblises the fundamental unity of the two paradoxical dimensions of the Mishkan.