Interpretation via Midrash plays a significant role in our understanding of the text of the Torah. Using opaque allegorical methods, Midrashim aim to introduce new and powerful ideas, all enhancing our overall comprehension of the Torah. There are times when we face Midrashim that seem almost impossible to comprehend on any rational level. While indeed they are challenging, through a patient and methodical approach, it is possible to extract a crucial idea from a Midrash that just seems to border on impossible.
A clear example of this can be found in the Torah portion of Pikudei.
We come across a final review of the construction of the Tabernacle, or Mishkan (Shemot 38:21):
“These are the numbers of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony (edut), which were counted at Moses' command; [this was] the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the Kohen”
What is the “Mishkan of Testimony”?
There are three prominent interpretations found in Midrashim for the “edut” being spoken of in this verse. The first takes a broader look at the verse, noting the repetition of the word “Mishkan”. The Midrash explains that Moshe received prophesy concerning the destruction of the first two Temples.
This was followed by a vision of the Third Temple which will never be destroyed, this being the “edut”. What makes the Third Temple different? The Third Temple is built by God, and just like God’s existence is permanent, so will the Third Temple. In contrast, the first two Temples were constructed by man. Man’s existence is temporal, and the same applied to the first two Temples.
There is an inherent danger that someone who reads such a Midrash could be led to treat such a concept literally. How could one compare the permanence of a building to the true reality of God? We can understand that God made a promise that the Third Temple will never be destroyed. But can we compare a physical building to God?
The second interpretation of “edut” is not quite as problematic. The overall message (as there are competing versions of this Midrash) is that there was a concern that the connection between God and the Jewish people had been severed due to the sin of the Golden Calf. In one version of the Midrash, the Jews are reassured via the manifestation of the Divine Presence in the Mishkan that the relationship was restored and intact. In another version, the other nations of the world presuppose that the relationship was over; the subsequent Divine Presence in the Mishkan eviscerated these false assumptions.
While this Midrash does not present any serious theological issues, a deeper explanation as to the assumption of the Jews and other nations needs to be understood.
Finally, and most cryptically, there is the Midrash that speaks of the missing shekalim. Moshe, after the completion of the construction of the Mishkan, decides to review all the work that was done, in order that the Mishkan be one of “edut”. Upon doing so, he sees that there is a small amount of monies unaccounted for. Much like the previous Midrash, there are competing versions. In one, Moshe suspects that the monies were stolen. In another, Moshe was concerned that the Jewish people would accuse him of stealing the monies. Moshe realizes then the monies had indeed been spent – on the hooks resting on top of the pillars that were to be used to hold the curtain/cover over the front of the Mishkan. The Midrash explains that there were fifteen of these hooks. Upon realizing his oversight, Moshe utters fifteen praises to God.
What idea is being conveyed by this Midrash? The story seems quite incredulous if left unexplained.
As has been made clear up to this point, the objective of these various Midrashim is to explain the idea of the Mishkan being one of “edut”. Starting with the first Midrash, we come face to face with a comparison between the physical Temple and the “permanence” of God’s existence. Obviously, it is absurd to take such a comparison literally. How do make sense of this? When we study the Temple, there are two roles that are potentially manifest. The first is to assist man as a corrective, where man is dependent on the Temple to aid in his perfection. The second is where man is on a high level, and the Temple serves as more of a supplement to his current state. The first two Temples were built when the Jews were in need for such an institution. They merited these two Temples, but the relationship was one that was always subject to a potential corruption. That is the very nature of man. The temporal nature spoken of alludes to our tendency to shift and change, failing to see the Temple as an aid. However, the Third Temple is to be built during a time where the Jewish people are living on a different plane of existence. Our minds will always be directed to God, and our emotions will be properly orientated to the objective of perfection. The Third Temple is the Temple that “God builds”, the permanence spoken of above. There will be no change in man’s behavior, and the Temple will exist in an equilibrium with the level of our perfection. This concept of the “un-changing” could be the concept of perpetuity alluded to by the Midrash.
The second Midrash, as noted above, emphasizes a different idea insofar as “edut” is concerned. There was an assumption, whether it emanated from the Jews or from the nations of the world, that the sin of the Golden Calf presaged an irreparable breach in the relationship between God and the Jews. The truth is such an assumption made perfect sense at first glance. A critical supposition in human relationships is that there are some lines that cannot be crossed. Once they are, the relationship cannot continue to exist. If a spouse cheats on his/her partner, the idea of trust, paramount to the success of such a relationship, ceases to exist. In this instance, the practice of idolatry is in direct contradiction to any possible relationship with God. It would make perfect sense to assume that this sin heralded the end of any tie with God. Yet, the Divine Presence in the Mishkan signaled that it was still present. As God is merciful, His relationship with the Jews can exist on various levels. The sin with the Golden Calf meant certain important ideas about God were closed off to us. But the relationship was still present, even with the violation of this sacrosanct fundamental. This teaches us a critical idea about God’s mercy, and the Mishkan serves to publicize this idea.
Finally, we have the third Midrash, which refers to the “missing” funds. In such a Midrash, one must search out for a central idea, rather than get lost in every detail (not that the details are not important, God forbid). In this instance, one can see an important idea about the Mishkan emerge. Let’s use a shul as an example. When one enters a shul, it is fairly clear where the area of religious worship is to take place. The sanctuary has in it all the main ingredients for successful worship of God – the ark, bimah, nertamid, etc. Yet one would never consider the hinge that holds the door to the wall to be a part of the religious worship. It functions as pure utility, a feature of construction rather than religiosity. At first, the hooks could have been viewed in a mere functional manner, ensuring stability for the constructed Mishkan. The “discovery” by Moshe, and subsequent praises offered to God, demonstrate how the Mishkan was fundamentally different than any structure every built. Every single feature and part of the Mishkan was in some way a vehicle to a greater understanding of God. There was no “mere” functional part of the Mishkan. It was an entity, all dedicated to the pursuit of knowing God. Something as “insignificant” as the hooks could be an inspiration to relating to God on a higher level. The “edut” of the Mishkan was a presentation of this concept to the world.