Teruma | The Mishkan and the Temple (Melakhim I 5:26 - 6:13)

 

a. Establishment of the Temple - fulfillment of the mitzva of the mishkan

The haftora presents a picture of the construction of the Temple, whereas in the parasha we learn about the building of the mishkan (tabernacle). These two are connected, in that the mishkan in the desert was the predecessor of the Temple that was destined to be built in Jerusalem. Indeed, we find that the mishkan is called "mikdash," as it says in the parasha (25:8), "And they shall make Me a mikdash and I shall dwell amongst them." Likewise, the opposite: the Gemara (Eiruvin 2a, Shevu'ot 16b) teaches, "The mishkan is (sometimes) called 'mikdash' and the mikdash (Temple) is (sometimes) called 'mishkan.'" The biblical halakhic source for the obligation to build the Temple in Jerusalem is to be found in our parasha, as explained by the Rambam:

 

"It is a positive commandment to make a house for God so that sacrifices may be brought in it... as it is written, "And they shall make Me a mikdash." And in the Torah we are already told about the mishkan that Moshe Rabbeinu made, but it was a temporary structure... Once they entered the land,... and once the Temple was built in Jerusalem... the building constructed by Shlomo is described in Sefer Melakhim." (Beginning of Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira)

 

Thus, we have two images: the mishkan constructed by Moshe Rabbeinu, and the building constructed by King Shlomo. The source for both of these is "And they shall make Me a mikdash." We learn from the haftora that the fulfillment of this command in the form of the mishkan in the desert was a temporary measure, while the full and complete fulfillment came about only in King Shlomo's Temple in Jerusalem.

 

b. Popular endeavor vs. royal endeavor

Although the mishkan and the mikdash are equal in that both represent the fulfillment of the same mitzva, there are nevertheless a few differences between them. We need not even mention the difference in dimensions and in materials, for obviously the Temple in Jerusalem was far bigger than the mishkan in the desert; it was made from "great stones, precious stones... hewn stones" (5:31), but even the people involved and the quality of the work was different.

 

Everyone participated in the construction of the mishkan in the desert, as the Rambam writes: "All were obligated to build and to help with their own efforts and with their money, men and women, for the mikdash in the desert" (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira, chapter 1, halakha 12). The mishkan was a popular endeavor in which every person had a part to play, while the mikdash of Shlomo was a royal endeavor that was carried out with royal means and funding.

 

Another difference becomes clear from the beginning of the haftora: "And King Shlomo raised a tax from all of Israel" (5:27). The means and funding were indeed supplied at the level of the monarchy, but the burden of this was felt by all the citizens of the kingdom, who had to pay a tax. In contrast, the means for and construction of the mishkan in the desert depended on individual generosity: "From each man whose heart moves him shall you take My contribution (25:2)." 

 

The earliest foundation of God's house is personal generosity, but later on, when the mitzva is "institutionalized" and is fulfilled by the nation in its land, an element of coercion already becomes necessary. (It is quite possible that many years went by before the Temple was built in order to wait for some initiative of generosity on the part of the nation towards the building of the Temple. This may be hinted at by the indication of the date: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after Bnei Yisrael left the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Shlomo's reign over Israel...and he built a house for God" (6:1). This may be teaching us that since the people tarried in offering of their own initiative, there was a need for a Divine imperative. Indeed, the Midrash Shmuel at the end of parasha 31 teaches that "all those who fell [in the plague, see end of Sefer Shmuel] died only because they did not demand the construction of the Temple...") And the difference may be expressed in the difference between "They shall make Me a mikdash and I shall dwell amongst them," as we find in the parasha (25:8), and what we read at the end of the haftora: "And I shall dwell amongst Bnei Yisrael and I shall not abandon My nation Israel." In the desert, God is still "amongst them," an inclusive expression - within each one of them, whereas in the case of the Temple, God resides "amongst Bnei Yisrael," - within the nation, a single unit.

 

c. Who goes to whom?

Another difference: In the case of the mishkan, God follows the will of Israel, as it were. "They shall make Me a mikdash" - wherever they choose - "and I shall dwell amongst them." The midrashim take this even further: 

 

"This may be compared to a king who had only one daughter. A king came and took her as a wife... He said to him, 'My daughter whom I give to you, is my only one... do me this favor: wherever you go, make me a small chamber that I may dwell with you...'. So says God to Israel... 'Wherever you go, make Me one house that I may dwell there' - as it is written, "And they shall make Me a mikdash."" (Shemot Rabba, 33:1)

 

In contrast, with regard to the mikdash in Jerusalem we are commanded, "you shall seek Him at His dwelling and you shall come there" (Devarim 12:5). Bnei Yisrael are required to seek out the sanctified place and to build the Temple there - i.e., to follow God, as it were.

 

d. "Considered redeemed" vs. real redemption

The Ramban, in his introduction to Sefer Shemot, writes: "And behold, the exile was not completed until THEY RETURNED TO THEIR PLACE AND TO THE LEVEL OF THEIR FATHERS, for when they came out of Egypt, although they had left the house of slavery, they were still considered as exiles, for they were in a land that was not their own... and when they came to Har Sinai and built the mishkan, and the Holy One rested His Shekhina (Presence) amongst them once more, then they returned to the level of their fathers, with the Divine presence resting over their dwellings... and THEN THEY WERE CONSIDERED REDEEMED."

 

But the children of Israel's redemption was still not complete, for they had not yet returned to their place. The haftora comes to conclude that process by telling us that they had now not only returned to the level of their forefathers, but also to their place; they were not only 'considered redeemed' but were truly redeemed. The haftora also teaches us another lesson: four hundred and eighty years were required for the completion of the redemption. For redemption does not happen suddenly, but rather in stages, and conditions must ripen until the great vision is finally realized. On the other hand, the haftora teaches, even when the nation reaches a lofty station of redemption, the people should not regard this as the end, but rather as just another stage, and they should set before themselves a more perfect and complete picture, envisioning from their mishkan in the desert the exalted Temple in Jerusalem.

 

e. The mishkan in the heart as the foundation of the mikdash of stone

Everything hangs on the conclusion. How does our reading end; what rings in the ears of the listener at the end of the haftora?

 

"And the word of God came to Shlomo saying: This house which you are building - if you follow My statutes and perform My judgments and guard all My commandments to follow them... [then] I shall dwell amongst Bnei Yisrael and I shall not abandon My nation Israel."

 

The existence, significance and content of the Temple depend on there being a mikdash in the king's heart. And his heart is like the heart of Israel, from which we learn that the most important thing is that the Shekhina should be present in the heart of each and every individual of Israel. This may be the source for the "derash" learned from our parasha:

 

"They shall make Me a mikdash and I shall dwell amongst (within) them" - it does not say 'within it' (i.e., the Temple), but rather 'within them' - within each and every one.

Translated by Kaeren Fish