Parshat Terumah 5780
Rabbi Jablinowitz
We read in this week's parsha about the building of the Mishkan and its vessels. There were three vessels which had poles which were used to carry them during the transport of the Mishkan: the Aron, the Mizbeach, and the Shulchan. We read about the Mizbeach (Chapter 27, Pasuk 7), V'Hayu Ha'Badim al Shtei Tzal'os Ha'Mizbeach B'Se'es Oso; the two poles were placed in the sides of the Mizbeach when it was being carried. And regarding the Shulchan we read (Chapter 25, Pasuk 28), V'Asisa es Ha'Badim…V'Nisa Bam es Ha'Shulchan. The poles were made to carry the Shulchan.
But by the Aron we read a different command. Though the Torah clearly indicates that the poles were used to carry the Aron (Chapter 25, Pasuk 14), La'Seis es Ha'Aron Bahem, we read a very interesting command in the next pasuk. The Torah states, Lo Yasuru Mimenu, you may not remove the poles from the sides of the Aron. Why was there a negative command to never remove the poles if their entire purpose was to carry the Aron when transporting the Mishkan?
The Meshech Chachmah answers that we learn from the prohibition of Lo Yasuru Mimenu a fundamental truth of the Mishkan and its vessels The Gemara in Sotah 35A teaches that the Aron wasn't carried by those carrying it. The Aron carried itself and the carriers together. This was a miracle of the Mishkan. And this is why the poles were constantly in their place even when the Aron was stationary. The fact that they were always alongside the Aron indicates that they didn't serve a utilitarian function. For just as they weren't necessary when staying put, so too they weren't performing a function even when the Aron was being carried.
He compares this idea to the Menorah. The Gemara in Menachos 86B states regarding the Menorah, V'Chi L'Orah Ani Tzarich? According to the Gemara, Hashem, so to speak, asks rhetorically do I need the Menorah for the light? And as Rashi and Tosfos learn according to one opinion in the Gemara, if the Menorah was for light I would have put it next to the Shulchan as most people put their light next to their table, and not have the Mizbeach Ha'Zahav in the middle. Rather, the whole point in lighting the Menorah is fulfilling the will and command of Hashem, but not for a utilitarian purpose.
The position of the Rambam is that the Menorah wasn't lit only in the late afternoon, but it was lit in the morning as well. (See the Rambam in Hilchos Tamdim V'Musafim Chapter 3, Halacha 10). The Meshech Chachmah teaches that for the Rambam, the lighting of the Menorah during the day is similar to the Badim of the Aron. Since the Badim weren't fulfilling a functional role while the Mishkan was standing, this indicates the lack of a function while travelling as well. The same is true of the Menorah. The fact that the Menorah was lit in the morning, according to the Rambam, when there is much light outside, shows that even in the dark of the evening, the point of the Menorah was not to provide light.
Perhaps the point from this idea of the Meshech Chachmah is that after Matan Torah when Bnei Yisrael said Na'aseh V'Nishma, they are continuing with the notion of performing the mitzvos regardless of their meaning. The pasuk says (Chapter 25, Pasuk 9), K'Chol Asher Ani Mareh Oscha…V'Chein Ta'asu, all the different forms I show you, you shall make. The Sfas Emes connects this pasuk with the pasuk in Tehillim (Chapter 103, Pasuk 20), Giborei Ko'ach Osei Devaro Lishmo'a B'Kol Devaro. The Medrash states that the Giborei Ko'ach is a reference to Bnei Yisrael who said Na'aseh V'Nishma. First they agreed to be Osei Devaro, and then only afterwards Lishmo'a B'Kol Devaro; first we do and then we try to understand. In the Mishkan as well this level continued. Whatever I show you, you shall make them. We don't truly understand the reason for the Badim or the Menorah (though Chazal give explanations for both). But we perform them regardless since they are commands from Hashem.
Good Shabbos
Print this article