Naso - Limited Admission

Speaker:
Ask author
Date:
June 02 2017
Downloads:
0
Views:
43
Comments:
0
 

Limited Admission


With so many verses throughout the Torah dedicated to the Tabernacle, one can clearly deduce its centrality in Judaism. The methodical details associated with its construction, followed by the technical details involving the various offerings brought, paint a picture of an institution dedicated to religious service to God. While that viewpoint is critical, there is one other component that must be clear to us in order to truly comprehend its function.


The final section of the Torah portion of Naso begins with a review of Moshe’s work up to that point (Bamidbar 7:1):


And it was that on the day that Moses finished erecting the Mishkan, he anointed it, sanctified it, and all its vessels, and the altar and all its vessels, and he anointed them and sanctified them


The Torah then proceeds to discuss, in detail, the various sacrifices pledged by the heads of the tribes. The second to last verse offers a total of the donations made (ibid 88):


The total of cattle for the peace offerings was twenty four oxen, sixty rams, sixty he goats, and sixty lambs in their first year. This was the dedication offering for the altar, after it was anointed.”


However, the Torah inserts one last verse to end the section (89):


When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the voice speaking to him from the two cherubim above the covering which was over the Ark of Testimony, and He spoke to him.”


This verse poses several problems, the first being its placement. It would appear Naso should have ended with the summary of the offerings brought. Why end with how Moshe would enter the Tabernacle? Thematically, the verse does fit in at all. There is also the issue of what was taking place when Moshe was inside. There was some type of voice being projected from God, indicating a communication. Rashi adds two interesting clarifications. First, there was no actual conversation taking place between God and Moshe; rather, Moshe would enter the Tabernacle and hear God speaking. The second point is that the communication was only directed to Moshe, excluding Aharon. What concepts are being adding to the overall understanding of this verse?


There is a precedent elsewhere for this sequence of verses. Throughout the portion of Pekudei, the specific acts of construction of the Tabernacle are listed in detail, all led by Moshe. With the concluding act of assembly, the final verses deal with the Cloud and its relationship to the Tabernacle. As long as the Cloud encompassed the Tabernacle, Moshe could not enter. When it was no longer present, then Moshe had clearance. While not as overt as the example in Naso, there is still a lack of thematic congruity present in this sequence. With the construction complete, there is a sudden shift to the ability of Moshe to access the Tabernacle. Why is this the case?


One other issue is raised by Rashi. In the section of Pekudei, the implication is that Moshe was unable to enter the Tabernacle, while in Naso, Moshe appeared to have unfettered admission. How does one resolve this contradiction? Simply put, as indicated in the verses of Pekudei, Moshe was barred access when the Cloud was present and encompassing the Tabernacle. When it was not fully surrounding the Tabernacle, Moshe could enter.


Taken at face value, this answer does not seem to be very insightful. What possible idea can we take from this?


The Tabernacle (and of course future Temple) played a pivotal role in the development of the Jewish nation. A centralized point of worship was considered to be of the utmost importance, reflected in the many verses dedicated to its construction and to the various sacrifices and offerings to be brought. The height of religious worship would appear to take place in the Tabernacle. However, it would be mistaken to assume that this was the sole function of this sanctified locale. Rather than the experience be a one-way street, it would appear that the Tabernacle was set up to allow for a conduit, where an avenue to God would be opened up as a result of its function. In other words, there are two components to the Tabernacle – the acts of religious worship and the channel of communication. The Tabernacle reflects not just the expression of worship, but the central concept of Divine Providence. Therefore, to present the construction and the dedication (through the offerings) of the Tabernacle without mention of the metaphysical component would be presenting an incomplete picture. Therefore, there is no thematic interruption in the verses of Pekudei and Naso. Relating to the Tabernacle solely as an institution of religious worship would present a deficient view.


This sets up the next critical point, the focus on Moshe and only Moshe. We see that the final verses that discuss this communicative aspect deal solely with Moshe. While the Tabernacle was the central focus, this does not mean there was universal access to the individual. The very assumption of man communicating with God is fraught with potential distortion and error. While God provides a unique opportunity for the nation to benefit, one cannot assume this is reachable in any normative manner. With the realization of access comes a potential belief in having true knowledge of God. Thus, we see the Torah heavily restricts this aspect of the Tabernacle. First, only Moshe, the greatest human to ever live, could have this entrée; Aharon was excluded. Yet one should not think that Moshe had a membership pass. Even on the level he was on, there Tabernacle was not always open. The coverage of the Cloud functioned to express the idea of the limitation in access. Even the nature of the communication reflected this overall theme. This was not a conversation, which would imply a bi-directional relationship. Moshe would enter the Tabernacle and “merely” hear the voice, a passive recipient of the ideas and concepts. All of these limitations express one specific idea: while the idea of Divine Providence was an essential component of the Tabernacle, the danger involved in distorting man’s relationship with God meant this access was extremely limited.


The philosophical construct of the Tabernacle is in reality a template for Jewish life. We have the unique opportunity to follow the proper path of life as commanded by God. The appropriate acts of religious worship are there, and with them a greater understanding of God. We are also made aware of the chasm that exists between us and God, where the overall accessibility to Him is restricted. We can access knowledge of Him through Torah and the universe that surrounds us. Yet that is as far as mankind can go. Balancing the two concepts is a crucial part of Jewish existence.


 


 

Venue: Yeshivat Migdal HaTorah Yeshivat Migdal HaTorah

Parsha:
Naso 

    More from this:
    Comments
    0 comments
    Leave a Comment
    Title:
    Comment:
    Anonymous: 

    Learning on the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah site is sponsored today by Judy & Mark Frankel & family l'ilui nishmos מרדכי בן הרב משה יהודה ע"ה and משה יהודה ז"ל בן מאיר אליהו ויהודית and by the Polinsky Family to commemorate the 5th Yahrzeit of Gil Polinsky, Gedalyahu Gootmun Chaim ben Yaakov Dov