Background: Avivah Zornberg grew up in a world of rabbinic tradition and scholarship (her father - the head of the beit din in Glasgow, Scotland) and received a Ph.D. in English literature from Cambridge University. The Particulars of Rapture (2001), the sequel to her award-winning study of the Book of Genesis (1995), takes its title from a line by the American poet Wallace Stevens about the interdependence of opposite things, such as male and female, and conscious and unconscious. Her quest in this book, as she writes in the introduction, is "to find those who will hear with me a particular idiom of redemption," who will hear "within the particulars of rapture . . . what cannot be expressed."
"The mishkan instructions were given eighty days later (after the Golden Calf), on Yom Kippur, the tenth of Tishrei, and only as a token of full atonement for the sin (of the Calf)."-Rashi on Exodus 31:18
-Zornberg, p319.
Why do the Israelites need a tabernacle and need to have the presence of God with them as they travel through the treacherous desert?
Two choices and they depend on the timing:
According to one view, if we think like Rashi that the Calf happened before the Tabernacle instructions were given then the purpose of the Tent of Meeting is directly correlated to the sin of worshiping false gods. Maimonides holds this view as well as he says that the brining of sacrifices in the tabernacle was meant to harken back and satisfy the Israelites pagan desires.
But if we think the Torah is read chronologically in this case (Sinai, Tabernacle, Calf) then in that case, commentators such as Cassuto say that the purpose of Mishkan is for the people to create a mini-Sinai that can travel with them.
-Zornberg, p319.
Why do the Israelites need a tabernacle and need to have the presence of God with them as they travel through the treacherous desert?
Two choices and they depend on the timing:
According to one view, if we think like Rashi that the Calf happened before the Tabernacle instructions were given then the purpose of the Tent of Meeting is directly correlated to the sin of worshiping false gods. Maimonides holds this view as well as he says that the brining of sacrifices in the tabernacle was meant to harken back and satisfy the Israelites pagan desires.
But if we think the Torah is read chronologically in this case (Sinai, Tabernacle, Calf) then in that case, commentators such as Cassuto say that the purpose of Mishkan is for the people to create a mini-Sinai that can travel with them.
"In RambaN's reading, the idea of a sanctuary for God in their midst is a token of transformation: after the Revelation and the Covenant, they have become fit vessels for the Presence of God. He continues to describe the 'secret of the Mishkan:" it is to be a version of Mt Sinai that they can carry with them on their travels (he quotes the Zohar). There are many linguistic resonances linking Sinai with the Tabernacle, including references to God's 'glory', and to His voice emerging 'from the midst of the fire', and 'from between the cherubim'. The Mishkan is to provide a solution to the problem of retaining Revelation-how is Sinai to remain with them, part of them, central to them?... For RambaN, this possibility is realised in the people's transformation at Sinai. They are now worthy to carry a version of Sinai with them on their travels through the wilderness, a medium for God to continue revealing Himself."
-Zornberg, page316
-Zornberg, page316
Building of the tabernacle and sacrifices:
Guide for the Perplexed (3:32)
"But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us.
It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings.
By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing.
God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course."
Guide for the Perplexed (3:32)
"But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us.
It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings.
By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing.
God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course."
זו יתירה לכל מה שעשיתם. ר' שמעון בן יוחאי אומר: משל למה הדבר דומה? לאחד שהיה מקבל חכמים ותלמידים, והיו מכל מאשרים אותו. באו גוים וקיבלם, והיו הבריות אומרים כך היא ווסתן של פלוני, לקבל את הכל! כך אמר משה לישראל: ודי זהב למשכן ודי זהב לעגל.
This outweighs everything that you have done! Variantly: "and an abundance of gold": R. Shimon b. Yochai says: An analogy: One received sages and disciples, and all praised him. Then Canaanites came, and he received them! — at which they said: This is the man's nature — to receive all! Thus did Moses say to Israel: (You gave) "an abundance of gold" for the mishkan (the tabernacle) — (You gave) "an abundance of gold" for the golden calf! R. B'na'ah says: Israel served idolatry, for which they are liable to extinction — Let the gold of the mishkan atone for the gold of the calf!
"The atonement function of the Mishkan evokes the idea of a therapeutic project, as indeed, our midrash clearly implies, in its closing quotation from Jeremiah: 'I will bring healing to you and cure you of your wounds.'"
-Zornberg, page320
-Zornberg, page320
Chronology of the stories (OU Torah):
Ain Mukdam uMe'uchar baTorah
Background: The Mishkan and the Chet Ha’egel
The final five parshiyos of Chumash Shemos are devoted, in the main, to matters relating to the Mishkan and the bigdei kehunah (priestly garments), with the notable exception of the chet ha’egel (sin of the Golden Calf), which features in the middle. The basic breakdown is as follows:
· Parshas Terumah – Hashem’s command regarding the Mishkan and its vessels.
· Parshas Tetzaveh – Hashem’s command regarding the bigdei kehunah
· Parshas Ki Tisa – The chet ha’egel.
Rashi states that although the chet ha’egel is written in the Torah after the commands regarding Mishkan etc., it actually occurred beforehand. In stating this, Rashi is invoking the principle of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה – There is no “earlier” or “later” in the Torah. In other words, the order in which events are written in the Torah does not necessarily reflect the order in which they occurred historically.
Where does this idea come from?
The Source: Counting Israel, the Korban Pesach – and Chumash Bamidbar
The idea that an event which happened earlier in history can be written later in the Torah is discussed in the Gemara, based on a case where the Torah itself explicitly states that this was the case:
· The opening chapter of Chumash Bamidbar deals with the counting of the Bnei Yisrael, which the verse describes as having happened in the second month of the second year.
· Chapter nine of Bamidbar discusses the korban Pesach that was offered in the Wilderness, specifying that this instruction was given in the first month of the second year!
The Gemara cites these two verses and concludes with the formulation: We see from here that there is no “earlier” and “later” in the Torah.
This principle is applied by Rashi several times throughout his commentary on the Torah, with our situation being a classic example: Although the chet ha’egel is discussed in the “middle” parsha of Ki Tisa, it occurred before the events discussed in the prior parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh.
Ain Mukdam uMe'uchar baTorah
Background: The Mishkan and the Chet Ha’egel
The final five parshiyos of Chumash Shemos are devoted, in the main, to matters relating to the Mishkan and the bigdei kehunah (priestly garments), with the notable exception of the chet ha’egel (sin of the Golden Calf), which features in the middle. The basic breakdown is as follows:
· Parshas Terumah – Hashem’s command regarding the Mishkan and its vessels.
· Parshas Tetzaveh – Hashem’s command regarding the bigdei kehunah
· Parshas Ki Tisa – The chet ha’egel.
Rashi states that although the chet ha’egel is written in the Torah after the commands regarding Mishkan etc., it actually occurred beforehand. In stating this, Rashi is invoking the principle of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה – There is no “earlier” or “later” in the Torah. In other words, the order in which events are written in the Torah does not necessarily reflect the order in which they occurred historically.
Where does this idea come from?
The Source: Counting Israel, the Korban Pesach – and Chumash Bamidbar
The idea that an event which happened earlier in history can be written later in the Torah is discussed in the Gemara, based on a case where the Torah itself explicitly states that this was the case:
· The opening chapter of Chumash Bamidbar deals with the counting of the Bnei Yisrael, which the verse describes as having happened in the second month of the second year.
· Chapter nine of Bamidbar discusses the korban Pesach that was offered in the Wilderness, specifying that this instruction was given in the first month of the second year!
The Gemara cites these two verses and concludes with the formulation: We see from here that there is no “earlier” and “later” in the Torah.
This principle is applied by Rashi several times throughout his commentary on the Torah, with our situation being a classic example: Although the chet ha’egel is discussed in the “middle” parsha of Ki Tisa, it occurred before the events discussed in the prior parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh.
What kind of world is being built?
"Fire is an unlikely substance as a building material: fluid, destructive, the essence of instability. ... How to use gold, how to represent the fires in such a way as to create a habitable world, habitable by God and therefore by human beings."
-pg331
"Fire is an unlikely substance as a building material: fluid, destructive, the essence of instability. ... How to use gold, how to represent the fires in such a way as to create a habitable world, habitable by God and therefore by human beings."
-pg331
Yuval Harari: The domestication of fire
A significant step on the way to the top was the domestication of fire. Some human species may have made occasional use of fire as early as 800,000 years ago. By about 300,000 years ago, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and the forefathers of Homo sapiens were using fire on a daily basis. Humans now had a dependable source of light and warmth, and a deadly weapon against prowling lions. Not long afterwards, humans may even have started deliberately to torch their neighbourhoods. A carefully managed fire could turn impassable barren thickets into prime grasslands teeming with game. In addition, once the fire died down, Stone Age entrepreneurs could walk through the smoking remains and harvest charcoaled animals, nuts and tubers.
But the best thing fire did was cook. Foods that humans cannot digest in their natural forms – such as wheat, rice and potatoes – became staples of our diet thanks to cooking. Fire not only changed food’s chemistry, it changed its biology as well. Cooking killed germs and parasites that infested food. Humans also had a far easier time chewing and digesting old favourites such as fruits, nuts, insects and carrion if they were cooked. Whereas chimpanzees spend five hours a day chewing raw food, a single hour suffices for people eating cooked food.
When humans domesticated fire, they gained control of an obedient and potentially limitless force. Unlike eagles, humans could choose when and where to ignite a flame, and they were able to exploit fire for any number of tasks. Most importantly, the power of fire was not limited by the form, structure or strength of the human body. A single woman with a flint or fire stick could burn down an entire forest in a matter of hours. The domestication of fire was a sign of things to come.
A significant step on the way to the top was the domestication of fire. Some human species may have made occasional use of fire as early as 800,000 years ago. By about 300,000 years ago, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and the forefathers of Homo sapiens were using fire on a daily basis. Humans now had a dependable source of light and warmth, and a deadly weapon against prowling lions. Not long afterwards, humans may even have started deliberately to torch their neighbourhoods. A carefully managed fire could turn impassable barren thickets into prime grasslands teeming with game. In addition, once the fire died down, Stone Age entrepreneurs could walk through the smoking remains and harvest charcoaled animals, nuts and tubers.
But the best thing fire did was cook. Foods that humans cannot digest in their natural forms – such as wheat, rice and potatoes – became staples of our diet thanks to cooking. Fire not only changed food’s chemistry, it changed its biology as well. Cooking killed germs and parasites that infested food. Humans also had a far easier time chewing and digesting old favourites such as fruits, nuts, insects and carrion if they were cooked. Whereas chimpanzees spend five hours a day chewing raw food, a single hour suffices for people eating cooked food.
When humans domesticated fire, they gained control of an obedient and potentially limitless force. Unlike eagles, humans could choose when and where to ignite a flame, and they were able to exploit fire for any number of tasks. Most importantly, the power of fire was not limited by the form, structure or strength of the human body. A single woman with a flint or fire stick could burn down an entire forest in a matter of hours. The domestication of fire was a sign of things to come.