Random Parsha babblings

[rhu]

These are loose thoughts, not a coherent dvar Torah, but I want to capture them while they're fresh.

Reading Nechama Liebowitz ztz"l on the parsha last night; she discusses different approaches the mefarshim take to the question of when God gave the commandments about building the mishkan (tabernacle). Rashi, and most others, invoke the principle that "there is neither before nor after the Torah" -- i.e., the Torah sometimes narrates out of chronological order to make a point. (Ramban disagrees, but we'll ignore that for now.) So Rashi et al say that the commandments regarding the construction and furnishing of the mishkan were given after the sin of the calf, as a sop to human frailty that needed a glorious physical manifestation of the Divine presence. "Build Me a tabernacle and I may dwell in their midst" is taken to mean "and they may perceive My presence amongst them."

Does this mean that in an ideal world, God wouldn't have commanded that we build a glorious physical presence? No mishkan? No temple? Would we still bring offerings, but to any bamah (high place, i.e., earthen altar)? Is God's ideal a decentralized worship experience; was the abolition of bamot and the centralization of the cultish worship to the beit ha-miqdash another application of the recognition of the limits of humanity?

If so, was the destruction of the beit ha-miqdash not entirely a bad thing? Is our current decentralized service of God closer to God's original intent?

As I said, mostly disconnected questions and topics for research. Research for which I don't currently have time. But maybe I'll come back to this, figure out if there's something there, and write a dvar Torah for a future year.

Comments

[lucretia-borgia.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Quick thought to toss out: with decentralization comes the possibility for sectional variation, which leads to heresy and conflict, which leads (ultimately) back to idolatry.

[autotruezone.livejournal.com]

If so, then why all the prayers for rebuilding of the beit hamikdash?

[abbasegal.livejournal.com]

We just heard a shuir on exactly this topic.

I can't say I remember it all, but a few of the points he (Rabbi Binny Freedman form Israelight/Oraita, whom we are lucky to be neighbors of) mentioned for contemplation are:

1) The mikdash was mentioned prior to the sin of the calf by either Rashi or Ramban's opinions, so the presence/absence of the Mishkan should not be considered to imply the presence/absence of the Beit haMikdash.

2) The Mishkan was a "temporary dwelling" that we needed before the establishment of the temple. We needed it for the 40 years of wandering in the desert and then for the approx. 400 years it took to conquer EY until it was stable enough to build the template. Perhaps had it not been for the sin of the calf, we would not have needed to wander in the desert (yes, that technically was the sin of the meraglim not the calf but it is not unreasonably to consider the sins connected in some way), and more than that, instead of only having a "Malach" guiding us in the conquering of EY Hashem Himself would have guided us (just as He did in bringing us out of Egypt), and it would have been only a short time between Sinai and the establishment of the Jewish commonwealth. In short: had we not sinned with the calf, we would have made it in to Israel and conquered it so quickly that there would have not been a need for a temporary dwelling place.

By this view, the temple destruction/decentralization was decidedly not a good thing...