The Mishkan and the Significance of Names in the Torah
אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
These are the accountings of the Mishkan. (Shemot 38:21)
The Mishkan and the Significance of Names in the Torah
Vessels of the Mishkan — “Mentioned by Name”
Parshat Pekudei gives a detailed accounting of the Mishkan and its keilim. In this chapter we would like to direct our attention to the unique approach of the Seforno in understanding the significance of names in the Torah, both the names of people, as well as those of objects. On the opening words of our parshah, the Seforno comments (s.v. eleh pekudei hamishkan):
Each of the component parts of the Mishkan mentioned above (in Parshat Vayakhel) are the items that are “accounted for” (פקודי)[1] about which it is written (Bamidbar 4:32) “וּבְשֵׁמֹת תִּפְקְדוּ אֶת כְּלֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם — and you shall account for by name the vessels of their watch for carrying.”[2] The meaning (of that pasuk) is that each of those vessels was deserving of being regarded as significant, and of being called by name as an individual item, not only as part of the general category to which it belongs; and this was certainly true for each of the vessels which were carried by the Families of Kehat.[3]
As such,[4] these items were never destroyed — as Chazal have stated (Yoma 72a) that they endure forever — nor did any of them fall into the hands of the enemy. This was not the case with the Beit Hamikdash of Shlomo and its vessels. Indeed, in the account of its destruction of the first Beit Hamikdash by Nevuzardan (Divrei HaYamim II, 36:7-18) none of the items of Moshe’s Mishkan are mentioned.
With these words, the Seforno is teaching us that when the Torah mentions something by name, it is not merely for purposes of identifying it, but rather in order to indicate that this item enjoys a special status.
Comparing the Mishkan with the First and Second Batei Mikdash
The Seforno then proceeds to delineate the factors which were present in the Mishkan that endowed it with this enduring quality (s.v. Mishkan ha’edut):
The Torah recounts the elevated qualities of this Mishkan, by which it was able to endure and not fall in to the hands of the enemy.
· Firstly, it was the “מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת — the Mishkan of the Testimony,” that is, that it contained the Luchot of Testimony.[5]
· Secondly, it was “פֻּקַּד עַל פִּי מֹשֶׁה — accounted by the mouth of Moshe.”
· Thirdly, it was “עֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם בְּיַד אִיתָמָר — the work of the Levi’im, through the hand of Itamar,” for indeed the supervision of all aspects of the Mishkan was overseen by Itamar.
· Fourthly, “וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה וגו' — Betzalel, the son of Uri the son of Chur did, etc.” Those who were in charge of its construction were all of distinguished lineage, and were tzaddikim of the generation.
Therefore, due to all the above reasons, the Divine Presence resided among their handiwork, and it did not fall into the hand of the enemy.
However, with regard to the Beit Hamikdash of Shlomo, since those involved in its construction were from Tzur,[6] even though the Divine Presence resided in that Beit Hamikdash,[7] nonetheless, over time parts of it fell into disrepair and needed to be refurbished,[8] and subsequently all of it fell into the hand of the enemy.
Furthermore, the Second Beit Hamikdash, which had none of these characteristics,[9] did not have the Divine Presence and (also) fell into the hands of the enemy.
· It did not contain the Luchot Ha’Eidut.
· Its construction was undertaken under the auspices of Koresh[10] (Ezra 1:1–3).
· None of the tribe of Levi were present, as recounted by Ezra (8:15) “וּמִבְּנֵי לֵוִי לֹא מָצָאתִי שָׁם — and I found none from the sons of Levi there.”[11]
· The people involved in its actual construction were from Tzidon and Tzur, as is detailed in Sefer Ezra (3:7).
Thus, at quite some length, the Seforno has outlined the various factors that led to the Mishkan of Moshe being assured of the status of Netzach — absolute permanence, a status which is expressed in our pasuk by each of its component parts being mentioned “by name.”
Names of People
If being mentioned by name is significant with regard to objects, then this is certainly the case when it comes to people. And indeed, we find the Seforno makes a similar comment in the beginning of Chumash Shemot when the pasuk introduces “the names of Bnei Yisrael, who are arriving in Eretz Mitzrayim”:
Those who are mentioned here are deserving of being known by name,[12] for each of them was considered a significant personality, the mentioning of whose “name” represents his essential worth as an individual.[13] These (individuals) served as sources of illumination throughout their entire lives, and their generation did not experience any spiritual deterioration. However, after they died, the tzaddikim among their children did not have the same significance either in the eyes of God or of man.[14]
In fact, the Seforno has already mentioned this idea earlier, when the pasuk (Bereishit 46:8) first describes Yaakov’s family going down to Mitzrayim and mentions Yaakov and his sons by name (s.v. ve’eleh shemot):
It is Yaakov and his sons who, among all of these, were worthy of being considered significant, and were known as individuals…The rest of the “seventy souls,”[15] however, even though they were tzaddikim, did not attain this level.
In the Second Generation
It is possible to corroborate the Seforno’s principle by considering the way in which the Torah introduces the sons of the three tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi later on in Chumash Shemot (perek 6). Regarding Reuven, the Torah describes (pasuk 14) “בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן — the sons of Reuven,” and similarly (pasuk 15) refers to “בְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן — the sons of Shimon.”[16] Although the pasuk proceeds to mention their names, it does not introduce their names, by saying “ואלה שמות — these are the names of, etc.” This reflects the comments of the Seforno mentioned above that the second generation did not attain (or retain) the distinction attained by Yaakov’s sons.
In contrast to this, when it comes to the Tribe of Levi (pasuk 16), the Torah writes “וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי לֵוִי לְתֹלְדֹתָם גֵּרְשׁוֹן וּקְהָת וּמְרָרִי — and these are the names of the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kehat, and Merari.” This reflects the special nature of the tribe of Levi, whose members preserved their level of distinction throughout the Galut in Mitzrayim.[17] In deference to this special nature, the Tribe of Levi was worthy of being introduced as “People of Name” for an additional generation.
Comparing Quantities and Qualities
Returning to our parshah, having discussed the aspects in which the Mishkan enjoyed a higher status than that of the two subsequent Batei Mikdash, the Seforno proceeds to comment on the Torah’s account regarding the amount of materials used in its construction (pasuk 24):
(The Torah) mentions the amount of gold, silver, and copper used for the construction of the Mishkan, which was quite minimal compared to the great wealth expended over the first Beit Hamikdash…and certainly when compared with the even greater wealth in Herod’s construction (of the Second Beit Hamikdash). Nonetheless, the vision of Hashem’s Glory appeared more consistently in Moshe’s Mishkan than it did in the first Beit Hamikdash,[18] and in the Second Beit Hamikdash it did not appear at all. Through this the Torah teaches us that it is neither abundance of wealth nor the size of an edifice which will cause the Divine Presence to reside in Yisrael; rather, Hashem desires those who are in awe of Him, and their deeds, that He may dwell among them.
In the Third Beit Hamikdash
Having been guided in our discussion of the Mishkan by the opening comments of the Seforno to our parshah, it is most fitting to conclude this chapter with his words at the end of the parshah (40:36, s.v. uv’he’alot):
The Divine Presence resided in the Mishkan to such a degree that it did not depart at all until Bnei Yisrael needed to travel. This (level) did not exist in Shiloh,[19] nor in the first or second Batei Mikdash. However, all of this will exist to a greater degree in the Third Beit Hamikdash, may it be built speedily in our days.
[1] Whereas Rashi and Ramban both explain the word “pekudei” as an expression of “counting,” the Seforno sees it as an expression of being “accounted” in the sense of being mentioned as an item of significance.
[2] The Seforno is addressing the question as to why the pasuk there emphasizes that these vessels should be “accounted” by name. Evidently, the ideas of “pekudei” and of names are closely bound together, as he proceeds to explain.
[3] The pasuk quoted above from Bamidbar 4:32 refers to the items carried by the sons of Merari — the beams, sockets, hooks, and other items which were needed for the construction of the Mishkan itself. If these items deserved to be reckoned by name as significant entities, then this is all the more so true of the items carried by the sons of Kehat — the vessels which resided inside the Mishkan.
[4] That is, in keeping with the significant status of these items, as represented by the fact that they were all reckoned by name.
[5] The Ibn Ezra similarly explains the phrase “Mishkan Ha’Eidut” as a reference to fact that the Luchot Ha’Eidut resided within it, in contrast to Rashi (s.v. Mishkan) who explains that the Mishkan itself was testimony that Hashem had forgiven Bnei Yisrael for the Chet Ha’Egel.
[6] See Melachim I, 7:13–14; all of this in contrast to the “tzaddikim of the generation” who were involved in the construction of the Mishkan.
[7] [And it also contained the Luchot Ha’Eidut, as did the Mishkan.]
[8] See Melachim II, 22:5–6.
[9] Mentioned above with reference to the Mishkan, and some of which existed in the First Beit Hamikdash.
[10] The king of Persia, in stark contrast to the Mishkan, which was initiated by Moshe Rabbeinu.
[11] In contrast with the three families of Levi — Gershon, Kehat, and Merari — who were all involved in the Mishkan of Moshe.
[12] The Seforno here is noting that the pasuk did not introduce “Bnei Yisrael who are arriving in Mitzrayim,” but rather “the names of Bnei Yisrael...”
[13] That is, and not just for purposes of identifying him.
[14] The second generation were not mentioned by name, representing their diminished status relative to the first generation. Indeed, Bnei Yisrael began to undergo a spiritual decline during their time.
[15] The members of Yaakov’s extended family who went down with him to Mitzrayim.
[16] That is, although the pasuk proceeds to mention their names, it does not introduce them by saying “וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת — these are the names of...”
[17] As described at length by the Rambam in Hilchot Avodah Zarah (1:3).
[18] Not only was the Shechinah present more consistently in the Mishkan than it was in the Beit Hamikdash, it was also present to a greater degree. For example, see the Seforno to Vayikra 24:3 who states that the level of kedushah which could only be attained in the Beit Hamikdash on Yom Kippur was present in the Mishkan throughout the year. See Parshat Acharei-Mot, Chapter 66.
[19] [Where the Mishkan was located for many years prior to the building of the First Beit Hamikdash.]