Cherubs and Baseball
And make two Keruvim (Cherubs) of gold. Make them as beaten work from the ends of the Kaporet (Ark cover). (Sefer Shemot 25:18)
The Keruvim should not be confused with idolatry
This week’s parsha is devoted exclusively to the commandment to create the Mishkan – the Tabernacle. The Mishkan was the precursor to the Sacred Temple – the Bait HaMikdash. It was the place in which Bnai Yisrael offered their sacrifices during their travels in the wilderness. They continued to worship in the Mishkan even after settling the Land of Israel. The Mishkan was destroyed by the Plishtim at the end of the period of the Shoftim – the Judges. Eventually, it was replaced by the Bait HaMikdash that was constructed by King Shlomo.
In last week’s parsha an allusion was made to the Bait HaMikdash. We are commanded to observe the three Regalim – pilgrimage festivals. We fulfill this commandment by traveling to the Bait HaMikdash on these festivals – Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. It is interesting that immediately prior to discussing these Regalim, the Torah admonishes us to take care and not associate ourselves with idolatry.[1] Meshech Chochmah suggests the discussion of the festivals is preceded by this warning because the festivals may themselves promote idolatrous attitudes. This is because during the period of the first Bait HaMikdash, it was customary to part the curtains that normally hid the inside of the Kodesh HaKodashim – the Holy of Holies. The pilgrims could gaze into the inner sanctuary and observe the Keruvim – the Cherubs. The Cherubs were integrated into the Kaporet – the Ark-cover. Seeing these forms occupying the most sacred place in the Bait HaMikdash might be misinterpreted. It might be construed as a license to employ similar images or idols in the service of Hashem. In order to dismiss this conclusion, the Torah reiterates its rejection of idolatry directly before its discussion of the Regalim.[2]
The confusing message of the Mishkan
Meshech Chochmah's comments provide an explanation for the placement of an admonition against idolatry before the commandment to observe these festivals. However, his interpretation of the passages suggests an even more fundamental question. What is the meaning of these Keruvim? Why were they incorporated into the Kaporet? One of the main themes of the Torah is its opposition to idolatry. Why are these golden images required in the space that halachah regards as most sacred?
There are other explanations for the Torah’s placement of an admonition against idolatry immediately before its discussion of the Regalim. However, the concern raised by Meshech Chochmah is real. Let us consider another aspect of the Mishkan that seems to invite a conclusion that is strongly discouraged by the Torah.
The organization of the commandment to create the Mishkan
The commandment to create the Mishkan includes a precise description of its components. The Torah first provides a description of the Aron – the Ark – and Kaporet. These are placed within the Kodesh HaKodashim – the Holy of Holies. This is followed by a precise description of the Shulchan and Menorah. The Shulchan is the table upon which the Shew Bread are placed. The Menorah is the candelabra. Both are stationed directly outside of the Kodesh HaKodashim. The function of the Aron and Kaporet is clear. They contain the Luchot – the Tablets of the Covenant. What are the functions of the Shulchan and Menorah?
Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra discusses this issue. His comments are made in the context of addressing a related issue. The Mishkan features two altars. One is a large altar situated in the courtyard of the Mishkan.[3] This altar is used for animal sacrifices and other offerings. The second altar is used solely for offering incense. This altar – the Mizbe’ach HaKetoret is placed inside the Mishkan. In the commandment to create the Mishkan, the Shulchan and Menorah are described immediately after the Aron and Kaporet. The Mizbe’ach HaKetoret which is situated with them in the Kodesh – the sanctuary – is not mentioned at this point. It is described at a much later point in the instructions. Ibn Ezra asks why this altar’s description is postponed. One would expect it to be described along with the other components situated within the Kodesh – the sanctuary. Rather than paraphrase, let’s consider his position as expressed in his own words.
“The Glory does not cease (from the Mishkan). Therefore, the Aron is in the form of (i.e. similar to) a chair. And there is a candelabra and a set table. Therefore, the Mizbe’ach HaKetoret is mentioned after the sacrificial altar. This is in order to admonish, ‘You should not offer upon it an Olah sacrifice, a Mincha offering, or libation.’”[4]
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l explains the meaning of Ibn Ezra’s comments. The Torah describes the Mishkan as the place in which the presence of Hashem – His Glory – resides. In Ibn Ezra’s view this is the fundamental function of the Mishkan – to create a place in which this Glory will reside. This fundamental function is given full expression in the design of the Mishkan. Its most essential components are the Aron and Kaporet, the Shulchan, and Menorah. The Aron and Kaporet are the chair – the specific place in which the Glory resides. The Shulchan with its Shewbread is the table set before Him. The Menorah is the candelabra that illuminates His residence. In other words, these are the components that bestow upon Mishkan its basic character as the residence of the Glory. The altars are of secondary significance. Although the Mizbe’ach HaKetoret is stationed in the sanctuary along with the Shulchan and Menorah, its secondary significance is given expression through the postponement of its description to a latter point in the presentation of the commandment.[5]
And make for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them. (Sefer Shemot 25:8)
Guard yourselves carefully. For you did not see any image on the day that Hashem spoke to you at Chorev from within the fire. (Sefer Devarim 4:15)
Hashem’s Glory is present in the Mishkan
When we consider these comments carefully, we notice that Ibn Ezra does not describe the Mishkan as the residence of Hashem. He refers to it as the residence of His Glory. Why does Ibn Ezra make this distinction?
Ibn Ezra is concerned with an issue that he later discusses in his commentary. In the first passage above, we are instructed to create a Mishkan and Hashem will dwell in our midst. Ibn Ezra is asserting that this passage requires interpretation. It cannot be understood as associating Hashem’s presence with a space. Let us understand the reason for this conclusion.
In the second passage above Moshe is delivering his final address to Bnai Yisrael. He reviews with them the events of Revelation. Then, he reminds them that they saw no image at Revelation. They perceived Hashem only through the voice that emerged from within the conflagration at the top of the mountain. Moshe is emphasizing that Hashem is not material. He does not have a body or physical form. This understanding of Hashem is one of the Torah’s fundamental principles.[6]
The characteristic of occupying space applies to material bodies. It is not possible to associate this characteristic with that which is not material. In asserting that Hashem will reside among the people or between the Keruvim upon the Aron, He is assigned the characteristic of occupying space – a characteristic of material bodies. This contradicts Moshe’s stern admonition against attributing to Hashem a material existence.
Now, Ibn Ezra’s intentions are more clearly evident. He refers to Hashem’s Glory as residing in the Mishkan. He wants to avoid any expression that assigns a position in space to Hashem. However, this carefully constructed phrasing results in a troubling paradox. Ibn Ezra is very sensitive to the problem of ascribing a position in space to Hashem. He scrupulously avoids this error. But the Torah does describe Hasham as dwelling among the people. What is the meaning of the Torah’s description? How can it be explained without violating the fundamental principle of Hashem’s non-material existence?
The meaning of Hashem’s presence
Ibn Ezra addresses this issue in latter comments. He is intentionally vague in his comments but he provides an analogy to help us understand the meaning of the Torah’s description of Hashem dwelling in the Mishkan.
The moon does not generate its light. When we observe the shining moon, we are observing the reflected light of the sun. When an eclipse occurs, Earth intervenes between the sun and the moon. We do not see a shining moon because the sun’s light is obstructed; it does not reach the moon and cannot be reflected by it. The sun does not change. It is sending forth its light at all times. However, whether we will observe the light reflected by the moon depends upon the changing circumstances of the moon’s orbit and the orbit of Earth.
Ibn Ezra explains that Hashem’s influence or “presence” should be understood in the same manner. Like the sun, Hashem is unchanging. However, the capacity of a person or place to experience that influence is dependent upon his or its nature and circumstances.[7] Moshe had a unique relationship with Hashem because Moshe was a unique individual. Similarly, Hashem commanded that we create a Mishkan whose nature and circumstances – that it is the sanctuary of the people of the covenant – render it fit to experience the influence of Hashem.
The take-away from these comments is that Hashem was not present in the Mishkan in the sense of occupying space. His influence was uniquely expressed. Only in this sense, was He “present” between the Keruvim.
And the Keruvim – they will extend their wings upward. They will cover with their wings the Kaporet. They will face one another. They will face toward the Kaporet. (Sefer Shemot 25:20)
The message of the Keruvim
Ibn Ezra adds that when we understand this idea we will also comprehend the meaning of the Keruvim. He does not elaborate on this meaning. He only comments that Keruvim are figures who wings are extended. Presumably, he is referring to the above passage in which the wings are described as extending upward. In other words, the Keruvim are stationed upon the Aron reaching upward toward the heavens. It seems that the Keruvim are designed to represent the nature of Hashem’s presence in the Mishkan. Hashem’s nature is constant and unchanging. He is not “present” in one place more than in another place. However, the suitability of a person or place to experience His influence is variable and dependent upon the nature and circumstances of the place or person. The Keruvim stretch forth their wings toward the heavens. They give expression to the special nature of the Mishkan. The influence of Hashem is present because of the Mishkan’s nature and circumstances. It is designed precisely as required by the Torah and it is the Mishkan of the people of the Sinai covenant. The Mishkan “reaches up” to bring down upon itself this Divine influence.
An analogy will help us understand the message of the Keruvim. The baseball season is quickly approaching. So, let’s consider a pitching machine that is constantly throwing fastballs toward the plate. Imagine that the machine continues to pitch whether a batter is in the batter’s box or whether the box is empty. A batter steps up to plate, swings, and hits the ball over the fences. The machine was pitching continually. What caused this one pitch among the many hurled toward the plate to fly over the fences? The actions of the batter who came to the plate.
The Keruvim who reach out toward the heavens communicate that the Mishkan is like the batter who swings his bat at the ball. Like the batter, who changes the projection of the ball through his actions, the nature of the Mishkan and its circumstances bring forth the influence of Hashem.
Considering the impact of one’s actions
Let us now return to the comments of Meshech Chochmah. The Keruvim are designed to communicate a message regarding the relationship between Hashem and the Mishkan. They are designed to dispel the idea that Hashem is more present in one place than in another or that His nature changes as it influenced by circumstances. However, their impact can be contrary to their intended message. Their message is intended to dispel misconceptions regarding Hashem. However, contrary to this intention they can lead to idolatry. The Torah is wary of this potential outcome and introduces the Regalim with an admonition against idolatry.
Meshech Chochmah’s comments should give us pause. How often do we not consider how our words or actions – however well-intentioned – may be perceived and interpreted by others. We excuse our behavior by emphasizing that our actual words and actions were not inappropriate; perhaps they were praiseworthy. We argue that we bear no responsibility for the manner in which others have interpreted our completely well-intentioned words and actions. However, according to Meshech Chochmah, the Torah is demonstrating for us a higher standard of behavior. Despite the intended purpose of the Keruvim, the Torah recognizes that their presence may be misinterpreted. It accepts responsibility for this outcome and acts to prevent it by inserting a warning against this misinterpretation immediately prior to introducing the occasion upon which the Keruvim would be observed by the people – the Regalim. The Torah treatment of the Keruvim and Regalim urges us to give our attention to not only the content of our words and actions but also to the manner in which others may perceive them.
[1] Sefer Shemot 23:13-17.
[2] Rav Meir Simcha of Devinsk, Meshech Chochmah on Sefer Shemot 23:13-14. Meshech Chochamah points out that according to Talmud in Mesechet Yoma 54b, when the Babylonians entered the Bait HaMikdash they observed the Keruvim. They were shocked to find figures in the Kodesh HaKodashim. They brought them forth into the thoroughfare and declared that the Jews also engage in idolatry. It should be noted that these Keruvim were not those of the Kaporet. The Aron, Kaporet, and their contents were placed in hiding before the conquest of the Babylonians and the destruction of the Mikdash. The Keruvim discovered by the Babylonians were those installed by King Shlomo (See: Melachim I 6:23-28).
[3] The Mishkan is a tent. Its structure is composed of a panel of curtains supported by upright planks. This structure is surrounded by a series of curtains that creat a courtyard. The altar upon which sacrifices are offered is placed in this courtyard before the entrance to the Mishkan.
[4] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary of Sefer Shemot 25:22.
[5] Rav Herschel Schachter, recorded lecture. Rav Soloveitchik notes the description of the room that the Shunamit woman prepared for the prophet Elisha (Melachim II 4:10). The room included a chair and sleeping couch, a table and candelabra. He explains that the hostess prepared the space with these items because they are the essential components of a residence. In the Mishkan, the Aron and Kaporet function as the chair and couch. The Shulchan and Menorah complete the furnishings.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 1:8. See also Hilchot Teshuva 3:7 and the comments of Ra’avad. A careful reading of these comments indicates that he agrees with Maimonides’ basic position regarding Hashem’s non-material existence. However, he is critical of Maimonides’ unqualified condemnation of anyone rejecting this principle. Ra’avad argues that a person who is misled by passages in the Torah and confusing sections of the Aggadah to the erroneous conclusion that Hashem has material form should not be included within Maimonides’ condemnation. These individuals wish to carefully observe all aspects of the Torah but err in their understanding of these expectations. Such a well-intentioned error should moderate the seriousness of the person’s sin.
It is often noted that Ra’avad speaks in very laudatory terms of those who have made such an unfortunate error. See comments of Kesef Mishna who is astounded by this aspect of Ra’avad’s comments. He suggests that Ra’avad is misquoted in the standard text and supports this assertion by noting other texts in which Ra’avad’s position is cited that do not include this laudatory description. See also the Frankel edition of Mishne Torah which notes divergent texts of Ra’avad’s comments. These texts differ from the standard version only in a single word. However, the divergence completely alters the meaning of the comments and, to a great extent, eliminates the difficulty in Ra’avad’s comments.
[7] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary of Sefer Shemot, short essay between 25:40 and 26:1.