The dramatic, triumphant conclusion of sefer Shmot seems to end on a 'sour note': for although the shechina returns to dwell upon the Mishkan, Moshe Rabeinu was not able to enter! [See 40:34-35.]
Did something go wrong? Was Moshe unworthy?
To answer this question, this week's shiur examines a textual parallel that not only highlights the thematic connection between the Mishkan and Har Sinai, but also explains the relationship between the books of Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar.
The concluding psukim of Sefer Shmot describe how God's glory (and hence the shechina) descended onto the Mishkan, immediately after its assembly. However, the Torah's description of that event is almost identical its description of how God's glory had earlier descended upon Har Sinai, when Moshe ascended the mountain for the first forty days (see Shmot 24:12-18).
First and foremost, this parallel lends irrefutable support to the Ramban's explanation that the Mishkan serves as a perpetuation of Ma'amad Har Sinai (see his commentary to 25:1). Nonetheless, there are a few significant differences, upon which we will base oour shiur. Therefore, we begin our study by comparing these two descriptions.
The final chapter of Parshat Pekudei describes how the Mishkan is assembled for the very first time on the first day of Nissan (in the second year /see 40:1-33). Then, upon the completion of this assembly, the Torah tells us:
"Then the anan (cloud) covered the ohel mo'ed, and kvod Hashem (God's glory) filled the Mishkan" (see 40:34).
Let's compare this pasuk with a very similar description of Moshe Rabeinu's ascent to Har Sinai (as described at the end of Parshat Mishpatim):
"And Moshe ascended the mountain and an anan covered the mountain, and kvod Hashem dwelled upon Har Sinai..." (24:15-16).
This obvious parallel highlights how the 'ohel mo'ed' has replaced 'the mountain' and, correspondingly, 'the Mishkan' has replaced 'Har Sinai.'
In essence, the Mishkan will now serve a similar purpose as Har Sinai, as both serve as a medium whereby Bnei Yisrael can 'encounter' the shechina.
Furthermore, as we discussed in our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, in both instances a 'direct' encounter, although desirable, is impossible. Therefore, man must be shielded from God's Presence by the 'anan'.
Although this comparison appears simple and straightforward, the next pasuk in each of these two sources seems to 'ruin' the completeness of this parallel. In contast to Har Sinai, where Moshe actually enters the anan:
"And kvod Hashem dwelled on Har Sinai and the cloud covered it for six days, and God called to Moshe on the seventh day... and Moshe came inside the anan and ascended the mountain" (24:16-18).
In Parshat Pekudei, we find that he cannot:
"And Moshe was unable to enter the ohel mo'ed, because the anan was dwelling upon it..."(40:35).
Certainly, had sefer Shmot concluded with God 'calling' upon Moshe to enter the Mishkan, just as He had 'called' upon him to enter the anan at Har Sinai, this parallel would have been complete. Yet, for some reason, Moshe cannot enter the Mishkan!
Has Moshe been demoted?
Even though there may be a temptation to search for a reason for Moshe's 'demotion' in the events of "chet ha'gel", the truth is that there is no 'demotion'. To understand why, we simply need to 'turn the page', i.e. to read the opening pasuk of sefer Vayikra, where we find the precise pasuk that was 'missing' at the end of Sefer Shmot:
"And [God] called out to Moshe, and God spoke to him from the ohel mo'ed saying..." (Vayikra 1:1).
In other words, God did call upon Moshe to enter the 'anan' that covered the Mishkan (just as He had called him at Har Sinai) - and indeed - the parallel to Har Sinai is complete!
[See commentaries of Ramban, Rashbam, & Ibn Ezra on Shmot 40:35 and on Vayikra 1:1; as they explain these psukim in a similar manner!]
The following table illustrates this 'completed' parallel:
the anan covers the har the anan covers the Mishkan
kvod Hashem dwells upon it kvod Hashem fills Mishkan
Moshe must wait until called Moshe cannot enter (Shmot 40:35)
God calls Moshe ("vayikra el...") God calls Moshe (Vayikra 1:1)
Moshe enters the anan & Moshe enters the Mishkan &
God speaks to Moshe God speaks to Moshe
Even though our parallel is complete, we now have a new problem, i.e. if the first pasuk of Vayikra actually belongs at the end of sefer Shmot, why does the Torah begin a new sefer in the middle of a story?
To answer this question, we must carefully study the closing psukim of sefer Shmot.
A DOUBLE FINALE
Our understanding of Vayikra 1:1 as the logical continuation of Shmot 40:34-35 works only if these are indeed the final psukim of sefer Shmot. However, Shmot 40:35 is not the end of sefer Shmot! Rather, there remain three more psukim (i.e. 40:36-38), which appear to 'interrupt' this logical progression:
"And when the anan lifted from the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael would travel. If it would not lift, they would not travel... For the anan was upon the Mishkan during the day and fire would appear in it by night, before the eyes of Bnei Yisrael throughout all their travels" (see 40:36-38).
Even though all five psukim (40:34-38) relate to the topic of the anan that covered the Mishkan, these last three psukim discuss a topic which is quite different than the first two. While the first two psukim discussed Moshe entering the Mishkan, the last three discuss the effect of this anan on Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert.
In fact, when you read these five psukim, the transition from 40:35 to 40:36 is rather disjoint. And when you consider the logical flow from 30:35 to Vayikra 1:1 (as we discussed above), then these final psukim seem to form an 'interruption'.
Furthermore, these final three psukim not only interrupt, they also appear to belong somewhere else!
You may recall from Sefer Bamidbar that we find a very similar set of psukim in Parshat Beha'alotcha, when theTorah describes how Bnei Yisrael were to travel in the desert:
"On the day that the Mishkan was set up, the anan covered the Mishkan... and in the evening it appeared as fire... And when the anan lifted from the ohel [mo'ed], then Bnei Yisrael would travel, and at the place where the anan rested Bnei Yisrael would set up their camp... " (see Bamidbar 9:15-23)
Clearly, the opening pasuk (9:15) points us directly to Shmot chapter 40 - i.e. the assembly of the Mishkan and the 'anan' etc. The psukim that follow describe how Bnei Yisrael were to travel, with almost the identical words that we find at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot. Note as well how the next chapter in sefer Bamidbar (10:1-36) narrates Bnei Yisrael's actual departure from Har Sinai.
Thus, the three final psukim of sefer Shmot clearly 'belong' in sefer Bamidbar, as one of the primary themes of that book is Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert as they depart Har Sinai.
Now, we must explain why they are recorded 'prematurely' at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.
Note how our analysis thus far has shown that the final five psukim of sefer Shmot divide into two distinct topics, each of which points us to a different sefer:
(A) 40:34-35 describes the anan dwelling upon the Mishkan, and continues directly into Sefer Vayikra;
(B) 40:36-38 describes how Bnei Yisrael journey through the desert in accordance with this anan, and continues directly into Sefer Bamidbar.
A very interesting structure emerges from this analysis. Sefer Shmot concludes with two 'pointers': one to sefer Vayikra (A) and one to sefer Bamidbar (B)!
This 'double pointer' may be significant as it highlights the return to God's original plan after the Exodus, despite the events of "chet ha'egel".
Recall the 'double purpose' of Yetziat Mitzraim, as discussed in our shiur on Parshat Shmot (re: God's hitgalut at the 'burning bush'):
(A) - For Bnei Yisrael to receive the Torah at Har Sinai and
(B) - to travel to (& conquer) the Promised Land.
As the events of chet ha-egel signified Bnei Yisrael's breaking of the brit [covenant] of Har Sinai, God consequently threatened to break His end of the deal, too, and take His shechina away from the people (see Shmot 33:1-7). Had it not been for Moshe Rabeinu's intervention (33:12-17), Bnei Yisrael would not have received the remaining mitzvot [A], nor would they have been worthy of God's direct assistance in conquering the Land [B] (see 33:1-7 and our shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa).
Now that Bnei Yisrael have built the Mishkan and God's shechina has returned, God once again commits Himself, as it were, to both elements of His original plan:
(A) In sefer Vayikra, Bnei Yisrael receive the special mitzvot;
(B) In sefer Bamidbar, Bnei Yisrael begin their travel towards the Promised Land accompanied by the Shechina.
The Shechina's 'dwelling' upon the Mishkan thus yields a dual effect, reflected in the distinct themes of Vayikra and Bamidbar:
(A) First and foremost, it affects the Mishkan itself, as explained and elaborated upon at length in sefer Vayikra. The Shechina's dwelling upon the Mishkan allows man to approach God and offer korbanot (Vayikra / Tzav); forbids one's entry into the Mishkan when one is 'tamei' (Shmini, Tazri'a, Metzora); demands a special kapara (atonement) ritual every Yom Kippur and forbids the offering of korbanot outside the Mishkan (Acharei-Mot). Finally, this 'kedusha' emanates into all three realms of existence: 'kedushat adam' (Kedoshim), 'kedushat zman' (Emor) and 'kedushat makom' (Behar).
[Iy"h, we'll discuss all this in our shiurim on Vayikra.]
(B) Secondly, it affects the 'machaneh' - the camp of Israel, as reflected in sefer Bamidbar. The presence of the Shechina raises the entire camp of Israel to a higher level, as God travels, as it were, with them. The camp is arranged in a formation that surrounds the Mishkan (as described in parshiot Bamidbar and Naso), and Bnei Yisrael travel through the desert following the anan over the Mishkan (Beha'alotcha). Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, Sefer Bamidbar would have concluded with the story of their conquest of the Land (Matot, Mas'ei). Instead, it explains why that generation didn't enter the land (Shlach, Korach), as well as the events of the fortieth year (Balak, Pinchas).
In this manner, the triumphant conclusion of Sefer Shmot thematically points us in two directions: one - to the laws of Sefer Vayikra, and two - to Bnei Yisrael's journey in Sefer Bamidbar.
ONE DAY IN THREE BOOKS
This interpretation can also help us appreciate why the events that transpired on the first of Nissan, the day when the Mishkan was first erected, are detailed in three different books instead of just one.
(1) In Sefer Shmot (40:1-35), we find the commandment to assemble the Mishkan on the first of Nissan, and the details of how it was assembled on that day.
These details are found in Sefer Shmot, for they conclude the topic of building the Mishkan, as discussed in Parshiot Teruma, Tetzaveh & Vayakhel. Furthermore, Shmot concludes by describing how the shechina returned to the Mishkan on that day, signaling the its return despite the events of chet ha-egel, as discussed in Parshat Ki Tisa.
(2) In Sefer Vayikra we find the details of the special korbanot offered on yom ha-shmini, and the tragic event which occurred on that day - the death of Nadav and Avihu. [See 9:1 thru 10:7.] According to most commentators, that day coincides with the first of Nissan.
As those events and those special korbanot directly relate to many of the mitzvot found in Sefer Vayikra, the narrative of those events is recorded Sefer Vayikra as well.
(3) In Sefer Bamidbar (7:1-89), we find the story of the special gift brought by the nesi'im to the Mishkan on the day of its dedication - six wagons and twelve oxen (see 7:1-4). As these wagons were used by the levi'im to transport the Mishkan during travel, this account appears in Sefer Bamidbar - the book that describes how Bnei Yisrael traveled thru the desert.
Hence, although all of these events took place on the same day - the first of Nissan, the Torah prefers to record them in three different books, corresponding to the theme of each sefer.
We will iy"h return to this theme in our study of both sefer Vayikra and sefer Bamidbar. Till then,
A. Note the importance of the date of the first of Nissan in Shmot chapter 40. Relate God's selection and designation of this date to Parshat ha-chodesh / Shmot 12:1-20. Relate this as well to the importance of this date in Divrei Ha-yamim II 29:1-17.
B. Relate the main points of the above shiur to Shmot 29:45-46, specifically relating to the question if the purpose of Yetziat Mitzraim was to worship God in the desert or to inherit the Promised Land / see also Shmot 3:6-12. [Relate your answer as well to the main point of our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh.]