Commentaire sur L’Exode 25:9

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך ACCORDING TO ALL THAT I AM SHOWING THEE here, את תבנית המשכן THE PATTERN OF THE DWELLING. — This verse must be connected with the verse that precedes it, thus: And let them make for Me a sanctuary … according to all that I am showing thee (the words ושכנתי בתוכם being a parenthesis).

AND SO SHALL YE MAKE IT — [also] “in future generations. If one of the vessels is lost, or when you make⁸⁵“Make.” In our Rashi: “make Me.” the vessels of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem,⁸⁶The Hebrew is beith olamim — “the Eternal House.” See in Seder Yithro Note 598. such as the tables,⁸⁷II Chronicles 4:8: And he made ten tables. the candelabrums,⁸⁸Ibid., Verse 7: And he made the ten candelabrums. the lavers,⁸⁹Ibid., Verse 6: And he made ten lavers. and the bases⁹⁰I Kings 7:27-39: And he made the ten bases… which Solomon made — after the pattern of these you shall make them. If, however, this [part of the verse] were not connected with the preceding part [which reads: According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all the vessels], Scripture should not have written: ‘and’ so shall ye make it, but: “so shall ye make it,” and then it would be speaking of the making of the Tent of Meeting⁹¹And not of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem and its vessels. But now that Scripture says ‘and’ so shall ye make it, the expression is not set apart from the preceding part of the verse but is connected with it, thus: “and” so shall you make the pattern of all the furniture of the Sanctuary. and its vessels.” Thus is Rashi’s language. But I do not know if this is true, that Solomon was bound to make the vessels of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem⁸⁶The Hebrew is beith olamim — “the Eternal House.” See in Seder Yithro Note 598. after the pattern of these vessels [of the Tabernacle]. The altar of brass which Solomon made was twenty cubits long and twenty wide!⁹²II Chronicles 4:1. The altar of the Tabernacle was five cubits long and five cubits broad (further, 27:1). And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “And so shall ye make — the vessels,⁹³The expression and so shall ye make it thus refers only to the pattern of all the furniture (mentioned right above), but does not refer to the pattern of the Tabernacle since the term “making” was already stated with reference to it, namely, and let them ‘make’ Me a Sanctuary. for at the beginning He said, And let them make Me a Sanctuary.”⁹⁴Above, Verse 8.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture there is no need for all this. Rather, the duplication [and so shall ye make it] has the purpose of expressing emphasis and eagerness. Thus He said: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary⁹⁴Above, Verse 8. — a house and vessels — as a Royal Sanctuary and seat of Majesty, that I may dwell in the midst of them in the house and on the Throne of Glory which they will make for Me there. According to all that I show thee the pattern of this Tabernacle of which I have said that I will dwell in the midst of them, and the pattern of all the vessels thereof. He repeated, and so shall ye all make it with eagerness and diligence. This is similar to the repetition found in the verse, and the children of Israel did according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they.⁹⁵Further, 39:32. Here, because the verse speaks of a command, it says, and so ‘shall’ ye make it, [whereas in the other verse the repeat states so ‘did’ they, because it speaks of a deed accomplished].

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, "According to all I shall show you, etc." In Midrash Hagadol on our verse it is reported that when G'd told Moses to build a Sanctuary for Him, Moses was dumbfounded asking G'd that seeing that neither the heavens nor the heaven of heavens could contain Him, how could a structure on earth possibly house Him? G'd reassured him saying that Moses had misunderstood what G'd had in mind when He issued this directive. When G'd spoke of a Sanctuary He showed Moses a structure of twenty beams in the North, twenty beams in the South joined by eight beams in the West. G'd explained that he would "reduce Himself" in honour of Israel and out of love for them. We must ask ourselves who is the source that can tell us exactly what transpired between G'd and Moses at that time? Although the words of our sages are all based on tradition, the fact remains that scripture does not even hint at such a conversation.

ככל אשר אני מראה, corresponding to all the likenesses of the various utensils that have been shown to you in a vision. Compare Ezekiel 40,2 where the prophet was also shown a vision of all that pertained to the building of the second Temple. The meaning of the vision was then explained to the prophet in detail.

וכן תעשו, “and so you shall do.” According to Rashi these words are an instruction that the materials and dimensions mentioned here are applicable not only to the Tabernacle, its furnishings and the priestly garments about to be constructed, but that the same rules apply throughout later generations. Nachmanides is not sure at all that this is in fact so, as it would have obligated Solomon to make exact replicas of the vessels used in the Tabernacle, and we have clear evidence that Solomon built an altar of 20 by 20 cubits instead of 5 by 5 cubits as described in (compare Chronicles II 4,1) Ibn Ezra explains the need for the words וכן תעשו, as due to the fact that up until this point the Torah had spoken of the structure, not the furnishings. According to the plain meaning of the text, there is no need for all these explanations, as whenever the Torah repeats something, the objective is to urge the party addressed to proceed with the task at hand without any delay. G’d had first said: ועשו לי מקדש, “they shall make a Sanctuary for Me,” and now He repeats: “now that I explained what it is to consist of, I tell you to proceed with the job.” All the Israelites are addressed by the word תעשו, and they all responded, as we know from Seeing that in this verse we are dealing with a command, and instruction, the people are addressed in direct speech: “you are to do.” 25,10 ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark.” This refers to the Israelites referred to in verse 2. When the Torah switches to direct speech in the following verses, making it sound as if these commandments were all addressed to Moses personally, this must be understood in terms of Moses representing the entire Jewish people. The reason that the Torah first employed a plural mode was to encourage all the Israelites to take an active part in the making of the Tabernacle by contributing of their wealth, so that their participation in a sacred undertaking would guarantee each one of them a share in the Torah. However, only skilled people could take part in fashioning the parts and the furnishings. Actually 3 separate arks were made. The outer and inner one were made of gold, whereas the middle ark was of acacia wood. The reason that the Torah does not use the expression וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to overlay it with gold,” is that the ark was enclosed only from 5 out of 6 sides, the top remaining open, until the lid was placed on it, as a separate part.

Here, the form of the mishkon. . . Rashi is saying that we should not think it means, “According to all that I show you later” when you actually make the mishkon. Rather, it means, “that I am showing you here.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say, “That I will show you.”

וכן תעשו, “and this is how you shall do it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word וכן, is not necessary in this context; some commentators understand it as referring to what follows about the construction of the individual items of furniture for the Temple. The idea of the connective letter ו then would be: ”just as I instructed you first to build the structure, I will now instruct you to construct the furnishings to be housed in that structure.”

וכן תעשו AND SO SHALL YE MAKE IT also in future generations (cf. Sanhedrin 16b); if one of the vessels is lost, or when you make for Me the vessels for the “House of Eternity” (another name for the Temple in Jerusalem), — as e. g., the tables, candlesticks, lavers and stands which Solomon had made — you shall make them after the pattern of these (the vessels of the Tabernacle), If, however, the verse were not to be connected with the preceding one but formed a new statement, Scripture ought not to have written: וכן תעשו “and so shall ye make them” but כן תעשו “so shall ye make them” and then it would be speaking of the making of the tent of meeting and its vessels and not of the vessels of the Temple, and the translation would be: according to all that I am showing you the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, even so shall you make them.

I believe we must assume that the sages of the Midrash were troubled by the fact that the verse does not make sense in its present form. If the verse is connected to what follows in verse 10, the Torah should not have spoken of תעשו in our verse at all. Moreover, verse 8 should have read תעשו לי מקדש. Besides, the letter ו in וכן תעשו makes no sense. On the other hand, if the words ככל אשר אני מראה אותך refer to the previous directive ועשו לי מקדש, the Torah should not have interrupted the verse by mentioning "so that I shall dwell amongst them." Seeing that G'd had mentioned prior to our verse that He was going to dwell amongst the Jewish people, this seemed to indicate that He had already completed the directive to build a Sanctuary for Him to dwell in. Our verse then would have been entirely unnecessary. It would have been sufficient to describe all the measurements of the Tabernacle without referring to something (a blueprint) which G'd showed Moses. It appears therefore that the report in the Torah indicates that the Torah corrected itself in order to prevent misunderstandings. Our sages in the Midrash concluded from all this that G'd and Moses had a conversation along the lines described in Pessikta Rabbati. They tried to reconstruct what could have transpired prior to the Torah correcting itself, as it were. It is a case of arriving at the nature of the question after one has heard the answer. The answer in our case was: "according to all that I show you." All that transpired was that Moses thought about the implications of what G'd had said. There is no need to authenticate the conversation between G'd and Moses as it was perfectly natural for Moses to have asked G'd what he did. G'd showed Moses a vision of the blueprint of the Tabernacle at that time. This is why the Torah did not use the future tense i.e. ככל אשר אראה. I will explain in due course why G'd did not content Himself with telling Moses but insisted on showing him.

We will pursue the same method to explain what our sages said in Berachot 55 concerning Exodus 38,22 where the Torah writes that Betzalel did in accordance with what G'd had commanded Moses. The Talmud adds that Betzalel even carried out work which Moses had not told him about seeing he was able to figure out for himself what G'd must have told Moses. The Talmud explains Betzalel's very name as indicative of his having stood in "G'd's shadow," i.e. becoming aware of what G'd told Moses. As an example the Talmud states that whereas Moses had instructed Betzalel to fashion the furnishings of the Tabernacle before constructing the Tabernacle itself, Betzalel reversed the procedure after having queried how one could build furnishings when one did not have where to put them. Upon hearing Betzalel's question Moses reminded Himself that G'd had indeed told him to build the structure first. He complimented Betzalel on his insight. We must ask ourselves how it was possible for Moses to have forgotten the instructions he had received from G'd in the matter? In order to account for Moses' error we must remember that G'd i.e. the Torah's report, had indeed listed most of the furnishings and their measurements such as the Holy Ark, the Lampstand, and the Table before listing details of the Tabernacle itself. Accordingly, Moses had been quite correct in first issuing instructions about the details of the furnishings to Betzalel. Why then did Moses reverse himself?

The answer is clear when we consider our verse wherein G'd is on record as showing Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle. Accordingly, when Moses received the details about the measurements of both the Tabernacle and its furnishings, he was told first about the furnishings. Moses misunderstood that these details were not communicated to him as an instruction to construct them first but that they merely complemented the picture G'd had already shown him of the overall structure. In other words, verse ten is merely a continuation of verse nine in which the visual appearance of the Tabernacle was described. The reason that G'd mentioned the Tabernacle first in 26,6, i.e. "the Tabernacle and its furnishings," is to reflect Moses' incredulity when he had first heard that G'd would take up residence in the Tabernacle. By telling Moses of the measurements of the Tabernacle, G'd emphasized the smallness of the structure. This verse also informs us of the fact that when G'd showed Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He showed him the furnishings at the same time. Perhaps the Torah also intended to convey the idea that there was no need for these furnishings to be of a large size.

Originally, Moses had decided that the sequence of construction should follow the report in the Torah which commenced in 25,10. When Betzalel questioned him he realised that he had erred and that he should have used verse nine as referring to the first part to be constructed. He excused himself by explaining that he had been informed about two possible venues and had chosen the wrong sequence. Seeing that G'd did not tell Moses the order in which the construction should proceed the author of Pessikta Rabbati is quite correct in saying that we must on no account imagine that Moses had forgotten G'd's instructions.

When Moses is reported in the Midrash as saying to Betzalel: "this is what I have heard from the mouth of G'd," this does not mean that G'd had told him in so many words that the Tabernacle was to be constructed first; it merely means that Moses meant that he had understood so from the sequence in which things had been shown to him.

To come back to our question why G'd had to show the blueprint to Moses instead of merely telling him of the measurements of the beams, etc. Had G'd merely told Moses of the measurements without showing him a visual image, Moses could have thought that the measurements were the minimum that had to be constructed but that the Israelites were free to build a larger Tabernacle if they so desired. By being shown an image of the Celestial Tabernacle, Moses realised that unless the Tabernacle on earth matched that in the celestial spheres it would not completely fulfil its purpose of transplanting a suitable residence for G'd to earth..

When we apply a moral dimension to the interpretation of this paragraph it will be seen that G'd spoke about taking up residence amongst the Jewish people not merely as a consequence of their constructing the Tabernacle but that He said: "I will dwell amongst them" even before having shown Moses what the Tabernacle was to look like (verses 8 and 9 respectively). The message is that the concept of sanctity in its various levels of intensity is independent of measurements. It is a concept which transcends such considerations. To illustrate what I mean take a look at Avot 3,7. Rabbi Chalafta describes that G'd's presence is attracted to even a single individual who occupies himself with words of Torah; he derives this from Exodus 20,21 where G'd says: "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you." Rabbi Chalafta had first made similar statements regarding groups of people engaging in Torah study. The reason he mentioned groups of different sizes was to show us that G'd's presence, i.e. sanctity, is found in different degrees of intensity depending on circumstances. This is why the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 74 tells us that G'd's presence is not to be found in a congregation numbering fewer than 600.000. The various statements of our sages dealing with the presence of the שכינה teach us that the quality of such Holy Presence varies almost infinitely, i.e. between a minimum of one and a maximum which is infinite. When G'd first told Moses that He would take up residence amongst the Jewish people Moses did not know what degree of Holiness such Presence implied. He therefore proceeded to ask G'd: "how can Your Holiness be confined to earth?" G'd replied by telling Moses that it would be in accordance with all that He would show Moses. By showing Moses the Celestial Tabernacle He made him aware that G'd would transfer His entire Holiness to earth, so to speak. The Israelites would therefore qualify to be the carriers of the מרכבה. This interpretation justifies the words כבל אשר אני מראה following the words .ושכנתי בתוכם

וכן תעשו, "in this manner you shall make it." Seeing that I have explained that G'd showed Moses the vision of the Tabernacle in order to make it clear that it had to be built according to the exact dimensions Moses had been shown, you may ask why the words וכן תעשו are needed. Have we not been taught in Shevuot 14 that: "it does not matter whether a ritually impure person enters the Temple courtyard or whether he enters the addition to the Temple courtyard (he becomes guilty in either event to offer a sin-offering to obtain atonement for his oversight), seeing that one may not add to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard except with the approval of the king, the Supreme Court, the prophet, and the Urim Vetumim, [the parchment inside the breastplate of the High Priest which would enable the latter to receive answers to questions he addressed to G'd, Ed]." The Talmud cites our verse as the source for this ruling, stating that the directive contained in our verse applies throughout the generations. The Talmud derives this ruling not merely from the letter ו in front of the word כן, but from the entire expression וכן תעשו. Rashi confirms this in his commentary. [I have abbreviated this discourse of the author somewhat in the interest of brevity. Ed.]

I have seen that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the letter ו in the words וכן תעשו refer to the furnishings of the Tabernacle seeing these had not been mentioned when G'd said: "and they shall make a Sanctuary for Me." Rabbi Ibn Ezra apparently did not bother to justify the words כן תעשו themselves although the measurements of all these furnishings are enumerated in the Torah separately. Our sages were quite correct when they understood the words ועשו לי מקדש as an overall directive which was followed by details later on. This is why the words כן תעשו pose a problem which our sages answered by saying that the measurements apply to all future generations unless they are altered with the consent of the authorities mentioned in the Talmud. I cannot understand why Rabbi ibn Ezra ignored the comment of the Talmud.

I also fail to understand the comment of Nachmanides who challenges Rashi's explanation that these words are a directive to adhere to these measurements for future generations. According to Nachmanides, Solomon was not obligated to adhere to the measurements laid down in our portion when he built the Temple in Jerusalem. Nachmanides prefers to see in this repetition an exhortation to proceed with the building of the Tabernacle and its furnishings with all possible speed. When Nachmanides refers to the fact that Solomon (compare Chronicles II,4,8) built the Temple and altar according to entirely different dimensions than the ones described in our portion, he appears to have forgotten what the Talmud says. How could he argue against the Talmud? We must therefore assume that Nachmanides thought that the true meaning of the Talmud is that the words וכן תעשו refer to subsequent generations and were not meant to describe the dimensions of the furnishings but referred to the prohibition of introducing changes in the dimensions of the Temple and its site without the approval of the authorities listed in the Mishnah. We cannot accept his words. Who can decide who is right? Furthermore, if we accept Nachmanides' view, what is the meaning of the Talmud's query whether the rule about anointment of the furnishings applied only to the furnishings in Moses' time and not to those in subsequent Temples? In answering the Talmud falls back back on our verse to prove that only the furnishings of the Tabernacle in Moses' time were sanctified by anointment rather than by being put into use. If Nachmanides were correct, why did the Talmud not simply answer that not all of the details enumerated in our portion applied for future generations?

At any rate we need to counter Nachmanides' argument that Solomon used different dimensions when he constructed the altar for his Temple. I have seen that Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi attempted to answer the problem. He writes that the words וכן תעשו do not refer so much to the actual measurements as to the proportions of those measurements, i.e. the relationship between length, width, and height respectively. As long as these proportions were maintained the actual size did not matter. Accordingly, when Moses built an altar of five by five cubits, Solomon built it with a base of twenty by twenty cubits. Rabbi Mizrachi's argument is buttressed by Tossaphot in Shabbat 98 according to which we have a problem when, according to the Talmud there, the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. Whence does the Talmud arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps the width (inside) was eleven cubits? Rabbi Yehudah answers the query by claiming that we derive the information from the measurements of Solomon's Temple. The length of the Temple was sixty cubits, whereas it is described as having been twenty cubits wide. Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah claims that seeing that the length of the Tabernacle was thirty cubits, the width must have been ten cubits. He bases his view on the words וכן תעשו in our verse. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. He goes on to ask why Solomon did not construct the height of his altar to correspond to the proportion of Moses' altar, i.e. twelve cubits high? He answers that the words וכן תעשו apply only to the length and width of the dimensions, not to the height.

I do not believe that Rabbi Mizrachi's view that the words וכן תעשו mean "for all future generations," apply only to the proportions of the Temple and not to its actual measurements, is acceptable. Rabbi Mizrachi has failed to produce support from the Talmud and we cannot accept such an argument unless it is based on tradition. If we are troubled by the apparent contradiction to the Talmud posed by the fact that Solomon's Temple was of a different size, it is better to leave the question unresolved than to come forward with unsupported theories. I am prepared to deal even with the argument Rabbi Mizrachi purports to base on Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the inside measurement of the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehudah did not base his view on the interpretation of the words וכן תעשו. The fact is that Rabbi Mizrachi did not quote or copy Rabbi Yehudah accurately, but used his opinion to support his theory. The correct interpretation of Rabbi Yehudah's view is that whereas in the case of Solomon's Temple it is clear that the width of the Temple was twenty cubits, in the case of the Tabernacle it is doubtful whether the width was ten or eleven cubits. Rabbi Yehudah used the known measurements of Solomon's Temple merely to help resolve the doubt. It is also possible that the sages in Shabbat 98 had some other proof whence they deduced that the Tabernacle's width was ten cubits, something not based on our verse at all. The fact that Rabbi Yehudah himself does not refer to our verse is pretty strong evidence that he did not accept the theory of Rabbi Mizrachi that our verse speaks only of proportions and not of actual dimensions. Moreover, the very fact that Rabbi Mizrachi is forced to say that the height of the altar was הלכה למשה מסיני i.e. that we have no scriptural guidance concerning it as long as the requirement that it was square was observed, further weakens Rabbi Mizrachi's argument.

It is worth recalling that the Talmud Zevachim 59 quotes a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi as to the height of the copper altars constructed by Moses, by Solomon, by the returning exiles from Babylonia, as well as the altar to be erected in the future. Rabbi Yossi holds that all these altars were or will be ten cubits high. He argues that when the Torah describes the altar in our portion as being only three cubits high this refers only to the part of the altar on top of its foundation. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the dimensions given for the altar built by Betzalel meant that it was three cubits high. The opinion of Rabbi Yossi is accepted as halachah by Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise on the laws of the Temple. The discussion in Menachot 97 also appears to accept that view. In view of the above, Rabbi Mizrachi's question is not in place at all. Rabbi Yehudah who disagrees and claims that the altar of the Tabernacle was only three cubits high follows the literal meaning of our text (27,1). Seeing that Rabbi Mizrachi's problem is only with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah -not accepted in halachah,- he should not have represented it as if it applied universally. As to the answer that the height of the altar was determined by הלכה למשה מסיני, I cannot agree that the Talmud leads to this conclusion. The Mishnah states that additions to the Temple Courtyard were to be made only with the consent of the authorities we listed earlier. Rabbi Shimi questions where we find scriptural proof for this. The Talmud answers by quoting the words וכן תעשו in our verse as proof that they apply throughout the ages. It is clear that Rabbi Shimi had not heard of the interpretation of the words in our verse as applying only to the height of the altar to the altar of the Tabernacle and not to subsequent structures serving as Temples. If so, why did not the questioner in the Talmud raise the problem of Solomon not having complied with the instructions of the Torah when he built his altar, i.e. the very question raised by Rabbi Mizrachi? Apparently, even assuming that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני concerning this, the questioner in the Talmud had not heard of it. Moreover, anyone immersing himself more deeply in the Talmud's treatment of the subject will conclude that Rabbi Mizrachi did not present the case accurately.

I wish to state that Nachmanides' question based on Solomon's altar having a base of tweny by twenty cubits is no problem at all. Rabbi Mizrachi's question about the height of the altars also does not present a problem. There is a lengthy Baraitha in Zevachim 62 which goes as follows: "The sages taught that the dimensions of the corner, the ramp, and the foundation of the altar as well as the fact that it had to be square were absolute, not subject to change. The dimension of the length, width, or height of the altar, however, was not absolute." The Talmud asks for the source of this information; the answer given is that the Torah speaks of ה־מזבח in 27,1 instead of merely מזבח. The letter ה always indicates that the measurements are essential and not subject to change. Thus far the Talmud in Zevachim. This teaches that if Moses had wanted to he could have constructed the altar of the Tabernacle to be a square of twenty by twenty cubits (as did Solomon) whereas he could also have made it higher than three cubits. In view of this, Rabbi Mizrachi's question has no basis in halachah. Solomon was perfectly within his rights to build an altar twenty by twenty cubits square, seeing G'd had revealed in the Torah that the dimensions of length, width, and height of the altar were not absolute. Apparently, Rabbi Mizrachi ignored the Baraitha and thought that Moses had not been allowed to build the altar to any specifications other than those mentioned in our portion. If not for this oversight, Rabbi Mizrachi did not need to give us the contradictory solutions we have quoted in his name. I believe that the simplest way to remember all these vexing problems is by remembering that the words וכן תעשו apply to all those dimensions of the altar which are absolute, i.e. the corner, the ramp, and the fact that it must be square as well as the fact that the base of the altar must on no account be less than five cubits square, i.e. the size of the altar constructed by Betzalel.

It remains for us to investigate which other parts of the Tabernacle were of dimensions that could not be changed in future Sanctuaries and which were subject to change. Maimonides writes in chapter one of Hilchot Beyt Ha-bechirah that future Sanctuaries could be constructed only of either stones or bricks. From my study of Maimonides' writings on the Sanctuary I have understood that there are only three furnishings which have to correspond both in materials and dimensions to those constructed in the time of Moses. They are: the Table, the Lampstand, and the golden altar (inside the Sanctuary). This is also stated explicitly in Menachot chapter 12. Concerning all the other measurements or the appearance of the Sanctuary itelf, the Tabernacle in the desert did not serve as a model. Accordingly, we could conclude that the meaning of the words וכן תעשו in our verse applies in the future only to these three furnishings. This is incorrect, however, seeing that in the Talmud they expressly applied these words also to the sanctity of the dimensions of the Temple Courtyard. If so, the words in our verse apply also to the structure of the Sanctuary itself. Moreover, we know that Solomon constructed the cherubs on the ark according to specifications different from those mentioned in the Torah (41,6). Solomon also made many changes in the construction of the other furnishings.

If we apply just a little intelligence to the problem we will find that there is no problem at all. We must realise that Solomon did not build either his Temple or its furnishings according to arbitrary considerations. He was not motivated by the desire to erect a magnificent edifice which would confer glory on its builder. He followed instructions received from the prophet. The prophet told Solomon that the very measurements he told him about were an ancient tradition (Chronicles I 28,11) where David handed Solomon the exact blueprints of the Sanctuary he himself had not been allowed to build. Every little detail had been ordained by G'd, and Rashi explains that the prophet Samuel had received the detailed instructions about the shape and size of the Temple from G'd. We have a story in Midrash Shemuel chapter 15 according to which Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shimon related that G'd had given Moses the details of the eventual Temple while the latter was standing. Moses transmitted the information to Joshua while the latter was standing; Joshua in turn conveyed this information to the elders while they were standing; they in turn conveyed it to David while the latter was standing. David relayed the information to his son Solomon. At that point everything had already been committed to writing as mentioned in Chronicles II 35,4 by king Yoshiyahu. All this proves that all these details had been handed down from generation to generation. Thus far the words of the Midrash. You will have noted that whatever Solomon did was based on higher authority. This is what we call הלכה למשה מסיני.

Rashi writes all this explicitly in his commentary on Chronicles I 28,19. I am quoting Rashi verbatim: "Samuel derived all this information from the Torah by means of the Holy Spirit. The area of the Temple Mount was 500 cubits square. He arrived at the conclusion that the length of the Courtyard was 100 cubits, its width 50 cubits by fifty cubits, etc." It is quite normal to expect that all these dimensions should be alluded to in the written Torah and accessible to people equipped with the Holy Spirit. We find in Kings I 6 that whereas Moses' Tabernacle contained only two cherubs, Solomon constructed four cherubs (verses 23 and 35 respectively). Not only did G'd not appear to have commanded this, but the dimensions of these cherubs were totally different from those fashioned by Betzalel. I believe we can find an allusion to these additional cherubs to be used in the Temple by looking closely at the text of our portion. According to what we have just described the people who were equipped with Divine insights would be guided by the restriction imposed by the words וכן תעשו in certain matters whereas in other matters where the Torah's text seemed to provide an opening for them they would apply such allusions when handing down the measurements applicable to the Sanctuary to be built by Solomon.

When we approach the subject in this fashion we are also able to resolve the string of questions Nachmanides raised against Rashi's commentary. We can also remove Rabbi Mizrachi's pain to see his revered teacher Rashi under attack by Nachmanides concerning the height of the altar in the desert having been of a fixed and unalterable height.

In view of the fact that our sages stated that the text of the Torah itself provides hints as to the dimensions of the Temple to be built by Solomon, I may be able to contribute two or three details of such allusions myself. Firstly, the fact that the Torah speaks first about ועשו לי מקדש, and continues with the words את תבנית המשכן is strange. The Torah should have continued with ועשו לי משכן instead of speaking of תבנית המשכן, i.e. the blueprint (dimension) of the Tabernacle. From the change in wording it is fairly clear that the Torah speaks of two different structures as we indicated at the beginning of the whole discussion. The Torah hinted at the fact that the Temple Courtyard was to be one hundred cubits by fifty cubits when it stated (unnecessarily) that the courtyard of the Tabernacle was to be one hundred by fifty cubits in 27,18. This information had already been contained in the verses 9-17. According to the rule that information not needed which is recorded in one verse may be applied to augment information missing elsewhere, I suggest that the Torah hinted at the size of the Temple itself when duplicating these dimensions here, and it is to be appended to the words ועשו לי מקדש. From the above it follows that the restrictive clause וכן תעשו does not apply to the dimension of the future Sanctuary itself, seeing we have a hint that the measurements of that Sanctuary are to be one hundred by fifty cubits.

We also note that according to Kings I 6,23 and 37 respectively, Solomon constructed a total of 4 cherubs as opposed to the two cherubs constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle. Moreover, Solomon's cherubs were of totally different measurements. We need to find justification for Solomon to have constructed additional cherubs.

It appears that there is an allusion to this in 25,18 where the Torah instructs that two cherubs be constructed of beaten gold, giving their size and adding that they are to extend from the respective ends of the lid covering the Holy Ark. Why did the Torah have to repeat the words: "and to make them" in verse 19 after having already said of the (supposedly) same cherubs in verse 18 "you shall make two cherubs, etc.?" Besides, once the Torah had told us that the cherubs were to extend from the respective ends of the lid (verse 18) why did it have to write: "one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end?" The whole phrase seems superfluous! Why did the Torah add: "on its two ends you shall make them?"

Apparently the unnecessary words are an allusion to two additional cherubs which are to be constructed when the Temple would be built. The Torah used the expression ועשית "you shall construct" when speaking of the cherubs to be constructed for the Tabernacle, whereas concerning the cherubs to be constructed in the Sanctuary of the future the Torah speaks in the third person, writing: 'ועשה כרוב אחד וגו. "[The author seems to distinguish between ve-asseh, and va-asseh, considering the latter indirect speech. Ed.] Accordingly, the instruction in verse 19 is addressed to some future occasion. The additional cherubs to be constructed in that Temple in the future do not need to extend from one end of the lid to the other. In fact, the description of these cherubs in the Book of Kings has these cherubs with their feet on the floor (Kings I 6,23-32). Seeing that the wing tips extended to the respective walls, we must assume that the feet of the cherubs were on the ground. The meaning of the word מקצה may refer to wherever the wingspan ended. On the other hand, the meaning of the additional word מזה may be: "apart from this one," referring to another set of cherubs. At this point our verse refers back to the cherubs discussed as being constructed for the Tabernacle.נSubsequently the Torah returns to discussing the cherubs of the Tabernacle saying they have to be positioned on the lid of the Holy Ark. In order that we should not err and think that the Torah again speaks of cherubs of the future, the Torah once more instructs תעשו i.e. "you are to make these (now)." The word תעשו here is hard to justify unless it was meant to prevent some error we could have made as to the meaning of this verse. The words את הכרובים in verse 19 are totally superfluous if the Torah up until this point had been speaking of only one set of cherubs. These words can only be justified if they are meant to direct our attention to one set of cherubs as opposed to another set alluded to previously. When the Torah says תעשו את הכרובים, it is clear that the reference is not to the cherubs which had been mentioned immediately prior to this but to the ones which had been the subject of discussion prior to the present ones. The Torah added that the cherubs mounted on the lid of the Holy Ark are to extend על שני קצותיו, "on the two ends thereof," in order that we should not think that though they were mounted on the lid their feet could extend to the floor (as in the case of Solomon's cherubs). No such condition is mentioned when Solomon constructed his cherubs.

Although it is a fact that when the actual construction of the cherubs is reported in 37,7-9, the Torah repeats exactly what is written in our portion and you might ask why the duplication of certain words in that portion when obviously it could not refer to the cherubs to be constructed for Solomon's Sanctuary, I refer you to Rashi on 25,19. He explains that the reason this had to be repeated was so that we should not think there were to be two cherubs at each end of the lid. Unless Rashi had agreed that the Torah had already been hinting at a second set of cherubs (the ones of Solomon), why would the Torah have had to be afraid that we could be thinking in terms of four cherubs at all? Surely Rashi's very comment supports my thesis that the Torah contains allusions to the additional cherubs Solomon constructed in his Temple. None of what I have written affects the plain meaning of these verses seeing that Shemuel Haroeh has commented in connection with 27,18 that although the explanation of the meaning of the words: "50 by 50 cubits" offered in Eyruvin 23 could not be the plain meaning of the verse and we have drawn halachic conclusions from the exegesis, this still does not mean that the plain meaning of the verse has been abandoned. The same applies here when we adopt my approach. The plain meaning of the verse is not negated by the need to answer the questions we have raised. You will also observe that here in our portion the Torah speaks of va-asseh, an expression which is absent in the report in chapter 27. This would seem to confirm that in our portion the Torah speaks of (or alludes to) two sets of cherubs.

We find that Solomon (Kings I 7,48) hid the golden altar constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle and constructed another one in its place as explained in Menachot 99. Concerning the Lampstand and the Table there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud whether only the ones used in the Tabernacle were actually used in Solomon's Temple, or whether the additional Tables and Lampstand made for Solomon's Temple were also used in rotation for their respective functions. The Talmud agrees, however, that there was only a single golden altar in the Temple and that the original golden altar was hidden. It remains for us to understand why Moses' golden altar had to be hidden.

We will observe that the Torah alluded to this by not reporting the construction of the golden altar at the place where we would have expected to read about it. The Torah commenced by describing the dimensions of the Holy Ark, a piece of furniture that stood in the innermost part of the Tabernacle. This is followed by the dimensions of the lid of said Ark. Subsequently the Torah describes the Table, the Lampstand, followed by the directives to erect the beams, and the carpets forming the roof of the Tabernacle, as well as the supporting columns, the sockets and the priestly garments. This is followed by the directives to construct the copper altar, the one positioned in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the details about the courtyard, the anointing oil. Even the details of the inaugural offerings are all described before the Torah mentions the construction of the golden altar. Clearly, the fact that the Torah delayed mentioning the construction of the golden altar must have a special reason. The reason may be that the rules applying to it are significantly different from the rules applying to all the other components of the Tabernacle. Whereas the parts of the Tabernacle which were suitable for use in the eventual Temple were permitted to be used there, this was not the case with the golden altar. This in spite of the fact that the golden altar was only used for minute amounts of incense twice daily as compared to the Table and the Lampstand which were used far more during the over four hundred years which elapsed between the building of the Tabernacle and the building of the Temple. The original Table made for the Tabernacle in the days of Moses as well as the Lampstand made for the Tabernacle were superior to the ten Tables and ten Lampstands constructed by Solomon for his Temple. The allusions to the eventual Temple are, of course, only allusions.