Shemot 26,27 (Terumah) – The three zones of the mishkan and the covenantal process

Shemot 26, 27 record the instructions how to build the walls of the mishkan proper, and its courtyard. The mishkan proper was 30 amot by 10 amot and consisted of two rooms, the larger outer room, 20 amot by 10 amot, and the inner, smaller room, which we refer to as the Holy of Holies and is assumed to have been a perfect cube, 10 amot by 10 amot by 10 amot. The courtyard encompassed the mishkan proper and was 100 amot by 50 amot. Thus, altogether the mishkan had three areas or zones, the two rooms within the mishkan proper and the courtyard. Access to these zones was differentiated. Layman could only enter the outer court, priests could enter the mishkan proper, and the High Priest would enter the inner room of the mishkan on Yom Kippur.

These three zones of the mishkan correspond to the three zones by the Decalogue, see Sarna, 1986, p.203. By the Decalogue, G-d (the glory of G-d) was on the top of Mount Sinai, 19:20, Moshe and Aharon were a little bit up on the mountain, 19:24, and the people were below and not on the mountain at all, 19:12, 24.

In addition, I believe that these three zones correspond to the three stages in the covenant process that we discussed on Shemot 24. The first stage in the covenantal process was the general acceptance of the covenant by G-d and the Jewish people and this would correspond to the courtyard area. The outer altar was located in the courtyard, and within the instructions of the mishkan are laws of the daily olah sacrifice, 29:38-42. This sacrifice symbolizes the people’s dedication to G-d, and this shows the people's acceptance of G-d. Also when discussing this sacrifice, 29:41 records that the sacrifice would be a “pleasing odor to G-d.” It is not exactly clear what this phrase means, but at a minimum, it means that G-d approved of the sacrifice, and this shows G-d’s acceptance of the people.

The second stage of the covenantal process was the details of the covenant, the laws, and this would be represented by the aron that contained the tablets. Furthermore, just like the details of the covenant are the “heart” of the covenant so too the aron and inner room were the “heart” of the mishkan.

The third stage of the covenantal process was the ceremony of the ratification of the covenant and it always contained a meal and a revelation from G-d. This would correspond to the outer room of the mishkan proper in which were situated the menorah and the table of bread. The lights of the menorah represented the revelation of G-d, and the table contained the bread, 25:30, which represents the meal that always occurs at the ceremony of the covenant. The third item in the outer room was the incense altar but this did not symbolize any aspect of the covenantal process since it was recorded after the concluding verse of the building of the mishkan, 29:46. In fact, it served as a barrier symbolizing a division between the people and G-d which is the opposite of the covenantal idea.

Shemot 22:1,2 (Mishpatim) – To kill a thief

שמות כב:א,ב - אם במחתרת ימצא גנב והכה ומת, אין לו דמים. אם זרחה השמש עליו דמים לו, שלם ישלם אם אין לו ונמכר בגנבתו.  

Shemot 22:1,2 record that if a thief is found while tunneling into a house he can be killed, but if he is found when "the sun rises on him," then he cannot be killed. The case here is that the thief was not yet apprehended, as the owner is confronting the thief, and the question is can the owner kill the thief? As noted by Rava (Sanhedrin 72A, quoted by Rashi on 22:1), the permission to kill the thief in 22:1 is because there is a presumption that the thief will try to kill if he/ she is confronted, but what is the difference between when the thief is tunneling that he/ she can be killed and when the "sun rises on him" that he/ she cannot be killed? This law has been understood in four ways.

The most literal approach is from the Bekhor Shor (on 22:1,2), who explains that the phrase "the suns rises on him" means that the thief came out of the tunnel and then the sun could shine on him. Bekhor Shor explains that the thief can only be killed when he/ she is in the tunnel, which implies that the presumption that the thief will attempt to kill is only when he/ she is the tunnel, but when he/ she leaves the tunnel, then there is no longer the presumption that the thief will kill.

A second approach (Rabbenu Hananel, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Raavad?) is that the permission to kill the thief depends on the time of day of the theft. This approach is based on Job 24:16, "in the dark they dig through houses," which implies that the tunneling in 22:1 is at night, and the phrase "the sun shines on him" in 22:2 refers to the daytime. With this approach, the thief can be killed if he/ she is found at night but not in the daytime. The idea here is that at night there is a presumption that the thief will kill (he/ she can get away without being seen?), while in the daylight, there is no such presumption and he/ she cannot be killed. This distinction between day and night implies that at night the thief can be killed even if one knows the thief will not kill since at night one cannot definitely know that the thief will not kill, while in the daytime even when one thinks that the thief is willing to kill, he/ she cannot be killed, since in the daytime one cannot definitely know that the thief is going to kill. This is not logical.

A third approach (Rabbi Yishmael, Mechilta, Sanhedrin 72A, Rashi, Rambam, Laws of stealing 9:8-11, Ralbag) is that the phrase "the sun shines on him" means that if it is clear to you as the sun that the thief does not intend to kill then the thief cannot be killed. With this approach, if one knows that the thief will not kill, whether he/ she is in or out of the tunnel or it is daytime or night, he/ she cannot be killed. But, if it cannot be ascertained the intentions of the thief, then the presumption is that the thief might kill and then the thief can be killed even in the daytime or outside of the tunnel.

The fourth approach (Raavad?, S.R. Hirsch) combines the second and third approaches. With this approach, if one knows for sure that the thief is not going to kill, then he/ she cannot be killed even at night, and in the daytime even if one thinks the thief will kill, he/ she cannot be killed. With this approach, following the second approach, the presumption is that the thief would never kill in the daytime, and hence there is never permission to kill the thief in the daytime. Yet, this presumption is not always correct, as the owner might know that the thief will kill when he/ she is challenged.

The most logical approach is the third approach since if one knows that the thief is not going to kill, then how can it be permitted to kill him whether it is nighttime or he/ she is in a tunnel? Also, if one knows for sure that the thief will kill, then why cannot the thief not be killed in self-defense even when he/ she leaves the tunnel or when it is daylight? However, the third approach is also the furthest from the text since it is difficult to argue that the phrase "the sun rises on him" means as clear as the sun.

Cassuto writes (1967, p. 283), "It is self-understood that if witnesses were to testify that the killing in the night was not necessary or was necessary in the daytime, the law would be different; the Bible only presents the case in the usual circumstances." Following Cassuto, 22:1,2, is only referring to the case when the intention of the thief as to whether he intends to kill is unknown, which is the usual situation. If one knows for sure that the thief is not going to kill anybody, then the thief cannot be killed no matter whether it nighttime or he/ she is in the tunnel. On the other hand, if one knows for sure that the thief will kill, then he/ she can be killed to protect one's self, whether it is daytime or the thief left the tunnel.

The question of 21:1,2 is how is the owner of the house to act when the owner truly cannot be sure what are the intentions of the thief? The answer is that when the owner is in doubt and the thief is in the tunnel or it is nighttime, then he/ she can be killed since the owner can follow the presumption that the thief would kill. However, if it is daytime and the thief is not in the tunnel, and the owner is in doubt as to the intention of the thief, then the thief cannot be killed since the presumption is that the thief would not try to kill during the daytime outside the tunnel.

Shemot 24:3-17 (Mishpatim) – The covenantal process

Shemot 24:3-11 records the ceremony for the establishment of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. This ceremony fulfills Moshe's statement to Pharaoh in 5:1 that the people were to go to the desert to make a feast for the G-d of Israel, and G-d’s statement to Moshe in 3:12 that the Jewish people would worship G-d by the mountain near the burning bush.

I believe that there were three stages in the making of this covenant. First, there are the general principles of the covenant, then there are the details of the covenant and then there is a ceremony celebrating the ratification of the covenant.

The general principles are that the people agree to worship G-d and that G-d accepts the people as his nation. These principles were agreed upon at the exodus from Egypt, and more specifically at the 10th plague. In preparation for that plague, the people had to offer the korban pesach, and this sacrifice showed the people’s acceptance of G-d. (Note this sacrifice is referred to as G-d’s sacrifice, 12:11, 23:18 and 34:25.) When G-d protected or passed over the people during the 10th plague and took them out of Egypt, this showed that G-d was accepting the people. Furthermore, when the people came to Mount Sinai, before they learned of the laws, they verbally accepted the covenant, 19:8.

The second stage begins with the Decalogue, chapter 20 and continues until the end of chapter 23. In this section, the people are told numerous laws that are the details of the covenant. 23:20-33 serves to seal the covenant, as the section records a warning to obey the laws, and a promise of reward for disobeying the covenant.

The third stage occurs in chapter 24:3-17. 24:3 records that Moshe told the laws to the people and the people accepted them. Afterwards, there is a ceremony involving sacrifices and sprinkling blood, and during this ceremony the people accepted the laws, 24:4-8. Afterwards Moshe and the leaders ate a meal and they experienced a revelation or theophany of G-d, 24:9-11. The people experienced a different revelation of G-d later when Moshe ascended alone to the top of Mount Sinai, 24:17. Rashbam (on 24:11) notes that revelations accompany the establishment of a covenant and Luzzatto (on 24:8) writes that the eating here was the eating that occurs at the making of covenants, see our discussion below on 24:11, “Eating in conjunction with a vision of G-d?” These two elements, the revelation and the eating, are part of the third stage in the covenantal process, the celebration of the ratification of the covenant.

Shemot 16:2-13 - Was Moshe able to predict the future?

Shemot 16:2,3 record that the people complained that they were dying in the desert from starvation, and they reminisced about the "good life" in Egypt where they had bread and meat. In response, 16:4,5 record that G-d told Moshe about the mahn, that each day the people would get bread from the skies and on Friday they would get a double portion. It appears that this information was to put an end to the people's complaints since the mahn would enable the people to live in the desert. G-d did not refer to the peoples' complaints possibly because the mahn had always been intended even had the people not complained. Furthermore, G-d did not fully respond to the people's complaints since G-d only told Moshe that there would be bread, but G-d did not mention providing the people with meat.

Moshe did not relay this information about the mahn to the people. Instead, Moshe and Aharon told the people that in the evening they would know that G-d took them out of Egypt, that in the morning they would see the glory of G-d and that the people should not complain to them, 16:6,7. This announcement is puzzling. Moshe and Aharon only referred obscurely to some event that was to occur at night, but they did not explain what was to happen. How did Moshe and Aharon know that something was to happen at night, as G-d had only told Moshe about the mahn? Finally, how also did Moshe and Aharon know about the appearance of the glory of G-d in the morning?

Amos Chacham (1991, pp. 299,300) writes that Moshe and Aharon's statement concerning the evening was to the birds, quails, that would arrive at night, and the reference to the glory of G-d in the morning was to the miracle of the mahn. This approach connects 16:6,7, with G-d's instructions to Moshe in the previous verses, 16:4,5, but G-d had not mentioned the birds in 16:4,5.

Benno Jacob (on 16:4, see also Bekhor Shor on 16:11) notes that 16:11,12 record that G-d told Moshe about the birds coming in the evening, and he argues that the conversation of 16:11,12 occurred at the same time as the conversation of 16:4,5 just that they were recorded separately. According to this idea, Moshe was told about the birds before he spoke to the people, and then Moshe was referring to the birds with his statement concerning the evening in 16:6. Yet, this approach is also difficult, since the information about the birds, 16:11,12, is recorded separate from 16:4,5 and after Moshe spoke to the people. If Moshe knew about the birds, why did he not mention them explicitly in 16:6,7?

I believe that the situation here is similar to that of Bemidbar 16:29 by the rebellion of Korah. In that case, Moshe was being accused of acting on his own, and he responded by proclaiming a test with no apparent source, that if the rebels would die a strange death, then that would show that he was acting under G-d's orders. Here too Moshe had been attacked by the people that he taken the people out of Egypt to die in the desert, 16:2,3, and his response was to predict a demonstration of G-d's powers that would convince the people that he was not acting on his own. This prediction had no source. Moshe was relying on G-d to do something to help him, and hence he left the prediction of what was to happen hazy. 

With regard to Moshe's statement about the glory of G-d in the morning, it is likely that Moshe was referring to the mahn, as G-d had told him about the mahn. However, Moshe was not content to just mention that something would occur in the morning since he wanted to stop the complaints by the evening, so he stated that something would also happen in the evening. (Note that Moshe was more timid here than by Korah's rebellion, where he specified a dramatic test, possibly since he had not yet experienced the events at Mount Sinai. In general, a person cannot suppose that G-d will do a miracle, but here and in Bemidbar 16:29, the question was the authenticity of the messenger of G-d, and then Moshe could depend on a miracle, also see Devarim 18:21,22.)

The Torah does not record any response by the people to Moshe and Aharon's statements concerning the evening and the morning. Instead, 16:8 records that Moshe again spoke to the people, and this time he said specifically that the people would get meat in the evening, bread in the morning, and again that the people should not complain to him. This was Moshe's second response to the peoples' complaints, but why was it necessary after his first response? Amos Chacham answers that Moshe's first response was unsatisfactory since it was so vague, and hence Moshe had to make a second statement where he more explicit. Yet, again how could Moshe know about the meat?

Cassuto (1967, p.193) answers that "Moshe understood that it was the Lord's will to give the people the two things for which they craved, meat and bread." Cassuto also claims that when G-d told Moshe about the mahn, God used the word lehem, 16:4, which could be broadly translated as all foods including meat.

I prefer to follow the idea that Moshe was relying on G-d to back him up. Initially Moshe did not want to specify what G-d would do since he did not know what would happen. However, after the people ignored his first statement, he had to be bolder so he referred to the meat based on Cassuto's idea that he thought that G-d would respond specifically to the people's complaint for meat.

Yet, again there is no response from the people to Moshe's second statement, as 16:9 records that Moshe told Aharon to tell the people to come before G-d. This was Moshe's third response to the people's complaint for food, but why did Moshe have to tell the people to come before G-d? Also, what does it mean "before G-d?"

Ibn Ezra (short commentary on 16:9,10) explains that Moshe went to his special tent outside the camp (see 33:7) and he wanted the people to meet him there. This was a third attempt to get the people to listen to him after his first two attempts were unsuccessful, 16:16:67, 16:8. Moshe was making another prediction that G-d would appear to him by the special tent and then the people would know that he always acted on G-d's command.

Moshe went to his special tent outside the camp and Aharon went to tell the people to go to the tent where Moshe would speak to them. When Aharon was speaking to the people, G-d's glory appeared in the distance by Moshe's special tent, 16:10. This appearance of G-d's glory fulfilled Moshe's statement in 16:9 for Aharon to tell the people "to come before G-d." This appearance of G-d's glory was not the reference to Moshe's prediction in 16:6 since that was to occur in the following morning. However, once the glory of G-d appeared during the day, there was no need for it to reappear the following morning.

The glory of G-d got the people's attention, (see Bemidbar 14:10, 17:7, 20:6) and then Moshe went to speak to G-d, which showed the people that Moshe was acting on G-d's behalf, 16:11,12, see Ibn Ezra, long commentary on 16:11. G-d told Moshe that he should tell the people that G-d heard their complaints and that they would get meat at night and bread (mahn) in the morning. In this case, as opposed to 16:4,5, G-d said he heard the complaints of the people, which implies that the meat was only because the people complained. Also, G-d only granted the people meat to back up Moshe's prediction. Yet, why did Moshe have to be told to relate this information to the Jewish people if he had already told the people that they would get meat in the evening and bread in the morning?

Ramban (on 16:12) writes that the repetition was to emphasize that G-d was acting due to the people's complaints that they should know that they should not have complained. Ramban also suggests that initially the people might have thought that the promised food was only for one day, but now they would know that they would get the mahn everyday during their stay in the desert.

My guess is to follow our earlier idea that initially Moshe was making his prediction without any previous promise from G-d. 16:11,12 is when G-d first told Moshe that Moshe's prediction concerning the meat would be fulfilled that G-d would provide meat to the people as Moshe had said. G-d also told Moshe to tell this to the people since Moshe could now speak with greater confidence because he knew for sure that his prediction would come true, and also, now that the glory of G-d had appeared, the people would accept his words. 16:13,14 records that the people received meat (the birds) and the mahn, but since the meat was an addition due to Moshe and not part of G-d's plan to feed the people in the desert, the Torah records it very briefly, just the first half of verse 16:13.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Shemot 12:11 (Bo) – Eating the korban pesach in Egypt: To gulp down?

12:11 records that G-d told Moshe that the korban pesach was to be eaten in haste. Why did the people have to eat the sacrifice quickly? The most popular answer is that the people had to eat quickly to be ready to leave Egypt. Yet, the people ate the sacrifice at the beginning of the night and they were not going to leave Egypt until the morning. They were not even allowed to leave their homes in the middle of the night, 12:22. Furthermore, if the reason for the haste was that they people would be ready to leave in the morning, then they should have been told to finish their food by midnight or some other time.

Hizkuni (on 12:11) writes that they had to eat the sacrifice fast since they also left Egypt quickly, see Devarim 16:3. Yet, why should there be this parallelism? Again, the leaving was many hours after the eating?

Maybe the reason for eating in haste is because when one eats quickly one does not enjoy the food. The point was that the people should realize that the sacrifice was because G-d commanded them and hence the following words after the commandment to eat in haste, are that the “sacrifice is for G-d.” The people were not to make the sacrifice into a type of goodbye party for leaving Egypt. The sacrifice was because G-d commanded them and not for their enjoyment. This was an important lesson by their very first commandment.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 9:5) records that only the korban pesach in Egypt had to be eaten in haste but not by future generations. Yet, if the reason for eating in haste was to show that one was following G-d’s command, why should this requirement not have remained forever? Maybe the answer is that by the korban pesach in Egypt, the crucial aspect was the sprinkling of the blood, while the eating was secondary and hence it was eaten hastily, which is not even really considered as eating. However, for the future generations who would not sprinkle the blood, if they ate the sacrifice hastily, then there would remain nothing significant to the sacrifice. One person would offer the sacrifice, but the family would just gobble down the food. However, if the family savored the sacrifice, then the korban pesach would be part of celebration of the festival.