With regard to the terms mishkan and ohel moed, I think that most people think that they are synonyms, and that both words refer to the tent/ building which housed the special cultic furniture, see for example Ibn Ezra on 25:22 and Sarna, 1991, pp. 158,176. One problem with this approach is that 39:40; 40:2, 6, 29, 34, 35; Bemidbar 3:25 and 4:25, record the terms ohel moed and mishkan in the same verse, which would be redundant according to this understanding. A second problem is, why would the Torah repeatedly use different terms if the ohel moed and the mishkan have the same exact meaning?
Another possibility is that the terms mishkan and ohel moed refer to different areas in the special complex, but then the question is which areas? There are many possibilities. Rashi (on 25:22 and Bemidbar 7:89) seems to believe that the mishkan was the building with the two rooms and the ohel moed only consisted of the outer room of the mishkan. There are many more possibilities, as theoretically, the mishkan could refer to the walls surrounding the special furniture, and then the ohel moed refers to the walls and the ceiling of the building with the special furniture.
My hypothesis is that the term mikdash refers to the collection of the special cultic furniture, the aron, the two altars and the menorah, not including the surrounding walls and ceilings. The idea being that a mikdash could exist without walls. The basis for this understanding is that Bemidbar 10:21 records that the Levite family of Kehat carried the mikdash, and they only carried the special cultic furniture, see Bemidbar 4:1-15. 25:8 refers to the mikdash, and the remainder of the chapter refers to the special cultic furniture of the aron, the table and the menorah. The term mikdash only appears in the book of Shemot one other time by the song of Moshe, 15:17, where it would also refer to cultic furniture, but it is not clear if Moshe was referring to the cultic furniture described starting from chapter 25 onwards or some other cultic furniture. Similarly, the Bet ha-Mikdash, the house of the mikdash, means a house that contains special cultic furniture.
25:8 ends that G-d would “dwell” amongst them, and the word dwell, shachanti, has the same root as the word mishkan, which could be a source for the term mishkan, but I am not sure, as 25:8 refers to the mikdash and not the mishkan. Note, the word “them” in 25:8 is usually understood to be the Jewish people, but it could also mean that G-d would “dwell” amongst the special cultic furniture, which was more than one item.
The mishkan then refers to that enclosed area made by the walls around the special furniture, and the first covering, ceiling, of the special furniture. This would exclude the furniture within the enclosed area. The walls and ceiling would be a tent, and the word mishkan in Bemidbar 16:24,27 appears to be referring to a regular tent.
With regard to the definition of the term ohel moed, I will discuss it when the term first appears in the Torah in 27:21. Until then, I will examine/ discuss the term mishkan in 25:9-27:19 (parashat Teruma).
25:9 refers to the pattern of the mishkan, and the pattern of the cultic furniture, which shows that the mishkan is not inclusive of the furniture. Instead, the pattern of the mishkan means the pattern of the walls and the first ceiling (also the second ceiling?), which connected these walls, and these details are recorded in chapter 26. The word mishkan does not appear in the remainder of chapter 25 since the chapter is recording the making of the cultic furniture.
26:1-6 records that the making of the curtains of the mishkan, which is the first covering of the enclosed area.
After the Torah finishes describing the first covering/ ceiling of the enclosed area, 26:7 refers to a curtain made from goat’s hair which was to tent, ohel, on the mishkan, and this means that the covering of the goat’s hair was a second cover to be like a tent over the first cover/ ceiling recorded in 26:1-6. This second cover was not part of the mishkan since the mishkan was already a tent with one cover. This second cover was larger than the first cover, 44 (11*4) by 30 amot as opposed to 40 (10*4) by 28 amot.
26:9 refers to the opening or the front of the tent. This would seem to refer to the second cover which was to extend two amot in some fashion (folded?) over the opening to the enclosed area. Note, that the first cover of the enclosed area did not cover at all the opening to the enclosed area. Also, it could be that once the second cover covered the first cover, and also extended to cover some of the opening to the enclosed area, then the second cover was referred to as a tent. This seems to be the reference to the term ohel in 26:11,12,13.
26:12 records that this second covering would overhang the back of the walls of the mishkan, apparently by two amot. 26:13 then records that the second cover, which was two amot wider than the first covering (30 vs. 28), was to have an amah on each side of the walls that covered the walls of the mishkan. The extra amah on each side was not over the first cover, but directly covered the walls of the mishkan. 26:14 then refers to one or two covers to this second covering, which again is being called the ohel, the tent.
26:15-30 then refers to the wooden planks that were the walls, which constituted the mishkan, besides the first covering of the enclosed area. 26:30 concludes this section by recording that G-d told Moshe to make the mishkan, which again is for Moshe to make the first cover/ ceiling and the walls. After a discussion of the parokhet, divider, 26:31-33, 26:33-35, record how the special furniture was to be placed within the enclosed area, as for example, the table and the menorah were to be placed by the north and south sides of the mishkan, meaning by the north and south walls of the enclosed area.
26:36 refers to a screen by the opening of the ohel. Could this be the opening of the second cover of the mishkan, which in verses 26:9-13 seems to be the reference of the word ohel? However, in other verses, such as Bemidbar 3:26 and Bemidbar 4:25, the Torah seems to calls this screen, the opening of the ohel moed, which implies that 26:36 is referring to the entrance of the ohel moed. This would be the opening to the courtyard coming from the area between the walls that surround the cultic furniture, which had just been described in chapter 26. Maybe the Torah did not yet use the term ohel moed in chapter 26 since the courtyard of the enclosed area had not yet been described, though again in 36:37, the Torah only refers to the screen of the ohel, even though by then the ohel moed had been mentioned many times. This screen is also sometimes called the entrance to the mishkan, see 35:15.
27:1-8 discuss the outer altar and does not use the term mishkan since the outer altar was not in the building which housed the special furniture. 27:9 refers to the chatzer of the mishkan, the courtyard of the mishkan, and this would be the courtyard around the walls which enclosed the special furniture. This the only time in the Torah this term is used, though 40:33 uses a similar term, the courtyard around the mishkan.
27:19 refers to the vessels or utensils of the mishkan, then pegs (pins?) of the mishkan and of the courtyard that all these items were to be made from bronze (copper?). Hertz (1960, p. 336) and Sarna (1991, p. 175) write that in this verse, the term mishkan means the entire compound, but following Rashi (on 27:19) the vessels here are the tools used to set up and dismantle the planks that made the walls of the enclosed area (the mishkan). With this understanding, the tools used to set up and dismantle the poles of the courtyard did not have to be from bronze, as they could have been stones. The extra vessels/ tools for setting up and dismantling the mishkan were from bronze to separate them from the aron, table and the menorah that were necessary items that were made from gold and silver. In addition, there were two sets of pegs, one for the walls of the mishkan and one for the poles in the courtyard. 35:18 and 39:40 will record that there were ropes to attach the pegs to the walls of the mishkan and the poles of the courtyard. Note, the double reference to pegs in 27:19 indicates that the poles of the courtyard are not part of the mishkan.
The two terms mishkan and ohel moed do not appear in chapter 28.
With regard to the definition of the term ohel moed, I will discuss it when the term first appears in the Torah in 27:21. Until then, I will examine/ discuss the term mishkan in 25:9-27:19 (parashat Teruma).
25:9 refers to the pattern of the mishkan, and the pattern of the cultic furniture, which shows that the mishkan is not inclusive of the furniture. Instead, the pattern of the mishkan means the pattern of the walls and the first ceiling (also the second ceiling?), which connected these walls, and these details are recorded in chapter 26. The word mishkan does not appear in the remainder of chapter 25 since the chapter is recording the making of the cultic furniture.
26:1-6 records that the making of the curtains of the mishkan, which is the first covering of the enclosed area.
After the Torah finishes describing the first covering/ ceiling of the enclosed area, 26:7 refers to a curtain made from goat’s hair which was to tent, ohel, on the mishkan, and this means that the covering of the goat’s hair was a second cover to be like a tent over the first cover/ ceiling recorded in 26:1-6. This second cover was not part of the mishkan since the mishkan was already a tent with one cover. This second cover was larger than the first cover, 44 (11*4) by 30 amot as opposed to 40 (10*4) by 28 amot.
26:9 refers to the opening or the front of the tent. This would seem to refer to the second cover which was to extend two amot in some fashion (folded?) over the opening to the enclosed area. Note, that the first cover of the enclosed area did not cover at all the opening to the enclosed area. Also, it could be that once the second cover covered the first cover, and also extended to cover some of the opening to the enclosed area, then the second cover was referred to as a tent. This seems to be the reference to the term ohel in 26:11,12,13.
26:12 records that this second covering would overhang the back of the walls of the mishkan, apparently by two amot. 26:13 then records that the second cover, which was two amot wider than the first covering (30 vs. 28), was to have an amah on each side of the walls that covered the walls of the mishkan. The extra amah on each side was not over the first cover, but directly covered the walls of the mishkan. 26:14 then refers to one or two covers to this second covering, which again is being called the ohel, the tent.
26:15-30 then refers to the wooden planks that were the walls, which constituted the mishkan, besides the first covering of the enclosed area. 26:30 concludes this section by recording that G-d told Moshe to make the mishkan, which again is for Moshe to make the first cover/ ceiling and the walls. After a discussion of the parokhet, divider, 26:31-33, 26:33-35, record how the special furniture was to be placed within the enclosed area, as for example, the table and the menorah were to be placed by the north and south sides of the mishkan, meaning by the north and south walls of the enclosed area.
26:36 refers to a screen by the opening of the ohel. Could this be the opening of the second cover of the mishkan, which in verses 26:9-13 seems to be the reference of the word ohel? However, in other verses, such as Bemidbar 3:26 and Bemidbar 4:25, the Torah seems to calls this screen, the opening of the ohel moed, which implies that 26:36 is referring to the entrance of the ohel moed. This would be the opening to the courtyard coming from the area between the walls that surround the cultic furniture, which had just been described in chapter 26. Maybe the Torah did not yet use the term ohel moed in chapter 26 since the courtyard of the enclosed area had not yet been described, though again in 36:37, the Torah only refers to the screen of the ohel, even though by then the ohel moed had been mentioned many times. This screen is also sometimes called the entrance to the mishkan, see 35:15.
27:1-8 discuss the outer altar and does not use the term mishkan since the outer altar was not in the building which housed the special furniture. 27:9 refers to the chatzer of the mishkan, the courtyard of the mishkan, and this would be the courtyard around the walls which enclosed the special furniture. This the only time in the Torah this term is used, though 40:33 uses a similar term, the courtyard around the mishkan.
27:19 refers to the vessels or utensils of the mishkan, then pegs (pins?) of the mishkan and of the courtyard that all these items were to be made from bronze (copper?). Hertz (1960, p. 336) and Sarna (1991, p. 175) write that in this verse, the term mishkan means the entire compound, but following Rashi (on 27:19) the vessels here are the tools used to set up and dismantle the planks that made the walls of the enclosed area (the mishkan). With this understanding, the tools used to set up and dismantle the poles of the courtyard did not have to be from bronze, as they could have been stones. The extra vessels/ tools for setting up and dismantling the mishkan were from bronze to separate them from the aron, table and the menorah that were necessary items that were made from gold and silver. In addition, there were two sets of pegs, one for the walls of the mishkan and one for the poles in the courtyard. 35:18 and 39:40 will record that there were ropes to attach the pegs to the walls of the mishkan and the poles of the courtyard. Note, the double reference to pegs in 27:19 indicates that the poles of the courtyard are not part of the mishkan.
27:21 records that Aharon was to light the menorah in the ohel moed. This is the first mention of the term ohel moed in the Torah. This verse might suggest that the ohel moed is just the outer room within the enclosed area since this is where the menorah was situated, 26:35, as Rashi seems to write on 25:22. While this is possible, it would mean that in 40:34,35, the cloud of G-d that was in the ohel moed was in a smaller area than the glory of G-d, which filled the mishkan, but I would think that it is more logical that the cloud of G-d was more expansive, which means that the glory of G-d was within the cloud. Also, if the ohel moed is just the outer room of the enclosed area, then the high priest would change his clothes on Yom Kippur in this room, Vayikra 16:23, and that the Levites would be able to work in the room, Bemidbar 8:22. I doubt both of these possibilities.
My guess is that the ohel moed encompassed the entire special complex of the courtyard and the tent/ building which enclosed the special cultic furniture, see Levine, 1993, p. 159. With this definition, the term ohel, tent, in the phrase ohel moed, would be based on the main area in the complex, the tent/ building that encompassed the special cultic furniture. In addition, the term moed, in the phrase ohel moed, refers to areas where G-d would meet with Moshe and the Jewish people. This meeting could be the inner room of the special building, 25:22, Bemidbar 17:19, but it also refers to the courtyard. Shemot 29:43 (also see 29:42) records that G-d would meet the Jewish people there. Where is the “there?” Most likely it is not referring to the being inside the special building since the previous verses are referring to the daily sacrifice that was brought in the courtyard. In addition, the people could not go into the special building, and this suggest that the meeting was to be courtyard, where the people sometimes had access to. Thus, the term, ohel moed refers to any area where this meeting between G-d and Moshe and or the Jewish people could take place with regard to the special building and this would be inside the special building and in the courtyard.
To return to 27:21, the menorah was to be lit in the ohel moed, in the complex, and the verse specifies where in the complex, outside of the parokhet, which from 26:35 means in the outer room of the special building. Note the Torah could not have recorded that the menorah was to be lit in the mishkan since that would mean lighting the menorah literally in the walls. Thus, the Torah never has the phrase be-mishkan, in the mishkan. In addition, the lighting of the menorah was a type of meeting between Aharon and G-d, even though the word meeting is not used in the verse, which makes the term ohel moed appropriate for 27:21. Note, also that the Torah only used the term ohel moed after the entire complex was described in 25:8-27:19.
The two terms mishkan and ohel moed do not appear in chapter 28.
The word mishkan does not appear in chapter 29, but 29:4,11,32,42 use the term petach ohel moed, the opening or entrance of the ohel moed, to indicate where the priests were to be situated during the ceremony to initiate them. If the ohel moed is the entire complex, then this opening would seem to be the entrance from outside of the complex and going into the complex. The beginning of this entrance is also called the gate of the courtyard, 27:16. However due to Bemidbar 3:26 and Bemidbar 4:25, it seems that this opening is going to the courtyard coming from the special building containing the special cultic furniture. This opening or entrance would then be understood as the opening to the courtyard either from outside the complex or from the special building depending on the circumstance, see our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.” (This second possibility is the standard understanding of the term petach ohel moed and would also be the reference to the opening if the ohel moed was just the outer room of the tent/ building.) In both cases, the opening to the ohel moed would be referring to being in the courtyard, but there would be a difference where in the courtyard the priests were supposed to be: Close to the entrance to the complex or close to the special building.
A possible proof that the petach ohel moed is part of the courtyard and not within the special building is that the sockets to the pillars that support the screen between the tent/ building and courtyard are made from bronze and not silver like the sockets of the walls of the enclosed area, 26:19,21,25,37; 38:25-30. The gate of the courtyard was also made from bronze, 27:17, 38:21, which might be to hint, that the petach ohel moed could refer to both entrances. Also, the same fabrics are used for both entrances, and both do not have keruvim on the fabrics, 26:16 and 26:36.
29:10 records a new term, lifnei ohel moed, before the ohel moed. What area is this referring to and how does this term differ from the term petach ohel moed? Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that Bemidbar 8:9,10 implies that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would be very different than the petach ohel moed, which was inside the courtyard, and would have implications for where the shelamim sacrifice was to be killed, Vayikra 3:8,13, but it accords with the idea that the ohel moed refers to the entire complex.
29:44 records that G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed and the altar. The altar is most likely the outer altar in the courtyard since the inner incense altar had not yet been discussed. However, if the ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then when G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed then this should include the outer altar as well since it was situated in the courtyard. Why then is the outer altar specified in the verse? This verse could be seen as support for the idea that the ohel moed was just the building of the special furniture or the outer room of the building. However, then the courtyard area was never to be mekadesh. Instead, while the ohel moed is the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture and the courtyard of the building, it was not inclusive of the altar in the courtyard. The idea would be that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the objects in the area. This would be similar to the idea that the mishkan refers to walls and a ceiling, but not to the items within the walls and ceiling. (Note, 29:44 also did not refer to aron, the table and the menorah since the verse is referring to the ceremony on the eighth day, Vayikra 9, which was with regard to the courtyard.) Or it could be that by specifying the altar even though it is part of the ohel moed, the Torah is trying to teach that the altar has a separate identity from the ohel moed that in theory one could have the altar without having the ohel moed.
In the following chapter, 30:16 refers to silver that was to be used for the ohel moed. Based on 38:25-28, the verse seems to be referring to silver by the sockets(?) that supported the walls of the enclosed area, the wall that separated the inner room in the enclosed area from the outer room, the parokhet, and hooks which might have been used to connect the curtains to the planks of the enclosed area. In this case, since some of the sockets were for the parokhet, which while situated within the enclosed area was not considered one of the elements of the mishkan, then the term used in 30:16 is ohel moed, which again is the more expansive term referring to the entire complex.
30:18 records that the laver, kiyur, and its stand, kano, were to be placed between the ohel moed and the altar. Where? According to Sarna (1991, p. 155) the laver was directly between the outer altar and the tent/ building with the special furniture. According to Chazal (see Rashi on 30:18) the laver was not directly between the outer altar and the building with the special furniture. Instead, it was a little below an imaginary line that would connect the outer altar and the building, though it was still between the two items. The reason for this view is that 40:6,29 seem to imply that the outer altar was directly in front of the opening of the tent/ building. Both of these views understand that the ohel moed was just the building with the special furniture, synonymous with the mishkan. Yet, then the priests when they entered the courtyard, had to walk almost to the middle of the courtyard, pass the outer altar, to wash their hands and feet. Also, 30:20 records that the priests had to wash their hands when coming into the ohel moed, and if one claims that the ohel moed is just the tent/ building with the special furniture or just the outer room of the building, then this verse would not obligate the priests to wash their hands when they just went into the courtyard.
It is more reasonable to understand that the laver was placed at the entrance to the courtyard, and then priests would wash their hands immediately upon entering the courtyard. (This is implied by 29:4 if petach ohel moed can mean to come into the complex from the outside.) 30:18 would then mean that the laver was to be placed in between the opening or the beginning of the courtyard and the outer altar. With this understanding, the term entering the ohel moed in the verse is referring to entering the complex, which would be the courtyard of the building with the special furniture. This understanding also solves the problem of 40:6,29 since if the laver is on the other side of the outer altar, between the altar and the opening to the courtyard, then there would be nothing between the outer altar and the opening of the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture.
30:20 also records that not only were the priests to wash their hands and feet when they entered the ohel moed, but also when they would approach the outer altar. Again, as we discussed on 29:44, if the ohel moed includes the courtyard of the building with the special furniture, then the reference to the altar in 30:20 would seem to be unnecessary. The answer here might be that the washing for the altar would be the law in a case where there was only an altar without any building with special furniture or a courtyard. Or, it could be that the person had to wash twice, once just for entering the courtyard and once if the person approached the outer altar, as working with the sacrifices to offer them on the altar was quite messy.
30:26-28 records that the ohel moed is to be anointed as well as all the special cultic furniture. While one might claim that the term ohel moed here is a general term, and then there is detailed list of items to be anointed, it seems more likely (the vav in ve-et in 30:26) that the anointing of the ohel moed was a separate act from anointing all of the special cultic furniture. This understanding implies that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the items in the area, as we discussed on 29:44.
Based on 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 this anointing of the ohel moed, meant anointing the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan. Why then did 30:26 not use the term mishkan instead of ohel moed? My guess is that because 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 also has the phrase “everything in it,” which would include the parokhet, and the screen to the entrance to the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture. These two items are not mentioned in 30:27,28, and would not be included in a command to anoint the mishkan, but they would be included within a command to anoint the ohel moed. Note, the Torah could have used similar language to 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10, “anoint the mishkan and everything in it,” but then the Torah would not have signaled out the different items as occurs in 30:27.
30:36 refers to placing incense before the testimony, namely the aron with the luchot, in the ohel moed. Again, the ohel moed is the entire special complex, and the word testimony specifies where in the complex the incense was to be placed.
31:7-11 then record, similar to 30:26-28, that the people were to build/ make the ohel moed, all the special cultic furniture, the priestly clothing, the anointing oils and the special incense. Again, we see that the ohel moed does not include the items within the area of the ohel moed. The building here of the ohel moed would seem to refer to the walls and curtains of the tent/ building and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note that if the ohel moed just refers to tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the list is missing the building of the poles and curtains of the courtyard.
The next mention of either the term mishkan or ohel moed is that 33:7 records that after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe moved his tent from the camp, and this tent was called ohel moed. It is not clear who called this tent, the ohel moed, as only Moshe had heard the term from G-d. In any event, this ohel moed was different than the ohel moed previously discussed since this was a private tent where only Moshe would speak to G-d and had no known cultic furniture.
After the incident of the golden calf ends, chapters 35-40 record the actual building of the special tent/ building, the special cultic furniture and the priestly clothing.
29:10 records a new term, lifnei ohel moed, before the ohel moed. What area is this referring to and how does this term differ from the term petach ohel moed? Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that Bemidbar 8:9,10 implies that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would be very different than the petach ohel moed, which was inside the courtyard, and would have implications for where the shelamim sacrifice was to be killed, Vayikra 3:8,13, but it accords with the idea that the ohel moed refers to the entire complex.
29:44 records that G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed and the altar. The altar is most likely the outer altar in the courtyard since the inner incense altar had not yet been discussed. However, if the ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then when G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed then this should include the outer altar as well since it was situated in the courtyard. Why then is the outer altar specified in the verse? This verse could be seen as support for the idea that the ohel moed was just the building of the special furniture or the outer room of the building. However, then the courtyard area was never to be mekadesh. Instead, while the ohel moed is the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture and the courtyard of the building, it was not inclusive of the altar in the courtyard. The idea would be that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the objects in the area. This would be similar to the idea that the mishkan refers to walls and a ceiling, but not to the items within the walls and ceiling. (Note, 29:44 also did not refer to aron, the table and the menorah since the verse is referring to the ceremony on the eighth day, Vayikra 9, which was with regard to the courtyard.) Or it could be that by specifying the altar even though it is part of the ohel moed, the Torah is trying to teach that the altar has a separate identity from the ohel moed that in theory one could have the altar without having the ohel moed.
In the following chapter, 30:16 refers to silver that was to be used for the ohel moed. Based on 38:25-28, the verse seems to be referring to silver by the sockets(?) that supported the walls of the enclosed area, the wall that separated the inner room in the enclosed area from the outer room, the parokhet, and hooks which might have been used to connect the curtains to the planks of the enclosed area. In this case, since some of the sockets were for the parokhet, which while situated within the enclosed area was not considered one of the elements of the mishkan, then the term used in 30:16 is ohel moed, which again is the more expansive term referring to the entire complex.
30:18 records that the laver, kiyur, and its stand, kano, were to be placed between the ohel moed and the altar. Where? According to Sarna (1991, p. 155) the laver was directly between the outer altar and the tent/ building with the special furniture. According to Chazal (see Rashi on 30:18) the laver was not directly between the outer altar and the building with the special furniture. Instead, it was a little below an imaginary line that would connect the outer altar and the building, though it was still between the two items. The reason for this view is that 40:6,29 seem to imply that the outer altar was directly in front of the opening of the tent/ building. Both of these views understand that the ohel moed was just the building with the special furniture, synonymous with the mishkan. Yet, then the priests when they entered the courtyard, had to walk almost to the middle of the courtyard, pass the outer altar, to wash their hands and feet. Also, 30:20 records that the priests had to wash their hands when coming into the ohel moed, and if one claims that the ohel moed is just the tent/ building with the special furniture or just the outer room of the building, then this verse would not obligate the priests to wash their hands when they just went into the courtyard.
It is more reasonable to understand that the laver was placed at the entrance to the courtyard, and then priests would wash their hands immediately upon entering the courtyard. (This is implied by 29:4 if petach ohel moed can mean to come into the complex from the outside.) 30:18 would then mean that the laver was to be placed in between the opening or the beginning of the courtyard and the outer altar. With this understanding, the term entering the ohel moed in the verse is referring to entering the complex, which would be the courtyard of the building with the special furniture. This understanding also solves the problem of 40:6,29 since if the laver is on the other side of the outer altar, between the altar and the opening to the courtyard, then there would be nothing between the outer altar and the opening of the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture.
30:20 also records that not only were the priests to wash their hands and feet when they entered the ohel moed, but also when they would approach the outer altar. Again, as we discussed on 29:44, if the ohel moed includes the courtyard of the building with the special furniture, then the reference to the altar in 30:20 would seem to be unnecessary. The answer here might be that the washing for the altar would be the law in a case where there was only an altar without any building with special furniture or a courtyard. Or, it could be that the person had to wash twice, once just for entering the courtyard and once if the person approached the outer altar, as working with the sacrifices to offer them on the altar was quite messy.
30:26-28 records that the ohel moed is to be anointed as well as all the special cultic furniture. While one might claim that the term ohel moed here is a general term, and then there is detailed list of items to be anointed, it seems more likely (the vav in ve-et in 30:26) that the anointing of the ohel moed was a separate act from anointing all of the special cultic furniture. This understanding implies that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the items in the area, as we discussed on 29:44.
Based on 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 this anointing of the ohel moed, meant anointing the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan. Why then did 30:26 not use the term mishkan instead of ohel moed? My guess is that because 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 also has the phrase “everything in it,” which would include the parokhet, and the screen to the entrance to the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture. These two items are not mentioned in 30:27,28, and would not be included in a command to anoint the mishkan, but they would be included within a command to anoint the ohel moed. Note, the Torah could have used similar language to 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10, “anoint the mishkan and everything in it,” but then the Torah would not have signaled out the different items as occurs in 30:27.
30:36 refers to placing incense before the testimony, namely the aron with the luchot, in the ohel moed. Again, the ohel moed is the entire special complex, and the word testimony specifies where in the complex the incense was to be placed.
31:7-11 then record, similar to 30:26-28, that the people were to build/ make the ohel moed, all the special cultic furniture, the priestly clothing, the anointing oils and the special incense. Again, we see that the ohel moed does not include the items within the area of the ohel moed. The building here of the ohel moed would seem to refer to the walls and curtains of the tent/ building and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note that if the ohel moed just refers to tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the list is missing the building of the poles and curtains of the courtyard.
The next mention of either the term mishkan or ohel moed is that 33:7 records that after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe moved his tent from the camp, and this tent was called ohel moed. It is not clear who called this tent, the ohel moed, as only Moshe had heard the term from G-d. In any event, this ohel moed was different than the ohel moed previously discussed since this was a private tent where only Moshe would speak to G-d and had no known cultic furniture.
After the incident of the golden calf ends, chapters 35-40 record the actual building of the special tent/ building, the special cultic furniture and the priestly clothing.
35:11-19 records a list of the items that were to be made. The list does not start with the term ohel moed since apparently the Torah wants to specify the various items. Instead, the list begins, 35:11, by referring to the mishkan, to its ohel, the cover (s?) to the ohel, its claps, its boards, its bars, its pillars and its sockets. The term mishkan here again means the walls of the tent, and the first covering of the enclosed area, and in 35:11, the Torah specifies all the items that were part of building the wall and the covering. Note, the term ohel in 35:11 means the second covering made of the goat’s hair that as mentioned above on 26:7 was considered a tent to the enclosed area. The list of items in 35:11 does not mention the first cover, but this is included in the term mishkan at the beginning of the verse. I presume that a person who understands that the mishkan refers to the tent/ building and special cultic furniture in the tent/ building, must understand the term mishkan in 35:11 to be a general term, and then the Torah lists the details. Yet, why then does 35:11 use the pronoun its by six items that the Torah is connecting to the mishkan, and then in the ensuing verses, the items mentioned are not connected to the mishkan? This difference implies that the items mentioned in the ensuing verses are not part of the mishkan since the mishkan is only the walls and the first cover of the enclosed area.
Afterwards, 35:15 refers to making the opening of the mishkan, and this is the opening to the enclosed area which houses the special cultic furniture. Note, this opening might be identical to the opening to the ohel moed, as we discussed on 29:4,11,32,42, but the terms could refer to a person moving in different direction, as the opening to the mishkan would refer to a person going into the enclosed area from the courtyard, while the opening to the ohel moed could refer to a person going from the enclosed area into the courtyard. Also, the opening to the ohel moed could also refer to the entrance from outside of the complex into the courtyard, but the opening to the mishkan would not be referring to that entrance.
35:17 records that pillars and curtains of the courtyard were to be built and they are mentioned separately from the items to build the mishkan since the courtyard is not included in the term mishkan.
35:18 refers to the pegs of the mishkan, and the pegs of the courtyard, like in 27:19, and also to ropes. Again, we see that the mishkan does not include the courtyard.
35:21 then refers to the people bringing the materials to build the ohel moed. Here, the term ohel moed is a general term for the walls of the enclosed area and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note, again that if the term ohel moed only means the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the Torah does not record that the people brought materials to build the courtyard. Also, note that the word avodato in 35:21 is probably referring to materials to make all the cultic furniture, the oils and spices.
In the following chapter, 36:8,20,25,27,28,31,32 all record the word mishkan and refer to the making of the first level of curtains of the enclosed area and the walls of the enclosed area. Note, 36:14,18, refer to the second covering, of the goat’s hair, and again this was not part of the mishkan but was a tent, ohel, over the mishkan. 36:19 then refers to the cover or covers to the second covering.
Towards the end of chapter 36, 36:37 refers to the screen for the opening to the ohel, tent, and this is similar to 26:36, and again the question is the word ohel in the verses referring to the second cover of the enclosed area or is it a shortened term for the ohel moed? With either possibility, in this case the reference would seem to be the same screen referred to as the entrance to the mishkan in 35:15.
The terms ohel moed and mishkan do not appear in chapter 37, but do appear in the last three chapters of the book of Shemot.
Afterwards, 35:15 refers to making the opening of the mishkan, and this is the opening to the enclosed area which houses the special cultic furniture. Note, this opening might be identical to the opening to the ohel moed, as we discussed on 29:4,11,32,42, but the terms could refer to a person moving in different direction, as the opening to the mishkan would refer to a person going into the enclosed area from the courtyard, while the opening to the ohel moed could refer to a person going from the enclosed area into the courtyard. Also, the opening to the ohel moed could also refer to the entrance from outside of the complex into the courtyard, but the opening to the mishkan would not be referring to that entrance.
35:17 records that pillars and curtains of the courtyard were to be built and they are mentioned separately from the items to build the mishkan since the courtyard is not included in the term mishkan.
35:18 refers to the pegs of the mishkan, and the pegs of the courtyard, like in 27:19, and also to ropes. Again, we see that the mishkan does not include the courtyard.
35:21 then refers to the people bringing the materials to build the ohel moed. Here, the term ohel moed is a general term for the walls of the enclosed area and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note, again that if the term ohel moed only means the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the Torah does not record that the people brought materials to build the courtyard. Also, note that the word avodato in 35:21 is probably referring to materials to make all the cultic furniture, the oils and spices.
In the following chapter, 36:8,20,25,27,28,31,32 all record the word mishkan and refer to the making of the first level of curtains of the enclosed area and the walls of the enclosed area. Note, 36:14,18, refer to the second covering, of the goat’s hair, and again this was not part of the mishkan but was a tent, ohel, over the mishkan. 36:19 then refers to the cover or covers to the second covering.
Towards the end of chapter 36, 36:37 refers to the screen for the opening to the ohel, tent, and this is similar to 26:36, and again the question is the word ohel in the verses referring to the second cover of the enclosed area or is it a shortened term for the ohel moed? With either possibility, in this case the reference would seem to be the same screen referred to as the entrance to the mishkan in 35:15.
The terms ohel moed and mishkan do not appear in chapter 37, but do appear in the last three chapters of the book of Shemot.
38:8 refers to the entrance, petach, to the ohel moed since the verse is referring to the laver that was in the courtyard, and the question as what area is being referred to is identical to what we discussed on 30:18. Note, in this verse, the entrance to the ohel moed seems to refer to the entrance from outside of the complex into the courtyard since 38:8 records that many women gathered by the entrance to the ohel moed, and it is hard to imagine that many people, women or men, could be standing around the entrance to the tent/ building with the special furniture.
38:20 refers to the pegs of both the mishkan and the courtyard, again showing that these are different areas, see our discussions on 35:18 and 27:19.
38:21, the first verse in parashat Pekudei, records the word mishkan twice. I believe that most people (see comments of Ibn Ezra on 38:21) understand that this verse is an introduction to the verses 38:24-31, and then the words mishkan in 38:21 could refer to the entire complex. However, really, 38:21 as well as 38:22,23 refers to the previous section from 36:8-38:20, which record the work of the people constructing the walls, covers and furniture of the special building and its courtyard. The word pekudei in 38:21 is usually translated as an account of the items in the mishkan, but it means here the people in charge of the building of mishkan, which 38:21 informs us was Moshe and his nephew Itamar. Moshe and Itamar were in charge of the building of the walls and the ceiling of the special building which is the mishkan. They might also have been in charge of the curtains and poles of the courtyard since Itamar was to be in charge of these items when the people travelled in the desert, Bemidbar 4:28,33. The following verse, 38:22, then delineate that Betzalel was in charge of making the special cultic furniture that G-d commanded Moshe to make, and 38:23 records that Oholiav was in charge of making the fabrics used to make the curtains (and also the priestly clothing?) that were needed for the special building.
The word mishkan appears a second time in 38:21 that the Torah explains that this tent/ mishkan was a structure that was to contain, the witnesses to the covenant, namely the tablets, see 40:21.
Bibliography:
Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.
Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday
Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus 1-16: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
38:20 refers to the pegs of both the mishkan and the courtyard, again showing that these are different areas, see our discussions on 35:18 and 27:19.
38:21, the first verse in parashat Pekudei, records the word mishkan twice. I believe that most people (see comments of Ibn Ezra on 38:21) understand that this verse is an introduction to the verses 38:24-31, and then the words mishkan in 38:21 could refer to the entire complex. However, really, 38:21 as well as 38:22,23 refers to the previous section from 36:8-38:20, which record the work of the people constructing the walls, covers and furniture of the special building and its courtyard. The word pekudei in 38:21 is usually translated as an account of the items in the mishkan, but it means here the people in charge of the building of mishkan, which 38:21 informs us was Moshe and his nephew Itamar. Moshe and Itamar were in charge of the building of the walls and the ceiling of the special building which is the mishkan. They might also have been in charge of the curtains and poles of the courtyard since Itamar was to be in charge of these items when the people travelled in the desert, Bemidbar 4:28,33. The following verse, 38:22, then delineate that Betzalel was in charge of making the special cultic furniture that G-d commanded Moshe to make, and 38:23 records that Oholiav was in charge of making the fabrics used to make the curtains (and also the priestly clothing?) that were needed for the special building.
The word mishkan appears a second time in 38:21 that the Torah explains that this tent/ mishkan was a structure that was to contain, the witnesses to the covenant, namely the tablets, see 40:21.
The Torah then lists quantities of metals that were used in constructing the special building and within the list of items made from bronze, 38:30 refers to the opening to the ohel moed. Based on 38:31, the following verse, this opening seems to be referring to the opening to the courtyard from the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture, like in Bemidbar 2:25 and 4:25, see our discussion above on 29:4,11,32,42.
38:31 again refers to the pegs of the mishkan and of the courtyard separately, like in 27:19, 35:18, which again implies that the mishkan does not include the courtyard.
Towards the end of chapter 39, 39:33-41 record that the people brought the mishkan, and then a list of all the individual items to Moshe. This list is almost identical to the list in 35:11-19, which means that the units serve as a bookend to the actual construction of the special complex. One difference between the two lists is that 39:38 refers to the screen of the entrance to the ohel, while 35:15 refers to the screen to the entrance of the mishkan. As we discussed on 36:26, these are the same screens.
39:33, which refers to the mishkan, means that the people brought the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture. Also, the reference to the ohel in 39:33 is again to the second covering of goat’s hair. For more on the implications of the word mishkan and the various items relating to the mishkan in 39:33, see our discussion above on 35:11.
39:40 records that the people bought the items needed to construct the courtyard, the pegs and ropes of the courtyard, and “all the vessels for the work in the mishkan to the ohel moed.” The vessels for the work in the mishkan are again the tools that are to be used in the setting up and dismantling of the mishkan like in 27:19. The reference to pegs and ropes is also similar to 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31, but there are some differences. One, 39:40 does not refer to the pegs and ropes of the mishkan, while the other verses do, though maybe they can be subsumed under the phrase “the vessels for the work in the mishkan.” Two, 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31 do not have the phrase “to the ohel moed.” Does this phrase in 39:40 mean the mishkan which is situated in the ohel moed? Or, can it mean that the people brought tools for the ohel moed, which could refer to tools for setting up and dismantling the courtyard, something which had not been commanded in 27:19. Or, maybe the term to or for the ohel moed is a conclusion to all the items mentioned from 39:23-40 since the ohel moed signifies the entire complex.
In the beginning of the last chapter of the book of Shemot, 40:2 states that G-d told Moshe to set up the mishkan ohel moed. This means that Moshe was to set up the walls and the covering of the enclosed area which was situated in or a part of the ohel moed.
40:5, like in 35:15, refers to the entrance to the mishkan, which is the entrance to the enclosed area, due to the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan, from the courtyard.
40:6 refers to placing the outer altar in reference to the entrance of the mishkan (mentioned in 40:5) and the ohel moed. This means that the outer altar was to be placed before the entrance to the mishkan, which means in the courtyard and the courtyard area was part of the ohel moed, see our discussion above on 30:18. Thus, the outer altar was to be situated before the entrance to the mishkan and in the ohel moed.
40:7 refers to the laver being between the ohel moed and the outer altar, and as we discussed on 30:18, it could mean that the laver should be in between the entrance of the courtyard, coming from the outside, and the outer altar, which was in the courtyard.
40:9 records that Moshe was to anoint the mishkan, the walls and the ceiling of the enclosed area, everything in it, and all of the items that were part of building the walls and the ceiling, see the list of items in 39:33. The phrase “everything in it” refers to all the special cultic furniture, enclosed by the walls and ceiling of the mishkan. These items were not components of the mishkan but of the mikdash, and hence their anointing was not covered by the first phrase in the verse “to anoint the mishkan.”
40:12 records that Aharon and his sons were to be washed by the entrance of the ohel moed, which was in the courtyard, see our discussion above on 29:4,11,32,42.
40:16-18 record that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions and put up the mishkan, namely, the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area, which would contain the special cultic furniture. 40:19 records that Moshe put on the second, third (and fourth?) coverings of the enclosed area, and these coverings are on the mishkan but are not elements in the mishkan.
40:21 then records that Moshe brought the aron to the mishkan, which means that Moshe placed the aron within the enclosed area of the walls and covering that constituted the mishkan. This verse differs from the ensuing verses that refer to the special building as the ohel moed, which might imply that the term ohel moed excludes the inner room of the mishkan, but this doubtful, see our discussion on 27:21. More likely, the Torah could not have used the words ohel moed in 40:21since the previous verses, 40:17-19 had just recorded that Moshe had built the walls and placed the cover on the walls, namely he had built the mishkan. Thus, the ohel moed as a distinct entity from the mishkan did not yet exist. Only after Moshe added other structural elements to the special building, could the Torah use the term ohel moed when describing the actual construction of the special building. Thus, after 40:21 records that Moshe placed the parokhet in the area enclosed by the walls and covered by the ceiling that constituted the mishkan could the Torah refer to the ohel moed, which it does in the following verse. Note this initial stage of the mishkan existing with the aron before the ohel moed existed as a separate entity might explain why 38:21 refers to the mishkan as a testimony since there was a moment where the mishkan contained the aron without the entire ohel moed complex.
38:31 again refers to the pegs of the mishkan and of the courtyard separately, like in 27:19, 35:18, which again implies that the mishkan does not include the courtyard.
Towards the end of chapter 39, 39:33-41 record that the people brought the mishkan, and then a list of all the individual items to Moshe. This list is almost identical to the list in 35:11-19, which means that the units serve as a bookend to the actual construction of the special complex. One difference between the two lists is that 39:38 refers to the screen of the entrance to the ohel, while 35:15 refers to the screen to the entrance of the mishkan. As we discussed on 36:26, these are the same screens.
39:33, which refers to the mishkan, means that the people brought the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture. Also, the reference to the ohel in 39:33 is again to the second covering of goat’s hair. For more on the implications of the word mishkan and the various items relating to the mishkan in 39:33, see our discussion above on 35:11.
39:40 records that the people bought the items needed to construct the courtyard, the pegs and ropes of the courtyard, and “all the vessels for the work in the mishkan to the ohel moed.” The vessels for the work in the mishkan are again the tools that are to be used in the setting up and dismantling of the mishkan like in 27:19. The reference to pegs and ropes is also similar to 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31, but there are some differences. One, 39:40 does not refer to the pegs and ropes of the mishkan, while the other verses do, though maybe they can be subsumed under the phrase “the vessels for the work in the mishkan.” Two, 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31 do not have the phrase “to the ohel moed.” Does this phrase in 39:40 mean the mishkan which is situated in the ohel moed? Or, can it mean that the people brought tools for the ohel moed, which could refer to tools for setting up and dismantling the courtyard, something which had not been commanded in 27:19. Or, maybe the term to or for the ohel moed is a conclusion to all the items mentioned from 39:23-40 since the ohel moed signifies the entire complex.
In the beginning of the last chapter of the book of Shemot, 40:2 states that G-d told Moshe to set up the mishkan ohel moed. This means that Moshe was to set up the walls and the covering of the enclosed area which was situated in or a part of the ohel moed.
40:5, like in 35:15, refers to the entrance to the mishkan, which is the entrance to the enclosed area, due to the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan, from the courtyard.
40:6 refers to placing the outer altar in reference to the entrance of the mishkan (mentioned in 40:5) and the ohel moed. This means that the outer altar was to be placed before the entrance to the mishkan, which means in the courtyard and the courtyard area was part of the ohel moed, see our discussion above on 30:18. Thus, the outer altar was to be situated before the entrance to the mishkan and in the ohel moed.
40:7 refers to the laver being between the ohel moed and the outer altar, and as we discussed on 30:18, it could mean that the laver should be in between the entrance of the courtyard, coming from the outside, and the outer altar, which was in the courtyard.
40:9 records that Moshe was to anoint the mishkan, the walls and the ceiling of the enclosed area, everything in it, and all of the items that were part of building the walls and the ceiling, see the list of items in 39:33. The phrase “everything in it” refers to all the special cultic furniture, enclosed by the walls and ceiling of the mishkan. These items were not components of the mishkan but of the mikdash, and hence their anointing was not covered by the first phrase in the verse “to anoint the mishkan.”
40:12 records that Aharon and his sons were to be washed by the entrance of the ohel moed, which was in the courtyard, see our discussion above on 29:4,11,32,42.
40:16-18 record that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions and put up the mishkan, namely, the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area, which would contain the special cultic furniture. 40:19 records that Moshe put on the second, third (and fourth?) coverings of the enclosed area, and these coverings are on the mishkan but are not elements in the mishkan.
40:21 then records that Moshe brought the aron to the mishkan, which means that Moshe placed the aron within the enclosed area of the walls and covering that constituted the mishkan. This verse differs from the ensuing verses that refer to the special building as the ohel moed, which might imply that the term ohel moed excludes the inner room of the mishkan, but this doubtful, see our discussion on 27:21. More likely, the Torah could not have used the words ohel moed in 40:21since the previous verses, 40:17-19 had just recorded that Moshe had built the walls and placed the cover on the walls, namely he had built the mishkan. Thus, the ohel moed as a distinct entity from the mishkan did not yet exist. Only after Moshe added other structural elements to the special building, could the Torah use the term ohel moed when describing the actual construction of the special building. Thus, after 40:21 records that Moshe placed the parokhet in the area enclosed by the walls and covered by the ceiling that constituted the mishkan could the Torah refer to the ohel moed, which it does in the following verse. Note this initial stage of the mishkan existing with the aron before the ohel moed existed as a separate entity might explain why 38:21 refers to the mishkan as a testimony since there was a moment where the mishkan contained the aron without the entire ohel moed complex.
40:22,24 then record that the table and the menorah were put into the ohel moed and on the north and south sides of the mishkan. This placement is mentioned in 26:33-35. Again, the term ohel moed encompasses the entire special complex, and the mention of the north and south sides of the mishkan, namely, the walls of tent/ building, is where in the complex, the table and the menorah were to be placed.
40:26 then records that Moshe put the incense altar in the ohel moed, and this follows the language in 40:20,22 by the table and the menorah, the other two items in the outer room of the mishkan. In the case of the incense altar, as opposed to the table and menorah, it was not placed next to the walls that constituted the mishkan so the mishkan is not referred to in this verse. Instead, the Torah explains that its location in the ohel moed was before the parokhet.
40:28 then records that Moshe put up the screen of the entrance to the mishkan, to the enclosed area of the special furniture, which he had just put up in the previous verses. This verse is the fulfillment on 40:5, see our brief discussion on 40:5.
40:29 records that Moshe placed the outer altar, petach mishkan ohel moed, and the meaning of this double phrase is explained in our discussion on 40:6. 40:29 is the fulfillment of the command to Moshe in 40:6. Similarly, 40:30 is the fulfillment of 40:7, and see also our discussion on 30:18. Also, 40:32, which refers to a person coming to the ohel moed, can be understand based on our discussion on 30:18 and 30:20.
40:33 records that Moshe created a courtyard around the mishkan (and the outer altar), which means that Moshe put up the poles and curtains of the courtyard, 27:9-18. This created the courtyard around the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan.
40:34 records that the cloud of G-d covered the ohel moed and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan. These were two different though related actions. The cloud of G-d covered the entire complex, the tent/ building which contained the special cultic furniture and the courtyard around the tent/ building while the glory of G-d, which was within the cloud, was in the mishkan meaning between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.
40:35 records that Moshe could not enter the ohel moed, the entire complex due to the cloud of G-d that within entire complex, and also because the glory of G-d was between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.
40:36-38, the last verses in the book of Shemot, are in reference to a period after the construction of the special complex, that the cloud of G-d would contract to just be over the mishkan, namely just over the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture.
This discussion only refers to the book of Shemot, and there is a need to examine the terms ohel moed and the mishkan in the remainder of the Torah see our discussions on Vayikra 1:1 "The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra" and on Bemidbar 1:1, "The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim."
40:26 then records that Moshe put the incense altar in the ohel moed, and this follows the language in 40:20,22 by the table and the menorah, the other two items in the outer room of the mishkan. In the case of the incense altar, as opposed to the table and menorah, it was not placed next to the walls that constituted the mishkan so the mishkan is not referred to in this verse. Instead, the Torah explains that its location in the ohel moed was before the parokhet.
40:28 then records that Moshe put up the screen of the entrance to the mishkan, to the enclosed area of the special furniture, which he had just put up in the previous verses. This verse is the fulfillment on 40:5, see our brief discussion on 40:5.
40:29 records that Moshe placed the outer altar, petach mishkan ohel moed, and the meaning of this double phrase is explained in our discussion on 40:6. 40:29 is the fulfillment of the command to Moshe in 40:6. Similarly, 40:30 is the fulfillment of 40:7, and see also our discussion on 30:18. Also, 40:32, which refers to a person coming to the ohel moed, can be understand based on our discussion on 30:18 and 30:20.
40:33 records that Moshe created a courtyard around the mishkan (and the outer altar), which means that Moshe put up the poles and curtains of the courtyard, 27:9-18. This created the courtyard around the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan.
40:34 records that the cloud of G-d covered the ohel moed and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan. These were two different though related actions. The cloud of G-d covered the entire complex, the tent/ building which contained the special cultic furniture and the courtyard around the tent/ building while the glory of G-d, which was within the cloud, was in the mishkan meaning between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.
40:35 records that Moshe could not enter the ohel moed, the entire complex due to the cloud of G-d that within entire complex, and also because the glory of G-d was between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.
40:36-38, the last verses in the book of Shemot, are in reference to a period after the construction of the special complex, that the cloud of G-d would contract to just be over the mishkan, namely just over the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture.
This discussion only refers to the book of Shemot, and there is a need to examine the terms ohel moed and the mishkan in the remainder of the Torah see our discussions on Vayikra 1:1 "The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra" and on Bemidbar 1:1, "The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim."
Bibliography:
Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.
Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday
Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus 1-16: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
No comments:
Post a Comment