Introduction to four kinot relating to the massacre of the Jews in Germany by the Crusaders

On Tisha B'av there are four kinot which re-call the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz (all in Germany along the Rhine River) by the Crusaders in 1096. These kinot are Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim, Amarti sheu meni and Evel aorer. The kinot also describe how the Jews refused to become Christians and instead killed themselves, and even their children.

On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, the Pope Urban II made an appeal that Christians in the West should go help the Christians in the East and this led to a series of Crusades by people in Western Europe to capture land in the Middle East and specifically the land of Israel. One group of at least 15,000 people from apparently Northern France responded to the Pope’s call, and started to walk to the land of Israel in the spring of 1096. However, these people were not willing to wait to fight until they got to the land of Israel, but they started to attack Jewish communities almost from the get go. Sperber (1990, p. 109) writes that it seems that the first Jewish community that they attacked was in Rouen in northwest France. Afterwards, they travelled eastwards towards Germany, and they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer on May 9, 1096 (8th of Iyar). Note, the kinah Mi yeten roshi mayim gives the dates for the attacks on the Jews of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. Also, note that since the Crusader mob travelled eastwards from France to Germany, north of Paris, they did not encounter the Jewish communities south of Paris where Rashi lived, and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 431) writes that this enabled the Torah shebe’al peh to continue since there was no destruction of Torah scholarship in France in 1096.

From Speyer, the Crusader mob went north along the Rhine to kill the Jews in Worms (around 50 kilometers north of Speyer) on the 23rd of Iyar and Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 24 and May 31, 1096) and then they continued north again to Mainz (another 50 kilometers north of Worms) to kill the Jews in Mainz on the third of Sivan (June 2, 1096). Afterwards they continued marching northwards, 165 kilometers, to the city of Cologne and they killed the Jews there on Shavuot (June 5, 1096). This last pogrom is not mentioned in the kinot, but is mentioned by Sperber (1990, p. 108). The fact that Crusaders marched northwards, which was out of their way since they were supposed to be walking east or south to go to the land of Israel, shows their cruelty as they were just going to kill the Jews. According to one estimate, during these two months of May and June 1096 in Germany, “as many as 8,000 Jews were massacred or took their own lives,” (Haag, 2014, p. 106).

Most of the mob who attacked the Jewish communities died on their march to the land of Israel, but some joined with a Crusader force, which was led by various knights, and they conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 (17th of Tammuz). This led to more massacres of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and the burning of synagogues where Jews were hiding. These massacres are not mentioned in the kinot, but the entire period of the Crusaders was a terrible period for the Jewish people.

One oddity about the four kinot relating to the destruction of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Mainz and Worms is that they are not grouped together. Instead, in between the four kinot, there are kinot about the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash and the second Bet ha-Mikdash. I have never understood this disorder. People have suggested to me that this apparent disorder is to show that all the tragedies are related. I doubt this and think there could be some historical reasons, but I do not know of any particular reason.

Bibliography:

Haag, Michael, 2014, The tragedy of the Templars: The rise and fall of the Crusader States, London: Profile Books.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Devarim 1:37, 3:26 and 4:21 – Why was Moshe unable to go to the land of Israel?

Devarim 1:37 records within Moshe’s recollection of the sin of the spies and between two verses that state that Calev and Yehoshua would be able to go to the land of Israel, that Moshe told the people that G-d was angry at him because of them and this is why he was unable to go into the land of Israel. The inability of Moshe to go to the land of Israel is quite tragic for Moshe since this was the goal of his mission starting from the third chapter of the book of Shemot.

Yet, 1:37 is difficult to understand since the verse implies that the reason that Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel was due to the sin of the people by the spies since the context of the verse, if not the verse itself, was Moshe’s recollection of the people’s sin by the spies (Bemidbar 13,14). However, how did Moshe sin in that incident? Also, Bemidbar 20:12 (and see also Bemidbar 27:14) records that Moshe was punished that he could not go to the land of Israel for his actions when the people requested water by Mei Merivah (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:6-13, “Moshe’s sin?”), and not due to the sin of the people by the spies.

Subsequently, 3:26 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry (depending on how one explains the word va-yitaber) at him on their account and therefore G-d would not listen to his prayers to go to the land of Israel. This verse does not seem to be related to the sin of the spies or to the incident at Mei Merivah. Why should G-d be angry at Moshe due to the people?

Afterwards, 4:21 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry with him, but this time it was due to the words of the people, and hence he could not go to the land of Israel. This verse is unrelated to the sin of the spies or Mei Merivah. Instead, the verse relates Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel to the words of the people, what words?

From all three verses, we see that in Moshe’s speeches to the people in Devarim, Moshe was ignoring the incident of Mei Merivah.

There are several answers as to why the books of Bemidbar and Devarim seem to give different reasons for why Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel.

One possible answer is that had the people not sinned by the spies, Moshe would have gone to the land of Israel, and the events recorded in Bemidbar 20 concerning Mei Merivah would not have happened. Thus, maybe one could argue that the ultimate reason why Moshe was not able to go to the land of Israel was the sin of the spies. Yet, still it was not the people’s fault that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah, even if the people had sinned by the spies.

A second answer (see Y. Leibowitz, 1990, pp. 146-149) is that really Moshe was punished that he could not go into the land of Israel due to the sins of the people. This answer ignores the events in Bemidbar 20, unless one claims that Moshe’s actions there show that he was unable to lead the next generation and hence he had to suffer the punishment of the previous generation. Yet, Moshe seemed to have been a very effective leader of the people in several events after Mei Merivah, as for example in the battles with Sihon and Og, and the incident with the snakes, Bemidbar 21:4-9, 21-35. In addition, Bemidbar 20:27 and Bemidbar 27:14 indicate that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah and his actions were not just a case of poor leadership.

A third idea (see Rashi on 3:26) is that in Devarim, Moshe was saying, admittedly not so explicitly, that he had sinned in Bemidbar 20 due to the people. It was not just that the people demanded water, but maybe Moshe and Aharon's sin by Mei Merivah was their re-action to the people's complaint for water that Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were trying to get water for the people, instead of telling the people to rely on the mahn (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:2-5, 21:5, “Water in the desert”). Maybe in Devarim, Moshe was saying that G-d was angry with him for going to the ohel moed in Bemidbar 20:6 and for giving the impression that he was going to plead with G-d on behalf of the people. Devarim 3:26 would then mean that G-d was angry when I (Moshe) tried to help you (the people get water) that Moshe spoke to G-d for the people’s sake. Or, following this approach, maybe Moshe was saying that he hit the rock instead of waiting for the water to come out since the people were pressuring him to get the water from the rock. This approach negates any connection between Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel and the sin of the spies.

A fourth possibility is that really the sin of Moshe that determined that he would not be able to go to the land of Israel was when he doubted G-d’s ability to provide the people meat in Bemidbar 11:21-23. In our discussion on Bemidbar 11:10-29, “Moshe’s reaction to the people clamoring for meat,” we suggested that Moshe was not punished for this doubt since G-d had mercy on him since he was depressed at that time. A different reason could be that at that time, the people were just about to go into the land of Israel, and hence Moshe could not have been replaced then. This immunity ended when the people sinned by the spies, and in the aftermath of the sin of spies, the Torah never states that Moshe was to be able to go the land of Israel. Thus, according to this possibility, it was the sin of the spies that caused Moshe not to be able to enter the land of Israel. How then do the events at Mei Merivah relate to Moshe not being able to go to the land of Israel? While it seems that Moshe sinned in that incident, it hard to understand how this sin was so severe that he should be punished that he could not go to the land of Israel.  Accordingly, maybe one can understand that Moshe’s “major” sin was by Bemidbar 11:21-23, but once Moshe was not punished for this, then a “new” sin had to happen even it was not that severe. This new sin was either that he hit the rock or hit it twice or relayed the complaints of the people to G-d, but the sin was sufficient to allow the punishment of his actions in Bemidbar 11:21,22 to re-surface.

If this approach is correct, then in 1:37, Moshe stated that G-d was angry with him due to the sin of the spies since due to that sin, his immunity was removed, and G-d could then “display” his anger even due a minor sin. Afterwards, in 3:24, Moshe stated how he recognizes G-d’s great powers, and this was to rectify his sin from Bemidbar 11:21,22, but this was not sufficient as Moshe stated in 3:26. Finally in 4:21, Moshe refers to the sin of the people by their speaking and maybe this refers to their sin of stating that they wanted to appoint a person to take them back to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:4.

With this approach we can understand why Moshe told the people three times in Devarim that he was being punished because of them. He was being punished since they had sinned by not going into the land of Israel, and he did not want them to repeat this sin.

A fifth (and I think the best) way to understand why Moshe could not go to the land of Israel is that there are two separate issues in Bemidbar and Devarim. Bemidbar 20:12 states that because Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah he was unable to take the people into the land of Israel, which means that he was no longer going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel.  Similarly, Bemidbar 27:12-14 recalls the sin at Mei Merivah, and then Bemidbar 27:15-17 records Moshe’s request for G-d to appoint a new leader since the sin by Mei Merivah meant that he was not going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel.

On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe was not attempting to rescind G-d’s decision that he would not lead the people into the land of Israel, but he was asking G-d to be able to go into the land of Israel as a private citizen. This is clearly stated in 3:21-25. In 3:21, Moshe recalled that he had appointed Yehoshua to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel, and then 3:25 records that Moshe asked just to be able to walk through the land. Note the Talmud, Sotah 14a, records that Rav Simlai states that Moshe did not want to enter the land of Israel to eat its fruits, but to fulfill the commandments that are related to the land of Israel. However, the simple reading of 3:25 is that Moshe just wanted to walk and see the land that he been striving to get to for forty years.

Moshe’s request to just walk through the land of Israel did not contradict G-d’s decree in Bemidbar 20:12 since he was not asking to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel. Accordingly, in Devarim 1:46, 3:21-26 and 4:21, Moshe was referring to his desire to go to the land of Israel, but not to be the leader of the people.  Maybe Moshe thought he deserved his punishment not to continue being the leader of the people or maybe he had no desire to continue being the leader of the people.

With regard to 1:37, while the broader context of the verse is the recollection of the sin of the spies, the verse does not refer to the sin of the spies. Instead, the verse is between the verses stating that Calev (as a private citizen) and Yehoshua (as the people’s leader) would go to the land of Israel, and just as Calev and Yehoshua were not punished for the sin of the spies, so too Moshe was not punished for the sin of the spies. Instead, Moshe mentioned his inability to go into the land of Israel at that point as a way of boosting the people’s support for Yehoshua that Yehoshua was to lead the people and not him, see the following verse, 1:38.

Why then in 1:37 did Moshe state that G-d was angry at him because of the people? G-d’s anger refers to G-d’s refusal to allow Moshe to enter the land of Israel even as a private citizen and the phrase because of the people means that Moshe’s inability to enter the land of land as a private citizen was for the benefit of the people. This benefit was that even if Moshe went into the land officially as a private citizen, still his presence would impinge on Yehoshua’s ability to lead the people which would harm the people.

Why could Moshe not go to the land of Israel as a private citizen and just promise to keep quiet? The answer is that the people would not have allowed him to retire peacefully. They would have complained to him about Yehoshua, as they always complained. Accordingly, 3:26 records that G-d said that Moshe could not go into the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, G-d’s anger, but this was for the benefit of the people. Similarly, in 4:21, Moshe was saying that the people’s words made G-d angry with him. The people’s words were their common practice to complain, and again G-d’s anger is G-d’s refusal to let Moshe go to the land of Israel. Again, the idea is that because the people regularly complain (their words) this meant that if Moshe was in the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, the people would have complained to Moshe about Yehoshua’s leadership and these complaints would have reduced Yehoshua’s effectiveness as the leader of the people.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 1990, Notes and remarks on the weekly parashah, translated by Shmuel Himelstein, Brooklyn: Chemed Books.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 – Why was the korban pesach (Passover sacrifice) offered just once in the desert?

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 record that the people offered the korban pesach, the Passover sacrifice, in the second year of their stay in the desert. (It should be noted that even though this offering is commonly called a korban, sacrifice, it lacked several aspects of the typical sacrifice.)

We never read that this sacrifice was offered again when the people were in the desert, which implies that it was offered just this one time. This is also the implication of Joshua 5:2-10, which records that the people circumcised themselves for the first time since leaving Egypt in order to offer the Passover sacrifice. (Ramban, on 9:1, and Malbim, derive (from the Sifrei?) this idea from the words, the Sinai desert, in 9:5, since only in that particular desert did the people offer the sacrifice.)

Tosafot (Yevamot 72a, meshoom) quotes R. Yitzhak that the people offered the sacrifice all the years they were in the desert, but only in the second year was it done completely correctly. We will follow the assumption that the Passover sacrifice was not offered in the remaining 38 years of the people's stay in the desert, and try to understand why the sacrifice was offered just once in the desert.

The Sifrei (Beha`alothekha, 67) quotes an argument as to why the Passover sacrifice was only brought once in the desert. The first anonymous opinion is that this was an embarrassment to the people since they really should have offered the sacrifice every year. The second opinion is that of R. Shimon b. Yochai that the Levites offered the sacrifice each year but not the remainder of the population. Why would only the Levites have offered the sacrifice? The answer is that the people worshipped the golden calf, while the Levites did not sin (or repented on their own) by the golden calf. Both of these answers are difficult since according to the first opinion the people sinned for 38 years when they were in the desert. As pointed out by the Ramban and Netziv (on 9:1), this would then mean that Moshe also sinned all those years, which seems very farfetched. The second opinion is also difficult since it is never stated that the Levites alone offered this sacrifice for 38 years. Also, if the sin of the golden calf was really an impediment to offering the sacrifice, why did the people offer it even once?

Ramban (on 9:1) explains the first opinion of the Sifrei that the reason nobody offered the sacrifice in the desert was because of the law that a person who is not circumcised or who has children or slaves who are not circumcised cannot offer the Passover sacrifice, Shemot 12:43 (see Rambam, Laws of Passover Sacrifice 5:5). The people circumcised themselves in Egypt (see Joshua 5:5, Rashi on Shemot 12:6, maybe from Shemot 12:50), but Joshua 5:5 states that the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert. Chazal (Yevamot 72a) explain that the people were unable to circumcise themselves in the desert because it was dangerous. Thus, even though the adults who left Egypt were circumcised, if the children were not circumcised, then the adults could not offer the korban pesach in the desert.

Why did the Sifrei consider not offering the sacrifice as an embarrassment if the people were unable to circumcise themselves? Ramban explains that the embarrassment was the sin of the spies that the people did not want to enter the land of Israel, and it was the effect of this sin that made circumcision dangerous in the desert. However, according to this approach, how could the people have offered the korban pesach in the second year if there were children born in the first year of the people's stay in the desert who had not been circumcised? The answer must be that in the first year the people did circumcise their children as Hizkuni (on 9:5) explains that they were able to do so since they did not travel that year. However, this answer is difficult since there were other years when the people did not travel in the desert, which then would have afforded them the opportunity to circumcise themselves.

Ramban offers a second approach for why the korban pesach was only brought once in the desert. He argues (see Mechilta Bo 12, also Tosafot, Kedushin 37b, Ho'il) that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only when the people would be in the land of Israel, and hence there was no obligation to offer the sacrifice in the desert. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Ramban answers that this was to remind the people of the miracles that G-d did when redeeming the people from Egypt. Yet, why was this lesson not applicable for the other years the people were in the desert? S. R. Hirsch (on 9:1) suggests that since the laws of the korban pesach for all time are different than the laws of the sacrifice in Egypt, the sacrifice was offered once in the desert to demonstrate these differences.

Malbim (1809-1879) suggests that the argument in the Sifrei is based on the two approaches mentioned by the Ramban. Malbim explains that the first opinion in the Sifrei follows the view that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only in Israel, and then the embarrassment was the sin of the spies since this stopped the people from entering the land of Israel sooner (also quoted in Tosfot Kedushin 37b, ho'il). Note, the Malbim does not explain how this opinion explains the offering of the sacrifice one time in the desert. Malbim then suggests that R. Shimon b. Yochai's opinion in the Sifrei follows the viewpoint that people could not offer the korban pesach since they or their children were not circumcised, and R. Shimon b. Yochai claims that the Levites circumcised themselves in the desert.

The Netziv also attempts to explain the first opinion of the Sifrei. He argues that really the people could have offered the Passover even if their children and slaves were not circumcised. He quotes from Yevamot 71a (also mentioned in Tosafot Yevamot 72a, Meshoom) that this requirement only stops one from offering the korban pesach if one was able to perform the circumcision and did not do so. However, since in the desert it was not possible for the people to do circumcisions, the lack of circumcision would not have stopped a person from offering the korban pesach. Instead, the Netziv follows the viewpoint that really the obligation to offer the sacrifice was only applicable in the land of Israel based on Shemot 12:25. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Netziv explains that the sacrifice shows the love between G-d and the Jewish people, and the people offered the sacrifice even when they were not obligated to do so in the second year. However, in the middle of the second year of the people’s stay in the desert, there was the sin of the spies, which caused the people to be removed from G-d, and hence they did not offer the sacrifice the remaining years of their stay in the desert.

According to this idea, the embarrassment mentioned by the first opinion of the Sifrei was again the sin of the spies, which caused this distance between G-d and the Jewish people. While this makes sense to me, the Netziv rejects this idea since he claims that it does not accord with the Sifrei. Instead, he argues that the embarrassment was that the people did not offer the korban pesach voluntarily. Yet, to me this seems more difficult because even if the sacrifice was voluntary, why did Moshe not have the people offer the sacrifice?

My thought is that the sin of the spies is the reason why the korban pesach was offered only once in the desert (the embarrassment mentioned in the Sifrei), but I would vary how this sin impacted on the korban pesach. The opinion that the people could not offer the sacrifice since their children and slaves were not circumcised is difficult even if this requirement was applicable in the desert. I doubt the people had slaves in the desert, and there must have been many families who did not have sons in the first years the people were in the desert. (Note there was no "baby boom" in the desert, as the population of the people in the desert declined slightly over the 40 years, 1:46 and 26:51.)

I also think that the korban pesach was to be offered in the desert since Shemot 12:24 records that the korban pesach always had to be brought.  Ramban quoted Shemot 12:25 as implying that the obligation was only in the future, but 12:25 only means that in the future the children will question the law, but not that the law was only applicable when the people came to the land of Israel. Ramban also quotes Shemot 13:5 as implying that the obligation is only when the people would come to Israel, but this verse is referring to the law of matzot and not to the korban pesach.

If the people were obligated to offer the sacrifice, then we understand why they offered it in the second year of their stay in the desert, but why did they stop offering the sacrifice all the other years they were in the desert? My guess is that the sin of the spies in the middle of the second year ended this obligation. The point of the initial korban pesach in Egypt was to show the people's faith in G-d and the sacrifice in the ensuing years is to demonstrate the continuance of this faith. However, the sin by the spies showed the people's lack of faith in G-d since the people were not willing to enter the land that G-d had promised them, Devarim 1:32.  Once the people sinned by the spies this showed their lack of faith in G-d, and then G-d did not tell them to offer the Passover sacrifice again since the sacrifice could no longer demonstrate their faith in G-d. 

Maybe this idea would also explain why they did not circumcise themselves in the desert, as again once they showed a lack of faith in G-d due to the sin of the spies, there was no point in circumcising themselves. If this approach is correct, then the people would have circumcised themselves in the first year when they were in the desert (as argued by Hizkuni on 9:5), and Joshua 5:5 would mean that for 39 years the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert and not literally 40 years. 

Once the people entered the land of Israel, which demonstrated their faith in G-d, then they were obligated both to circumcise themselves and to offer the korban pesach, which they did as recorded in Joshua 5.

Bemidbar 4:5,6 – The golden poles of the aron (ark): Were the poles ever moved?

 במדבר 4:4-6 -זאת עבודת בני קהת באהל מועד קדש הקדשים. ובא אהרן ובניו בנסע המחנה והורידו את פרכת המסך וכסוי בה את ארון העדות. ונתנו עליו כסוי עור תחש ופרשו בגד כליל תכלת מלמעלה ושמו בדיו. 

When the Jewish people travelled in the desert, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be completely dismantled, and the instructions for this process begin with the aron (ark), which was located in the heart of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

4:5 records that "At the breaking of the camp, Aharon and his sons, shall go in and take down the screening curtain (parokhet) and cover the aron with it" (JPS translation in Milgrom, 1990, p. 25). The parokhet divided the mishkan proper between the Holy of Holies and the anteroom, and apparently, the priests who were coming from the anteroom would pick up the parokhet and place it on the aron without seeing the aron. In all probability the parokhet was much larger than the aron and the items that were on top of the aron. The aron was 1.5 cubits high, 1.5 cubits wide and 2.5 cubits in length, Shemot 25:10. (Each cubit is approximately 18 inches.) On top of the aron was the kapporet and the keruvim, but the Torah does not inform us as to their height. It is believed that the parokhet was ten cubits by ten cubits, which means that if the combined height of the kapporet and the keruvim was less than 3.5 cubits, then some of the parokhet rested on the ground until the aron was lifted up.

On top of the parokhet, two more covers were placed. 4:6 records, "They are to put over it a covering of tanned-leather skin (dugong skin?), and are to spread a cloth entirely of blue-violet on top, putting its poles (in place),” Fox, 1995, p. 672 translation. These extra two covers would stop a person from touching the aron, and protect the parokhet.

The last phrase of 4:6 “putting its poles (in place)” according to Fox or “put in its poles” according to Alter (2004, p. 699) is difficult. The aron contained four rings on its edge, Shemot 25:12, and the end of 4:6 seems to indicate that the golden poles of the aron were to be placed in these rings to enable the aron to be carried by the Levites when transporting the aron. However, Shemot 25:15 records that the poles were never to be removed. If the poles were never removed, how could the priests place them in the rings as indicated in 4:6? Also, how could the poles be put in the rings of the aron if the aron was already covered?

One approach to understanding 4:6 is that the poles were only temporarily moved when the coverings were placed on the aron, Ibn Ezra on 4:6. According to this idea, Shemot 25:15 did not come to preclude removing the poles for just a few minutes when preparing the aron for transport. Furthermore, with this understanding the Levites would have had to lift the covers and then insert the poles. While this is what probably occurred for the other vessels in the mishkan/ ohel moed, by the aron this lifting of the covers could enable one to see the aron and possibly even come in contact with the aron, which is prohibited, 4:15 and 4:20. In addition, it is difficult to understand that Shemot 25:15 allows a person to temporarily remove the poles.

A second approach to understanding 4:6 is that the aron had four poles and eight rings, as opposed to the traditional understanding that there were only two poles and four rings. The Torah does not specify how many poles were attached to the aron, but Shemot 25:12 seems to state that there were only four rings. However, Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 25:12, long and short explanations, also see Bekhor Shor on Shemot 25:12) quotes that some people claimed that the word "and" in Shemot 25:12 could imply that there were eight rings on the aron. Based on this idea, Hizkuni (on 4:6, also see Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv) suggests that there were four poles, one pole for each set of two rings. One could then propose that two of the poles were never removed from the aron as recorded in Shemot 25:15, but the other two poles could be removed, and these were placed in the rings of aron when the aron was to be transported as recorded in Bemidbar 4:6. This approach is difficult, not only due to the problem stated above of inserting the poles after the aron was covered, but also it is not obvious that there were eight rings. The word "and" in Shemot 25:12 can be understood as being explanatory and not additive, which means that there were only four rings, see Rashi on Shemot 25:12. Also, with regard to the other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table (Shemot 25:26) and the incense altar (Shemot 30:4) there were only four rings, which suggests that so too by the aron there were rings. Finally, 4:6 and Shemot 25:15 do not distinguish between different poles that some can be removed and placed in later and others never moved.

A third approach to understanding 4:6 is from the Bekhor Shor (on Shemot 25:15, also see Hizkuni on Shemot 25:15) who suggests that the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 to place the poles in the aron is referring to the first time when the mishkan/ ohel moed would be transported, but after that one time, the poles would never be removed as recorded in Shemot 25:15. The idea here is that G-d wanted the priests to put the poles in their proper place, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported, the priests would be in charge of the re-construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed, which would give them the chance to put the poles in the rings. (Note, Shemot 40:20 implies that Moshe was the person who first put the poles into the aron.) This approach is also difficult since why would G-d specifically want the priests to insert the poles? Also, the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 do not seem to be limited for just one occasion, as they seem to apply whenever the people traveled in the desert.

A fourth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the verse refers to placing the poles on the Levites and not into the poles of the aron, see Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni on Bemidbar 4:6, and Tosafot Yoma 72a Ketiv. I used to like this approach, but it seems to contradict 4:15 which records that only after Aharon and his sons finished covering all of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, could the Levites begin to lift the items. Also, 4:20 seems to record that the Levites should not see the dismantling of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but if the Levites lifted the poles of the aron, then because the aron was the first item covered, they would have seen the remainder of the mishkan/ ohel moed being dismantled. (Could one learn that 4:15 means that the Levites entered after each item was covered and that 4:20 only refers to the aron?) Furthermore, this same phrase of placing the poles in 4:6 occurs by other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table, 4:8, the incense altar, 4:11, and the outer altar, 4:14. If in 4:6 the phrase means that the Levites picked up the aron, then it would also mean that they picked up the table, the incense altar and the outer altar immediately after they were covered. Yet, there were some items, such as the menorah where the Torah could not say "to place its poles" since there were no rings in these items. Instead, 4:10 records that the menorah and its vessels were tied up in a bundle and placed on a frame, but there is no mention that the Levites immediately entered after the tying of the bundle and picked up the bundle. Why would the Levites immediately lift the aron, the table, and the incense altar but not the menorah? Maybe, the answer is that the goal was to limit the time the covers were on the ground for the aron, the table, and incense altar, but this was not a problem for the menorah which was placed on a frame.

Ramban (on 4:6) varies the above approach. He writes that the poles could have been placed on the priests, who presumably then held the aron until the Levites could enter the mishkan/ ohel moed. This would remove the problems of the Levites having to enter the mishkan/ ohel moed before it was complexly dismantled (see Chavel, 1993, footnotes on Ramban). Yet, there were only three priests (Aharon and his two living sons, El’azar and Itamar) who were able to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but this was not enough people to hold the aron and finish dismantling the mishkan/ ohel moed. Even if El’azar and Itamar had sons who were old enough to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, they would have needed to have many sons to hold each item before handing over the item to the Levites. Thus, Chavel quotes an opinion that the Ramban really meant to refer to the Levites and not to the priests.

A fifth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the phrase "putting its poles" means to adjust the poles. Why would the poles need to be adjusted? Ramban (on Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that when the aron was stationary, the poles could have been moved slightly and were not centered. Similarly, Netziv (on 4:6) explains that according to Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv, when the aron was stationary, the poles extended through the parokhet. Thus, maybe when the aron had to be transported, the poles had to be centered to make it easier to carry the aron. While this is possible, I do not understand why the poles would not be centered when the aron was stationary. Hizkuni (on Shemot 25:15 and Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that maybe there were some groves into the rings that held the poles. When the aron was stationary, the poles were not in the grooves, but when the aron had to be transported, the poles were placed in the grooves to ensure that the aron would not fall. The rings would then have had two positions, but I do not understand why the poles would have been removed from the grooves when the aron was stationary. I used to think that maybe the poles needed to be adjusted since maybe when the coverings were placed on the poles, this could have jarred the poles.

Recently, a new simple solution to explaining Bemidbar 4:6 has been proposed based on archaeology. Raanan Eichler (2015 and 2016, also see Sarna, 1991, p. 160) argues, very convincingly, that the aron was similar to Egyptian chests from the 14th century BCE. In February 1923, Howard Carter found King Tutankhamun’s burial chamber (died circa 1325 BCE), along with various items that were buried with the boy King. One of these items was a chest, which had four metal rings at the feet of the chest, and four poles. When the chest was stationary, then the poles would be situated underneath the chest out of sight, and when the chest needed to be moved, the poles could be drawn out, but the rings were made that the poles would not come out completely from the chest. The chest was carried from the bottom, and the length of the chest was long enough that four poles (two in each) direction could slide underneath the chest.

Eichler suggests that this same construction occurred by the aron. He follows Ibn Ezra’s explanation on Shemot 25:12 that the word paamotav in Shemot 25:12 means legs, and that there were four poles, one for each ring. Thus, the poles of the aron would then slide underneath the aron and always remained attached to the aron. The phrase, “putting its poles” in 4:6 would them mean to slide out the poles. This idea differs from the traditional approach, which understands that the two poles were always sticking out, but this traditional understanding is never stated in the Torah.

One can add a few points to Eichler’s wonderful suggestion. One, most likely, this same idea would apply to the other three items, the table, the incense altar and the outer altar, where the phrase “putting its poles” occurs. With regard to the table, the poles could also have been situated under the legs of the table, see Shemot 25:26,27, and even though the poles could have been removed from the table, it probably was easier to store them under the table. With regard to the incense altar and the outer altar, which did not have legs, the poles were on the sides of the respective altars. In this case maybe they were also “stored” on the side of the altar when the mishkan/ ohel moed was at rest, and then when needed they could be slid out. For instance by the outer altar, which also had four rings, the poles could have been in or attached to the mikhbar under the karkov, Shemot 27:4-7.  With regard to the incense altar, which seems only to have had two rings, it could be that poles were stored in a vertical position, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be transported, the poles were moved to a horizontal position. A possible proof for this is that the height of the incense altar was two amot, while the width and length were only one amah, Shemot 30:2. This double size to the height would have allowed for a two amot pole when the poles were in a vertical position, and then when the poles were horizontal there would have been half an amah sticking out on each side to hold the poles. Or, it could be that the poles for all three items or some them were removed when the mishkan/ ohel moed was not being transported, and when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported then they were placed in their rings. Due to the similarity of the actions of sliding the poles and placing the poles in their rings, the Torah uses the same phrase, “putting its poles,” regarding all the items which had rings.

Two, once the poles of the aron were just being slid out from the bottom of the aron, then this could have been done even though the aron was covered. Once the aron was covered, a person could slide out the poles without touching the aron, as one would hold onto to the cover to slide out the poles. In truth, this seems to be the main point of 4:6 that first the aron was to be covered, and then the poles were moved out from underneath.

Three, the congruence between the chest by King Tut and the aron shows that the mishkan/ ohel moed was based on 14th century BCE Egyptian furniture, which shows the antiquity of the Torah. Would someone from the 6th or 8th century BCE know of the 14th century BCE Egyptian design of furniture?

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Eichler, Raanan, 2015, The meaning of pa’am in the context of furniture, Journal of Semitic Studies, 60:1, pp. 1-18.

Eichler, Raanan, 2016, The poles of the ark: On the ins and outs of a textual contradiction, Journal of Biblical Literature, 135:4, pp. 733-741.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Vayikra 13:47-59 – Tsara’at by clothing

Vayikra 13:49,50 records that if a person has a nega, spot, on their clothes, which is thought to be a sign of tsara’at, then the priest inspects the spot and the clothing is put aside for a week. At the end of the week, the priest inspects the clothing. If the spot spread, then the priest declares the clothing as tamei since it is tsara’at and the clothing is burnt, 13:50-52. If the spot did not spread, then it is washed, and after the week, the priest examines it again, 13:53-55. If the spot did not diminish, the clothing is burnt, 13:55. If the spot diminished, then the spot is removed from the clothing, and a person can use the other material from the clothing, 13:56. If a spot returns to the clothing after having removed the initial spot, then the clothing is burnt, 13:57. Finally, if the spot is completely gone from the clothing after the clothing was washed, then the clothing is considered tahor, 13:58. What is the meaning of this section? Why does the Torah record laws concerning tsar’at by clothing?

Hertz (1960, p. 465) writes that maybe the tsara`at was some mildew or some parasitic infection. Similarly, Levine (1989, p. 83), writes that perhaps “they were fungoid or sporoid infections.” This follows the idea that tsara`at is a health problem. The tsara`at by the clothing might be the most likely case where tsara`at is a health problem, but would not people on their own throw out clothing that is infected? Maybe today yes with our higher standard of living, but in olden days if they had no clothing it might have been difficult for people to throw out clothing. Yet, does this idea explain the shocking aspect of burning the clothing?

The traditional understanding is that the spots on the clothing are a warning that the person has sinned usually by talking loshen hara, slander, see Rambam, Laws of Tumat Tsara`at, 16:10 and Seforno on 13:47. Yet, why then does the priest not warn the person to repent when he inspects the clothing?

My guess is that the crucial issue is that the clothing is destroyed either by being burnt or being cut up. Possibly the message is that clothing is unimportant. The idea being that at times people get very caught up with material items, clothing being very prominent material items, and they forget about G-d. Maybe, here the message is that material possessions such as clothing are not important to one's relationship with G-d. With this idea, the tumah of the spots on the clothing, has a similar message to the spots on the person. In our discussion on chapters 13,14 "Tsara`at by a person,” we suggested that the spots of tsara'at on a person signify that a person's looks are not important to one's relationship with G-d, and then similarly, maybe the message by tsara’at on clothing is that a person’s clothing, whether fancy or simple, is not important to a person’s relationship with G-d.

Bibliography:

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

The 2025 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now avialable

Hello,

Last year, one of the loyal readers of this blog, Gary Greenberg, told me that I need to send out the commentary on the Haggadah much earlier than I usually do, so now, two weeks before Pesach, I am announcing that the 2025 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (PDF file, 120 pages, including references, 1.5 spacing) is available to anybody who wishes to read it. Also, very kindly, last year after Pesach, Gary Greenberg carefully went over last year’s version and pointed out several mistakes, which has improved the commentary. Thank you Gary. Below is the Table of Contents to the current commentary. If you are interested in receiving the file, send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file (for free, no ads and no requests for donations). I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

In addition, unrelated to the commentary, as part of the Seder, we should all pray for peace in the land of Israel, the safety of our soldiers and the return of all of the captives from Gaza.

Andrew Schein

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Haggadah  

Bedikat hametz

Two systems of removing hametz from the house: Burning and annulling

Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz

The blessing on bedikat hametz

The Seder plate

The history of the Seder plate

How many matzot are needed at the Seder?

The mnemonic of the Seder

How is one to sit at the Seder: Hasibah (Not leaning)

What does the word hasibah mean?

Do women need to do hasibah at the Seder?

Kiddush

The four cups of wine

The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut)

Karpas

Why is karpas part of the Seder?

How much karpas should a person eat?

Dipping the karpas

Yachatz and ha lachma anya

Is there a connection between reciting the sentence that begins with the words, ha lachma anya and yachatz, the breaking of the matzah?

Raising the Seder plate and uncovering the matzah when reciting ha lachma anya

The third sentence in the paragraph of ha lachma anya and living in the land of Israel

Maggid

The obligation to re-tell the story of the exodus from Egypt

Structure of the Maggid

Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: Popularity

Mah nishtanah: It’s source

Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: The order of the question of the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: The answers

Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters

The four words of baruch and the four sons

The four sons: Why four?

The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son from the verses in the Torah?

The four sons: The answers to the evil son’s question

The four sons: The answer/ statement to the son who cannot ask a question

The flow of the Haggadah from Rav’s understanding of the change in our status to the interpretation of the verses in Devarim

The descendants of Avraham

Lifting a cup of wine and covering matzah twice during Maggid

The drush: Introduction

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Arami oved avi (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-yered mitzraymah

The drush:Devarim 26:5 - Va-yagar sham

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-rav

The drush: Devarim 26:6 - And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly

The drush: The first half of Devarim 26:7 - We cried to G-d

The drush: The second half of Devarim 26:7 - And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - The plague of the firstborn Egyptians (parshanut)

The drush: The anti-Christian drush on Devarim 26:8?

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - Sixteen drops of wine

The drush: The ten plagues

The drush: Dzach adash beachav (parshanut)

R. Yosi ha-Galilee, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva

Dayenu

Rabban Gamliel

Matzah (parshanut)

Maror

A new song?

Dividing Hallel

Differences between reciting Hallel all year round and by the Seder

The blessing at the end of the Maggid

Matzah

How much matzah does one need to eat by the Seder?

Shemurah matzah

Charoset

Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal

Afikoman

The history of the term afikoman

Eating the afikoman before the middle of the night

Shefokh hamatcha

Hallel after birkat ha-mazon

Birkat ha-Shir

Hallel ha-Gadol

Songs at the end of the Seder

Seven songs

Ehad mi yode`a?

Chad gadya: Is there a message?

Chad gadya: Good and bad characters

Bibliography

 

Shemot chapters 25-39 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: The nitty gritty of its construction

Shemot chapters 36-39 record the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This was not a simple project. Was it possible for the Jewish people to have constructed this building and its courtyard? The construction had to happen relatively quickly. It seems that the project started after Moshe brought down the second set of tablets, luchot, which was at least 120 days after the Decalogue was pronounced in the third month of the first year of the people's stay in the desert (19:1), and the mishkan/ ohel moed was finished by the first month of the second year of the people's stay in the desert, 40:2, which gave less than six months for its construction.

One question is whether the people had the necessary skills in order to make the mishkan/ ohel moed? Could former slaves have the knowledge needed to do all the intricate metalwork?

Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) writes that Betzalel and Oholiav were chosen to be in charge of the work because they were the only ones who knew how to do the work. According to this idea, out of the entire population there were only two trained workers, but then maybe they would have been able to teach the other workers (see Ibn Ezra on 35:31-35).

Ramban (on 31:2 and 35:21) first notes that the people worked on bricks and mortar in Egypt and not metals, but then he writes that G-d gave those people who had the natural ability to do the work the necessary knowledge. This could be the idea of 36:1, also see 31:1-6 and 35:30-35. Accordingly, maybe the ability to make the mishkan/ ohel moed was another miracle that G-d performed for the people in the desert.

Modern commentators have made other suggestions. Nahum Sarna (1986, pp. 196-200) disputes the idea that the people were untrained. He notes that the people had "experienced firsthand for a considerable period of time the most materially advanced civilization of antiquity." For example, the funerary mask of King Tutankhamun (14th century BCE) is quite exquisite. According to this idea, it was very likely that amongst the Jewish people there were people who had the skills needed to build the mishkan/ ohel moed. Cassuto (1967, p. 327) adds that "for the working of the metals, they were able to utilize the services of the neighboring Kenite tribes."

A second question is where did the people get all the supplies that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed? These supplies include various metals, gold, silver and bronze (maybe copper), various dyes (techelet (purple/ blue), argaman (red/ blue) and tolatat ha-shani (bright red)), wood, wool, hides, special stones, linen, oil and spices. Note it is possible that Moshe told them what supplies were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed before he went up to get the second set of luchot, which could have added a few more months for the people to gather all the supplies.

With regard to the gold and silver needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, 12:35,36 record that the people had received gold and silver from the Egyptians when they left Egypt, which was in addition to any jewelry that they had acquired when they were slaves. Furthermore, we know that in antiquity Egypt has relatively large amounts of gold that it attained from the area that today is Southeastern Egypt/ Northern Sudan, but then was called Nubia or Kush, see Schorsch (2017). Egypt also had silver, though seemingly less amounts than gold, since it acquired the silver just through trade, see Schorsch (2018).

With regard to bronze (copper?) that was also needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, most likely the people, even as slaves, had this metal, as 12:34 refers to bowls that the people had to place their dough, and these bowls were most likely bronze (or copper). Also, 38:8 notes that bronze was used for mirrors and was then probably a common household item.

With regard to the animal skins, wool and goat's hair, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) notes that 12:38 records that the people had large amounts of flocks which could have provided the necessary quantity of these materials. (One of the needed hides, techashim, 25:5, is a mystery, and hence if the item is unknown, one cannot determine how difficult or easy it was to acquire the object.)

With regard to the dyes, oil, and spices that were part of the mishkan/ ohel moed, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) also suggests that these could have been purchased from passing caravans if the people did not have them. (Interestingly, dyed wool with red and blue stripes from around 1,000 BCE, around 200-400 (?) years before the time of the people in the desert, was found in the southern Negev by Timna, see Hasson (2017) and Efrati and Ruth Schuster (2016).) Similarly, with regard to the linen (shesh), maybe the people could have bought the linen from travelling merchants. Yet, was trading a real possibility? In the first year of the people’s stay in the desert, were they camped near trade routes? Would traders have sought them out in the middle of the desert? Even if yes, would these traders have had all the dyes, the techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani, that were needed? Furthermore, as noted by the Ibn Ezra (on 25:5), 35:23,24 record that the many of the items were brought from what the people had, which could imply that the people did not acquire these items through trades. However, Cassuto (1967, p. 458) argues that these verses state the most common source for the materials and do not exclude other possibilities of acquiring the items through trade.

With regard to the dyes and the linen, the most likely source were the Egyptian gifts that the people received when they were leaving Egypt. Both 3:22, the first mention of the gifts, and 12:35, the actual record of the giving of these gifts, record that the Jewish people received dresses from the Egyptians. The Egyptian dresses could have been made of linen, wool or other fabrics, and many of them could have been decorated with the dyes techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani. The Jewish people would have been able to take apart these dresses, and separate the threads of the dresses. The people could then have taken the threads which were already dyed with the different colors and combined these threads together to make the items that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

This idea of trading could apply to the oil, which was only needed at the end of the process for the consecration of the mishkan/ ohel moed and for lighting the menorah afterwards, both of which do need seem to have required large quantities of olive oil and olive oil is fairly common in the Middle East, though not in the desert. Maybe the trading was also the source of the spices, which would have come from areas east of the Sinai Desert, and most likely there were traders who sold spices. Note, the phrase “what the people had” in 35:23,24 is not recorded in conjunction with oil and spices, which suggests that either traders sold it to the people or people were sent out to acquire these items.

Another item needed were special stones for the clothing of the high priests, and 35:27 records that the chieftains donated these stones. Hizkuni (on 35:26) writes that the chieftains had acquired these stones from the Egyptians when the people left Egypt. Again, based on the idea that the people acquired dresses from the Egyptians, then it is possible that there were stones on some of these dresses. It is also possible that the chieftains had these stones before the night of the Exodus as even though the people had been slaves, maybe some of the people had "connections" and would have been able to acquire precious stones. Also, it is possible that the chieftains bought the stones from caravans traveling through the area or the chieftains went out of the camp to seek traders. Finally, it is likely that the choice of stones were based on what the people had or could acquire.

Another item that was needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed was wood, atsei shittim, 25:5, which are thought to be acacia trees. (This question might also apply to the cedar wood by the ashes of the parah adumah, Bemidbar 19:6, but there was much more time to acquire this wood.) Bereshit Rabbah 94:4 and Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:12 (see Rashi on 25:5) quote R. Levi who states that the wood came from the Galilee (where suitable trees grew) that Yaakov had taken the wood down with him when he went to Egypt, and the people had planted the wood when they were in Egypt. This seems quite incredible. Ibn Ezra (on 25:5, also see Hizkuni on 25:5 and Cassuto, 1967, p. 237) suggests that there was a plentiful supply of acacia tress in the desert. However, Ziony Zevit (1992) points out that the type of acacia tree that grows in the area where the people were located starts branching out about half a meter from the ground, which means that its wood would not have been tall enough to use for the planks/ beams of the mishkan/ ohel moed that were ten cubits high, 26:16. (I was once in a tiyul in Mitspeh Ramon, and was told by a guide that in some parts of the Negev (Nahal Paran) the acacia tree grows 8 meters, which would have tall enough. Who knows?)

A crucial question is how much is an amah, cubit? A cubit is the distance from the middle finger to the elbow, but how long is this? One popular definition is 18 inches or 45 centimeters. For example, Greenfield (1982) argues that it was 44 centimeters. With this definition, 10 cubits were approximately 4.5 meters. On the other hand, since people were smaller in olden times, as from military records of British soldiers in the 18th century, they were on average twenty centimeters shorter than today (see Flood, Fogel, Harris and Hong, 2012), then a cubit might have been a little less.

The simplest way to understand how the people had enough wood to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is an anonymous opinion quoted by Ibn Ezra (short comments on 25:5) that the wood could have been connected from smaller pieces. (A friend of mine, Yair Alex noted to me that there are ways to connect wooden pieces without any binding material.)

A beam/ plank comprising smaller pieces would not be that strong, but the wood in the mishkan/ ohel moed did not have to support much weight, and the walls of the mishkan/ ohel moed were reinforced by beams going around them and silver holding the bottoms together, 26:16-29. The beams which held the parochet were also held together with silver bottoms, 26:32. Also, the beams that held the curtains both by the entrance to the special building and to the courtyard had bronze bottoms bases to support them, 26:37, 27:10-17 and there were also pegs and ropes for more support, 27:19, 35:18 and 39:40.

With this understanding that the woods used in the mishkan/ ohel moed were combined pieces for the longer planks/ beams, there were many ways for the Jewish people to have acquired the necessary wood. One, some of the trees in the desert could have bene used even if not the correct height. Two, maybe some traders had pieces of wood that they were willing to sell. Three, the Egyptian chariots that drowned at Yam Suf could have made from wood, and the Jewish people could have taken wood that flowed to the surface. Four, as we discuss on 14:1-31, "The miracle at Yam Suf: Bait," the Egyptians had forts in the Sinai desert, and it was the soldiers from these forts who attacked the people at Yam Suf. Maybe the Jewish people pillaged the forts after the soldiers drowned, and maybe these forts had wooden structures which could have been dismembered. Five, maybe the people had wooden wagons when they left Egypt, which they could have taken apart.

Accordingly, it seems that there were enough people to have the necessary skills to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, and it was possible for the Jewish people to have acquired all the building materials need to construct the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Bibliography:

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

Efrati, Ido and Ruth Schuster, 2016, First Textiles From King David Era Discovered at Timna Copper Mines, Haaretz, February 24.

Flood, Roderick, Robert W. Fogel, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, 2012, The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition and human development in the western world since 1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greenfield, Abraham Yehuda, 1982, “Middah ke-Neged Middah, Moriyah, 7-8 (127-128), Tammuz 5742, pp. 59-86.

Hasson, Nir, 2017, Brightly Dyed, 3,000-year Old Textiles From King David-era Found in Southern Israel, Haaretz, Jun 28.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Schorsch, Deborah. 2017. “Gold in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egold/hd_egold.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Schorsch, Deborah, 2018, “Silver in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/silv/hd_silv.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Zevit, Ziony, 1992, Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition and Realia, Eretz-Israel, 23, pp. 136-143.

Shemot 25:1 - Shemot 40:38 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: Why?

Shemot chapter 25 starts a new and final unit in book of Shemot, which excluding the story of the sin of the golden calf and its aftermath, encompasses all the chapters from 25 through 40, the end of the book of Shemot. In this unit, the Torah first records the instructions and then the building of a special building and its courtyard within the camp of the Jewish people. There are three different terms that are used in the Torah to describe this special building, the mikdash, the mishkan, and ohel moed. While I think that many people believe these terms are synonyms, my hypothesis is that the terms refer to three distinct configurations. My understanding is that the term mikdash refers to a place which has a collection of special items (furniture) that are used to worship G-d, the term mishkan refers to the enclosed area made by the walls around the special furniture including the first covering, ceiling, of the special furniture, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex of the courtyard and the tent/ building which enclosed the special furniture, see our discussions on 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot," 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.”

In this discussion and throughout this commentary on the Torah, I use the term mishkan/ ohel moed to refer to the special building and its courtyard, in case people are unaware of my definitions of the three terms or do not accept my definitions. In this discussion, we will try to understand what was the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed, as it seems to have had great importance given the many chapters devoted to the instructions and building of the special building, its furniture and courtyard.

One approach is that the mishkan/ ohel moed was built in order to have a place to offer sacrifices, see Rambam, Laws of the Chosen Place 1:1. Yet, sacrifices could be offered without a mishkan/ ohel moed. For example, the Jewish people offered the pesach offering in Egypt, 12:27,28, and Yaakov offered sacrifices on his way down to Egypt, Bereshit 46:1. Also, most of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, such as the aron, the menorah and the shulchan do not relate to sacrifices. Sacrifices were brought on the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but it seems that this altar was less important than the aron and the other items located within the special building since the aron was made of gold, 25:10-18, while the altar in the courtyard was made of bronze, 27:1-6. However, following the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that G-d does not really “like” sacrifices, maybe the goal was to limit the sacrifices to being offered in one place and to minimize their significance. This would be a negative reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

A variation of this first approach with a positive perspective is that the mishkan/ ohel moed would be a place to pray. Sefer Ha-hinukh (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 482) writes that the building of a special building in G-d’s name was to put people in the right frame of mind to worship G-d through prayer and sacrifices. This rationale seems true of the Bet ha-Mikdash and in theory our synagogues, but there is no record that the people prayed at the mishkan/ ohel moed in the desert.

A second approach, which has many variations, is that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was for there to be a place where G-d's presence (G-d's glory?) would "dwell" amongst the people. The proof for this idea is that both by the beginning of the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:8, and towards the end of the instructions, 29:45,46, the Torah records that G-d would “dwell” amongst the people, and implication is that the “dwelling” was within the mishkan/ ohel moed. While the appearance of G-d's presence would in itself be sufficient reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed, commentators have suggested various reasons that relate to G-d's presence, see for example. Ibn Ezra, short comments, end of comments on 25:7. We now will list some of these secondary reasons for the mishkan/ ohel moed that relate to G-d’s presence being in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

One (2a), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was a sign of the cloud of G-d. In class, David Barrett suggested that this idea was according to Ibn Ezra’s (short commentary on 13:22 and long commentary on 15:22) opinion that the cloud left the people after the splitting of Yam Suf, and then the mishkan/ ohel moed would serve to remember this cloud.

Two (2b), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made it the designated place where Moshe would speak to G-d, 25:22, see Rashbam on 25:8. Ibn Ezra (long comments, on 25:1) explains that the mishkan/ ohel moed saved Moshe from having to go up the mountain all the time. However, while the mishkan/ ohel moed was the most obvious place for divine communication, it is unlikely that this was the prime reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed since many times, as in Egypt, G-d spoke to Moshe outside of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Three (2c), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made a great name for the Jewish people and it would have attracted non-Jews to come and learn about Judaism. Yet, in the desert, we have no record of non-Jews (other than maybe Yitro) visiting the camp. This reason would be more appropriate to the Bet ha-Mikdash in Jerusalem.

Four (2d), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was to cause the people to refrain from becoming impure, sinning or lying when they saw the mishkan/ ohel moed and G-d’s presence.

A fifth secondary reason (2e) within the idea that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be the place for G-d's presence to appear is from the Ramban (introduction to chapter 25 and introduction to the book of Shemot). He writes that G-d’s presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was situated above the aron, and the Divine Presence was to replicate the cloud that was on Mount Sinai, 24:16. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then a traveling mini- Mount Sinai. Similarly, just like G-d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, 24:18, so too G-d would speak to Moshe in the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:22.

Cassuto (1967, pp. 319, 484) follows the Ramban's approach. He explains that when the people were camped at Mount Sinai, they were conscious of G-d’s nearness, but once they would leave Mount Sinai, the mishkan/ ohel moed provided a tangible symbol of G-d’s presence amongst them. Cassuto argues that the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is recorded after the covenant was recorded since the mishkan/ ohel moed was a perpetual extension of the bond that was forged at Mount Sinai. Similarly, Berman (1995, p. 52) follows this approach and writes that the aron and the two altars “simulated different aspects of the Sinai experience.”

Notwithstanding the popularity of the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, I doubt that the point of the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order for G-d's presence to dwell amongst the people since the cloud of G-d and G-d's glory appeared independent of the mishkan/ ohel moed even after the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, see Bemidbar 11:25 and Bemidbar 14:10, though in Bemidbar 14:10, the appearance of G-d’s glory was quite ominous. Even if G-d had not commanded the people to build a mishkan/ ohel moed,  G-d's presence could still have appeared amongst the people, as for example in some restricted area with no special building, or outside the camp.

A third rationale for the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is that there was a need for a suitable place for the luchot, the tablets (see Rashbam on 25:10 and Tigay, 2004, p. 166). This understanding accords with the idea that the most important item in the mishkan/ ohel moed was the aron, which stored the luchot, see Shemot Rabbah 34:2. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then one element in the establishment of the covenant, and this is why the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed was recorded after the covenant was made. In fact, 24:12 records that Moshe was to go up to Mount Sinai to get the luchot and then chapter 25 begins with the description of the mishkan/ ohel moed. In addition, right before Moshe descended from Mount Sinai, Shemot 31:18 records that G-d gave Moshe the luchot and he descended from the mountain with them. Thus, the entire section, 25:1-31:11, which records the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed and laws about Shabbat, 32:12-17, is framed by Moshe receiving the luchot. Yet, the mishkan/ ohel moed seems to be a very elaborate structure just for the luchot, but the luchot were written by G-d (31:18, 32:15,16), which meant they have to be treated in a very, very special manner.

Sarna (1986, pp. 208, 209, see also Cassuto, 1967, pp. 331,332) notes that in a treaty between Egypt and the Hittites from around 1269 B.C.E., it is recorded that a copy of the treaty was to be placed "beneath the feet of the god of the respective parties." The mishkan/ ohel moed follows this same pattern, as the luchot in the aron were the written record of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. Furthermore, on top of the aron were the keruvim, which were symbolically a portal to G-d, 25:22, and then the aron could be considered metaphorically as the footstool of G-d. (Note, Chronicles I 28:2, Psalms 99:5 and 132:7 that refer to the mishkan/ ohel moed as the footstool of G-d.)

(The luchot are referred to as the luchot ha-`edut, or just edut, the tablets of the testimony since they were a witness to the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, 25:21, 31:18, 32:15, 34:29, and 40:20. The luchot were also called luchot ha-brit, tablets of the Covenant in Devarim 9:9,11,15.  Thus, the crucial idea of the aron was that it contained the luchot, see Talmudic Encyclopedia 1979, 2:179. Sarna notes that this was radically different than other ancient shrines where the key item was the idol, while here it was the luchot.)

Cassuto (1967, p. 331) asks why were the luchot in the aron if the people had no access to the aron? He answers that undoubtedly there were copies of the luchot, but the original was in the aron for safekeeping. Possibly, the luchot were not for the people to read from, but their presence in the aron was to register the existence of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

With this third approach, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be built in order to have an appropriate place for the luchot. Once the luchot were in the mishkan/ ohel moed, then this would be the most appropriate place for G-d's presence to appear. Thus, 25:8 could be understood to mean that G-d's presence amongst the people was an outcome of the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but not that it was dependent on the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed.  Also, once the mishkan/ ohel moed was where the luchot were situated, then this would be the obvious place to offer sacrifices.

These two approaches to why there was a need for the mishkan/ ohel moed, the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach and a suitable place for the luchot, are not antithetical and could even be combined (Cassuto), but there are differences between them. 

One difference is whether the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed occurred before the sin of the golden calf. There is no definite answer to this question according to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach. One could argue, as the Ramban (on 25:1) does that the presence of G-d was always needed even if there was no sin of the golden calf, or one could follow Rashi (on see his comments on 30:16 and 31:18) that the mishkan/ ohel moed as a place for the Divine Presence to appear was only needed after the people sinned. However, if one follows the idea that the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then one would have to maintain that the command to build the mishkan/ ohel moed was before the sin of the golden calf since with this approach the storing of the luchot was part of the establishment of the covenant. Even if the people had never sinned with the golden calf, still there would have been a need for a special place to put the luchot.

A second difference between the two approaches is whether G-d’s glory was always in the mishkan/ ohel moed. According to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, G-d’s glory would always have to have been in the mishkan/ ohel moed since otherwise the mishkan/ ohel moed would no longer be a mini- Mount Sinai. However, if the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then G-d’s glory was not an intrinsic part of the mishkan/ ohel moed. When the mishkan/ ohel moed was completed, G-d’s glory appeared, 40:34,35, but this was just an initiation of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This appearance would show G-d’s approval of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but then the glory of G-d could have left. 

Bibliography:

Berman, Joshua, 1995, The Temple, Northvale: New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

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

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.