שמות כו: ז- יב: וְעָשִׂיתָ יְרִיעֹת עִזִּים לְאֹהֶל עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַשְׁתֵּי־עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם׃ אֹרֶךְ הַיְרִיעָה הָאַחַת שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּאַמָּה וְרֹחַב אַרְבַּע בָּאַמָּה הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת מִדָּה אַחַת לְעַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת׃ וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־חֲמֵשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְאֶת־שֵׁשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְכָפַלְתָּ אֶת־הַיְרִיעָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הָאֹהֶל׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ חֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת הַקִּיצֹנָה בַּחֹבָרֶת וַחֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הַחֹבֶרֶת הַשֵּׁנִית׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ קַרְסֵי נְחֹשֶׁת חֲמִשִּׁים וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת־הַקְּרָסִים בַּלֻּלָאֹת וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־הָאֹהֶל וְהָיָה אֶחָד׃ וְסֶרַח הָעֹדֵף בִּירִיעֹת הָאֹהֶל חֲצִי הַיְרִיעָה הָעֹדֶפֶת תִּסְרַח עַל אֲחֹרֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן׃
שמות כו:לו: וְעָשִׂיתָ מָסָךְ לְפֶתַח הָאֹהֶל תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מׇשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם.
שמות כז: כא: בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִחוּץ לַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָעֵדֻת יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מֵעֶרֶב עַד־בֹּקֶר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
שמות מ:ג: וְשַׂמְתָּ שָׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת וְסַכֹּתָ עַל־הָאָרֹן אֶת־הַפָּרֹכֶת.
שמות מ: כא: וַיָּבֵא אֶת־הָאָרֹן אֶל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ וַיָּסֶךְ עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃
Shemot (Exodus) 26:31-33 records instructions from G-d to Moshe to build a
parochet, that was to be on four pillars and underneath the claps that connected the two parts of the covers of the
mishkan. 36:35,36 record the fulfillment of these instructions. Afterwards, 40:3 records that G-d instructed Moshe to put the
parochet within the
mishkan and 40:21 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. What was the
parochet?
The standard/ traditional understanding (see Rashi on 26:31) is that the
parochet was a screen that hung over four pillars that were standing in a row and the
parochet divided the special building (
mishkan/
ohel moed) into two parts, an inner and outer room. Yet, this understanding does not accord with 27:21, which records that the
parochet was to be on the tablets (
luchot, edut), while according to the traditional interpretation the
parochet was in front, not on, the tablets. Similarly, 40:3 and 40:21 record that the
parochet was to cover the
aron which contained the
luchot, but according to the traditional understanding the
parochet did not cover the
aron at all. Rashi (on 40:3) is aware of the difficulty of 40:3 and tries to defend the traditional understanding that the
parochet was just a screen by claiming that the word to cover means to protect and the screen can be thought of as protection of the
aron. Similarly, the Talmud (Menachot 94a) quotes Rebi that the word on,
al, does not really mean on, but near. These two attempts are very difficult.
Friedman (2003, p. 263) makes the fascinating suggestion that really the
parochet was a pavilion that rested on the four pillars that were standing not in a row but as a box. The
aron would then be within this box or pavilion. This suggestion accords with 27:21 that the
parochet was on the
luchot and 40:3,21 that the
parochet covered the
aron. Hurowitz (1995) discusses this idea by Friedman, which Friedman had first suggested in 1992, and notes that it is supported by the Sumerian word BARAG and its Akkadian cognate
par- akku, which are believed to baldachins, a canopy on top of an altar or throne. He notes that the connection between these two terms and the word
parochet was made in 1874 by Delitzsch. Hurowitz also notes that if this suggestion is correct, then the curtains that rested on the four pillars must have continued to the floor to stop anyone from seeing the
aron that was within the
parochet, so it was also a
masach, screen.
Friedman notes that his suggestion accords with Bemidbar 4:5 that when the priests had to pack up the
mishkan, they would take down the
parochet and the
parochet covered the
aron, and the idea would be that once the four poles were removed, the curtain would fall and cover the
aron.
This understanding also explains the term
ohel edut in Bemidbar 9:15, 17:22,23 and 18:2, as well as the reference to the tent,
ha-ohel, in Bemidbar 18:3. The idea being that with the
parochet hanging over the four pillars, the
parochet was a tent (
ohel) covering the
aron, which had the tablets (the
luchot, the
edut), within the
mishkan.
This idea that the
parochet was a pavilion and not a screen also suggests a new interpretation of Shemot 26:9. 26:9 records that with regard to the second cover of the
mishkan, the cover made of goat hairs, which consisted of eleven segments, each four
amot (cubits) by thirty
amot (cubits), the sixth segment was to be folded towards the
ohel. All the explanation that I have seen (for example Rashi on 26:9 and Hurowitz, p. 137), understand that half of the first segment of this cover, namely two
amot of the first segment, was to hang in some form over the entrance to the
mishkan. Presumably the basis for this idea is that as the length of the
mishkan was 30
amot and the heigh of the
mishkan was 10
amot, then 40
amot was sufficient to cover the
mishkan and its back. Yet, the second cover had 44 (11*4)
amot, an extra four
amot. We also know that the second cover had an extra two
amot in the back of the
mishkan, 26:12, and then it “must be” that the remaining extra two
amot were in the front of the
mishkan. Yet, 26:9 refers to the sixth segment of the cover, while this explanation claims the first segment of the cover was folded over. Also, according to this explanation, there is no folding since the two
amot just hang down in the front of the
mishkan.
A simple reading of 26:9 is that the second cover of the
mishkan starts at the beginning of the
mishkan, just like the first cover of the
mishkan, and then the sixth segment of the second cover would begin at the twentieth
amah of the
mishkan. This would be the same spot where the sixth segment of the first cover of the
mishkan would begin, but by the first cover, the beginning of the sixth segment would be attached by loops and claps to the fifth segment. However, by the second cover, the sixth segment is attached to the seventh segment, and not the fifth segment, with loops and clasps, 26:10,11.
26:9 is then informing us that after the five segments of the second cover of the
mishkan, the sixth segment was folded over, which means that it would cover two
amots of the
mishkan and not four
amot. This doubling of the sixth segment, would establish the measurements of the pavilion of the
parochet that it would have two poles at the twentieth
amot of the
mishkan, and two poles at the twenty second
amot of the
mishkan. Within this two
amot and undetermined length (ten
amot?), the
aron, which had a depth of one and half
amots (25:10), was situated, 26:33. After the sixth segment was folded over, the loops and clasps of the second cover were attached to the end of sixth segment and the beginning of the seventh segment, at the twenty-second
amot of the
mishkan. The
parochet was then under both sets of clasps of the two covers of the
mishkan (26:33), the first two pillars were under the clasps of the first cover of the
mishkan, and the back two pillars were under the clasps of the second cover of the
mishkan. (Note this configuration would have occurred even according to the traditional interpretation of 26:9, see Cassuto, 1967, p. 352.) After the loops and clasps were attached to the sixth and seventh segments of the second cover, there would be another five segments to the second cover, segments seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven, twenty more
amot, which would give an extra two
amot beyond the end of the
mishkan, 22+20 = 42, 26:12.
The end of 26:9 records that the folding of the sixth segment was facing or towards the front of the tent,
ohel. The
ohel is the tent that was made by the
parochet, and the end of 26:9 is stating that when one folded the sixth segment, the coming together of the folded segment was at the edge (vertically above) from where the front two poles of the
parochet and the curtains of the
parochet were situated. This means that the edge of the folded over part of the sixth segment of the second cover was facing (downwards) the front of the tent that was made by the
parochet.
The idea that the
parochet was a pavilion also suggests a simple reading of 26:36 (and 36:37 and 39:38), which records that there was a
masach, which was just a screen, and it was by the entrance to the
ohel (the tent). What
ohel?
According to the traditional understanding it is not clear what is the reference to the
ohel in 26:36. However, once one understands that the
parochet made a tent,
ohel, above the
aron within the
mishkan, then, as in 26:9, the term
ohel in 26:36 (and in 36:37 and 39:38) is referring to the tent that was created by the
parochet, and the
masach, screen, was in front of the area that led to the
parochet.
Bibliography:
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967,
A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
Friedman, Richard Elliott, 2003,
Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew text, New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor, 1995, The form and fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a recent proposal,
Jewish Quarterly Review, 86: 1-2, pp. 127-151.