Shemot (Exodus) 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21 – The parochet in the mishkan/ ohel moed: A pavilion and a screen

 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.

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? 

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.  A minor proof for this idea is that 35:23 records that any person who had any of the needed colors or textiles brought them to Moshe, so we see that these items were things the people had.

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.)  How much wood would have been needed? The answer to this question depends on  much is an amah, a 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.  Yet, even with a smaller cubit, still  wood was needed for three sides of the mishkan (30 amot by 10 amot) and the pillars in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

The traditional answer to the source of the wood is recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 94:4 and Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:12 (see Rashi on 25:5) who 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 trees in the desert. However, Ziony Zevit (1992) points out that the type of acacia tree that grows in the area where the people were probably 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. On the other hand, he notes (see also Homan, 2002, p. 140) that outside of the Sinai desert in the land of Israel “in the Mediterranean climatic zone,” there is a different type of acacia tree, Acacia albida, that provides sufficient wood for what seems to have been needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed. The people would then have had to also traded for this wood.

A different possibility (an anonymous opinion quoted by Ibn Ezra, short comments on 25:5) is that the  large pieces of wood that were need to build the mishkan/ ohel moed  could have been connected from smaller pieces of wood.  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 several ways for the Jewish people to have acquired the necessary wood. One, some of the trees in the desert could have been used even if they did not grow to the required size by combining the wood from the trees. 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. Note, that just like by the dyes and textiles, 35:24 records that the people who had atsei shittim (the wood) brought it to Moshe, which accords with possibilities three, four and five, see Ibn Ezra short comments on 25:5.

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 needed 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.

Homan, Michael M. 2002, To your tents, 0 Israel! The terminology, function, form, and symbolism of tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Leiden: Brill. 

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.

Shemot (Exodus) 25:8,9; 27:21 - The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot

Shemot (Exodus) 25:8 records that G-d told Moshe that the people should build a mikdash, and then 25:9 records that G-d would show Moshe the pattern of the mishkan. What do the words mikdash and mishkan mean? Are they referring to different things or are they synonyms? 27:21 refers to a third term, the ohel moed that Aharon and his sons should light the menorah in the ohel moed. Is the ohel moed different than the mikdash and the mishkan? Do all three terms refer to the tent/ building that housed the special cultic furniture, such as the aron, the menorah, the inner altar, and the table? Do the terms also refer to the courtyard, where the outer altar was situated and was around the tent/ building that housed the special cultic furniture?

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 items (special furniture) that are used to worship G-d, 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 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 special furniture, but it is not clear if Moshe was referring to the special furniture described starting from chapter 25 onwards or some other items that are to worship G-d. Similarly, the Bet ha-Mikdash, the house of the mikdash, means a house that contains special items to worship G-d. 

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 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 second covering 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, see Shemot 36:14 and 40:19 and Rashi on 26:14, 35:11, and on Bemidbar 3:25 and 4:25. This second cover was a little 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. While Rashi (on 26:9) writes that this verse refers to the opening of the mishkan that the second cover was to extend two amot in some fashion (folded?) over the opening to the enclosed area, more likely it refers to the tent structure made by the parochet that was a pavilion, see our discussion, on 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21, "The parochet: A pavilion and a screen."  On the other hand, the references to the term ohel in 26:11,12,13 refer to the second covering/ ceiling of the mishkan.

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 mishkan.  26:14 then refers to one or two covers to this second covering, which again is called the ohel, the tent or cover of the mishkan.

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. This ohel is the pavilion made by the paraochet just like in 26:9.

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 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, based on 38:30, Bemidbar 3:25 and Bemidbar 4:25, maybe this opening is going to the courtyard coming from the special building containing the special cultic furniture. This phrase petach ohel moed could 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.” (I believe 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, the mishkan.

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. 

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 verse is similar to 26:36, and refers to the pavilion made by the parochet.

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. 

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 3:25 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 the end of 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.    These are the same screens, as the ohel in 39:38 (as in 26:36 and 36:37) refers to the tent made by the parochet that was within the mishkan.

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 parochet 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 parochet.

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

Shemot 35:4-40:33 – The repetition of the details of the building of the mishkan

Shemot 35:4-40:33 record the details of the construction of the mishkan. These details were already recorded by the instructions to build the mishkan, 25:1-31:11. Why was it not sufficient for the Torah to simply say the people did as Moshe commanded?

Nehama Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 644-653, see also Josipovici, 1988) reviews various answers to this question. She quotes the Ramban (on 36:8) that the repetitions “reflect the love and esteem with which the mishkan was viewed by G-d, the numerous recapitulations being designed to increase the reward of those engaged in (the study of) it.” However, she is not satisfied with this answer, and she wonders, “Why should this particular narrative be more highly valued than those conveying the very fundamentals of Judaism?” For example, was the mishkan more esteemed than the korban pesach? By the korban pesach, the Torah records all the instructions and afterwards just records that the people did as commanded, 12:28, without detailing all of their actions. A second approach is from the Ralbag (comments after chapter 40) and Cassuto (1967, p. 453) that the repetitions are just following the literary style of ancient times. N. Leibowitz is not satisfied with this approach and instead she prefers Moshe Mendelssohn’s approach in the Biur, who suggests that just as man dedicates his first fruits to G-d, so too the work in the mishkan represents the Jewish people’s “first fruits of their thoughts and abilities.” N. Leibowitz concludes that the repetition “was done in order to stress the symbolic significance of each detail, the dedication of each labor to G-d in preparation for life in the Promised Land.”

A different approach is that the repetitions have two messages and this can be seen by dividing the repetitions into two sections. The first section is from 35:4-36:7, and focuses on the donations to the mishkan, while the second section is from 36:8-40:33, and focuses on the actual construction of the mishkan.

The first section, 35:4-36:7, can be further divided into four smaller sub-units. The first of these sub-units, 35:4-19, records Moshe’s request to the people to donate materials to the mishkan, and includes a repetition of the list of the components of the mishkan including a mention of the priests’ clothing, 35:11-19. The Ramban (on 35:5) points out that the people had to be told this information before they were asked to make donations, as otherwise they would not have known what to donate, and usually when people know what the donations will be used for they give more generously.

The second sub-unit of the first section is 35:20-29 records in detail all the donations of the people. The third sub-unit of first section is 35:30-36:1, records the appointments of Betzalel and Oholiav to be in charge of building the mishkan. This seems to essentially repeat 31:1-11, but this is the first time the people are hearing about Betzalel and Oholiav. The people had to hear that G-d selected Betzalel and Oholiav in order that they would accept them as being in charge, and 36:1 records that everybody worked together. The fourth sub-unit is 36:2-36:7, which records that Moshe found out that the people had donated more materials than were needed for the mishkan, and he told them to stop donating.

The point of the section from 35:4-36:7 is the bigheartedness of the people in their donations to the mishkan. As noted by the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 48:6, see also N. Leibowitz, pp. 666-668) through these donations the people expiated their sin by the golden calf. The people had donated gold to the make the golden calf, and the people redeemed themselves by donating much greater quantities of metals and other materials to the mishkan. This lesson was so important that the Torah had to dwell at length on the donations, as it does by the donations of the people after the war with Midyan, Bemidbar 31:25-54. This lesson might have been missed if the Torah simply stated that the people donated what they had been asked to donate. (Note even though the donations to the mishkan expiated the sin of the golden calf, this does not mean that the mishkan itself was because of the sin of the golden calf, see our discussion on 30:1-10, "The barriers arise," https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2011/02/shemot-301-10-tetsavveh-barriers-arise.html)

The second large section is from 36:8-40:33 and can be further divided into five sub-units. One, 36:8-38:20 records the construction of the items and the walls of the mishkan. Two, 38:21-31, gives an accounting of the metals used in constructing the mishkan. Three, 39:1-32, records the making of the priests’ clothes. (Note, 39:1 is a connecting sentence between the accounting section of 38:21-31 with the making of the priest’s clothing, as it gives an accounting of the dyes used to make the priests’ clothing.) Four, 39:33-43 records that after all the items of the mishkan were finished the people brought them to Moshe. (Are 39:32 and 39:43 bookends?) Five, 40:1-15 records, for the first time, G-d’s instruction to Moshe to assemble the mishkan and 40:16-33 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. Note, 40:16 functions both as a concluding sentence to the instructions that they were fulfilled and as an introduction to 40:17-33, which records in detail how Moshe followed the instructions. Also, 40:16-33 does not record that Moshe fulfilled all of G-d’s instructions in 40:1-15, as some of this fulfillment is recorded in Vayikra chapter 8 and some in Bemidbar chapter 7, see our discussion on 40:1-33, “The anointing of the mishkan” (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2010/03/shemot-401-33-pekudei-anointing-of.html).

One phrase that appears repeatedly in the section 36:8-40:33 is "he built" or "they built." This suggests that the crucial aspect of the repetition is to stress the work that was done. This section focuses on the work of the people, and the last sub-unit even records that Moshe, the man who came closest to G-d of any human being, also participated in building the mishkan. The fact that the Torah records with such details the building of the mishkan must surely indicate the importance the Torah attaches to this activity. Thus, Ramban (end of comments on 36:8) explains that the Torah recorded the details of the people’s work to show how much G-d desired their work.

Rabbi Tarfon (end of 1st century) made this same point regarding the importance of work from a different perspective. He stated (Avot de-Rav Natan, 11:1) "Even the Holy One, blessed be He, did not cause His Presence to dwell in Israel until they had performed some work (translation from Cashdan, 1965, p. 67). Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1990, pp. 85,91) explains that the “dwelling” of G-d came about as the result of the work of men since there was no overt Divine intervention or miracles in the construction of the mishkan.

Furthermore, there are several literary connections between the mishkan and the creation of the world both by the instructions to build the mishkan and by the conclusion of the building of the mishkan. With regard to the instructions, they can be divided into seven sections based on the opening phrase, G-d spoke to Moshe, 25:1, 30:11, 30:17, 30:22, 30:34, 31:1 and 31:12, see Sarna, 1999, p.201. The seventh section discusses the laws of Shabbat and references the creation of the world, 31:17. The sixth section records the appointment of Betzalel and Oholiav to build the mishkan, and this corresponds to the sixth day of creation since in both cases the focus is on humankind. There is even a similarity between the blessings, as on the sixth day man is created in the image of G-d, Bereshit 1:27, and 31:3, within the sixth section, records that G-d filled Betzalel with the spirit of G-d.

With regard to the completion of the mishkan, Cassuto (1883-1951, pp. 476, 477, 483) points out four parallels between the mishkan and the creation of the world. One, 39:32 records that all the work of the mishkan was completed and this is similar to Bereshit 2:1 which records that on the seventh day, the world was completed. Two, 39:43 records that “Moshe saw all the work” and this seeing is reminiscent of the seeing of G-d by creation, Bereshit 1:31. Three, 39:43 also records that Moshe blessed the people, which parallels that G-d blessed the seventh day after the creation of the world, Bereshit 2:3. Four, 40:33 records that Moshe completed the work, which is parallel to Bereshit 2:2 that on the seventh day G-d completed His work in creating the world.

The creation of the world and the building of the mishkan are the two great creative acts in the Torah, the first by G-d and the second by mankind. These literary connections between these two acts indicate the importance of the work of the Jewish people in building the mishkan.

Accordingly, maybe the point of the section, 36:8-40:33, is to emphasize the importance of working and creating. The mishkan is the great building project of the Torah where the people took all the different materials and fashioned them into a purposeful construct. The building of the mishkan was a fulfillment of the prime directive to humankind to conquer the world in Bereshit 1:28. The building of the mishkan is the only, or the best opportunity, in the entire Torah to stress this point, and this lesson would have been lost if the Torah had merely stated the people did as they were commanded without recording all the details of the work.

Shemot 40:1-33 (Pekudei) - The anointing of the mishkan, the ohel moed and the priests

Shemot 40:1-15 records G-d’s instructions to Moshe for setting up the mishkan, and Shemot 40:16-33 records that Moshe set up the mishkan. One curiosity of 40:16-33 is that the verses only partially record Moshe’s fulfillment of G-d’s instructions from 40:1-15.

40:2 records that Moshe was to construct the mishkan, and 40:17-19 record the fulfillment of 40:2 that Moshe put up the boards for the walls and the coverings for the ceiling. 40:3 then records that Moshe was to put the aron and the parokhet (the screen to the room with the aron) in the mishkan, and 40:20,21 record that Moshe fulfilled this instruction from G-d. 40:4 records that Moshe was to put the table and the menorah into the mishkan, and 40:22-25 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. 40:5 records that Moshe was then to put the incense altar into the mishkan and put up the screen separating the mishkan proper from the courtyard. 40:26-28 records that Moshe fulfilled this command. 40:6 records that Moshe was then to put up the outer altar outside the mishkan proper and 40:29 records that Moshe fulfilled this command. 40:7 records that Moshe was to place the laver between the outer altar and the mishkan proper and fill the laver with water. 40:30-32 record that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. 40:8 records that Moshe was to put up the walls around the courtyard, and 40:33 records that Moshe fulfilled this instruction. 40:9 then records that Moshe was to anoint the mishkan with oil. By now, following the pattern of 40:1-8 and 40:17-33, we would expect that 40:34 would record that Moshe fulfilled this instruction to anoint the mishkan to maintain the order of the chapter. However, there is no mention of Moshe anointing the mishkan. Instead, 40:34 records that the cloud of G-d and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan.

What happened to the anointing of the mishkan? The section 40:17-33 followed an exact pattern that Moshe followed G-d’s instructions from the beginning of chapter 40. Yet, 40:9 records that Moshe was instructed to anoint the mishkan, and here the pattern breaks down since there is no mention of Moshe anointing the mishkan in chapter 40. We know that Moshe must have fulfilled this action since 40:16 records that Moshe did everything that he was instructed by G-d. When did Moshe anoint the mishkan? Three are two possibilities. Vayikra 8:10 and Bemidbar 7:1 both record that Moshe anointed the mishkan. We will review both possibilities, starting with Vayikra 8:10.

Vayikra 8 records the initiation of the priests, and as part of that process, Vayikra 8:10 records that Moshe anointed the mishkan. However, this anointing cannot be the fulfillment of G-d’s instruction in Shemot 40:9 since the order of events in Vayikra 8 do not correspond with the order of Shemot 40. Vayikra 8:7-9 records that Moshe dressed Aharon in the special clothing of the High Priest before he anointed the mishkan while Shemot 40:9 records that the mishkan was to be anointed before Moshe dressed Aharon, Shemot 40:13. As we noticed above, Moshe when fulfilling G-d’s instruction of Shemot 40 followed them exactly in the order that they were commanded.

Ramban (on Vayikra 8:10) explains that in Shemot 40, the Torah wanted to record together all the actions with regard to Aharon and his sons, and hence the instructions to dress Aharon in his priestly clothing were recorded after the instruction to anoint the mishkan. He is insinuating that the instructions in Shemot 40 are not to be understood as indicating a specific order. Yet, this is contradicted by the correspondence noted above that Moshe followed the instructions of Shemot 40 in their exact order.

Or Hachayyim (on Vayikra 8:10) argues that in Vayikra 8, Moshe was following the order of 8:2, which records the instructions to “take Aharon, his sons, their clothing and the oil.” Since the oil was mentioned last, Or Hachayyim suggests that Moshe learned that first he was to dress Aharon and then to anoint the mishkan. Yet, still this dressing of Aharon before the anointing of the mishkan contradicts the order of Shemot 40. Or Hachayyim answers that the order of Shemot 40 only meant to anoint the mishkan before anointing Aharon, but he claims, following the Ramban, that the instructions to dress Aharon in Shemot 40 were recorded after the instructions to anoint the mishkan in order to combine the dressing of Aharon with his anointing. Yet, again this contradicts the order of Shemot 40. Also, if in Vayikra 8 the Torah could record the dressing of Aharon separate from the anointing, then Shemot 40 could also have done so. Or Hachayyim seems correct that in Vayikra 8, Moshe was following the order of Vayikra 8:2, but this means that the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8 was not the anointing that was instructed in Shemot 40. Accordingly, since Vayikra 8:10 cannot be the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:9, it must be that the instructions were fulfilled in Bemidbar 7:1.

Bemidbar 7:1 records that, “On the day when Moshe finished setting up the mishkan, he anointed it and sanctified it, and all of its vessels, and the altar and all of its vessels he also anointed and sanctified.” Not only must this be the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:9 since Vayikra 8:10 was ruled out as discussed above, but also the words “on the day when Moshe finished the mishkan” refer to the events of Shemot 40. Bemidbar 7:1 is a continuation of Shemot 40:33. Yet, there remain several problems.

One, Shemot 40:11 records that Moshe was to anoint the laver and its basin, but this anointing is not mentioned in Bemidbar 7. This might tempt one to argue that Vayikra 8:11 is the fulfillment of Shemot 40:11. Yet, not only would this contradict the order of Shemot 40 as discussed above, but also one could not wash from the laver until it was anointed and Vayikra 8:6 records that Aharon washed before the anointing of Vayikra 8:11. Thus the laver had to be anointed before the events of Vayikra 8, and it is most likely that the anointing of the laver occurred after the anointing recorded in Bemidbar 7:1 but was not recorded in the Torah. My guess is that it was not specified in Bemidbar 7:1 since the main focus of the chapter is on the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, which were not directly related to the anointing of the laver. (In fact, the laver was omitted on another occasion as Shemot 38:30,31 records the items of the mishkan that were from bronze, and the laver was not mentioned, see N. Leibowitz, 1976a, pp. 689-695.)

A second problem with the idea that Bemidbar 7:1 is the continuation of Shemot 40:33, is how does the anointing in Bemidbar 7:1 relate to the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8? The most popular opinion of the commentators (see Rashi on Vayikra 9:1 and Bemidbar 7:1) is that Vayikra 8, the initiation of the priests, occurred a week before the events of Shemot 40. According to this approach, Vayikra 8 records a completely separate process of anointing from the anointing of Shemot 40 and Bemidbar 7:1. Yet, as Shemot 40:2 records the completion of the mishkan, how could the priests have been initiated before there was a mishkan? The standard answer (Bemidbar Rabbah 12:15) is that during the seven days of the initiation of the priests Moshe put the mishkan up and took it down daily (even twice or three times a day), and then Shemot 40 refers to the period when Moshe constructed the mishkan without it having to be dismantled immediately afterwards. Yet, why would Moshe do this since this was an enormous amount of work? Furthermore, from Vayikra 8:33-36 it seems that the mishkan existed continuously during the seven-day initiation process of the priests. Ramban (on Shemot 40:2) attempts to answer these questions, but as maintained by Rabbi Akiva and Ibn Ezra (see long comments on Shemot 40:2), it cannot be that Vayikra 8 occurred before Shemot 40.

We now have a problem. Bemidbar 7:10 records that on the day of the anointing of the mishkan, the chiefs of the tribes brought their sacrifices for the mishkan and this went on for 12 days. Yet, if Bemidbar 7:1 is a continuation of Shemot 40, and if the initiation of the priests as recorded in Vayikra 8 was after Shemot 40, then how does the initiation of the priests relate to the sacrifices brought by the tribal leaders?

There are three possible ways to mesh the chronology of the initiation of the priests with the sacrifices of the tribal leaders. One possibility is that they both started on the day when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, the first day of Nisan. This seems unlikely since not only would it have been a very, very busy day (see Abravanel on Bemidbar 7) but also why would Moshe have anointed the mishkan twice on one day? Furthermore, the seven-day initiation rite of the priests and the events of the eighth day (Vayikra 9) would then have been contemporaneous with the 12 days when the tribal leaders were bringing their sacrifices, and this seems difficult.

A second possibility is R. Akiva and Ibn Ezra's (long comments on 40:2) approach, that the priests were initiated after the mishkan was anointed and then after this initiation process, the tribal leaders brought their sacrifices. With this idea, the priests began their initiation rite on the first day of Nisan, and the tribal leaders began to bring their sacrifices on the eighth day of Nisan. This also seems unlikely since Bemidbar 7:10 records that the tribal leaders brought their sacrifices immediately after Moshe anointed the mishkan. Also, again there would be the problem that Moshe would have anointed the mishkan twice on the same day. (Ibn Ezra understands Bemidbar 7:1 as referring to the anointing of Vayikra 8:10 and not recording a new anointing, but again this is problematic since Vayikra 8 does not follow the order of Shemot 40.)

We are left with the possibility that the initiation process of the priests happened after the tribal leaders brought their gifts. According to this possibility, on the 1st day of 1st month (Nisan) of the 2nd year in the desert, the mishkan was completed, Shemot 40:17. On that day, Moshe anointed the mishkan as recorded in Bemidbar 7:1, and the tribal leaders began to bring their sacrifices. Their sacrifices continued until the 12th day of the month.  At that point the priests could have started their initiation process, but as the 14th of the month was the day the korban pesach (Bemidbar 9:3) was offered presumably the initiation process would have been afterwards. (Note that according to this chronology, the korban pesach in the desert was brought without the help of the priests, as was true for the korban pesach in Egypt.) 

Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 40:2) argues that the Jewish people did not celebrate the holiday of Matzot in the desert, which means the priests could have started their initiation process on the 15th of the month. If Ibn Ezra is incorrect then the holiday of Matzot ended on the 21st of the month, and then the initiation process would have started on the 22nd of the month. In either case, the initiation of the priests would have ended before the 2nd month, which is when Moshe was commanded to count the people, Bemidbar 1:1,2.

This chronology means that the mishkan would have existed for a short time when there were no priests. This anomaly explains why the mishkan had to be anointed twice. Once, in Bemidbar 7:1, it was anointed for the regular population on the first day of Nisan, and then Vayikra 8:10 records that it was anointed a second time for the priests on either the 15th or the 22nd of Nisan.

In addition, because it was the priestly clothing that made Aharon a priest, he was dressed before the anointing recorded in Vayikra 8:10, which was for his family. This dressing and anointing of the priests during their initiation process in Vayikra 8 was the fulfillment of the instructions of Shemot 40:12-15, but this occurred after the events recorded in Bemidbar 7:1 which records the fulfillment of Shemot 40:9,10.