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 28:30 (also Vayikra 8:8) – The priestly clothing: The urim and tummim

שמות כח:ל - ונתת אל חושן המשפט את האורים ואת התמים והיו על לב אהרן בבאו לפני ה' ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל על לבו לפני ה' תמיד.

Shemot 28:30 records that the urim and tummim were to be placed al (to? on? in?) the hoshen (a priestly garment that Aharon was to wear on his chest) on his lev (not his heart), and the Aharon was to carry the judgment of the people on his lev. The urim and tummim are mysterious since it is unclear what they were and what was their purpose. Are they clothing? 

Many claim, based on Bemidbar 27:21, that the urim and tummim were to enable the high priest to ask G-d questions, and then there are various suggestions as to how this was to be done. Rashi (on 28:30) explains that the urim and tummim was a parchment with G-d's name which was inserted into a pouch of the hoshen, and this would cause the stones on the hoshen to light up to answer the questions. Luzzatto (on Vayikra 8:8) suggests that the urim and tummim were twenty-two letters, and the high priest would pull out the letters to answer the question. Modern scholars (see for example Sarna, 1991, on 28:30 and maybe Ibn Ezra, long comments on 28:6) believe that the urim and tummim were two items which functioned as lots to answer yes and no questions. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 920) suggests that the urim and tummim were some text (24:7?) that accompanied the luchot, and they gave a sign to Aharon when it was time for the people to march in the desert. All of these suggestions are based on the idea that the urim and tummim were placed or put into the hoshen.

If the urim and tummim were something written, then I would think it was the priestly blessing that the high priest would have carried parchment that consisted of these verses. Note, silver amulets were found from the 7th century BCE which consisted of the priestly blessings (see Barkay 2009), but in one of the amulets, the beginning of the second blessings, yaer Hashem panav eilecha, and the end of the third blessings, ve-yasem lecha shalom, were combined. Maybe this combined blessing was the urim and tummim, as the blessing of yaer would correspond to the urim and the blessing of shalom would correspond to the tummim.

Nonetheless, this idea that urim and tummim were parchment or stones is problematic since it is never recorded in the Torah that a person constructed or made the urim and tummim. Chapter 39 records how the people made all the items of the priests’ clothing, but nothing is mentioned of the people making the urim and tummim. The Ramban (on 28:30) writes that this absence of someone making the urim and tummim shows that Moshe wrote the urim and tummim and according to one version of the Ramban, that G-d wrote the urim and tummim. Both of these suggestions are difficult since if Moshe wrote the urim and tummim then the Torah should have recorded this action. Also, if G-d wrote the urim and tummim, then this also could have been recorded and it would counter the whole idea that the people constructed the mishkan/ ohel moed and made all the clothing of the priests.

Apparently due to the absence of the Torah describing the making of the urim and tummim, Chacham (1991, pp. 202,203) suggests that the urim and tummim were the twelve stones that were on the hoshen. He then explains that 28:30 (and Vayikra 8:8) can be understood to mean that the stones were to be fixed into the hoshen.

I would expand Chacham’s idea and suggest that the urim and tummim were the two sets of stones on the high priests, the stones on his shoulders on the efod (another item wore on the chest with straps over the shoulders) and on the hoshen.  The beginning of 28:30 and Vayikra 8:8 then mean that the hoshen was to be secured or tightly connected to both sets of stones by securing the connection between the hoshen and the efod.  The Torah records with great detail how these two items of clothing were to be connected, 28:13,14; 22-28. 28:30 is then a concluding sentence to both sets of stones, which form the urim and tummim. In Vayikra 8:8, the urim and tummim are the last items recorded by Moshe dressing Aharon in reference to the clothing relating to the body (not the clothing relating to Aharon's head) since Moshe’s last action was to tighten the cords connecting the hoshen to the efod, which then connected the two set of stones, the urim and tummim.

This idea might also explain the terms urim and tummim. The term urim probably refers to light, which would be the reflection of light from the stones. The term tummim might refer to completeness, as both sets of stones signify the twelve tribes of the people. Both sets of stones have both ideas, and the plural of each term, urim and tummim, could then signify the double reflection and the double completeness.

This idea does not explain the purpose of the urim and tummim. I doubt that urim and tummim were to ask questions of G-d, and the reference to the urim in Bemidbar 27:21 was that they were used once by the division of the land. 

One interesting possibility is the Seforno’s (on 28:30, also Tzror haMor, quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, footnote 90 on 28:30) suggestion that the urim and tummim would help or remind the high priest to pray for the people in order that G-d would judge them favorably. 

A different possibility is that in our discussion on 28:6-29, “Stones of remembering,” we suggested that each set of stones was to cause either the high priest or the people to remember, and then this could have been the purpose of the urim and tummim, the two sets of stones.  

Also, following the idea that the word lev in the Torah means mind or brain, 28:30 can be understood to mean that Aharon should have in mind the urim and tummim, the two sets of stones which were connected to the hoshen, when he went before G-d and that he should have in mind the judgement (or the means to judge) of the people before G-d all the time.

Bibliography:

Barkay, Gabriel, 2009, The riches of Ketef Hinnom, Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 200, pp. 23-35.

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

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

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

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 (Exodus) 28:6-29 - The efod and hoshen: Stones of remembering

Shemot 28:6-12 records that one of the garments of the high priest was the efod. The efod appears to have been a type of apron or vest and it had a stone inserted into both of its shoulder straps. The names of six of the tribes of the Jewish people were engraved on each stone. (Does this mean that each stone was relatively large or was the engraving very small?) In addition, the high priest also wore the hoshen, the breastpiece, which was attached to the efod, and the hoshen contained twelve stones, 28:13-29. The names of each tribe were also engraved on these stones, as each stone was inscribed with the name of one tribe.

The Torah appears to give a similar rationale for both sets of stones. With regard to the stones on the efod, 28:12 records "You are to place the two stones on the should-pieces of the efod, as stones of remembrance for the Children of Israel. Aharon is to bear their names before the presence of G-d on his two shoulders for remembrance." Similarly, 39:7 records, "They placed them (the stones) on the should-pieces of the efod, as stones of remembrance for the Children of Israel." This idea of remembrance also appears by the stones of the hoshen. 28:29 records, "So Aharon is to bear the names of the children of Israel on the hoshen ha-mishpat over his heart, whenever he comes into the Holy-Shrine for remembrance, before the presence of G-d, regularly." (All translations from Fox, 1995.) 

We see that both sets of stones relate to remembering, but who was to remember? What was to be remembered? Furthermore, why was there a need for two sets of stones to cause something to be remembered?

One approach (Rashi on 28:12, Seforno on 28:12,29) is that the stones were for G-d to remember the righteousness of the Jewish people. Rashbam (on 28:36) explains that due to this remembering, G-d would forgive the people for their sins. This approach is difficult theologically since it hard to understand why G-d would need to see the stones to be reminded of the righteousness of the Jewish people.

A second approach is that the stones were for the high priest to remember the Jewish people. Benno Jacob writes (1992, p. 918) with regard to the stones of the hoshen that "the high priest did not pray for his people through words in this service, but the names placed upon his heart told G-d what lay in his heart and for whom he sought healing." Similarly with regard to the stones of the efod, he writes (p. 921), that "the two shoulder stones led him to bear the worries of the individual Israelites upon his shoulder."

Cassuto suggests a similar rationale. He writes (1967, p. 374) that the stones of the efod "were a memorial and symbol that the priest ministers in the name of the tribes of Israel." Similarly, with regard to the stones of the hoshen, Cassuto writes (p. 378), "the priest will come before the Lord as the representative of Israel with the names of those whom he represents engraven for remembrance on the pouch (hoshen) that he wears on his heart."

Hertz (1960, pp. 340, 342) follows this idea as he writes by the efod that the "names denoted in concrete form that the high priest was the messenger and representative of the entire community,” and by the hoshen he quotes Benno Jacob’s explanation for the stones. However, by the stones of the efod, he adds another approach that the stones were "to remind the children of Israel of their unity of descent, and unity of service to G-d."

This idea that the high priest was/ is the messenger of the people might seem to be obvious, but as the high priest had relatively limited contact with the people since he was always in the mishkan/ ohel moed, Vayikra 21:12, it was possible that he would forget that he was the messenger of the people. The stones on his clothing with the names of the tribes could then have served as a reminder to him that he was a messenger of the people. Furthermore, the idea that the stones on the hoshen were for the high priest to remember that he was a messenger of the people makes sense since the high priest could see the stones on the hoshen which was on chest/ stomach. However, the stones on the efod were on the high priest's shoulders (28:12) and it would have been very hard for him to see them.

Another difference between the two sets of stones is that with regard to the stones on the hoshen, 28:29 records that the stones were to be on his heart, lev. The word lev in the Torah refers to thinking and then the idea of 28:29 is not just the placement of the stones, but also that they are to cause the high priest to think or to remember. However, this reference to the heart/ thinking by the high priest is not recorded in reference to the stones on the efod.

A third difference is that by the efod, the Torah refers to the stones as a zichron le-bnei yisrael, 28:12, 39:7, but this phrase does not appear by the hoshen. The phrase zichron le-bnei yisrael also appears in Bemidbar 17:5, which records that the fire-pans used in the test by the 250 rebels against Moshe and Aharon were to be a covering on the altar to be a lesson for the Jewish people. We see from this case that the phrase, zichron le-bnei yisrael, can refer to the Jewish people, and this implies that the stones on the efod were the Jewish people to remember.

These three differences between the sets of stones imply that the remembering by each set of stones differs. A possible distinction is that the remembering by the stones of the efod was for the Jewish people to remember, while the remembering by the stones of the hoshen was for the high priest, Aharon, to remember.

The question then is what were the Jewish people to remember when they saw the stones on the efod/ shoulders of the high priest? A possible answer is that the stones on the high priest's shoulders would look like a type of pillar of stones, and this could recall the pillars, matzevah, that Moshe put up by the ceremony by the establishment of the covenant, 24:4, as the pillars were a pile of stones. Furthermore, it might be that the matzevah in 24:4 was to re-call the people standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, 19:17, by the Decalogue. Thus, the stones on efod/ shoulders of the high priest might have been to re-call the ceremony by the establishment of the covenant or the Decalogue.

Accordingly, I believe that the stones on the hoshen were for the high priest to remember that he was a messenger of the people, and the stones on the efod were for the Jewish people to either re-call the covenant or the Decalogue.

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

Shemot 30:1-10 – The incense altar in the mishkan/ ohel moed: The barriers arise

The instructions from G-d to Moshe to build the mishkan/ ohel moed begin in Shemot (Exodus) 25, and appear to end with the concluding sentences 29:43-46. However, after these verses, Shemot 30:1-10 record the instructions for building the incense altar that was placed in the same room of the mishkan as the menorah and the table, whose instructions were recorded in 25:23-40. Why were the instructions regarding the incense altar not recorded in conjunction with the menorah and the table in chapter 25?

Ibn Ezra (long comments on 25:22, copied by Hizkuni on 30:1) suggests that the incense altar had to be recorded after the instructions regarding the outer altar, which are recorded in 27:1-9, since 30:9 records that one cannot offer an olah sacrifice on the incense altar. Yet, this reason would only explain why the incense altar was not recorded in chapter 25, but still then it should have been recorded in chapter 27 after the instructions concerning the outer altar were recorded and not in chapter 30.

Ramban (on 30:1, see also Seforno on 30:1) notes that the conclusion of the instructions for building the mishkan (29:45,46) records that the mishkan was for G-d to “dwell” amongst the people, which implies that anything that is recorded afterwards, like the incense altar, did not contribute to that goal.  Yet, why then have the incense altar altogether? The Ramban suggests it was to protect the people from plagues, see Bemidbar 17:11-13. Apparently, the idea was that the glory of G-d was in the inner room of the mishkan, and the glory of G-d would kill the people if they sinned, but the incense from the incense altar could protect the people.

Cassuto (1967, p. 390) explains that the instructions for building the incense altar are recorded separately since 30:7-10 record the rituals to be performed with the incense altar as opposed to the other items for which there are just descriptions and short references to their functions. However, 30:1-6 record the instructions for building the incense altar and these verses could have been recorded in chapter 25 in conjunction with the instructions to build the menorah and the table.

My guess is to follow the Ramban's idea that the incense altar did not contribute to G-d's "dwelling" amongst the people but to offer a different rationale for the altar. I think the incense altar was a form of a barrier between the people and the aron. How did it function as a barrier?

One, it was placed right before the curtain to the inner room of the mishkan, the room with the aron, which means that it would stop one from walking into the room with the aron, 30:6. Two, its height (two amot) was half an amah higher than the aron, 25:10 and 30:2. Three, the point of the incense that arose from the altar was not its smell but that the smoke of the incense formed a type of barrier. This idea is most evident on Yom Kippur when the high priest had to make an incense cloud that would allow him to enter the inner room of the mishkan, see Vayikra 16:13, and 30:10 refers to this act. Note that even when G-d's presence is symbolized as being in a cloud, as for example in Devarim 31:15, the idea is that the cloud is a barrier from a person directly "seeing" G-d. After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Oded Walk noted that when Aharon walked with the incense to stop the plague in Bemidbar 17, the Torah describes the incense as being a barrier between the living and the dead, Bemidbar 17:13.

Why was there a need for a barrier in the mishkan? I think the barrier illuminates one of the basic ideas regarding man's relationship with G-d. The building of the mishkan increased the connection between G-d and the Jewish people, and all the items recorded from 25:1-29:46 were to show or increase the connection between G-d and man. Yet, even with this connection, there is a limit how close a person can get to G-d. This is the basic paradox of religion, man is to be connected with G-d but man can never really approach G-d, and hence the incense altar was included in the mishkan as a reminder of the barrier between man and G-d. For other examples of this idea, see our discussions on 20:19-23, "Establishing boundaries after the Decalogue," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/02/shemot-2019-23-yitro-establishing.html

An additional possible reason for why the instructions to build an incense altar are recorded after it appears that all instructions for the mishkan/ ohel moed were told to Moshe could relate to the question of the chronological order of the narrative. The Midrash Tanchuma Teruma 8, followed by Rashi (see his comments on 30:16 and 31:18, and N. Leibowitz, 1976a, pp. 459-470), argues that the instructions to build the mishkan only occurred after the sin of the golden calf. On the other hand, the Ramban (on 25:1), argues that the instructions were told to Moshe before the sin of the golden calf.

I prefer the Ramban’s approach since once Moshe was told to go on Mount Sinai to receive the tablets, 24:13, then there had to be a place to store the tablets. Also, from the fact that the instructions for the mishkan were recorded before the sin of the golden calf shows that the mishkan was not due to the sin of the golden calf. Yet, this does not imply that the entire mishkan had to be built, and maybe there is a third possible way to understand the flow of the narrative.

Maybe chapters 25-29 were told to Moshe before the sin of the golden calf, while 30:1-10 (also 30:11-38? chapter 31?) was told to Moshe after the sin of the golden calf. The idea would be that before the sin of the golden calf there was a minimization of the barriers between G-d and mankind, while afterwards the relationship was changed. This meant more barriers, which necessitated the incense altar being added to the mishkan.  According to this idea had the sin of the golden calf not occurred, the mishkan would have been built but without the incense altar.  With this idea, 30:1-10 was recorded together with the rest of the instructions to the mishkan, but the instructions in 30:1-10 (also 30:11-38?) were recorded as a separate unit at the end to indicate that they were only due to the sin of the golden calf.

For a discussion concerning the remainder of chapter 30, see our discussions on 30:17-38, "More barriers?" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/shemot-3017-38-ki-tissa-more-barriers.html

Bibliography:

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

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