Bemidbar (Numbers) 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim

In our discussions on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” we attempted to explain that the term mishkan only refers to the walls and ceiling of the special cultic building, which consisted of two rooms containing the aron, the menorah, the inner altar and the table of bread that the Jewish people built in the desert, while the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, the mishkan, the special ritual furniture, and the courtyard around the mishkan. In addition, the term mikdash refers to the collection of ritual items, independent of the building or tent where they are located. Now, we want to examine all cases of these three terms in the book of Bemidbar (Numbers) and the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy, only one verse).

1:1 records that G-d spoke to Moshe in the ohel moed, and according to our understanding this could have been anywhere in the entire complex.

1:50 refers to the mishkan three times, that the Levites would be in charge of the mishkan edut, that they will carry the mishkan, and that they will serve or guard the mishkan (Milgrom, 1990, p. 10). 1:51 continues with this theme, that the Levites would take down and put up the mishkan. 1:53 concludes this short section with another two references to the mishkan (altogether seven from 1:50-53) that the Levites would camp around the mishkan ha-edut and that the Levites would be in charge of watching/ protecting the mishkan ha-edut. (This term mishkan ha-edut appears three times in the section of 1:50-53.) 

1:50 twice refers to the vessels, i.e., the ritual furniture that is situated in the mishkan, and hence we see that the mishkan is the walls but not the items within the walls. Possibly the Torah uses the word mishkan here and not ohel moed because of the second term ha-edut. The term edut is never use in the Torah in conjunction with ohel moed, only ohel edut or the mishkan edut, maybe because ohel moed refers to the entire complex and one should not think that that entire complex is considered edut, testimony. On the other hand, ohel ha-edut refers to the tent by the parochet within the mishkan, which housed the aron, which contained the tablets, which are the edut, see our discussion on Shemot 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21, "The parochet: A pavilion and a screen."

2:2 records that the Jewish people were to camp around the ohel moed, and this would mean around the entire complex.

2:17 records that the ohel moed would travel with the people. Again, this is referring to the entire complex, which would be carried with the people travelled, and not just the special building within the complex.

3:7,8 refer to both the ohel moed and the mishkan. Following Milgrom (1990, p. 16, and Levine, 1993, pp. 141,142) the first half of 3:7 records that the Levites are to guard the ohel moed, the entire complex from the Jewish people approaching it inappropriately. In addition, the first half of 3:8 means that the Levites were to guard the items in the ohel moed, the complex, when they were being transported. The end of both 3:7,8 refer to the Levites work in the mishkan, and I would understand that these verses refer first to the taking down of the walls and ceiling of the special building when the people travelled, and then afterwards to the re-assembling of these walls and ceiling when the people reached their next camp.

3:23 records that the Gershonite clan within the Levites, camped on the side of the back of the mishkan, which continues the designation from 1:53, which also used the word mishkan, see our discussion above on the verse.

3:25 records the work of the Levite family, Gershon, in moving parts of the ohel moed when the people travelled in the desert. 3:25 refers to the ohel moed, then the mishkan, then the ohel, and then its cover. The verse indicates that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? 3:25 should be understood to mean that first the verse refers to the entire complex, the ohel moed (see Levine, 1993, p. 159), and then it specifies the mishkan, the walls and the first ceiling of the special building, see 4:25. 

The next term in 3:25 is ha-ohel, the tent, which tent?  The answer is that the word tent refers to the second ceiling/ covering of goat hairs over the mishkan, and this covering is not part of the mishkan, see Shemot 26:7, 36:14 and 40:19, and Rashi on 3:25, on 4:25, and on Shemot 26:14 and 35:11.   

The following word in 3:25 is its cover, and this refers to the cover of the second covering, namely the third and/ or the fourth covering to the area of the mishkan, as recorded in Shemot 26:14, 36:19, and 40:19.

The last phrase in 3:25 is the curtains of the opening, petach, to the ohel moed, and this is the opening to the courtyard coming from the mishkan since the following verse, 3:26, refers to the opening of the courtyard.  (Note as we discuss on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” the phrase petach ohel moed can sometimes refer to the opening to the entire complex from outside the complex.)

3:26 refers to the curtains “on the mishkan” and this refers to the curtain that cordoned off a courtyard that was around the walls of the special cultic building (and the outer altar). Accordingly, the term “on the mishkan” means surrounding the mishkan.

3:29 records that the Kehat clan amongst the Levites camped on the south side of the mishkan, which follows method of designating their camping spot from 3:23 and 1:53. Similarly, 3:35 records that the Merari clan amongst the Levites camped on the north side of the mishkan.

3:36 records that men of Merari were to carry the beams that made up the mishkan, that is to say the walls of the special building.

3:38 refers to Moshe and Aharon camped before the mishkan on the east and before the ohel moed on the east. Again, we see that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? The verse first mentions the camping of Moshe and Aharon in reference to the mishkan, as occurred by the three clans of the Levites, 3:23, 29, 35. Why then does the Torah add that Moshe and Aharon were also before the ohel moed, lifnei ohel moed? The answer is that if the Torah had only written that they were to camp before the mishkan, then one might have thought that they were to camp in the courtyard of the complex. To reject this possibility, the Torah records that they were to camp before the ohel moed, as this is the entire complex, and being before the entire complex means to be outside the complex. The phrase before the mishkan would then mean to camp in the direction of the opening of the special building but not next to the special building. Note, Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10, we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside of the complex, and see also our discussion on Vayikra 3:8,13 in our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”

3:38 also refers to the mikdash, and this means the collection of special ritual furniture that was within the mishkan/ ohel moed since Aharon and his sons were responsible for these items being packed when the people travelled, 4:5,15,19.

4:3,4,15 record that the work of the Levite family of Kehat was in the ohel moed, referring to the work of carrying the special ritual furniture that was in the entire special complex when the people travelled in the desert. The verse did not use the term mishkan since the family of Kehat carried the special ritual items within the ohel moed, but not the walls and the ceiling of the special building, which constituted the mishkan.

The first half of 4:16 records that Elazar was to be charge of various items associated with the sacrifices that were not ritual furniture. The second half of 4:16 records that Elazar was in charge of the mishkan, meaning the walls and ceiling of the special building, and all items, the special ritual furniture and supplementary vessels, within the mishkan, ostensibly when the mishkan/ ohel moed was being dismantled. Again, the fact that 4:16 records “within” indicates that the mishkan is just the exterior of the special cultic building. Yet, why does 4:16 refer to the mishkan in 4:16 since Elazar’s brother Itamar was in charge of the Levites families of Gershon and Merari and they carried the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan? 

Milgrom (1990, p. 28) suggests that based on 3:32, Elazar was in charge of his brother, and then overall in charge of the transporting of the mishkan. Thus, his father Aharon was only in charge of covering the special ritual furniture, 4:4,15,19, but not of overseeing the transport of the items. The second half of 4:16 is then a summary sentence not just in reference to the work of the family of Kehat, the preceding verses, and possibly this summary is mentioned at this point due to the first half of 4:16 recording that Elazar was directly in charge of the transport of the various items that were not ritual furniture. (Note it is not obvious that the family of Kehat had to carry the items mentioned in the first half of 4:16.)

4:23 records that the family of Gershon was to work in the ohel moed, which refers to these Levites carrying different parts of the entire complex. If the term ohel moed just means the mishkan, the special building, then this description of their work is difficult since 4:26 records that they were to carry various items from the courtyard. Yet, if the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then 4:23 refers both their work carrying items from the special building and from the courtyard, as recorded in 4:25,26.

4:25 is similar to 3:25 and refers to the work of family of Gershon of carrying the curtains (ceilings) of the mishkan and the curtains of the ohel moed. Again, if these terms are synonyms, then it is odd that both are mentioned in the verse. Instead, the first item are the curtains of the mishkan, and this was the first cover on top of the area that had the special cultic furniture, excluding the outer altar.

The second phrase in 4:25 is “and ohel moed” referring to some curtains mentioned in the beginning of the verse, yet what are the curtains of the ohel moed? As noted by Rashi (on 4:25) the reference is probably to the second covering above the enclosed area of the mishkan, which was made from goat’s hair. Shemot 26:7 refers to this covering as a tent to the mishkan, which could imply that this second (third?) covering was not part of the mishkan, but it would be part of the ohel moed. With this idea, only the first covering is part of the mishkan, but not the additional coverings. The additional coverings (third and fourth) of the area enclosed by the mishkan are referred to in the following words of the verse. Accordingly, as the second covering is not considered part of the mishkan, the phrase “and ohel moed” is referring to the second covering of the mishkan.

The end of 4:25 refers to the curtain by the opening of the ohel moed, see our discussion above of this phrase in 3:25.

4:26 has the phrase “on the mishkan” and this has the same meaning as in 3:36.

4:28 concludes the section on the work of the Levite family Gershon, and refers to them working in the ohel moed like in 4:23, the beginning of the section. This term ohel moed is more general than the term mishkan, and some of the items carried by the family of Gershon were part of the ohel moed and not the mishkan.

4:30 records that the work of the family of Merari was also in the ohel moed, just like by the family of Gershon, 4:23.

4:31,32 specify the work in the ohel moed of the family of Merari. They were to carry the walls, bolts and sockets of the mishkan, and the columns that formed the wall of the courtyard, which were not part of the mishkan but are subsumed under the term ohel moed.

4:33 is the concluding verse to the description of the work of the family of Merari, and refers to the ohel moed, as in the beginning of the section, 4:30, and this pattern is similar to the section on the work of the family of Gershon.

4:35,37,39,41,43,47 all refer to the three different Levite families working in the ohel moed, the entire complex, in reference to a count of how many men in each family between the years thirty and fifty. This reference to working in the ohel moed accords with the mention of the ohel moed by the opening and closing verses of the description of the work of each family in chapter four.

5:17 records that the priest was to take some dirt from the mishkan to create some type of drink for the suspected adulteress. This means that the priest was to take some dirt that was between the walls of the special building since there was no floor to this building.

6:10,13 records that the nazir who accidently became tamei needs to bring two birds to the petach ohel moed to offer as sacrifices. As mentioned in our discussion above on 3:25, this place is probably the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

6:18 records that the nazir was also to cut/ shave the hair on his head at the petach ohel moed, and again as 6:10,13, this could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from outside the complex, as would a person or many people be cutting their head by the opening to the special cultic building?

7:1 records that when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, meaning the wall and ceiling of the special building, then he anointed it, the vessels that were inside the special building, the outer altar, which was not in the mishkan, and the other vessels in the courtyard.

7:3 then records that the tribal leaders offered sacrifices before the mishkan, which means that they offered sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The altar was situated before or in front of the special building, which was the mishkan.

7:5 then records that the tribal leaders gave wagons to Moshe to help the Levites in their work in the ohel moed, which accords with the description of the work of the three Levite families mentioned in chapter four.

7:89 then record that after the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, Moshe went into the ohel moed, and he heard a sound coming from inside the special building, which was G-d speaking to Moshe. While it could be that Moshe went into the special building, it could also be that he was in the courtyard when he heard G-d speaking to him.

8:9 records that as part of the ceremony to induct the Levites, the Levites were to be brought before, lifnei, the ohel moed, and all the people were to gather around. 8:10 then records that the Levites were to be brought closer before G-d, and the people were to place their hands upon them. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that 8:9 should be understood to mean that the Levites were first brought outside the complex, and this where the people gathered. Afterwards, as recorded in 8:10, they entered the courtyard of the mishkan, passing by the people. This explanation accords with the idea that the ohel moed is more encompassing than the mishkan.

(If one wants to claim that the terms mishkan and ohel moed are synonyms, that both terms refer to the enclosed area with the two rooms, then one would understand that 8:9 means that initially the Levites were in the courtyard of the mishkan with the people, and then in 8:10 they either went into the special building with the two rooms or they scrunched up within the courtyard. Both options seem logistically unreasonable.)

8:15, 19, 22, 24, 26 record that after the Levites were inducted, then they were to work in the ohel moed, which again follows the description of their work in chapter four, see our discussion on 4:23.

9:15, records that on the day when the mishkan was constructed (see 7:1) then the cloud of G-d covered the mishkan, and specifically the ohel edut (also mentioned in 9:17). As discussed above on 1:50-53, the ohel edut is the tent made by the parochet which was a type of pavilion, and the cloud of G-d was then above the special building.  9:18, 19, 20, 22 all continue to discuss the cloud of G-d being above the special building. The Torah did not use the term ohel moed in these verses, since the cloud of G-d did not cover the courtyard.

10:3 records that trumpets would be blown to call the people to come to the petach ohel moed. As discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside to the complex since very few people could fit inside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

10:11 again refers to the cloud of G-d on top of the mishkan, like in 9:15-22.

10:17 refers to the taking down of the mishkan, the opposite of 9:15, and the transporting of the mishkan by the families of Gershon and Merari. While one might have expected 10:17 to use the term ohel moed instead of the mishkan, maybe since the main work in transporting the special complex, was the taking down of the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan, so then the Torah refers to the mishkan in 10:17.

10:21 records that the family of Kehat transported the mikdash, which means the collection of special ritual furniture. 10:21 ends by recording that the mishkan was to be re-built when the people got to the new camp, and again putting back up the walls and ceiling of the special building was the most difficult part of the re-constructing the special complex, which could be why the Torah uses the term mishkan and not ohel moed in 10:17. Also, the mishkan needed to be re-assembled in order to house the special cultic items being carried by the family of Kehat.

11:16 refers to ohel moed, but this was a tent that Moshe had outside the camp, and is unrelated to the special building and courtyard that was within the camp, see Benno Jacob, 1992, pp. 960-966.

12:4 records that Moshe, Aharon and Miryam were to meet at the ohel moed, and it is not clear if this was referring to Moshe’s tent outside the camp, or to the entrance to the courtyard of the special building within the camp.

14:10 records that the glory of G-d appeared in the ohel moed. Most likely this vision of the glory of G-d was within the cloud that was on top of the mishkan, and the cloud moved to be over the courtyard. This was a frightening vision to stop the people from stoning Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua and Calev.

16:9 records that Moshe asked the Levites within Korah’s rebellion that was it not enough that they worked in the mishkan? I think the reference is to the Levites carrying the mishkan when the people travelled in the desert since they did not work in the mishkan. Maybe, Moshe mentioned the mishkan and not ohel moed since the work carrying the mishkan was more special than transporting parts of the courtyard.

16:18 records that Aharon and the 250 men were to stand by the petach ohel moed, and 16:19 records that they were joined by Korah and other people at the petach ohel moed. As we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

16:24,27 refers to the mishkan of Datan, Aviram and Korah, but this means a regular tent as indicated by 16:25, without any cultic functions.

17:7,8 record that the glory of G-d appeared over the ohel moed, and then Moshe and Aharon could only go up to the ohel moed, but not into the ohel moed since they could not approach the glory of G-d. The ohel moed here refers to the entire complex, and the it seems that just like in 14:10, the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d and the cloud moved over the courtyard towards the people.

17:9,10 then record that G-d spoke to Moshe, and 17:11 records that Moshe told Aharon to take coals from the outer, apparently from the outer altar. Yet, if the cloud of G-d was over the ohel moed, which encompassed the courtyard of the mishkan, and the outer altar was in the courtyard, how could Aharon go to the outer altar? It must be that the glory of G-d and maybe the cloud of G-d has left the courtyard by the time that Moshe spoke to Aharon.

17:15 records that after going around the people with a pan of incense, Aharon returned to Moshe who was petach ohel moed. Initially Moshe and Aharon had approached the ohel moed in 17:8, and then apparently the cloud of G-d departed from the ohel moed. Moshe was then able to go into the ohel moed and he went to the entrance of the ohel moed, which as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18,19, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

17:19 refers to the ohel moed that the staffs of the tribal leaders and Aharon were to be placed in the ohel moed before the edut, the aron that had the luchot. It is very unlikely that the tribal leaders were to place their staffs in the mishkan since the they could not enter that room. Thus, 17:19 means that the tribal leaders were to put their staffs in the courtyard near the special building, as the courtyard was part of the ohel moed, and then 17:22 records that Moshe took the staffs into the ohel edut, the pavilion created by the parochet.

17:28 records that the people said that they realized that they would die if they entered the mishkan, and this refers to entering the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling of the special building. This did not include the courtyard surrounding the special building since at certain times or in certain areas, people could enter the courtyard, and hence 17:28 does not use the term ohel moed.

18:1 refers to the mikdash, concerning some sin relating to the collection of the special ritual items.

18:4 refers to the Levites watching or guarding the ohel moed. The following verse. 18:5, refers to watching the altar, and if this refers to the outer altar, then the term ohel moed must refer to the courtyard where the outer altar was situated.

18:6 repeats (a type of bookend) that the Levites were to work in the ohel moed. This could refer to transporting the ohel moed, as recorded in chapter four or maybe it means to stand in the courtyard (see our discussion on Devarim 18:6,7, “To stand before G-d”) since the Levites did not do any work in the mishkan, other than carrying it when the people travelled in the desert.

18:21,23,31 mention the Levites working in the ohel moed, and would have a similar understanding to 18:6.

18:22 records that a regular Jew (i.e., not a priest or a Levite) could not enter the ohel moed, which I understand to mean that they could not regularly enter the courtyard. Most likely there could be exceptions to this rule, as for example by the new mother, Vayikra 12:6, unless one claims that after Korah’s rebellion, even these exceptions were no longer allowed. If one claims that ohel moed means just the mishkan, then it is not clear when any regular Jew would ever have gone into the mishkan. However, during the rebellion of Korah, it might be that many regular Jews entered the courtyard of the mishkan some with permission but many without, see our discussions above on 16:19 and on Chapter 16, “The great rebellion by an unholy coalition.”

19:4 records that the blood of the red cow was to be sprinkled in the direction of the ohel moed, the entire complex.

19:13 records that if a person is tamei and does not purify him/herself, then he/ she has made the mishkan tamei. 19:20 expresses a similar idea, but records that the person has made the mikdash tamei. The mikdash is the collection of special ritual items, and all of them except the outer altar are situated in the area enclosed by the mishkan. Possibly 19:13 refers to the mishkan and not the ohel moed to express the gravity of the person remaining tamei.

20:6 records that when the people were complaining for water, Moshe and Aharon went to the petach ohel moed, and we discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19 this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

24:5 records that in Bil’am’s third set of blessing he praised the mishkenotecha of the Jewish people. This word refers to the tents that were the dwellings of the people, and not to the special cultic building.

25:6 records that the leaders of the nation were weeping at the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, and as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, and 20:6, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. 

Similar to 3:25, 4:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6 and 25:6, 27:2 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad spoke to the leaders of the people and the whole assembly petach ohel moed, and this can either mean the entrance to the entire complex or to the entrance to the courtyard. In this case, I think it means the entrance to the entire complex since I do not think that all these people referred to in 27:2 could be in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

31:30 records the instructions from G-d to Moshe that part of the booty from the war with Midyan was to go to the Levites who guarded the mishkan. This refers back to 1:53, which records that the Levites watched the mishkan ha-edut, and this was their principle area that they guarded. Possibly this guarding is mentioned here since the share of the booty in the verse was from the Jewish people to the Levites, and the people should realize that the Levites were protecting them when they guarded the mishkan, see 1:53 again.

31:47 records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions in 31:30 that Moshe took some of the booty that the people got from the war with Midyan and gave it to the Levites who guarded the mishkan.

31:54 records that Moshe and Elazar took all the gold from the soldiers who had defeated Midyan and placed it into the ohel moed. It is unlikely that they could put all the gold into the outer room of the mishkan, and then 31:54 means that they put it in the courtyard, or maybe some was put in the courtyard and some in the outer room of the mishkan. This concludes the mention of these three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed, in the book of Bemidbar.

In the book of Devarim, only the term ohel moed appears (twice) in 31:14. 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua were to go the ohel moed, they went there, and they stood in the ohel moed.

As mentioned above on Bemidbar 11:16, there were two ohel moeds when the people were in the desert, one within the camp connected to the special cultic building, and two, Moshe’s private tent outside the camp. It is not clear which ohel moed is being referred to in Devarim 31:14. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 960-966), believes it is Moshe’s private tent since 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua had to walk to the tent. This could be, but my inclination is that the ohel moed being referred to in 31:14 is within the camp since I think the point of the appearance of the cloud of G-d goal was to show the people that G-d was with Yehoshua, and this lesson could best be shown if the cloud of G-d appeared in the midst of the people.

Following this idea, 31:14 means that Moshe and Yehoshua went to the courtyard of the mishkan. I doubt they went into the special building since Yehoshua who was not a Levite or a priest could not enter the building.

The first half of 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d appeared in the ohel, which from 31:14 would mean the ohel moed (within the camp), and then the second half of 3:15 records that the cloud was by the entrance to the ohel, again apparently the ohel moed (within the camp).  Most likely, the first half of the verse means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the courtyard surrounding the special building, and not inside the special building. The second half of 3:15 then specifies where in the courtyard the cloud of G-d appeared, at the entrance to the courtyard. Again, this entrance could be from outside the complex or the entrance into the courtyard leaving the special building, see our discussions above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6, 25:6, and 27:2. Moshe and Yehoshua would have been standing between these two points/ areas, and would have turned to face the cloud of G-d depending on where it was located. Note the Torah needed to specify that the cloud of G-d was by the entrance since if it was in all of the courtyard, Moshe and Yehoshua could not have been in the courtyard, see Shemot 40:34,35. (Note the term ohel could also refer to the ohel edut, the tent made by the parochet. With this possibility,  the first half of 31:15 means that the cloud of G-d appeared above the inside of the special building, and the second half of 31:15 means that the cloud moved from being above the inside the special building to being above the entrance to the building).

Bibliography:

Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

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

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Bemidbar 20:16 – A window into Moshe’s perception of his life

במדבר כ:טז - ונעצק אל ה' וישמע קולנו וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך. 

20:14-17 records Moshe’s request to the king of Edom to let the people pass through his country, and within this request Moshe recalled some of the history of the people. Moshe mentioned that when the people were in Egypt, they had cried out to G-d, G-d heard the cries of the people, G-d sent a malakh, and G-d took the people out of Egypt. Moshe’s reference to a malakh in this message to the king of Edom is perplexing. It is not clear who is being referred to, what incident is being referred to, its importance to the Exodus from Egypt, and why this information should be relevant to the king of Edom.

Rashi (on 20:16) writes that the malakh is referring to Moshe, the messenger of G-d. Yet, would Moshe, the humblest person, Bemidbar 12:3, refer to himself as a malakh? Why would Moshe need to tell the king of Edom that he was a messenger from G-d? Was this information supposed to scare the king of Edom? Moshe could have just mentioned that the people cried out to G-d and G-d saved them, without any reference to himself.

Ibn Ezra (on 20:16) notes that many people believe that Moshe was referring to himself, but he thinks that Moshe was referring to a real malakh. Yet, did a malakh have an important role in the Exodus from Egypt? Shemot 14:19 refers to a malakh who stood between the Jewish people and the Egyptians prior to the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf. However, this was a minor part in the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea, and occurred after the people left Egypt.

Some translators (see for example, in JPS, Milgrom, 1990, p. 168 and Kaplan, 1981, p. 439) write that in 20:16 Moshe was saying that a malakh had taken the people out of Egypt. The only possible reference to a malakh by the Exodus is that Shemot 12:13,23 refer to a mashchit, destroyer, by the tenth plague, who according to some commentators (Hizkuni on Shemot 12:23) was a malakh. Yet, Shemot 12:29 records that G-d killed all the firstborn Egyptians and not a malakh.   Also, 20:16 refers to G-d, and then records three verbs relating to actions of G-d, that G-d heard the cries of the people, that G-d sent a malakh and that G-d took the people out of Egypt. These three separate verbs imply that G-d’s sending of the malakh was distinct in some way from G-d taking the people out of Egypt, and then in 20:16, Moshe was not saying that the malakh took the people out of Egypt. 

My guess is that in 20:16, Moshe was referring to the malakh he saw by the burning bush, Shemot 3:2. This incident happened after the people cried to G-d, and G-d heard their cries, Shemot 2:23,24, which follows the order of events Moshe recalled in 20:16. Yet, this incident was only crucial to Moshe, and was only indirectly related to the Exodus of the people from Egypt since this vision of the malakh was to induce Moshe to be the leader of the people. Moshe did not have to mention this sending of the malakh by G-d to the king of Edom, but it could be that he mentioned it as a personal matter. Many times, a speaker or writer, will include a point in a speech or in a book, which has meaning only to the speaker and the writer, and not to the public who will be hearing the speech or reading the book. The person mentions the point since it is important to the person even if the intended audience will not grasp the significance of the point. In this case, when G-d sent the malakh by the burning bush, this was the turning point in Moshe’s life, and hence for him this was a crucial point of the story. Thus, in his recollection of the basic facts of the Exodus from Egypt, Moshe mentioned this point. This recollection is even more poignant coming at the end of the 40 years of the people’s stay in the wilderness, and right after Moshe was told that he would not take the people to the land of Israel, 20:12.

My daughter Talia has pointed out to me that also Moshe’s first recollection in 20:16, that we cried, is an anomaly since Moshe did not cry out to G-d due to the suffering from slavery as the people did as recorded in Shemot 2:23. Shemot 5:22 does record Moshe crying out to G-d, but this crying out was due to G-d’s actions. Talia suggests that by using the pronoun we, in 20:16, Moshe was tying himself to the people, and their crying out to G-d. Furthermore, Talia notes that combining this point with the idea above that in 20:16 Moshe was referring to his personal vision of the malakh, then in Moshe’s message to the king of Edom, there is a synthesis of Moshe and the people that what happened to the people is a part of who he was, and what happened to him is a part of the history of the Jewish people.

Bibliography:

Kaplan, Aryeh, 1981, The Living Torah, New York: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.

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

Bemidbar 6:24-26– Birkat Cohanim: Three or six blessings on your head

במדבר 6:24-26: יברכך ה' וישמרך. יאר ה' פניו אליך ויחנך. ישא ה' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום.

Bemidbar 6:24-26 record the birkat cohanim, the priestly blessings. These blessings are pronounced every day in the land of Israel, and on the festivals in the Diaspora. What is the meaning of these blessings?

The priestly blessings consist of three verses, and each verse has two parts or two blessings. It would seem logical that the two parts/ blessings in each verse are related to each other. Also, the number of words in each verse increase from three words, 6:24, to five words, 6:25, and then to seven words, 6:26, which suggests that the blessings build upon each other. To understand how the two parts/ blessings in each verse connect to each other and how the blessings in the verses expand on the previous blessing, we need to understand the blessings.

N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 65-73) explains that the blessing in the beginning of the first verse, 6:24, refers to material blessings, and the blessing in the end of the verse, shamor, is either that G-d should ensure that the material goods are not stolen (Rashi on 6:24) or that the material goods do not make a person arrogant (Netziv on 6:24).

The Bekhor Shor writes that there are many possible blessings that can be the reference to the blessing in the beginning of 6:24, such as having children, good health and long life, and the blessing of shamor in the end of 6:24 is that G-d should protect bad things from occurring to the person. These bad things would remove the blessings from the beginning of the verse, and sometimes it is worse to have been blessed and lose the blessings, then never to have been blessed in the first place. These ideas follow the understanding that the word shamor means to protect, as maybe occurs in Bereshit 41:35 and Shemot 22:6,9.

Yet, as we discuss on Devarim 4:6, “The definition of the word shamor in Moshe’s speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember,” the real meaning of the word shamor in the Torah is to remember. Thus, the end of 6:24 means that the priest is blessing the people that G-d should remember the blessings in the beginning of the verse that the blessings should endure.

The blessings given to the patriarchs in the book of Bereshit support the idea that 6:24 refers to physical blessings. The first word in 6:24 invokes the word berakhah. This word figures prominently by G-d’s blessings to Avraham and Yitzhak, Bereshit 12:2, 22:17, 24:35 and 26:3, and these were physical blessings of wealth, land, children and to have a good reputation. The last word in 6:24 shamor also appears by the blessings to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav, Bereshit 28:15. In this case, the blessing to Yaakov was that G-d would remember him, namely protect him, in his journeys.

The first part of the second verse, 6:25, is that G-d will “light up His face towards you.” This phrase is difficult to understand. The Sifrei (41) quote five explanations for this phrase. One (and five) is that G-d will answer your prayers (or give you without you even asking), and this is Ibn Ezra’s (on 6:25) explanation of the verse. A second explanation in the Sifrei is that G-d will make you likeable that people will treat you nicely, which is based on the blessing in the end of the verse. The third and fourth explanations in the Sifrei is that G-d will grant you wisdom either in general or specifically to understand the Torah. Rashi (on 6:25) suggests a sixth explanation that the phrase means that G-d will show you a smiling face. What can this mean? This is a literal interpretation of the beginning of 6:25, but does G-d have a face? Can a person see G-d’s face?

The second part of the second verse, 6:25, is that G-d should grant you grace. What does this mean? Does it mean that the priest is blessing the person that G-d should give him/ her friends?

The first part of the third verse, 6:26, is that “G-d should lift up His face towards you.” Rashi (on 6:26) writes that this phrase means that G-d will suppress His anger to you. With this approach, the third blessing is a worse blessing than the second blessing, but as mentioned above, the blessings seem to increase. Alter (2004, p. 714) writes that both the first phrase of the second blessing and the first phrase of the third blessing are that G-d should show favor or affection to the person. What is this favor? The physical blessing of 6:24? Why would the priest repeat the blessing of 6:24? Why are the blessings of the first part of 6:25 and 6:26 so similar?

The second part of the third verse is that G-d should grant the person peace. Is this the same idea as the end of the first verse that G-d should remember or protect the person? How does this blessing of peace relate to the beginning of the third verse that “G-d should lift up His face towards you?”

To understand the second and third verses of the priestly blessings it is necessary to understand the term G-d’s face which appears in the beginning of both 6:25 and 6:26. During the conversation between G-d and Moshe after the people sinned by the golden calf, Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory, Shemot 33:18. Shemot 33:20 records that G-d responded that Moshe could not see His face. This response shows that G-d’s face is the glory of G-d.

Accordingly, the blessing in the first part of the second verse, 6:25, is that the priest is blessing the people that G-d’s glory should project light towards the people. This light is the fire that is within the glory of G-d, see Shemot 24:17.  The blessing in the second half of 6:25 is that G-d should grant the people grace. This grace is crucial if the person is to see the glory of G-d since seeing the light from the glory of G-d could be a positive or negative experience. It was positive after the Decalogue in Shemot 24:17, but in Bemidbar 14:10, the light from the glory of G-d was quite ominous. Thus, the blessing in the second half of 6:25 is that G-d should grant the person grace in order that seeing the light of G-d’s glory, the blessing in the first part of 6:25, would be a positive experience. Note that the blessing in 6:25 is not that the person will see the glory of G-d, which cannot occur, Shemot 33:20, but that the person should see the light that emanates from the glory of G-d.

The first part of the third verse, 6:26, records that “G-d would lift up His face towards the people.” This phrase again refers to G-d’s glory that it would be lifted up towards the people. This is different than the second blessing where a person would see the light of G-d’s glory from a distance, while here the blessing is for a person to be relatively close to G-d’s glory. This is what Moshe asked for when he asked to see G-d’s glory in his conversation with G-d after the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 33:18. Moshe has previously seen G-d’s glory (Shemot 16:10), but he wanted to get closer to G-d’s glory, see our discussion on Shemot 33:18-34:7, “As close as it gets.” The blessing in the second half of 6:26, the blessing of peace, is crucial for the fulfillment of the blessing in the first part of the verse. Even if a person has G-d’s grace, as Moshe did, Shemot 33:17, still Moshe needed special protection to be able to get close to G-d’s glory, Shemot 33:22. Thus, the blessing of peace in the end of 6:26 is that G-d should protect the person if the person is blessed to get close to G-d’s glory, the first part of 6:26.

After speaking on this topic in my synagogue, my son Dror pointed out that with this approach, in each verse, the blessing in the second half of the verse it to ensure that the blessing of the first part of the verse ensues.

We see that the blessings in the three verses are in ascending order just like the number of words in each blessing. The blessing in the first verse, 6:24, is that the person should receive material blessings, the blessing in the second verse, 6:25, is that the person should see the glory of G-d, an unbelievable religious experience, and the blessing in the third verse, 6:26, is that person should be able to get close to the glory of G-d, which is the closest any person can come to G-d and is even more unbelievable than seeing the glory of G-d from a distance. This last blessing marks the highest level a human being can achieve, which. as far is known, was only attained by Moshe.

Bibliography

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

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Vayikra 23:15,16 – Counting seven weeks and fifty days by sefirat ha-omer

ןיקרא כג:טו,טז - וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, מיום הביאכם את עמר התנופה, שבע שבתות תמימות תהיינה.  עד ממחרת השבת השביעית תספרו חמשים יום, והקרבתם מנחה חדשה לה'.

Vayikra 23:15 records the obligation to count seven full weeks from the bringing of the omer sacrifice, sefirat ha-omer. This would seem to mean that we are to count 49 days, which is our practice today. However, the following verse, 23:16, records that we are to count fifty days. How does the fifty-day count tally with the counting of seven weeks, and why today do we not count the 50th day?

Rashi (on 23:16) suggests that 23:16 does not mean that a person is to count fifty days but a person is to count until fifty days, but not inclusive of the fiftieth day. However, Rashi notes that this understanding is insufficient to explain 23:16, and then he makes a further suggestion that one needs to re-shuffle the words in 23:16. Both suggestions are difficult.

The Torah Temimah (on 23:16) quotes the Torat Cohanim that the count of the 50th day is when we are mekadesh (separate) the fiftieth day, and celebrate the holiday of Shavuot. The idea would be that when we celebrate Shavuot, by not working and bringing the various sacrifices of Shavuot, then this is the counting of the fiftieth day. (This might also to be the view of R. Yosef Karo, see the opening line of Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 494:1, and see Henshke 1992, p. 437.)

A simpler idea is that we are supposed to count the fiftieth day. How does the count of fifty days accord with 23:15 that we are supposed to count seven weeks, which is only 49 days? As we discuss on 25:8-11, “From yovel to yovel: 49 or 50 years?” counting in the Torah includes both the first and last days. For example, by circumcision, Vayikra 12:3 records that the new male baby born is to be circumcised on the eighth day, which is the same day of the week when the baby was born, as both the day of the birth and the day of the circumcision are counted in the eight days. Similarly, the holiday of Shemini Azeret is the eighth day starting from the first day of Sukkot, and marks a complete week, see our discussion “Shemini Azeret: A separate holiday from Sukkot?”

23:15 is then to be understood that a person is to start counting the day of the bringing of the omer, and the person is to count seven full weeks. A full week is until the eighth day, just like by the circumcision. The seven full weeks are then from day 1 to day 8 (1 week), day 8 to day 15 (the 2nd week), day 15 to day 22 (the 3rd week), day 22 to day 29 (the 4th week), day 29 to day 36 (the 5th week), day 36 to day 43 (the 6th week) and day 43 to day 50 (the 7th week). Accordingly, the counting of seven full weeks is to the fiftieth day as recorded in 23:16. By the counting of the omer, the first day of the bringing of the omer is counted, and the last day, the fiftieth day from the brining of the omer, is counted, just like by the eight days of circumcision.

Note, 23:16, begins by referring to the morrow after the seventh shabbat, and here shabbat means weeks, that the count is to the morrow after seven weeks. The word shabbat also appears in 23:15, but there it is modified by the term complete, temimot, while in 23:16, the Torah just refers to shabbat without the word complete. The difference in these two verses is that the mention of seven weeks in 23:16 is to our regular weeks, while in 23:15, the reference is to a full week, which is a week which includes both the first and last days. Thus, the reference to seven weeks in 23:16 is to forty-nine days, and the morrow to the seven weeks is the day after the forty-nine days, the fiftieth day.

Why do we not count the fiftieth day? I think the answer is because of the fight with the Boethusians as to when is the day to bring the omer sacrifice, see our discussion above on 23:9-22, “On the morrow: When is the korban omer brought?” This fight caused Chazal to argue that the omer sacrifice was to be brought at night and then the counting was to begin at night, Mishnah Menachot 10:3. Both of these practices to count only forty- nine days and to count at night, do not accord with the simple reading of the Torah, as Vayikra 23:12,15 refers to the day of the bringing of the omer, and in times with no electricity, all the “actions” involving the Bet ha-Mikdash were done in the daytime. Yet, once it was decided to bring the omer sacrifice at night, the completion of the count was also at night by the forty ninth day, and then the fiftieth day was no longer counted.

Bibliography:

Henshke, David, 1992, The history of the counting of the omer, in Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festchrift, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, Jerusalem: Academon Press, pp. 417-448.

The 2022 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now available

Hello,

The 2022 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (106 pages, 1.5 spacing) is now available. It has some additions/ corrections/ revisions from the previous versions. If you are interested in receiving the commentary, please send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file. Also, if you would like to read my commentary on the Torah (five separate files), on Pirkei Avot, on Jewish festivals and customs, and on prayer, please send me an email, and I will send you the files you are interested in. I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

Andrew Schein

Vayikra 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra

When the Jewish people were living in the desert/ wilderness for forty years they constructed a special building which contained cultic furniture and had a surrounding courtyard. The Torah generally uses three terms to refer to the building and complex, the mikdash, mishkan and the ohel moed. I believe that most (all?) people understand the terms mishkan and ohel moed as being synonyms, which sometimes refer to just the special building and sometimes to the entire complex. In our discussion on Shemot 25:8,9: 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” I argued that in the book of Shemot, the term mikdash refers to special cultic furniture, the term mishkan refers to the walls of the special building and the first and maybe second covering of the walls, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex. I will now try to show that this identical distinction exists in the book of Vayikra.

The book of Vayikra begins, 1:1, by recording that G-d called to Moshe from the ohel moed. This verse continues the end of the Shemot 40:34,35 that the cloud of G-d filled the ohel moed, and my understanding is that the cloud of G-d was in the entire special complex. 1:1 then means that the voice of G-d called out to Moshe from the complex, and Moshe heard this voice when he was outside the entire complex. Possibly Moshe entered the complex after hearing G-d’s voice, but this is not recorded.

1:3 then records that the first stage in bringing a cow as an olah sacrifice is to bring the cow to the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Which entrance? There are two possibilities. One, the opening to the courtyard from the special building, which is the popular opinion, or two, the opening to the courtyard from the area outside the complex. Note the opening to the courtyard from outside the complex is referred to as shaar ha-hatzer in Shemot 38:31 and Shemot 40:33, but this is the actual line that marks the opening, while the petach ohel moed would have some depth from the entrance towards the courtyard. While some verses, Shemot 26:36, Shemot 38:30 and Bemidbar 3:25, 4:25, suggest that the opening is from the special building to the courtyard, I think that Bemidbar 25:6 and 27:2 refer to the entrance from outside the complex.  In our discussion on the terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot, we concluded that this entrance can refer to both places depending on the context. It is not clear which possibility is being referred to here in 1:3. An additional question, with regard to both of these possibilities, is how far into the courtyard from either direction does the term, entrance, refer to?

1:5 then refers to the outer altar that was petach ohel moed, and again this phrase could be referring to either of the two possible entrances mentioned above on 1:3. Note, since it is likely that the altar was in the middle of the courtyard (see picture in Sarna, 1986, p. 192), then the two possible entrances would be roughly equal distance from the altar.

3:2 refers to this entrance, petach ohel moed, by the slaughtering of a cow that is brought as a shelamim sacrifice. Again, this entrance could be either of the two places discussed on 1:3, though here my inclination is that the reference is to the entrance to the courtyard from the outside since otherwise there would numerous animals being killed immediately before the special building.

3:8,13 then refer to a new area, lifnei ohel moed, by the sheep and goat shelamim sacrifices. This area is most likely different than the petach ohel moed since it is labelled differently. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10 we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed, and that the phrase lifnei ha-Shem means in the courtyard. I agree with his point about the term lifnei ohel moed, but I think the phrase lifnei ha-Shem is not only the area in the ohel moed, but also the area near the ohel moed, as in 3:7. (One can even say that the whole world is considered as being lifnei ha-Shem.) Similarly, the phrase lifnei ohel moed in Bemidbar 3:7,38 seem to refer to the area outside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

4:4 records that when a priest, who had been anointed, accidentally sins, then he brings a bull to the petach ohel moed, which again can be the two possibilities we discussed on 1:3. 4:5,6 then record that the blood from the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, where the priest would dip his fingers in the blood, and then sprinkle the blood on the parokhet within the special building. This bringing of the blood to the ohel moed, might imply that the ohel moed was just the special building, but if the ohel moed is the entire complex, then it includes the special building. Once 4:6 refers to the parokhet then we know where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the priest was to sprinkle the blood. Note, it could be that the priest dipped his hands outside the special building and then entered the building with bloody fingers to sprinkle the blood. With either possibility of where the priest was to dip his fingers in the blood, the phrase to ohel moed in 4:5 is a movement from the petach ohel moed, that the priest moved either from the entrance to the special building to the special building or from the entrance to the complex to the main area in the courtyard or to the special building.

4:6 notes that the incense altar, which was in the special building, was located in the ohel moed, as the ohel moed refers to the entire complex. The verse ends by referring to the altar which was petach ohel moed, and this is similar to 1:5.

4:14 records the law when the entire congregation sinned by accident that the people are to bring a bull, lifnei ohel moed. As in 3:8,13, lifnei ohel moed is outside the complex, and this is very appropriate in this case since this would give more people the ability to see the elders, the representatives of the people, when they would lean on the bull, 4:15. 4:16 then records that the blood of the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, which is similar to 4:5, though here the movement is more obvious since one is coming from the area outside the complex to the ohel moed, either to the special building or to the courtyard. 4:18 has two references to the ohel moed and is similar to 4:6.

The next reference is 6:9, which records that Aharon and his sons should eat the matzot of the minhah sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed. The ohel moed is the entire complex, and the Torah is specifying where in the complex the matzot should be eaten. Similarly, 6:19 records that the priest who does the korban hatta’t eats part of the sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

6:23 records that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought to the ohel moed to le-khapper the kodesh, cannot be eaten. This verse seems to refer to some of the cases of the hatta’t from chapter four. While one can understand the term ohel moed here as just referring to the special building, it can also be understood as referring to the entire complex, that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought into the complex to be used le-khapper the kodesh, i.e., to be sprinkled on the parokhet, cannot be eaten.

The next mention of one of the three terms is in 8:3,4 by the initiation of the priests, that the ceremony is to begin by the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Again, as by 1:3, this could mean two different areas. My guess is that here the reference is to the entrance to the entire complex since the entire nation is to gather around the entrance and this could not be if the petach ohel moed is the entrance to the special building.

8:10 records the first mention of the mishkan in the book of Vayikra, as the verse records that Moshe anointed the mishkan and everything that was in it. This means that Moshe anointed the walls, and maybe the ceiling covering the walls of the special building. The phrase “everything that was in it” refers to the special cultic ritual items that were located within the walls of the special building.

Chapter eight concludes that Aharon and his sons were to cook and eat meat and bread from the sacrifices by the petach ohel moed and that they had to remain by the petach ohel moed for seven days, 8:31,33,35. While this phrase could be referring to the entrance to the special building since Aharon and his sons would have had to sleep in that spot this strikes me as not being respectful to the special building, and then my inclination is that the area being referred to in the verses is the entrance to the entire complex, which is where Aharon and his sons would have slept.

9:5 has the phrase, penei ohel moed, which is the first time this phrase appears in the Torah (also later in Bemidbar 17:8 and 19:4), and means in the direction of ohel moed, from outside of the entire complex. This cannot be referring to the courtyard of the complex since the entire congregation were standing in this place and they could not all fit in the courtyard.

9:23 then records that during the special ceremony of the eight day, Moshe and Aharon went into the ohel moed and then they came out. To understand this verse, one must ascertain where Moshe and Aharon were before they came into the ohel moed. Previously, Aharon had been in the courtyard working on the sacrifices, and then 9:22 records that he blessed the people. Was this blessing in the courtyard? If yes, then 9:23 must mean that Moshe and Aharon went into the special building. However, since the people were outside of the complex (see above on 9:5), it is more likely that when Aharon blessed the people, he went outside the complex to bless them, and then 9:23 means that Moshe and Aharon went into the courtyard area of the ohel moed, see our discussion on 9:22,23, “The double blessings by the ceremony of the eighth day.”

10:7 records that after the tragic deaths of Nadv and Avihu, Moshe told Aharon, Elazar and Itamar to remain in the petach ohel moed, which is similar to the law in 8:33,35.

10:9 then records that G-d told Aharon that he and his sons cannot drink wine when they are in the ohel moed. If a person thinks that the ohel moed means only the special building, then the priests would be permitted to drink wine in the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would seem to contradict the point of 10:10, the following verse, that the wine should not cause a priest to make a mistake by something which is kodesh. Rashi (on 10:9), who follows the idea that the ohel moed is just the special building, is uncomfortable with this implication that a priest could drink in the courtyard, and hence he quotes a drasha to negate this implication with regard to the outer altar. On the other hand, 10:9,10 accord very well with the understanding that the term ohel moed means the entire complex, and then the priests could not drink wine in any area in the complex.

12:4 records for the first time in the book of Vayikra, the term mikdash, that a new mother, cannot go in the mikdash even when she has tahor blood. I believe that the term mikdash means the collection of special cultic furniture, and then 12:4 is forbidding the new mother for going amongst these items. Maybe, the Torah did not use the word ohel moed since she was forbidden for going amongst these items, even if for some reason they were not being housed in the special complex.

12:6 then records that after the period of tahor blood is completed, the new mother is to bring a sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, which could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

The phrase petach ohel moed appears next by the sacrifices of the metsora, 14:11,23, and then again by the sacrifices of the zav and zavah, 15:14,29. Again these verses can refer to either of the two possibilities discussed above on 1:3. However, my inclination is that there would be a goal to limit the number the people standing right in front of the special building, and then the reference to petach ohel moed in these verses would be to the entrance of the special complex from the outside.

The end of chapter 15, 15:31 records that the Jewish people were to be careful not to make G-d’s mishkan tamei. This is referring to the walls and covering of the special building and the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling. The fact that the verse does not refer to the ohel moed indicates that the crucial problem of tumah in the complex is with regard to the special building and not to the courtyard.

The phrase petach ohel moed next appears by the selection of the goats in the ceremony on Yom Kippur, as the goats were to be brought petach ohel moed, 16:7. Again, this phrase could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

Later in the ceremony, 16:16 records that Aharon was to kipper (purify?) the ohel moed. If one understands that the ohel moed refers just to the special building, then the verse means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood within that building, while if the term ohel moed means the entire complex, then 16:16 can mean that he was to sprinkle blood in the courtyard, see our discussion on 16:16-20, “Was the outer altar or the inner altar or both purified on Yom Kippur?”

The following verse, 16:17, records that no person was to be in the ohel moed when Aharon was in the kodesh, the inner room of the special building. If one believes that the ohel moed means just the special building, then 16:17 is stating that no one could be in the outer room of the special building when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building. I think this is obvious. Was a person going to be following Aharon when he was bringing the coals and blood into the inner room from the outer room? Also, with this understanding people could be in the courtyard when Aharon was going in the inner room, but then maybe a person in the courtyard could see the aron in the inner room when Aharon was going in, which is very dangerous, see Bemidbar 4:20. Instead, it is simpler to understand that when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building, no one could be in the entire complex until he completely finished needing to be in the inner room. This would remove the small possibility that a person could have seen the inner room from the courtyard when Aharon was going into the room. This would also mean that the people/ person watching the goat to be sent to Azazel would leave the complex until Aharon would need the goat in 16:20.

16:20,33 record that on Yom Kippur, Aharon’s action was to me-khapper the kodesh, the ohel moed and the altar. Depending on how one defines the term ohel moed in 16:16 determines how one understands the term ohel moed in these two verses, either the outer room of the special building or the entire complex.

16:23 then records that Aharon went to the ohel moed to change his priestly clothing. It is incredible to think that Aharon changed his clothing within the special building. Instead, Aharon had gone towards the exit of the complex or even left it to accompany the sending away of the goat to Azazel, and then in 16:23, he was to go in the courtyard in a relatively hidden place to change his clothing. 

16:33, a summary verse to the Yom Kippur ceremony, records that in the ceremony, the mikdash ha-kodesh was kipper. The term mikdash would refer to the aron, the special cultic furniture in the kodesh, inner room of the special building, as on Yom Kippur the high priest was to sprinkle blood on the kapporet, the cover of the aron and the base for the keruvim.

17:4,5,6,9 refer to the petach ohel moed, and again these verses could mean either possibility discussed on 1:3. 17:4 also refers to the mishkan, and here the idea is to the tent of G-d, which I understand means the walls and ceiling of the special building.

19:21 refers to the bringing of the asham sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, and, again, this could be referring to either possibility discussed on 1:3.

19:30 records that a person should fear G-d’s mikdash, and this means to fear (respect?) cultic items dedicated to G-d.

A reference to G-d’s mikdash appears in 20:3, and again it refers to the cultic furniture that is dedicated to G-d.

The next reference is that 21:12 records that a high priest cannot leave the mikdash to mourn for relatives since if he left, this would profane the mikdash. This means that he cannot leave the area where the special cultic furniture is situated since this would profane this furniture. A similar idea occurs in 21:23 which records a law not to profane G-d’s mikdash, and two of the special cultic items are mentioned in the beginning of the verse.

Skipping some chapters, 24:3, records that the menorah was to be lit outside the parokhet in the ohel moed. This designation outside the parokhet informs us where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the menorah was to be lit, namely in the outer room of the special building.

Towards the end of the book of Vayikra, 26:2 refers to the mikdash of G-d, which again is to the cultic furniture, that people should fear the special furniture relating to G-d, similar to 19:30.

26:11 refers to G-d’s mishkan, as in 15:31, but here the verse appears to be referring to a future mishkan and not to the mishkan in the desert.

26:31 records how G-d will destroy the mikdash of the people if they sin, and here the reference is to the cultic furniture that the people made.

This concludes our review of the three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra, and we need to continue examining the terms in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim.

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

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

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