Rashi in our parsha alludes to the gemara in Brachos (55a):
א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן בצלאל על שם חכמתו נקרא בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה לך אמור לו לבצלאל עשה לי משכן ארון וכלים הלך משה והפך ואמר לו עשה ארון וכלים ומשכן אמר לו משה רבינו מנהגו של עולם אדם בונה בית ואחר כך מכניס לתוכו כלים ואתה אומר עשה לי ארון וכלים ומשכן כלים שאני עושה להיכן אכניסם שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת
Even though, says the gemara, that Moshe told Betzalel to first make kelim and them the mihskan, Betzalel intuited that Hashem had actually instructed to first make the mishkan and then kelim. This has to be the case because where would you put kelim if you don't already have a mishkan.
There are two problems with the sugya (see Tos on the spot):
1) How can it be that Moshe misunderstood or did not properly communicate the dvar Hashem? Chazal tell us that in a small handful of places "nisalma mi'menu halacha," that Moshe did not know something, but this instance is not on that list, not to mention that to admit the possibility of this type of error calls into question the whole mesorah.
2) In point of fact, Hashem first gave the command to make kelim and then the command to make the mishkan, as we read in parshas Terumah. Moshe got it right; Betzalel's surmise that שמא כך אמר לך הקב"ה עשה משכן ארון וכלים was in fact wrong. So why did Moshe respond אמר לו שמא בצל אל היית וידעת? Why did he accept Betzalel's interpretation of Hashem's command as being more accurate than his own?
Maharal in Gur Aryeh (and similarly, GR"A) answer that Hashem told Moshe about the kelim first because the kelim, starting with the aron, were the most important things in the mishkan. The building existed for the kelim, not the other way around. However, when it came to the actual construction of the mishkan, which was Betzalel's domain, the process was reversed. First the building had to be assembled, and only then the kelim put inside. The difference order in the parshiyos reflects these different perspectives, that of theory vs that of practice.
The Alter of Kelm says a beautiful yesod here to answer the questions:
When Bn"Y committed the sin of cheit ha'eigel, Hashem told Moshe (32:10) וְעַתָּה֙ הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י וְיִֽחַר־אַפִּ֥י בָהֶ֖ם וַאֲכַלֵּ֑ם וְאֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה אוֹתְךָ֖ לְג֥וֹי גָּדֽוֹל. In a nutshell, Hashem's message was, "Leave me alone -- we are ending this show now." So why didn't Moshe do that? The very next pasuk says that Moshe began to daven וַיְחַ֣ל מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י ה׳ אֱלֹהָ֑יו -- the exactly opposite of the plain meaning of Hashem's request!
Says the Alter, Hashem does not want us to be robots or computers. Hashem wants us to be human beings and use our brains. When a computer gets the instruction הַנִּ֣יחָה לִּ֔י, it obeys to the letter. When Moshe got that same instruction, he realized something was up. As Rashi writes עדיין לא שמענו שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר: הניחה לי? אלא כאן פתח לו פתח, והודיעו שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם.
Hashem wants us to read between the lines, to interpret, to go beyond the surface meaning, and in that way arrive at His true intent. Sometimes what appears to be disobedience in fact demonstrates true fidelity to Hashem's wishes.
Hashem did give Moshe the command to make the kelim first. Moshe heard Hashem's command correctly and relayed it to Betzlalel correctly. However, that doesn't mean that's what Hashem wanted. Betzalel had the insight to understand that the mishkan building had to be put together first rather than making the kelim.
Could AI build a mishkan better than a human? Maybe, if all it took to build it was blindly following a blueprint. But Hashem wanted more than that. Hashem wanted human intuition and intelligence invested in the product, not just gold, silver, and precious metals. AI cannot substitute for that.
Hashem b'davka gave the instructions in the way he did, seemingly backwards, says the Alter, so that Betzalel would have the opportunity to use his brains to work out what Hashem wanted. In this way, the mishkan would contain the most precious commodity of all: the חכמת לב of a human being.
Do you think there is still room for this type of approach to Hashem post matan torah?
ReplyDeleteWell, the Alter did. I did not post what else he writes there, but I'll put it here: Betzalel was 13 years old and he was telling Moshe Rabeinu that he knows better what Hashem commanded. The lesson: sometimes you have to question authority. Sometimes you have to use your own brain and disregard the "experts." These sentiments go against the grain of 21st century Judaism. We focus all our efforts on obedience, on conformity, etc. to the exclusion of thinking for oneself. Of course, you can say Betzalel is the exception that proves the rule, and you need gedarim.
DeleteYour way of asking the question, that there was a tzivui of "הניחה לי", so Moshe should have said hineni muchan and been מניח, reminded me of something that always bothered me about Rav Sternbuch's attitude, that the killings in ir hanidachas should be done with the same frame of mind as shaking a lulav. A mitzva is a mitzva, and therefore inherently something we should do with simcha and appreciation. It's not really a kashe, because, as Rashi says, here it was evident in the language of the tzivui that it was intended to elicit something other than robotic reaction.
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing from a great Mirrer that the whole setup was because Hashem told Moshe ראה קראתי בשם, and ראה meant that Moshe should see Betzalel's unique qualifications empirically.
>>>It's not really a kashe, because, as Rashi says, here it was evident in the language of the tzivui that it was intended to elicit something other than robotic reaction.
DeleteWhen you are looking for an excuse for the words to not mean what they say you can always find some ambiguity or other to hang your hat on. And you will always have others who will push back and say you are twisting things or taking them out of context to distort the truth. No clear answers other than what chochma tells you
Rav Bergman says that all the time in his Shaarei Orah, that the overarching tzivui to have middos tovos is no less a מדה שהתורה נדרשת בהן than the other thirteen, so that when there's a mitzva that seems incompatible with middos tovos, you should see if there's a way of understanding it so it's not soseir those middos. Sort of like applying the ptur אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו to כל התורה כולה. Weird, right?
Deleteand forgive the loquacity, but writing that, I realized that it's a clever way to communicate the idea - there aren't only שלוש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. There are also the מדות of
Deleteדרכי נועם, נושא בעול עם חברו, רחמנות, ענוה, וכו'
I've seen it in the Bnei Yisaschar, but I bet you can find it other places as well since IIRC he quotes the Magid mMezrich, that the 13 midos of R' Yishmael parallel the 13 midos harachamim.
DeleteParallel I've heard, such as שני כתובים and נקה לא ינקה going hand in hand.
Delete