Parshat Ki Tisa 5773 Drasha Rabbi Shaanan Gelman One Last Haven Opener http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/clothes-and-selfperception.html?

?_r=0 The way we dress, the way we appear on the outside makes a difference not just in the rest of our endeavors, but it makes a difference in our more exalted role as ' , servants to the Almighty. It has been noted by many that the last five parshiot on Sefer Shemot are both repetitive and are laid out in a most peculiar fashion. We first learn about the Mishkan and its vessels followed by a description of the Bigdei kehuna (the garb of the Priesthood). Next we interrupt with the description with Parshat Ki Tisa, which most notably contains the the sin of the Golden Calf, followed by another two parshiot reiterating the description of the Mishkan and the . I used to look forward to the Shabbos of Vayakhel Pekudei because in reviewing the weekly sidra, the topics were so familiar and so fresh in my mind having studied them in two weeks earlier, it would not present the same strain. Even Rashi seemingly takes a break on these two Parshiot, having already explained most everything in TerumahTetzaveh.

And so, it begs the question, why? Why do we need the repetition? And moreover, why is the story of the so conspicuously sandwiched in between. A simple reading will tell us that parshiot - serves as a presentation of the laws and blueprints, whereas deal with the execution of these laws. But if that is the case, why split the two stages up? We know firsthand that building projects can take a long time and that one doesnt move immediately from conception stage to the Chanukat habayit, but the Bnei Yisrael were not hampered by a down economy and securing permits, instead their project seemed to have flowed relatively smoothly from start to finish. If, so why the interruption? To answer this question there is a more fundamental question which needs to be addressed, namely, why was the Mishkan constructed? Would we have built a Mishkan if it had not been for the sin of the Golden Calf? Ramban claims that the construction of the mishkan was the very first mitzvah granted to the Bnei Yisrael upon Moshes ascension on Har Sinai. And that the purpose of the Mishkan is to establish a resting place for the ' , the Glory and Honor of God, to which we were introduced on Har Sinai. The Mishkan is a constant re-enactment of maamad Har Sinai. And only now that they went through the revelation at Sinai have they become worthy of a house of this nature: "

() , , , , , ( ) , ( ) , . , ... ... , . ( ) ' , ( ) ' , ' ( ) . ' , " ". According to Ramban, the Mishkan was always in the works, it was always part of the plan, it was something that we strived for and built towards. Rashi however, offers a much different description of the Mishkan and its purpose:

" () ' - . , , " , :

There is no necessary chronological order in the Torah, the sin of the Golden Calf took place many days prior to the commandment of the construction of the Tabernacle. After all, on the 17th of Tamuz the Tablets were shattered, and on Yom HaKipurim God forgave the Jewish people, and the very next day they began collecting the donations for the Mishkan. To support his approach1, Rashi goes on to demonstrate that each of the elements within the physical structure of the Mishkan, mimic in some way the Golden calf, seeking to atone for the hideous act: * Bnei Yisrael must collectively donate their gold to build the mishkan. The Midrashim compare the gathering of the nation unto Aharon for the with the gathering for the purpose of collection: () ) (: : () :

* Betzalel the architect of the Mishkan is identified peculiarly as Chur's grandson. Rashi notes that a midrash which explains that Chur was killed because of his defiance of the , indeed the Chizkuni spells the connection out for us:

The following comparisons were noted by Rabbi Menachem Liebtag in http://www.tanach.org/shmot/truma1.htm

 - () . , * "The opening pasuk concerning the mishkan - "and they shall make for Me a mikdash and I will dwell in their midst" (25:8) appears to rectify Bnei Yisrael's situation in the aftermath of chet ha-egel, when Moshe must move his tent (called the ohel mo'ed) far away - outside the camp (33:7)": () : : )(

* Finally, Aharon is instructed to bring a ( a bull) as a offering during the mishkan's dedication ceremony. Which sin was committed? The . After all, a calf is a baby bull. Rashi ): (spells this connection out for us directly: " - "

According to Ramban we can understand perfectly well why the story is broken up in such a fashion? Because that is how it happened first the commandment was given on Har Sinai, and then later they constructed the Mishkan, with one glitch in the program on account of the . The Golden calf didnt result in the Tabernacle, it merely delayed the building project by two and half months.

But according to Rashi, who contends , and who sees the entire project as the direct result of the sin of the Golden calf, why then does the initial stage of the commandment appear before Parshat Ki Tisa (the ?) Why does the Torah wish to break from the proper chronological order of events in this instance? A fundamental argument thus exists as to the initial design of the Tabernacle: was it as the Ramban claims, a building which was always intended to be constructed? Or, perhaps as Rashi contends, only a reluctant response, a Plan-B, in the aftermath of the great tragedy of the Golden Calf? If Rashi is correct, and the Mishkan is a response to a less than ideal reality, then perhaps the Mishkan is divided into two parts to inform us that there is a split between the ideal state and the real state of affairs, or in halachic terminology and . In a world there was no need to create a physical manifestation of Gods presence, His Shechina was supposed to permeate all things and all places in the Universe. Moreover, we were supposed to be sensitive to that reality. But something went wrong, and we were unable to detect God, and so He decided, after forgiving us and granting us another chance, that at least there should be one place in the world that still represents the embodiment of His Presence. There ought to be, reasoned the Kadosh Baruch Hu, one place we can go to in which ideals are not compromised and in which integrity of the spiritual world is maintained the Mishkan and its later incarnation, the Beit Hamikdash.

By design the world was supposed to be a perfect vessel, but human beings are not so, they do from time to time compromise on their values and exhibit virtues and conduct which is less than ideal. In the absence of the Temple and the Mishkan, we have a Beit Knesset, a Mikdash Meat. A sanctuary in which we can momentarily escape the mad world of the and each adhere to the supreme model of religious existence. Indeed, the wisdom of Rashis commentary bears great significance to modern times. Our people have traveled long and far from the foot of Mt. Sinai. We have strayed and our values and standards have become skewed. But there must always be one place in which we can act as was intended, one place in which we need not compromise, one place in which we all rise to the occasion to the superlative and idyllic world of pre-Chet Haegel. That place is the Synagogue. In the Synagogue even those who are not careful about Shabbat observance and Kashrut in their homes suddenly become fully observant. The guy who parks his Lexus 5 blocks from the shul, is momentarily considered fully observant. Those who may have not have fully adopted the standards of Tzniut (modesty), rise to a higher standard; Men and women covering their hair, children walking gently as opposed to bouncing off the walls, and people speaking in a softer tone with tenderness and genuine concern for one another.

We might speak lashon hara at home, but in a shul, it goes without saying, there is simply no place for it, we may speak freely and openly to our neighbor but during tefila, we refrain. Many unfortunately are not as careful about brachot as they should when snacking in their kitchen but in shul, everyone hears Kiddush and hopefully recites a bracha achrona. Just think about the impact that it can have on our children if they see us making brachos and taking our time with food as opposed to diving in on impulse. If someone were to walk into a restaurant and was asked to don a jacket, he wouldnt get offended. If someone is playing golf he is expected to replace the divot of grass, and rake the sand after entering the sand trap. And when you are finished using a treadmill in a health club, one is expected to wipe off the machine. In a library, we wouldnt raise our voices its just against the protocol. There is a proper etiquette and mode of conduct in virtually everything we do. All the more so when it comes to a shuls protocol and etiquette with one difference: we dont have rules like some snooty health club or golf course just to have a protocol, we have standards because the synagogue is the reminder of what we should be ideally, and what we should be striving towards. Because when we dwell in a sanctuary we realize intuitively that we can reach beyond adequacy. We are holier than mediocrity. We are better than better-than-nothing. And even if we arent at the point in our lives in which we are prepared to fully embrace the highest standards, we need a shul because it reminds us that there still exists in our hearts a desire for un-distilled and unadulterated .
8

By design, God has crafted a safe haven for us, in which we are not exposed to the same pressures, distractions and frustrations; instead when we walk through these doors we revert back to who we were prior to . Its the one place in our lives that we dont have to look ourselves in the mirror and see contradiction. I had a chavrusa in yeshiva who was a baal teshuva from early on. He told me that throughout high school it was a miserable experience because his parents did not observe kashrut and if he were to keep kosher the main staple of his diet had to become pretzels and potato chips. To him, NCSY and summer camp were the most exalted places in the world because he didnt ask him to live a false existence. That is what we had in the Mishkan according to Rashi, and that is what we wish to re-create in our shul and . I would like to temper my words with one important caveat while striving for perfection and creating standards, we must never do so with harshness or with a sense of arrogance. My friend, a Rabbi on the East coast told me that once he happened to daven shacharit by another synagogue, when a young woman who recognized him as a local rabbi asked him if it would be problematic for her to don tefillin and tallis? He replied that it was not his shul and that she ought to ask the rabbi. Unfortunately the rabbi of that shul never showed up, and he reluctantly said I cant speak for the Rabbi, but knowing him, I cannot imagine he would raise an objection. She thus put on her tefilin quietly in the corner and began davening.

A few moments later a yeshivish fellow approached my friend and began Rabbi, the woman in the back already my friend was certain that he was going to receive a thrashing. But to his surprise, the man said something unexpectedly sincere her tefillin are crooked, do you think I should point it out to her? Our default mode when encountering those of different standards cannot be to look down upon them or to assume that they are any less a Jew than ourselves. I like to believe that when the Kadosh Baruch Hu looks at someone who engages in their Judaism the very first criteria is sincerity, followed distantly by form and not the other way around. That caveat must never be forgotten as we fashion our Mishkan.

10