The Recapitulations and
Pekudei: Basin And Stand
Nechama Leibowitz
reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Agency for Israel Education Department
The last two Sabbath readings of Shemot (Exodus) revert to the subject of the Tabernacle. The details outlined so painstakingly in Terumah and Tezaveh and part of Ki-tissa engage our attention once again. Sometimes the subject is treated in a very general way without going into details of design or construction, as Moses did, when he first called on the people to respond to the Divine appeal to contribute materials of the Tabernacle (35, 5-19).
At others, every stage of implementation is detailed as in the recounting of the accomplishments of Bezalel and his fellow-craftsmen in producing the various items of furniture for the Tabernacle. Here the whole gamut of activities is recapitulated – the materials, the design, measurements and manufacture (36, 8 – 38, 20). The Tabernacle requisites were specified by name when they were presented to Moses (39, 33-41) and listed once more when God gave Moses command to erect the Tabernacle and place each item of furniture in position. They are listed again in the course of the account of the execution of this command. All this repetition is puzzling. Here is Abarvanel's formulation of the difficulty:
On the recapitulation in Pekudei Abarvanel observes:
Instead of laboriously repeating that they brought to Moses, the Tabernacle, the tent and all its vessels etc. etc. listing once again all the vessels in turn, surely it would have sufficed to write: "Then they brought to Moses the complete work of the Tabernacle. Moses surveyed all the work, observed that they had carried it out just as the Lord had commanded, so had they done. And Moses blessed them". Why keep on recapitulating the details?Rashi and his school (Rashbam, Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni etc.) do not concern themselves with this problem. Spanish Jewish commentators, on the other hand, pay a great deal of attention to it. Their answers are various.
Ramban differentiated between the general listing of the items comprising the Tabernacle and the detailed specification of their design and production:
Moses had to outline to the congregation exactly how much was involved in the Tabernacle so that their contribution would be to commensurate with the needs. Theses were great and to demonstrate them he exhaustively listed all the items --: "the Tabernacle, its tent cover, beams etc. The repetition of the definite article: "the Tabernacle, the ark, the table etc. implied those items whose detailed specifications would be subsequently transmitted to the craftsmen involved. Now he merely listed them by name for the benefit of the congregation.Ramban subsequently (on 36, 8) proffers a detailed explanation of the five recapitulations that he discovered in the narrative.
The construction of the Tabernacle, in the course of its fivefold repetition is treated both generally and specifically. First, in Terumah: make this and make that –in detail, followed, second, by a general outline (31, 6-11). The Divine instructions were conveyed to Moses in this form for the benefit of Bezalel, Aholiab and their fellow-craftsmen. They had to be given a complete though general picture of what was involved to enable them to plan their work properly. Third, when describing how Moses actually transmitted the instructions he had received to the people and the skilled craftsmen, the text contents itself with a general listing of the items involved which is not in itself complete (35, 10). "they came and carried out all the Lord had commanded: the Tabernacle, its tent, cover etc.". But many of the details as outlined in God's original instructions to Moses in Terumah are omitted—such as the curtains and their measurements. Obviously from the fact that they are subsequently referred to when the completion of each item of the Tabernacle is described we may be sure that they got the message. The text wished to imply that Moses actually alluded to every item but did not need to tell them exactly what to do. Moses had only to mention the need for five pairs of curtains and the designers immediately understood of their own accord how they should be fitted with hooks and eyes etc. The lacunae in the text convey to us the full extent of their personal skill and initiative.
Next the execution of the project is described in exactly the same painstaking detail as the original instructions which God had commanded him and subsequently that he surveyed and approved of the finished product. All the intervening chapters recapitulating the details of design, the lists of items etc. could well have been omitted.
What the text wished to emphasise was that Moses repeated in general outline what was involved for the purpose of arousing the people to make their contributions commensurate with the needs, as well as to give the craftsmen an adequate picture of the project they were being asked to undertake. The latter would then decide whether they were capable of undertaking it and if so plan its execution accordingly.
The execution is reported verbatim, recapitulating all the stages and details imparted in the original instructions. The general and detailed accounts of the execution of the project are followed by a summary report of the completed work presented to Moses: "They brought the Tabernacle to Moses, the tent and all its furniture, its sockets and bars..." (39, 33). The reason for this recapitulation is to convey the fact that they presented it, complete in the proper order. No one brought his finished work along until the whole project was complete, in the proper order. No one brought his finished work along until the whole project was complete, as the text observes (in the verse preceding that recording the bringing: "When all the service of the Tabernacle of the tent of meetings was completed" (39, 32). Once it was completed, but not before, they all assembled and presented all the items in the proper order.. First they announced: "Master, here is the tent and here its furniture', followed by: Here is the Ark and here its poles" and so on.
So much for Ramban's motivation of the recapitulations and abridgements indulged in by the text in its treatment of the construction of the Tabernacle. He concludes by offering a general explanation of the numerous repetitions both in their verbatim and abbreviated form:
They reflect the love and esteem with which the Tabernacle was viewed by the Almighty, the numerous recapitulations being designed to increase the reward of those engaged in it. The same idea is contained in the rabbinic dictum: "the table –talk of the Patriarch's servants was more precious to the Holy One blessed be He than the Torah of their descendants. The story of Eliezer runs into two or three folios..."whereas the fundamentals of the Torah itself are often conveyed to us only through the clue of a redundant word or letter. Obviously then their table-talk was more precious to Him than the Torah of their descendants.Or Ha-hayim echoes Ramban:
The reason for the repetition in the story of the Tabernacle's construction is similar to that advanced by our sages with regard to the recapitulations of Abraham's servant Eliezer in Genesis (24, 39). Since the story was so precious to him, it was recorded twice over. Similarly the story of the Tabernacle was recorded twice because it was beloved by Him.
The foregoing commentators both equate the recapitulations in our Sidra with those in Genesis 24. The differences between them, however, are not lightly to be ignored. In the latter, the recapitulation form an integral part of the narrative. The variations in wording between the original story and the reports given by the servants are numerous and of obvious significance. Eliezer underlines, even exaggerates any detail that might impress Rebecca's family, lightly passes over and even suppresses anything that might repel them. In our Sidra the recapitulations are almost verbatim (the minor differences will be treated further on). The explanation offered by Ramban or Or Ha-hayim will not satisfy the curiosity of the student. Why should this particular narrative be more highly valued than those conveying the very fundamentals of Judaism.
Ralbag introduces the problem by stating the hypothesis that we ought to accept no redundancies in Holy Writ. The very perfection of the Torah should preclude the assumption of superfluous wording. Why could not the Torah have disposed of the whole construction of the Tabernacle with the words; "Bezalel carried out the whole project of the Tabernacle as God had commanded Moses...?" Ralbag reluctantly admitted that he had failed to find an adequate answer for these and suchlike recapitulations which abounded in Scripture. He nevertheless did offer one general motivation for the recapitulations. They were a stylistic device: "the way writers in those days at the time of the Giving of the Torah used to tell their tales. The prophet merely followed the narrative conventions".
Only in the last 150 years with the development of the literary historical approach do we find this type of explanation being advanced. Cassuto, for instance, explains the recapitulation in terms of the narrative conventions of the ancient east. It is usual for an account of the execution of a certain series of acts previously outlined to repeat verbatim the acts that were executed and not to report merely that they were executed. The difference between Ralbag and modern scholars is that the latter based their findings on actual records discovered in their days. Ralbag, on the other hand, merely suggested this might be so without having any independent data on which to base it.
Just the same, Ralbag's explanation is not adequate (the same applies to Cassuto and others). The question remains: Why did the Torah choose to follow the convention of verbatim recapitulation in matters that seem purely technical, whereas in identical contexts of command and execution, it often omits completely either one or the other?
Ralbag evidently sensed the inadequacy of his own explanation since he propounded various other solutions. In the second of theses he suggested that the Torah deliberately indulged in apparent inconsistency and anomalous narrative treatment, dealing in summary fashion with subjects that obviously called for more detailed treatment and elaborating where brief mention would have sufficed as a method of focussing and foregrounding. The sole motivation of this inconsistency was to prompt the reader to search for an appropriate explanation of the brevity or elaboration, in each and every case. Ralbag's two explanations complement each other, and do not warrant Abarvanel's cavil:
I have noted Ralbag's suggestions. All of them together add up to one big nought.The allegorists whose views we cited in our discussions of Terumah obviously found no hint of redundancy in the recapitulations of mere "technical" details. On the contrary, every item, every contour of the design, every figure in the measurements was charged with symbolic and mystical significance. Here is a contribution of Hirsch to the subject;
Let us bear in mind that the Tabernacle and its appurtenances, are symbols, and that no symbol is valid unless it has been expressly made for that. Thus even the sacramental validity of the writing on the parchment in a Scroll of the Law which has no other meaning outside the symbolic depends solely on having been written by the scribe for its express holy purpose. In addition, the scribe must write the names of God in Scriptures for the express purpose of the holiness of His name, a purpose which must be uttered by his lips at the time of writing. Since all the vessels in the Tabernacle –the Ark, the table, the candelabra, the curtains, the vestments – possess an immediate literal application as articles of daily use, all the more so do their symbolic implications completely depend on the consciously sacred purpose informing their construction.The Biur (Mendelssohn) adopts a somewhat different approach:
When the Almighty chose His people, He foresaw in His wisdom, that they would require all kinds of skills in the pursuit of their common life together in their own land. These skills may be divided into the following categories: (1) essential—without which man cannot attain happiness such as those required to procure him food, clothing and housing; (2) useful skills required for the maintenance of the roadways and bridges, and for the production of articles of daily use in metal and other materials; (3) artistic skills which introduce pleasure into human life and ornament it, such as those involved in embroidery, art sculpture, etc. All these employments are to the credit and advantage of the nation so long as they do not exceed the bounds of disrection and do not border on extravagance. Over-indulgence in all the above fields is detrimental, particularly in the case of artistic skills which can destroy the state since they lead to the pursuit of pleasure, effete living, envy and strife and ultimate anarchy. It is possible that just as God commanded His people to dedicate the first fruits of their persons, soil and cattle to Him (cf. The dictum of our sages: "there exists nothing, the first-fruits of which are not dedicated to heaven"), so he desired that they offer to him the first fruits of their thoughts and abilities and dedicate them to His service in the form of the Tabernacle, its appurtenances and vestments. This would be instrumental in sanctifying all their affairs since they would remember the Lord in all their deeds and would not go astray in pursuit of luxury and vanity.. "For a skill which was not employed in the Tabernacle cannot be accounted a skill", and it is not right for a God-fearing Jew to occupy himself with such.
The above explanation does not then dwell on the allegorical significance of each and every vessel and attempt to provide a symbolic correspondence in the spiritual world for all the objects mentioned. Instead the instructions to build the Tabernacle, to work in wood, metal gold and silver may be compared to the ordinances of the first-fruits and first-born in which the worshipper dedicates his goods to the Almighty in acknowledgement of his creator's bounty. In this case it is not the products of man's work and skills that are dedicated, but the most precious of his endowments, his skill and mental capacities. Before the Israelites settled down in their homeland, before they managed to build their own house and vineyard, they were called upon to dedicate their skills and abilities to God, that the first-fruits of their work should be for the sake of Heaven.
The full exploitation of human skill is highly esteemed by the Torah which evidently does not approve the ideal set by Jonadab the son of Rechav , cited in Jeremiah 35, 6. Man had been charged by God at creation with the task of conquering and civilising the world by his skills. The dangers of over-exploitation, of extravagance and demoralisation which are concomitants of man's misuse of his powers underly the instruction to build the Tabernacle:
No regulations were prescribed by the Almighty governing the development of human skills laying down what was to be considered essential, desirable or extravagant, since this was a matter dependant on ever changing circumstances, God did not therefore wish to fix any preconceived limits. When the children of Israel would enter their homeland and rest from their enemies and prosper, they would have more opportunity to engage in various labours and would certainly have no need to renounce artistic, ornamental pursuits. It may be noted that till the day of Solomon, the Ark of the Lord was housed behind a curtain and when Solomon ruled and Judah and Israel dwelt each man under his vine and silver and gold were plentiful in Jerusalem, the Almighty commanded them to build a Temple. The king too built a palace and all kinds of magnificent edifices, an ivory throne...We may note the attainments of those days and would that matters had not exceeded those limits! But subsequently the love of pleasure and luxury exceeded all bounds, and we know what happened. No definite limit can be prescribed in these matters which must be decided in accordance with the prevailing circumstances. The surest safeguard is, however, contained in the following admonition of our Sages: "let all thy deeds be for the sake of Heaven". Through observance of this principle man will be able to distinguish between good and evil and not be ruled by his passions. The Almighty therefore did not prescribe any limits but commanded that they dedicate all their deeds and thoughts to Him and consecrate the first-fruits of their work to the Lord blessed be He and blessed be His name, who has singled us out form the peoples and given us true law and goodly statutes for is to love Him and fear Him always.The Torah did not therefore content itself with recording the instructions to build the Tabernacle, but repeated each detail of their execution. This was done in order to stress the symbolic significance of each detail, the dedication of each labour to God in preparation for life in the Promised Land.
In our Sidra Moses renders account of the contributions donated to the Tabernacle, how much they totalled and what they were used for. The metals comprised gold, silver and bronze. Regarding the latter it is stated:
The bronze of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand four hundred shekels(38,29)
What did they use the bronze for? This we are told in the subsequent verses (30-31):
And with it he made sockets for the door of the tent of meeting, the bronze alter, and its bronze grating.
The sockets in the court and gate, the tabernacle pegs, too, were made of bronze as well as- all the pegs in the court round about... But there existed yet another bronze vessel, certainly more important than the pegs and sockets alluded to here. This vessel is not mentioned here but only later in the list of all the vessels brought to Moses towards the end of the next chapter (39,39):
The bronze alter and its grating of bronze, its posts, and all its vessels, the basin and its stand.
Abravanel quite rightly includes this point among all the other questions that he posed on the Sidra:
He mentioned the vessels made of bronze; sockets, alter and grating and all the vessels of the alter and so forth, but the basin and stand that we know were also made of bronze, as it is stated: And thou shalt make also a basin of bronze with a stand of bronze... (30,18), is not mentioned here.
The answer he gives is that followed by all our commentators:
The reason why he did not mention here the basin and stand which was also made of bronze was because the text only refers, at this juncture, to the bronze that had been donated as a free offering by the children of Israel, as it stated: The bronze of offering...
The basin and stand were not made out of that bronze but out of the mirrors of the women who crowded (zev`os- the exact meaning of this word and the passage as a whole will be discussed later) at the door of the tent of meeting. The basin and its stand were therefore not mentioned here since they were not made of that same bronze.
Abravanel alludes here to a passage in the previous Sidra, which is usually joined to ours and read together:
And he maid the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the women who crowded at the door of the tent of meeting. (38,8)
This text poses many problems both as regards content and language. What does the phrase: mar`ot hazov`ot asher zav`u mean? Ramban adheres to the plain sense of the text:
We may perhaps take it in its plain sense that he maid the basin and stand out of the mirrors of the women who crowded in a great host (zava-hebrew for hosts or army ; cf.: the Lord of hosts, zeva`ot) and assembled at the door of the tent of meeting to give their mirrors as a freewill offering. The bronze of the mirrors was designated for this vessel because of its smooth polished hollowed-out surface. When the women saw this they gathered in their hosts to donate the mirrors for the making of the basin and stand.
He thus renders the text: The women who crowded at the tent of meeting... who gathered and stood round, in their hosts to hand over their gift. We shall meet another interpretation later on. But the inner meaning of the text transcends linguistic considerations. What prompted Moses in the first place to use the mirrors of the women for the making of a vessel in which the priests would wash their hands and feet on entering the tent of meeting (Ex. 30,17-21), enabling them to sanctify their deeds?
Hirsch devoted a great deal of attention to explaining the symbolic significance of the various appurtenances of the tabernacle and their respective functions in the Divine service. He likewise draws attention to this unusual feature:
It is deeply significant that the vessel designated for consecration of hands and feet i.e. dedicated to elevating and refining the animal movements and instincts of man should be made from such a crucial boudoir item as a mirror, an object which draws attention to the human body as an object of sensual desire.
Ibn Ezra`s solution to the problem is diametrically opposed to this:
It is customary for every women to make up her face every morning and look in a bronze or glass mirror in order to adjust her hair style and ornaments as mentioned in Isaiah 3. The Israelite women behaved exactly as the Ishmaelite woman today. But there were pious women in Israel who overcame this worldly temptation and freely gave away their mirrors because they found no more need to beautify themselves but came instead daily to the door of the tent of meeting to pray and hear religious discourses for their edification. The text says: Who crowded at the door of the tent of meeting...because there were many of them.
Ibn Ezra discovered the appropriateness of the mirrors for this sacred use in the fact that the women who brought them as an offering to the Tabernacle symbolized thereby their rejection of vanity. The greatness of these women lay, in Ibn Ezra`s words, in the fact that they overcame worldly temptations and found no more need to beautify themselves...
It was not then the physical composition and configuration of the mirrors that warranted their metamorphosis into basin and stand for consecrating hands and feet but rather the unselfishness and spiritual dedication that the gift of them implied. Midrash Tanhuma adopts an entirely different approach. Rashi draws on it but we shall cite his source in full:
You find that when the Israelites suffered hard labour in Egypt that Pharaoh decreed that they should not sleep at home nor have relations with their wives. Said R.Simeon b.Halafta: What did the daughters of Israel do? They would go down to draw water from the river. Whereupon the Holy One Blessed be He prepared small fishes for them inside their jars. They would cook some, sell some and buy with the proceeds wine and go out into the fields and give their husbands to eat there. After they had eaten they took their mirrors and looked into them together with their husbands. She said: I am more comely than you. He said: I am more comely than you. In the course of this (tctc-a-tctc), their sexual desire was aroused and they became fruitful and multiplied, the Holy One Blessed be He forthwith remembering them (i.e. blessed them with issue), as it is stated: and the children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and multiplied and became exceedingly mighty... It is written regarding them: and the land was filled with them...but the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied... Through the merit of those same mirrors which they showed their husbands arousing their sexual desire in the midst of the hard labour, they raised up all the hosts, as it is stated (Ex. 12): all the hosts of the lord went out of the land of Egypt and (12, 51): the lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.
As soon as the Holy One Blessed be He told Moses to make the Tabernacle, all Israel came along to contribute. Some brought silver, some gold or brass, onyx and stones to be set. They readily brought everything. Whereupon the women said: What have we to contribute to the offering of the tabernacle? They came along and brought the mirrors and presented themselves to Moses. When Moses saw the mirrors he was furious with them. He said to Israel: Take sticks and break the legs of those who brought them. What use are such mirrors?
Said the Holy One Blessed be He to Moses: Moses! You look down on them! It was these mirror which raised up all these hosts in Egypt! Take them and make out of them the basin and its stand for the priests in which they can purify themselves, as it is stated: And he made the basin and its stand of bronze out of the mirrors that raised up hosts...-those same mirrors which raised up all these hosts.
Rashi echoes this Midrash:
The daughters of Israel came along with the mirrors they gazed into to adorn themselves. Even those they did not withhold from bringing as an offering to the tabernacle. But Moses rejected them because they were maid to satisfy the evil inclination. Whereupon the Holy One Blessed be He said to him. Accept! For these are dearer to me than every thing else, because through them the women raised up countless hosts in Egypt.
When their husbands were weary from the hard labour, they would go along and bring them food and drink, give them to eat and take the mirrors. Each one would look into the mirror together with her husband and egg him on with wards saying: I am more comely than you . In the course of this they would arouse their husbands` desire and copulate, becoming pregnant and giving birth there, as it is stated: Under the apple tree I aroused thee (song of songs 8, 5). To this the text- Mirrors that raised up hosts- refers, whereof the basin was made...
Grammatically the word zov`ot is explained as a transitive verb in the sense of- that raise-the hosts of Israel. Symbolically the mirrors do not evoke the triviality and vanity of their conventional use but the survivalist, lifegiving purpose that they served.
The same instinct or impulse which can lead man to perversions, filth and destruction can also lead him to creativity, the building of a house and the continuity of the nation. Our Sages referred to this idea when they interpreted the double syllable word used for heart (le-vav) instead of the single syllable word (lev) in the text- Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart (levakha), to mean- with the two hearts- or impulses:- with the good impulse and the evil impulse...
Questions for Further Study
- Note how Rashi adapts his Midrashic source. What does he omit, abbreviate, change or elaborate on? What is the general aim underlying his editing?
- See Ex. 30, 17-19: And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: Thou shalt also make a basin of bronze in which to wash; and thou shalt put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and thou shalt put water their feet in it...
Our commentators ask: Why were not the measurements of this vessel given just as they were given for the other vessels, for the table, candlestick and altar? Try to answer this question by referring to the verse we have studied (38, 8).
Copyright © 2010 The Jewish Federations of North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved