by Rabbi Joshua Lookstein*

This sermon is based entirely (except for the bolded passages) on a fascinating piece of Torah from Rav Ahron Lichtenstein. It was told to me by a friend, so I never saw it written. If there are problems with it, the fault lies in my retelling of the idea. The greatness of this idea is as much due to the methodology behind it as it is to the result.

Fact: The Torah spends two Portions discussing the Tabernacle, then tells the story of the Golden Calf, then spends two more portions discussing the Tabernacle.

Step 1 - A textual Question: When did things occur? Which came first the commandment to build the Tabernacle or the sin of the Golden Calf?

Question on question: What do you mean `When?' Exactly as it's written in the Torah! First in our portion and last week's, God said build a Tabernacle, and then the sin with the calf happened!

Answer to Question on Question then question: Not necessarily. There are actually commentaries that say that just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean it happened that way. That's called ‘Ein mukdam u’mi’uchar baTorah.’ The Torah isn't written chronologically. Just because it's written then, doesn't mean it happened then. Who is this radical commentary? Rashi.

Other commentaries disagree and say, ‘Yeish mukdam u’mi’uchar baTorah.’ There is a chronological order to the Torah. If the Torah first records the commandment to build the Tabernacle and afterwards records the sin of the calf, that's because that's the way it happened. First the Tabernacle, then the calf. The Ramban says this.

So the answer to our textual question, which came first, is, according to Rashi who says there is no chronology, first came the sin, then came the Tabernacle. According to the Ramban, first came the Tabernacle, and then came the sin.

Step 2 - A philosophical question: Does it matter which came first?

Answer: It matters. According to Rashi, who says that there is no chronology, and so the sin of the calf preceded the commandment to build a Tabernacle, maybe Rashi thinks that the Tabernacle was never really supposed to be built. It was only necessary because of the sin of the calf. God is everywhere! Why does he need a house? The house was built because we needed the house. Being everywhere was too abstract for the Jewish People. They needed something tangible. A calf, a house. So according to Rashi, the Tabernacle was only needed because of the calf. But according to Ramban, who says that there is chronology and that the Tabernacle was built before the sin of the calf, the Tabernacle preceded the calf and therefore was not a reaction to the calf. God had always intended for the Jews to build it. It had nothing to do with the calf.

Step 3 - A twist:

Rav Lichtenstein said that it's not such an argument, because he thinks that the end result was the same. Even Rashi would agree that in the end, the builders of the tabernacle felt that this was the right thing to be done. What happened? As they were building it, they realized what a great concept this was: A house of God, a place to come and congregate and unite in prayer to God. What a great idea! We wish we had thought of this ourselves. So what originated as a sort of ‘bidi’avad’ became viewed as a meaningful ‘lichatchila.’

Step 4 – Israel Application

A modern day analogy: Two events, the Holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel. There are two ways to look at these events. One like Rashi and one like Ramban. One could look at Israel and say that it was only created at that specific time in the late 40's to serve as a refuge for Holocaust survivors or any other victims of anti-Semitism. Or one could look at Israel and say that Holocaust or no Holocaust, Israel would have been created because it's more than just a refuge. It is our history, our heritage, a place to live freely as Jews among other Jews and from there to be a light unto the nations.

Said Rav Ahron, just like the calf and the Tabernacle, this too can be slightly adjusted to remove any argument. Even according to those people who built the state of Israel as a refuge for victims of the Holocaust, as they were building it, it became more. It was the fulfillment of a promise made to our forefathers, one with historical and religious significance.

Author’s note: At this point, one can speak more about Israel in the above sense of ‘Lishma’ and ‘Mitoch shelo lishma ba lishma.’ At this time of security concerns, there are those who remarkably are blind to those concerns and manage to go to Israel on a consistent basis. Then there are those whose 20/20 vision won’t allow them to ignore what is occurring. Yet those people, when they manage to go, always return surprised, relieved and of course inspired by how the situation is different from the way CNN portrays it. Again, both types of people are correct in their thinking, yet they both manage to end up in the same place.

Step 5 - Recap:

1)Textual question: Which came first, the calf or the tabernacle?

Answer: Rashi - the calf. Ramban - the Tabernacle.

2) Philosophical interpretation: According to Rashi, the Tabernacle was never supposed to be built. It was only a reaction to the Calf. According to Ramban, it was always supposed to be built, disconnected from the calf.

3) Slight twist: Even according to Rashi, the tabernacle became an ideal because as the builders were building, they realized how great it was.

4) Modern day analogy: The Holocaust and Israel. Some felt Israel was to be a haven for refugees. Others felt it was greater. With a twist, everyone ended up feeling it was greater because as the builders built the haven, they realized how much greater it would become.

5) A further application of this idea to Israel: Some naturally travel to Israel while others have to be pushed and prodded. But they all end up in the same place.