The Mishkan Constituting a Symbol of God’s Closeness

The conundrum posed by Shemot 33.

In R. Jonathan Sacks’ 2016 essay for Parashat Ki Tisa, “The Closeness of God” (The Closeness of God (Ki Tissa 5776) – Rabbi Sacks), he offers an explanation for Shemot 33, that he claims annually bedevils him when this Parashat HaShavua rolls around.

He begins by listing the difficulties that the Parasha presents:

1. If in Shemot 32 Moshe prays twice on behalf of the Jews that they should be forgiven for their sin with the Golden Calf (11-13; 31-2) and a third time in Ibid. 34 (9), what is the point of Ibid. 33?
2. The specific requests that Moshe makes in Ibid. 33 (13, 18) seem to relate to himself rather than the people that he supposedly is representing and leading.
3. The sequence of verses in Ibid. 33 appears out of order:
   • (Ibid. 4) No one should don ornaments.
     (Ibid. 5) Take off your ornaments.
   • (Ibid. 14) My Presence will Accompany you and the people.
   • (Ibid. 15) If Your Presence does not Accompany us, Do not Make us leave this place.
4. Was the G.C. an idol or a substitute for Moshe?
   • (Ibid. 32:4) These are your gods who brought you out of Egypt.
     (Ibid. 1) Moshe brought us out of Egypt and he is presently missing.
5. Was the Mishkan a response to the worship of the G.C., or was it proposed before any of this occurred?

and 6. Why does Moshe choose at this point to remove his tent from the encampment (Ibid. 33:7-11)? Doesn’t he realize that it was his former absence that brought about the sin in the first place?

A way of understanding this biblical chapter.

R. Sacks proposes an overarching explanation that will account for these many questions. He suggests that even though Moshe complies with HaShem’s initial Critique, Urging him to quickly descend and straighten out the encampment that has devolved into disarray (Ibid. 32:7-8), once he does so, he presents a perspective of his own (a.), i.e., that it is not Moshe’s absence that caused the people to sin, but rather that of God, Himself (c2.; d.). Even a leader of Moshe’s stature will eventually be gone; only God Is Eternal and Constant, and thereby reassure the people of His Concern. Until this point, God had Been “Transcendant,” Orchestrating the Egyptian plagues, the splitting of the sea, and Being the “disembodied” Voice at Sinai. What the people needed, contended Moshe, was an “Immanent” Divine Presence upon Whom they could rely.

Therefore, (f.) Moshe removes his tent in order to challenge God to Take up Residence in the place where he, Moshe had been previously. Moshe’s attempts to understand God’s Nature (b.) was essentially posing the question whether God would be Able to Present Himself as sufficiently “Immanent” in order to address the Jewish people’s needs. And although God Insists that human beings will be unable to properly comprehend Him and/or perceive His Activities (Ibid. 33:20-3), they will be able to “see” His Glory,” as in (Ibid. 40:34-5)

34 Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Glory of the LORD filled the Tabernacle. 35 And Moshe was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud abode thereon, and the Glory of the LORD filled the Tabernacle.

(Although R. Sacks does not explicitly address c1), perhaps it could be said that the second verse (5) was implying that in the future, by adorning themselves, they would be erecting a barrier between themselves and HaShem’s Glory as represented by the Mishkan.)

upon their completion of the Mishkan (e.) whose purpose is for God to Be perceived by the people as “close” (Ibid. 25:8.)

Conclusion.

R. Sacks proceeds to place Shemot 33 into a much larger context of human activity, positing that a type of “Yin-Yang” informs Jewish ideas about God:

…That is the ongoing miracle of Jewish spirituality. No one before the birth of Judaism ever envisaged God in such abstract and awe-inspiring ways: God is more Distant than the furthest star and more Eternal than time itself. Yet no religion has ever felt God to be Closer. In TaNaCh the prophets argue with God. In the book of Tehillim, King David speaks to Him in terms of utmost Intimacy. In the Talmud, God Listens to the debates between the sages and Accepts their rulings even when they go against a Heavenly Voice (a reference to Bava Metzia 59b.) God’s Relationship with Israel, said the prophets, is like that between a parent and a child, or between a husband and a wife. In Shir HaShirim, it is like that between two infatuated lovers. The Zohar, key text of Jewish mysticism, uses the most daring language of passion, as does Yedid Nefesh, the poem attributed to the sixteenth century Tzefat kabbalist, R. Elazar Azikri.

That is one of the striking differences between the synagogues and the cathedrals of the Middle Ages. In a cathedral, you sense the vastness of God and the smallness of humankind. But in the Altneushul in Prague, or the synagogues of the Ari and R. Joseph Karo in Tzefat, you sense the closeness of God and the potential greatness of humankind... 

Discussion.

Paricularly the last paragraph quoted above, would appear to favor the “Shtiebel” over the “Megaschul,” the former lending itself to greater intimacy than the latter. I’m not sure that the comparison of medieval cathedrals to synagogues from the same period is fair, given the greater number of Christians than Jews in the population.

For a religious observer, to feel that God is Present and Accessible is certainly a positive value, but I wonder if during “Hester Panim,” a period that began with the last prophet, Malachi, even in a “Shtiebel,” God is all that Immanent. And even though synagogues and Batei Midrash are designated as God’s “Mikdeshai Me’at” (lit. “mini-Temples”; fig. a replacement, albeit temporary, for the “real thing”) during “Hester Panim,” a Sense of God’s Immediate Presence per force will have been lost. Then again, even for those who had a Mishkan/Mikdash, what was to stop them from taking these structures for granted, an attitude that ultimately resulted in their being removed from the Jewish consciousness.