B"H
Full source text here
Post this week is l'refuah shleima Diana bat Ruby Geraldine v'Rochel bas Nomi
1) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 1
אלה פקודי המשכן. זה שאמר הכתוב, כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו (ירמי' יז יב), שם מכוון מקדשנו. וכן הוא אומר, מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך (שמ' טו יז).
וכן אתה מוצא, שירושלים מכונון למעלה כמו ירושלים של מטה. מרוב אהבתה של
מטה, עשה אחרת למעלה, שנאמר, הן על כפים חקותיך, חומתיך נגדי תמיד (ישע' מט טו). ועל מה חרבה. אלא כי מהרו בניך מהרסיך ומחריביך ממך יצאו (שם שם טז), על זה חרבה. וכן אמר דוד, ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחברה לה יחדו (תהל' קכב ג).
כלומר, כעיר שבנה יה. ותרגם ירושלמי, דמתבניא ברקיע בקרתא לאתחברתה כחדא
בארעא. ונשבע ששכינתו לא יכנס בשל מעלה, עד שיבנה של מטה. כמה חביבין ישראל
לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא. ומנין. שכן כתיב, בקרבך קדוש ולא אבוא בעיר (הושע יא ט). ואומר, ועתה מה לי פה נאם ה' כי לוקח עמי חנם (ישע' נב ה).
רצונו לומר, ועתה מה לי פה נאם ה', מה אני מבקש פה בירושלים אחר שלוקח עמי
ממנה. בחנם שאבוא בה, לא אבוא. יהי רצון שיבנה במהרה בימינו:
2) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 2 (abridged)
[אלה פקודי המשכן. ... רבי לוי אמר, משכן העדות, זה
שאמר הכתוב, כי יסכר פי דוברי שקר (תהל' סג יב),
יסכר פיהם של אומות העולם שהיו אומרים לישראל שאין השכינה חוזרת אלינו
לעולם, שנאמר, רבים אומרים לנפשי, אין ישועתה לו באלהים סלה (שם ג ג),
אלו עד שלא עשו את העגל בא הקדוש ברוך הוא ושרה אצלם, משכעס עליהם היו
אומרים אינו חוזר אליהם. מה עשה. אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא, ועשו לי מקדש
ושכנתי בתוכם (שמו' כה ח), וידעו כל באי עולם שמחלתי לישראל. ולפיכך כתיב, משכן העדות כבר היה לעולמים
3) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 3 (abridged)
וראוהו ונתיראו מלפניו. היו סוברים שהוא בראם, ובאו להשתחות לו. אמר להן,
למה באתם להשתחות לי, נבוא כלנו נראה כל הבריות שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא. והיה
תמה בלבו. התחיל משבח ומפאר ליוצרו, ואומר, מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך (תהלי' לא כ). ואומר, מה רבו מעשיך ה' (שם קד כד). קם על רגליו והוא כתואר וכדמות אלהים, והיה קומתו אחריו. והלבישו גאות ועוז והמליכו עליהם ליוצרו, ואמרו, ה' מלך גאות לבש (שם צג א). קנקן חדש מלא ישן
4) Kohelet 1:10
יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר רְאֵה-זֶה חָדָשׁ הוּא כְּבָר הָיָה לְעֹלָמִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה מִלְּפָנֵנוּ
5) Pirke Avot 4:26-27
רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה איש כפר הבבלי אומר, הלמד מן הקטנים, למה הוא
דומה--לאוכל ענבים קהות, ושותה יין מגיתו; והלמד מן הזקנים, למה הוא
דומה--לאוכל ענבים בשלות, ושותה יין ישן. רבי אומר, אל תסתכל בקנקן, אלא
במה שיש בו: יש קנקן חדש, מלא ישן; וישן, אפילו חדש אין בו.
Apologies both for the late publication and for any deficiencies in coherent analysis/dvar this week - unfortunately, things have been a little hectic...
The Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei in particular contains a number of fascinating midrashim which one would not necessarily have expected given the relevant parshiyot (which basically comprise the design and building of the Mishkan components, a Biblical audit report, and the assembly of the Mishkan itself). Midrashim worthy of in-depth study include:
The comparison of the Mishkan to Bereishit (the act of Creation).
The process by which a foetus is formed, given a soul, taught Torah in utero and then made to forget everything upon birth (see here for more details of this midrash!)
The Shekhina departing seven levels from the earth due to humanity's sins in the generations between Adam and Amrofel, and returning to the earth due to the seven generations from Avraham to Moshe.
The 'copper mirrors' used by the women in Mitzrayim to arouse their husbands and conceive, and which were subsequently donated to the Mishkan.
Iy"H I would love to take a closer look at these sometime in the future, possibly outside of the context of the weekly parsha...
This week's 'musing' was actually spurred by noting something a little odd at the end of the first three chapters of the Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei, and for which (unlike the Kaputkaya question) I have very little in the way of an answer due to a lack of both time and resources. Al regel achat...
Several of the midrashim this week focus on the opening line of the parsha: 'eleh pekudei haMishkan Mishkan ha'edut...(These are the accounts/records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony/the Pact...(Shemot 38:21)). The midrashim mostly base themselves upon both the repetition of the word Mishkan and the phrase 'Mishkan ha'edut' to derive several lessons concerning both the Mishkan itself and its successor, the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim.
The opening midrash (source 1 above) uses a number of links from both earlier in sefer Shemot and throughout the Nevi'im to explore the concept of two Yerushalayims, one on earth and its counterpart in the heavens, which are lacking respectively the nation of Israel and some crucial aspect of G-d's presence since the Churban (destruction of the Beit HaMikdash). A powerful midrash in itself, it concludes with the heartfelt prayer 'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu' (may it be His will that [Yerushalayim/the Beit HaMikdash] be [re]built speedily in our days).
While this is a slightly unusual way for a midrash to conclude, given the context it is both unsurprising and understandable. However, while the next two chapters of midrashim also each conclude with a simple phrase (underlined in sources 2 and 3 above) which is not obviously 'closing off' the midrash itself, unlike the prayer 'yehi ratzon' above they do not appear to directly follow on from the subject of the preceding midrash.* Moreover, they have the air of being well-known phrases which the reader ought to be familiar with, but - unusually for the Midrash Tanchuma - are not attributed to any particular source.
What on earth is going on? Well, upon a quick google I managed to track down the sources for both phrases as follows:
Source 2's conclusion 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' is taken from the opening perek of sefer Kohelet (source 4 above). The entire phrase reads 'yesh d'var she'yomar re'eh zeh hadash hu, k'var hayah ha'olamim asher hayah mil'faneinu' (there is something of which they say 'look, this is new!' - it occurred long since in ages that went before us) and comes just after the famous phrase 'v'ein kol hadash tachat hashamesh' (there is nothing new under the sun)
Source 3's conclusion 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' is taken from Pirke Avot 4:26-27 (source 5 above), in which Rabi argues against Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda's stance that it is better to learn from an elder than from a younger person by pointing out: 'Do not look at the vessel, but at what is in it; there is a new vessel filled with old wine, and an old vessel that does not even contain new wine'[my emphasis to translate the phrase quoted at Source 3].
OK...so both phrases are in fact from elsewhere in Tanakh/Rabbinic literature. So, why does the Midrash Tanchuma fail to attribute them as such? Well, let's consider the relevant midrashim which these phrases follow. Source 2 concludes with a midrash said by Rabbi Leivi arguing that G-d's command to build the Mishkan so that He can dwell 'amongst' Israel is a way of proving the nations of the world wrong about their assumption that G-d would never return to Israel after the Chet HaEgel (sin of Golden Calf) as proved by command to construct Mishkan. Meanwhile, Source 3's concluding midrash tells of how the newly created animals in Gan Eden mistake Adam - created b'tzelem Elokim - for G-d Himself and come to worship Adam. Adam corrects them by 'crowning' G-d as King and encouraging all the animals to follow suit.
It is at this point that - lacking any basis whatsoever other than gut feeling - I veer into somewhat sensitive/controversial territory. While I have had neither the time or resources to develop this further pre-posting, my instinct is that the two concluding phrases 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' and 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' are both some kind of coded response to Xian 'replacement theology' (by which Jesus's crucifixion and the New Testament is held to replace the 'Old Testament' covenant between G-d and Israel) and the Xian Trinity by which Jesus is given a divine status antithetical to Jewish belief. The non-attribution of these phrases may therefore have been some means of avoiding censorship (although quite how the anti-Xian message works in the case of the Pirke Avot quote at source 4, I haven't fully been able to decipher...)
If this is the case, then the use of these two phrases and the relevant midrashim following the opening midrash and 'yehi ratzon' regarding Yerushalayim (source 1) may be to counteract Xian beliefs and any other kind of misguided messianism** regarding the restoration of the Beit haMikdash and Yerushalayim, while at the same time giving a poignant voice to the Jewish longing for a return to a rebuilt Yerushalayim and Israel's complete fulfillment of its role as a 'goy kadosh'.
Responses/thoughts/requests for further research all welcome :-)
Shavua tov, v'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu
RPT
*in the Metsudah edition, on both occasions the concluding phrase is printed separately from the rest of the preceding text, thereby drawing attention to themselves. Otherwise, these might have gone unnoticed by most readers...
**Apparently the Midrash Tanchuma text was first collated for publication in 16th century Istanbul/Constantinople, although the midrashim themselves date back many centuries earlier. It did occur to me that there may therefore also be a link with the infamous Shabtai Tzvi who spent some time in this region, but the theory is rather spoilt by the fact that he showed up at least a century later...
The Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei in particular contains a number of fascinating midrashim which one would not necessarily have expected given the relevant parshiyot (which basically comprise the design and building of the Mishkan components, a Biblical audit report, and the assembly of the Mishkan itself). Midrashim worthy of in-depth study include:
The comparison of the Mishkan to Bereishit (the act of Creation).
The process by which a foetus is formed, given a soul, taught Torah in utero and then made to forget everything upon birth (see here for more details of this midrash!)
The Shekhina departing seven levels from the earth due to humanity's sins in the generations between Adam and Amrofel, and returning to the earth due to the seven generations from Avraham to Moshe.
The 'copper mirrors' used by the women in Mitzrayim to arouse their husbands and conceive, and which were subsequently donated to the Mishkan.
Iy"H I would love to take a closer look at these sometime in the future, possibly outside of the context of the weekly parsha...
This week's 'musing' was actually spurred by noting something a little odd at the end of the first three chapters of the Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei, and for which (unlike the Kaputkaya question) I have very little in the way of an answer due to a lack of both time and resources. Al regel achat...
Several of the midrashim this week focus on the opening line of the parsha: 'eleh pekudei haMishkan Mishkan ha'edut...(These are the accounts/records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony/the Pact...(Shemot 38:21)). The midrashim mostly base themselves upon both the repetition of the word Mishkan and the phrase 'Mishkan ha'edut' to derive several lessons concerning both the Mishkan itself and its successor, the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim.
The opening midrash (source 1 above) uses a number of links from both earlier in sefer Shemot and throughout the Nevi'im to explore the concept of two Yerushalayims, one on earth and its counterpart in the heavens, which are lacking respectively the nation of Israel and some crucial aspect of G-d's presence since the Churban (destruction of the Beit HaMikdash). A powerful midrash in itself, it concludes with the heartfelt prayer 'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu' (may it be His will that [Yerushalayim/the Beit HaMikdash] be [re]built speedily in our days).
While this is a slightly unusual way for a midrash to conclude, given the context it is both unsurprising and understandable. However, while the next two chapters of midrashim also each conclude with a simple phrase (underlined in sources 2 and 3 above) which is not obviously 'closing off' the midrash itself, unlike the prayer 'yehi ratzon' above they do not appear to directly follow on from the subject of the preceding midrash.* Moreover, they have the air of being well-known phrases which the reader ought to be familiar with, but - unusually for the Midrash Tanchuma - are not attributed to any particular source.
What on earth is going on? Well, upon a quick google I managed to track down the sources for both phrases as follows:
Source 2's conclusion 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' is taken from the opening perek of sefer Kohelet (source 4 above). The entire phrase reads 'yesh d'var she'yomar re'eh zeh hadash hu, k'var hayah ha'olamim asher hayah mil'faneinu' (there is something of which they say 'look, this is new!' - it occurred long since in ages that went before us) and comes just after the famous phrase 'v'ein kol hadash tachat hashamesh' (there is nothing new under the sun)
Source 3's conclusion 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' is taken from Pirke Avot 4:26-27 (source 5 above), in which Rabi argues against Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda's stance that it is better to learn from an elder than from a younger person by pointing out: 'Do not look at the vessel, but at what is in it; there is a new vessel filled with old wine, and an old vessel that does not even contain new wine'[my emphasis to translate the phrase quoted at Source 3].
OK...so both phrases are in fact from elsewhere in Tanakh/Rabbinic literature. So, why does the Midrash Tanchuma fail to attribute them as such? Well, let's consider the relevant midrashim which these phrases follow. Source 2 concludes with a midrash said by Rabbi Leivi arguing that G-d's command to build the Mishkan so that He can dwell 'amongst' Israel is a way of proving the nations of the world wrong about their assumption that G-d would never return to Israel after the Chet HaEgel (sin of Golden Calf) as proved by command to construct Mishkan. Meanwhile, Source 3's concluding midrash tells of how the newly created animals in Gan Eden mistake Adam - created b'tzelem Elokim - for G-d Himself and come to worship Adam. Adam corrects them by 'crowning' G-d as King and encouraging all the animals to follow suit.
It is at this point that - lacking any basis whatsoever other than gut feeling - I veer into somewhat sensitive/controversial territory. While I have had neither the time or resources to develop this further pre-posting, my instinct is that the two concluding phrases 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' and 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' are both some kind of coded response to Xian 'replacement theology' (by which Jesus's crucifixion and the New Testament is held to replace the 'Old Testament' covenant between G-d and Israel) and the Xian Trinity by which Jesus is given a divine status antithetical to Jewish belief. The non-attribution of these phrases may therefore have been some means of avoiding censorship (although quite how the anti-Xian message works in the case of the Pirke Avot quote at source 4, I haven't fully been able to decipher...)
If this is the case, then the use of these two phrases and the relevant midrashim following the opening midrash and 'yehi ratzon' regarding Yerushalayim (source 1) may be to counteract Xian beliefs and any other kind of misguided messianism** regarding the restoration of the Beit haMikdash and Yerushalayim, while at the same time giving a poignant voice to the Jewish longing for a return to a rebuilt Yerushalayim and Israel's complete fulfillment of its role as a 'goy kadosh'.
Responses/thoughts/requests for further research all welcome :-)
Shavua tov, v'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu
RPT
*in the Metsudah edition, on both occasions the concluding phrase is printed separately from the rest of the preceding text, thereby drawing attention to themselves. Otherwise, these might have gone unnoticed by most readers...
**Apparently the Midrash Tanchuma text was first collated for publication in 16th century Istanbul/Constantinople, although the midrashim themselves date back many centuries earlier. It did occur to me that there may therefore also be a link with the infamous Shabtai Tzvi who spent some time in this region, but the theory is rather spoilt by the fact that he showed up at least a century later...
No comments:
Post a Comment