BY: Ariel Karp
This week’s parsha, Parshat Tetzaveh, deals mainly with the clothing of the Kohanim and the sacrifices pertaining to the dedication of the Mishkan. In the end of the parsha, however, we find the commandment to build the incense altar, the mizbeach ha’ketoret. This seems strangely out of place. The rest of the vessels are mentioned in Parshat Teruma, the parsha before Tetzaveh. Why is the incense altar separated from the rest of the vessels in this parsha when in the rest of the Tanakh it is grouped together with them?
Furthermore, the reason given for the formation of the other vessels is, [i]“וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל”- in order for God’s presence to dwell amongst the people of Israel.They were formed in order to bring the presence of God into the Mishkan. A similar reason is not given for the incense altar. Ramban explains that incense itself is always related to kavod, honor. It is therefore assumed that the purpose of the incense altar was to honor God, rather than to channel His presence. What do these distinctions mean and how do they relate to our understanding of the incense altar?
Furthermore, the reason given for the formation of the other vessels is, [i]“וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל”- in order for God’s presence to dwell amongst the people of Israel.They were formed in order to bring the presence of God into the Mishkan. A similar reason is not given for the incense altar. Ramban explains that incense itself is always related to kavod, honor. It is therefore assumed that the purpose of the incense altar was to honor God, rather than to channel His presence. What do these distinctions mean and how do they relate to our understanding of the incense altar?
The Meshech Chochma looks at the separation of incense altar as unfavorable. It is a reflection of the lower status of the incense altar in relation to the other vessels of the Mishkan. In Masechet Zevachim (59a) it states: “If the [incense] altar is absent, incense is burned in its place." This means that the mitzvah of incense can be fulfilled without the altar. The incense can simply be burned in the spot where the altar should be. No such leeway is given with regard to any of the other vessels. Without the sacrificial altar there are no sacrifices, and without the table there is no showbread. It is therefore fitting that the incense altar be listed after and separate from all of the other “necessary” vessels.
All of the other vessels are necessary for the fulfillment of the daily service, to cause God’s presence to rest on the Mishkan. The incense altar is not. It is not part of the daily service, but an independent mitzvah. It is used not to bring God’s presence into the Mishkan, but instead to honor God. The Seforno follows the path of the Meshech Chochma. He compares the Mishkan to a house, and God to a guest entering this house. Each vessel represents a different household item that could be used to welcome guest. The ark is a seat, the menorah a lamp, and so on. The incense altar, however, is not one of these items. It is used not to welcome God, but to honor God- "to honor [him] following his visit." He compares the incense altar to mugmar, a type of incense that was customarily burned at the end of an important meal to introduce a pleasant fragrance before that guests leave. The mugmar is not an integral part of the meal but a nice addition. So too, the incense altar is not an integral part of the daily service, but a pleasant supplement.
The Ibn Ezra and the Ramban take a very different approach. They claim that the incense altar is separated from the other vessels because it has a higher status. The parsha of the incense altar concludes with the verse, “קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא, לַיהוָה”- “It is a holy of holies unto God."[ii] The parsha of the sacrificial altar is called only “קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא”- “a holy of holies”.[iii] This additional “unto God” highlights the uniqueness of the incense altar. It is not just holy, but it is holy unto God. The incense altar is therefore mentioned last after all of the other vessels not because it is less significant, but because it is the culmination of the Mishkan process. As the Ramban states: “בתשלום הכל נקדשתי את שמי” – with the sum of everything I will sanctify myself. The incense altar is this pinnacle, this sum. Only after the incense altar is built can God fully rest not just his presence but also his kavod, his honor and glory, on the Mishkan.
These three opinions give an interesting reflection on the dual nature of the incense altar, and of the idea of separation. Separation can be looked at as a way to isolate or disregard something, or, as a way to define, honor, and sanctify it. We therefore can see the separation of the incense altar from the other vessels as a reflection of its inferiority or its superiority. And in fact, it possesses both a superior and an inferior aspect. It is inferior to the other vessels in that it is not part of the daily service, and service is the main aspect of the Mishkan; however, it is used for honor, and honor is a higher level than service. Honor may not be necessary for the basic function of the Mishkan, but it brings a level of kedusha, of holiness, that is otherwise unattainable. It transforms the Mishkan from “holy” to "holy unto God.”
All of the other vessels are necessary for the fulfillment of the daily service, to cause God’s presence to rest on the Mishkan. The incense altar is not. It is not part of the daily service, but an independent mitzvah. It is used not to bring God’s presence into the Mishkan, but instead to honor God. The Seforno follows the path of the Meshech Chochma. He compares the Mishkan to a house, and God to a guest entering this house. Each vessel represents a different household item that could be used to welcome guest. The ark is a seat, the menorah a lamp, and so on. The incense altar, however, is not one of these items. It is used not to welcome God, but to honor God- "to honor [him] following his visit." He compares the incense altar to mugmar, a type of incense that was customarily burned at the end of an important meal to introduce a pleasant fragrance before that guests leave. The mugmar is not an integral part of the meal but a nice addition. So too, the incense altar is not an integral part of the daily service, but a pleasant supplement.
The Ibn Ezra and the Ramban take a very different approach. They claim that the incense altar is separated from the other vessels because it has a higher status. The parsha of the incense altar concludes with the verse, “קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא, לַיהוָה”- “It is a holy of holies unto God."[ii] The parsha of the sacrificial altar is called only “קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא”- “a holy of holies”.[iii] This additional “unto God” highlights the uniqueness of the incense altar. It is not just holy, but it is holy unto God. The incense altar is therefore mentioned last after all of the other vessels not because it is less significant, but because it is the culmination of the Mishkan process. As the Ramban states: “בתשלום הכל נקדשתי את שמי” – with the sum of everything I will sanctify myself. The incense altar is this pinnacle, this sum. Only after the incense altar is built can God fully rest not just his presence but also his kavod, his honor and glory, on the Mishkan.
These three opinions give an interesting reflection on the dual nature of the incense altar, and of the idea of separation. Separation can be looked at as a way to isolate or disregard something, or, as a way to define, honor, and sanctify it. We therefore can see the separation of the incense altar from the other vessels as a reflection of its inferiority or its superiority. And in fact, it possesses both a superior and an inferior aspect. It is inferior to the other vessels in that it is not part of the daily service, and service is the main aspect of the Mishkan; however, it is used for honor, and honor is a higher level than service. Honor may not be necessary for the basic function of the Mishkan, but it brings a level of kedusha, of holiness, that is otherwise unattainable. It transforms the Mishkan from “holy” to "holy unto God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment