Pekudei - Tearing up a Detailed Parsha

Parshat Pekudei describes the building of the Mishkan and, as such, the crafting of the priestly clothing. One piece of rectorial rainment is the מְעִיל, or robe. The initial command to create the מְעִיל adds an ambiguous detail:

שָׂפָה יִהְיֶה לְפִיו סָבִיב . . . לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ

Its head-opening shall have a border all around . . . it may not be torn. (28:32)

That is Artscroll's translation. But compare to JPS: ". . . so that it does not tear." Indeed, the thrust of the last two words is unclear: make a border so that it does not tear, or make a border - and don't you dare tear! In other words, do we have a reason or a command? The implication is central: if one tore the מְעִיל, would they be punished for violating a negative command?

Apart from occupying the great minds of Artscroll and JPS, this very question appears in the Gemara.

אמר רחבא אמר רב יהודה המקרע בגדי כהונה לוקה שנאמר לא יקרע מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב ודילמא הכי קאמר רחמנא נעביד ליה שפה כי היכי דלא ניקרע מי כתיב שלא יקרע

Rachva said in the name of Rav Yehuda: One who tears the Bigdei Kahuna receives lashes- as it is written, "it shall not be torn." Rav Acha bar Yaakov questioned this: but maybe the Merciful One only meant to make a border so that it doesn’t tear! [The gemara replies:] Does it say שלא יקרע "so that it doesn't tear"!? (Yoma 72a)

Regarding our pasuk and others with similar structure, Rav Acha Bar Yaakov consistently takes the view that they should be read as giving reasons and not new commandments. However, the Talmud attacks Rav Acha on technical grammatical grounds. The pasuk fails to include a "ש", the explicit grammatical link for "so that." Rather, the verse continues without a link - suggesting a brand new commandment.

From first glance, the Gemara debates how to properly read the verse, much like Artscroll and JPS some milennia later. This is the interpretation of the debate suggested by Rav Avraham ben HaRambam, in his commentary on Sefer Shemot: (Hey, how's your Judeo-Arabic?)

חתי יתבת טוקה עלי טול אלזמאן לא יסהל תקטיעה ואלנקל בין פיה מצאף אלי דלך אנה נהי ען תקטיעה

So that his collar remains permanent and is not ruined by tearing; however, Tradition interprets it an additional way, as a command against tearing it.

Yet there is a problem with this straightforward understanding of two distinct intepretations. It is based on the premise that reasons for prohibitions shouldn't actually counted as prohibitions. Those who claim that the pasuk only presents a reason ("make a border so that it does not tear") should believe that no punishment is in order for tearing. But if the explicit rationale for making the border is to insure that the robe does not tear- doesn’t this mean that the Torah doesn’t want the מְעִיל torn, and doesn’t that mean that one should not tear it? Isn't violation of a reason still a violation of God's will?!

The only way I can think of resolving the problem is by distinguishing between a formal letter-of-the-law legal system and an informal spirit-of-the-law subtext. One could agree that violating a reason runs counter to the spirit of Torah law, yet maintain that such a deed can not be punished.

Of course, the opposite argument can be made, that breaches in the explicit spirit of the law likewise deserve punishment, that the boundary between formal and informal Law is far more transparent than usually believed. When Rav Acha claims that tearing the מְעִיל should not incur lashes, for it is only a reason, the Gemara could retort that informal reasons are still treated as any other mitzvah. It is a radical and thought-provoking idea, but one which finds expression in the words of the Ramban (Nachmanides.) Responding to the Rambam's (Maimonides') position that reasons are not to be treated as commandments, the Ramban opines:

ואני אומר בזה העיקר לכאורה כוותיה משמע, וכי מעיינת ביה שפיר לאו הכי הוא

And I say about this principle- at first it sounds like he is correct, but when you look into it more closely, it is not so. (Notes on Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 5)

Nachmanides maintains that even reasons, representatives of the spirit of the law, can be on par with explicit commands. In fact, they are even counted towards the tally of 613 mitzvot!
These words are of special significance in this season of Parshiyot. While Pekudei and its neighbors overflow with the technical, formal details of the Mishkan, it is integral to bear in mind the spirit and reason for the Mishkan's existence. The symbolism behind the Bigdei Kahuna, the message communicated by each Korban, and the significance of Mishkan architecture may not be a mere formality - but a Mitzvah in and of itself.

QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table (and this one needs it!)

--39:23 describes the priestly מְעִיל, or robe, but its a bit unclear: make a border around the head-opening so that it does not tear, or make a border and do not tear! Is "do not tear" a reason or new command?
--The Gemara debates the point. If it is a new command, tearing the מְעִיל incurs lashes. If it is only a reason, no worries.
--The Ramban holds differently: even if the pasuk merely reads "make a border so that it does not tear", there is a full-fledged mitzvah to avoid tearing, one which can incur punishment.
--The Ramban seems to believe that informal, "spirit of the law" parts of the Torah are on equal footing with explicit mitzvot.
--This emphasis on the "spirit of the law" and the rationale behind mitzvot is integral to appreciating the message and meaning of the Mishkan and its service.

"And all of Israel gathered as one . . . as Chaverim" (Shoftim 20:11)*

At the end of Sefer Bereishit, the legacy that started with Avraham undergoes a change. Until Yaakov, each of the Avot only passed the tradition on to one of their children. Avraham chooses Yitzchak and rejects his other children. Yitzchak passes "Birkat Avraham" to Yaakov (Bereishit 28:3) and not Eisav. Yaakov, however, takes a radically different approach. Instead of choosing one son over the rest, Yaakov chooses all of his sons to be his successors. With this decision begins an unprecedented era of plurality in Avraham’s tradition. Instead of being represented by a single personality in a generation, Bnei Yisrael (aptly named) now has 12 different representatives at once. Each of these Shvatim passes his own legacy on to his children, forming 12 distinct tribes within Am Yisrael. Yaakov's Brachot to his sons highlight for us twelve disparate individuals, each with unique personality traits. I think the following Midrash Tanchuma on this week’s Parsha picks up on this plurality in the Brachot themselves:

וזאת אשר דבר להם אביהם וגו', ברך אותו אין כתיב כאן אלא ברך אותם למה לפי שנתן ליהודה גבורתו של ארי וליוסף גבורתו של שור ולנפתלי קלות איל ולדן נשיכתו של נחש תאמר שזה גדול מזה הרי כללן כלם באחרונה איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם

The Pasuk does not say “he blessed him” rather “he blessed them.” Why? Since he gave Yehuda the strength of a lion and Yosef the strength of an ox and Naphtali the swiftness of a deer and Dan the bite of a snake- you might be led to say one is greater than the other- so he included them all together at the end “each according to the blessing that he blessed them”

The idea that each of the Shvatim represents different (maybe even contradictory) character traits and that only together they constitute the full nature of Am Yisrael is a theme that runs through Chazal (see for example Ramban and Ibn Ezra on Bamidbar 2: 2, 3. They discuss a Midrash that describes how each of the Shevet flags in the Midbar had a symbol corresponding to the faces of the Angels of Maaseh Hamerkava- the idea being, I think, that different faces come together to make a throne for the Shechina.)

This model of Shvatim working together appeals to our modern sensibilities that there might not necessarily be one “right” way of doing things to the exclusion of all the other “wrong” options, rather there could be a whole plethora of “right” ways provided that we work to a common goal. I'd love to say that this is the model that Tanach recommends to us for eternity,-and then this would probably be a dvar Torah that you've heard before- but a quick historical run through the Neviim Rishonim gives a rather bleak perspective on pluralistic Shevet-cooperation. (You might have already noticed that we don't actually have the Shevet system today.)

Sefer Shoftim does convey that each of the Shvatim has its own strengths. Almost every Shevet manages to put forth a Shofet to lead Am Yisrael and the Shoftim that we know about all act in their own unique way. Nonetheless, a repeated tragic flaw is that the diverse Shvatim don’t really work very well together (see Shoftim 5: 16-17, 12:5-7, 15:11, 20:1-48.). The kingship that was meant to bring them together eventually fractures them into two rival kingdoms (For two extreme examples, see Shmuel II 19:42-20:2 and Melachim I 12:16.)

By the end of Sefer Melachim, the Northern Kingdom is sent into exile by Assyria, not to be heard of again. The historical legacy of Am Yisrael as we know it continues with only a few Shvatim: Yehuda, maybe Binyamin, and some Kohanim and Levi'im that were still around. Does this mean that we rejected the Shvatim model with all its pluralistic implications in favor of a more uniform approach? Certainly the Shevet structure of the Jewish people was dropped for a more limited model that includes only a few tribes. Does that mean that the ideology of diversity that went along with it was also dropped? Did the multi-faceted approach to Judaism prove too much for us to handle, too subject to divisiveness and tension?

Perhaps this question is what motivated a Machloket many centuries later in Sanhedrin 10,3:

"עשרת השבטים אינן עתידין לחזור שנא' (דברים כט) וישליכם אל ארץ אחר כיום הזה מה היום הולך ואינו חוזר אף הם הולכים ואינן חוזרים דברי ר"ע ר"א אומר כיום הזה מה יום מאפיל ומאיר אף עשרת השבטים שאפילה להן כך עתידה להאיר להם:"
“The ten tribes will not return in the future, as it says “and He sent them to another land as this very day”- just like a day goes and does not come back, so too they (the shvatim) have gone and will not come back. This is the opinion of R’ Akiva. R’ Elazar says “as this very day” – just like a day gets dark and light again, so too for the ten tribes for whom the world has become dark, in the future it will become like again.”

Rabbi Elazar maintains that the remaining Shvatim will come back in the Messianic Era. This means that that the exile of the ten tribes was only temporary and that the ideal, Messianic model for the Jewish people is the Shevet structure. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, thinks otherwise. Perhaps he feels (a little pessimistically) that the Shevet system just didn’t work out, will not work out, and is rejected for good.

This Machloket (or really, a machloket about whether there is a machloket) continues through to the time of the Rishonim and Mifarshei HaMishna. Some Rishonim, including the Ran in his Chiddushim, felt that Rabbi Akiva had to be reinterpreted. They simply could not believe that Rabbi Akiva could hold that the Ten Shvatim were not coming back. The Bartenura on the other hand, interprets the Mishna literally, ascribing to R' Akiva the view that the Shvatim will really not return.

It seems to me that this machloket with its ideological implications remains as open as this very day**.

QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table

-The individualized Brachot that Yaakov gives to each of his sons paints a picture of a diverse Bnei Yisrael, where different personalities play different roles.
-This is Bnei Yisrael's model when traveling through the Midbar and in the period of the Shoftim.
-Sadly, it led to divisiveness and never quite worked out as planned. Eventually, the exile of the Ten Tribes left us with a fraction of our previous diversity.
-Maybe this is the way it was meant to be! Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer argue about whether the Ten Tribes are even destined to return.

*10 Points if you catch the irony in the title.

** It is interesting to note that Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is much more well known and that most people don't realize that there might be a dissenting opinion. I wonder whether this means that the mesorah of Am Yisrael has taken a side on this machloket.