This week’s parasha, Pekudei, marks the conclusion of the Book of Shemot and the chapters detailing the Mishkan (Tabernacle). It is worthwhile to compare and contrast the Mishkan in our parasha with the establishment of the Temple as described in the Book of Kings.
While the Temple in Jerusalem ultimately became central to Judaism, the Mishkan remained a temporary and mobile structure, primarily functioning during the desert period. Yet, the Torah preserves the story of the Mishkan. What can we learn from this contrast?
One key difference between the Mishkan and the Temple is their relationship to sacred space:
This contrast reflects two distinct concepts of sanctity:
In the history of modern Israel, the permanent sanctity of the Temple has taken on great significance. However, it is crucial to reconsider the importance of the Mishkan’s concept of sanctity:
Who built the Temple? The king, through centralized authority.
Who built the Mishkan? The people, through their free will offerings.
The Mishkan reminds us that sanctity is not inherent in a place but rather created by the people. It must be continuously renewed through active participation and communal effort.
As we reflect on this week’s parasha, let us appreciate the power of peoplehood in shaping sacred space, and recognize the value of a sanctity that moves with the people, rather than being fixed in stone.
Image: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness; illustration from the 1890 Holman Bible, Wikicommons
David Frankel is Associate Professor of Bible at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies. He has been on the faculty since 1992. He earned his PhD from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the direction of Prof. Moshe Weinfeld. His publications include “The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School,” and “The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel.” From 1991 to 1996, Frankel was rabbi of Congregation Shevet Achim in Gilo, Jerusalem.