Parshat Terumah

As our parsha begins detailing the construction and the eventual function of the Mishkan; so too, does our haftarah, describing the construction and the function of the Beit Mikdash. Interestingly, we note that the Torah’s primary focus seems to be upon the vessels in the Mishkan and not upon the construction of the Mishkan. In fact, it is only after describing the various keilim does the Torah then relate the mitzvah of building the Mishkan itself.

The Ramban explains why this was true—suggesting that Hashem’s first goal was to establish the Mishkan as the site of the Shechina—and therefore, begins by detailing the Aron, the “place” of God’s presence, and follows with the Shulchan and then the Menorah—both set up in the inner Kodesh, closest to the Aron.

When, however, we read the description of the Beit Mikdash in our haftarah (and subsequent perakim in sefer Melachim), we find that the Menorah, the Shulchan and the Mizbeach—the “inner” keilim, play only minor roles in the description of the Mikdash, and even the role of the holy Aron seems less important than it’s placement in our parsha. The command regarding the Menorah and the Shulchan in the Mishkan continues for 18 verses in the Torah, while only three verses are dedicated to these two vessels in sefer Melachim.

HaRav Moshe Lichtenstein suggests that the very heart of the Mishkan are its “keilim”—the vessels—with the outer walls serving as a protective “shell” housing them. The very “heart” of the Mikdash, however, is its structure; while the vessels were meant to fill the edifice. He further points out how the pillars (“amudim”) in the Mishkan, served simply to support the structure and hold up the curtains—therefore containing no decorative elements. But the two pillars in the Beit Mikdash, are described as being adorned with capital and decorations. Besides being “ornamental,” he argues, the pillars were also monumental. Their huge size attested to the fact that the building—with its pillars—was meant to impress all who visit and to fill a symbolic role beyond its functional role. These contrasting attitudes toward the pillars attest to a significant difference between the Mishkan and the Mikdash—with respect to the purpose of the two buildings.

The Mikdash “grew” from the Mishkan and transformed it into a magnificent edifice of great dimensions, decorated with precious metals, carved walls, beautiful decorations and large and numerous vessels. The principle underlying the building was splendor and majesty, finding expression in the larger dimensions, material wealth and structural decorations.

This all stands in stark contrast to the earlier Mishkan, which was a temporary structure that could be taken apart; its roof was a mere tent and its dimensions were much more modest. It was an expression of a different kind of spiritual experience, conveying a feeling of intimacy between man and God; its purpose was not to broadcast strength and power to the outside but to express the warmth of the man—God relationship. We might submit that the construction of the Mishkan is better understood through its historical context, as a framework of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness. It emphasized the dimension of intimacy and closeness to Hashem, a necessary spiritual step for that generation. The Mishkan, in effect, highlighted Israel’s wilderness experience.

The Mikdash, on the other hand, was to be God’s “eternal house” and presented spiritual balances that were not dependent on time or place. The Temple was meant to represent a spiritual vision of strength and majesty, something not meant for the compact and portable Mishkan.

To summarize, the Mishkan conveyed intimacy and modesty while the Mikdash expressed strength and power; the former placed great emphasis on the quality of love, while the latter emphasized the quality of fear; the former turned inward and was directed exclusively to Israel, while the latter looked outward to impact all of humanity.

Ultimately, both lay out for us the requirements of a place of tefillah: a “Mishkan” that creates the atmosphere of warmth and intimacy with Hashem and a “Mikdash” that is capable of inspiring the proper reverence of His majesty. We still struggle to reach those very goals.

Rabbi Neil Winkler is the rabbi emeritus of the Young Israel of Fort Lee, and now lives in Israel.