Our parasha deals extensively with a full description of the structure of the Tabernacle and its vessels. The impression that emerges from the parasha is that the Tabernacle was built with great splendor, including spacious areas, expensive materials, demand for precision and aesthetics. Not even for a single moment do we find any concern about saving or cutting down on expenses, in the spirit of the teaching "the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people." Nor do we find any attention paid regarding the effort required of the public to finance this structure. As a rule, it is clear that the value of perfection and the creation of a sense of majesty and grandeur represented the highest values when it came to building the Tabernacle. The Sages formulated this principle in their own language: "There is no poverty in place of wealth." In other words, it is not appropriate to skimp on expenses in a place where the main goal is to exhibit affluence. We do not invest in purchasing an expensive picture and then place in in an inappropriate frame, nor do we hang it in a small, dark corner. The combination of poverty and affluence does not work. These are binary opposites, for which the compromises are not appropriate.
A number of halakhot are derived from the principle that "there is no poverty in a place of wealth." The priestly garments are not laundered because “there is no poverty in place of wealth” (Zevahim 88b). The sages believed that the clothing of the priests should always be new and not "washed" from the laundry. The daily sacrificial lamb was washed with a golden cup, "to exhibit wealth and show the capacity to do so, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth" (Mishneh, Tamid 3:4, and Maimonides’ commentary. See also Bavli, Tamid 29a, where there is a disagreement whether this is an exaggeration or an actual description). Regarding the laws of Shabbat we find that that someone who performs the forbidden act of “building” on Shabbat is liable if he builds even a tiny amount. The Gemara searches for an act of building that took place in the Tabernacle that could serve as a source for this rule. One suggestion presented is that the dyers placed a small stove on a pile of stones, but this is rejected because “there is no poverty in a place of wealth,” and it is not possible that the dyers used such meager means to prepare the herbs, and it is unlikely that they worked in small and precise quantities (TB Shabbat 102b). This principle also explains why many sacrifices are brought from sheep and rams rather than from fowl (Bamidbar Rabbah, Naso, 14). In general, many other laws relating to the Temple, its structure and its vessels are explained by this principle or derived from it (see, for example, Ketubot, 106b; Tamid 31b). Rashi explains: Nothing in the Temple was ever done in a manner that was lacking (Shabbat 102b).
The reason that this law is related specifically to the laws of the Temple is that there is a connection between spiritual abundance and material abundance. A spiritual elite cannot exist in a place lacking elegance. Spiritual ascension and expansion have room to develop in sumptuous places. Any minor deficiency indicates a lack of understanding of the meaning of the place of God’s presence.
“No poverty in a place of wealth” is manifest not only in financial savings but in all manner of shortcuts. The reason that an angel is not assigned to perform two tasks is that there is no poverty in a place of wealth. (Pa’nah Raza, Bereishit, Parshat Vayera). An attempt to “kill two birds with one stone” is indicative of narrow-minded thinking. This may also be the explanation for the principle that “mitzvot must not be performed in bundles.” The reality of mitzvot is a spiritual reality in which there is an opportunity for high-level spiritual achievements. The attempt to combine mitzvot together indicates a failure to realize the unique opportunity to perform this particular mitzvah, thereby making it a goal in itself and nullifying the spiritual concepts that accompany it. This narrow-mindedness and technical thinking, limits the possibility that the mitzvah accomplish its broader meaning. Rabbi Zadok HaKohen of Lublin teaches, "When we say ‘No poverty in a place of wealth,’ it is not referring to actual physical poverty" (Takanat HaShavin p. 49). Wealth is not only a fact but, first and foremost, a quality of mind and culture.
Nevertheless, many commentators have noted that there are places where the contradictory principle of ""the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people" is emphasized, and we find this consideration applied from time to time even in the Temple (a lengthy question concerning this contradiction was written by Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles, which was directed to his teacher, the Noda B’Yehuda. The question was printed in part in Olat Hodesh, and appears in full in Responsa Teshuva Me-Ahava, I, 2-4). Thus, we find that even lesser grade olive can be used for meal offerings. Similarly, we find a discussion in the Gemara as to how the sages determined the correct amount of oil needed in the Menorah so that it would remain lit through the night. One possibility is to say that they measured out small quantities, and after each night they increased the quantity slightly until it became clear exactly how much it would take for the candle to burn through the night. The other suggestion is that they placed a very large amount of oil at first and then reduced it every night until they learned how much was needed. This disagreement depends on whether we say, "there is no poverty in a place of wealth" or "the Torah spares Israel's wealth" (Menahhot 89a).
These sources, which clearly indicate that money is a consideration that is taken into account in the context of the Temple, appears to contradict the principle that "there is no poverty in a place of wealth. " Rabbi Baruch Epstein, the author of the Torah Temimah, suggested distinguishing between cases involving public funds and cases in which it is an individual's money (Torah Temimah, notes, Shemot, Chapter 27, n. 26). At best, this a partial answer, since it responds to the issue of using lesser grade olive for meal offerings, but does not deal with the amount of oil used in the Menorah. The author of Tiferet Yisrael suggests distinguishing between a significant loss and a minor loss (Shekalim 8: 5, Boaz 3). However, this, too, does not stand the test of reality. It seems that the answer to the apparent contradiction between the considerations lies in the definition of wealth and is dependent on the concept of "nouveau riche." Excess spending on extravagance and waste is just as disturbing as pockets of poverty poking out from between golden lattices. It is specifically those who have a deep understanding of the concept of spiritual wealth who understand the subtleties of these matters and recognize when unnecessary waste illustrates a lack of understanding of the essence of wealth. Perhaps this is what the Maharam Haviv pointed out in his Zikhron Teru’ah, when discussing the contradiction between these values: "And it depends on the judgment of the scholars to explain the difference between each of these things."
Even today, when there is no Temple, this is an important principle is to learn and to internalize. We must adopt a sense of delicacy and precision in finding spiritual abundance and breadth of mind, avoiding flamboyance and ostentation.
